[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 52 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3766-S3769]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NO MORE GAMES--RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know that under the rule we will move
very swiftly to the term limit legislation, but I would like to speak
before that debate starts on another matter which, although not
directly before the Senate today, is very much in the thinking of
Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, certainly the
President and, most importantly, working families and needy working
families, and that is the issue of the increase in the minimum wage.
On ``Face the Nation'' yesterday, Senator Dole was asked whether he
would allow a straight up or down vote on the minimum wage. Senator
Dole said, ``No, our view is that it needs to be packaged with other
things--maybe comp time, flex time.''
Let me be very clear in response. There is no reason to delay or
saddle the minimum wage with other controversial measures. I intend to
offer a clean vote on increasing the minimum wage on the nuclear waste
bill or any other bill this week or next week that is open to
amendments. There is no excuse for further delay in raising the minimum
wage.
Raising the minimum wage is a matter of basic economics, not
politics, for millions of American families. More than 10 million
people will receive a direct pay increase if the minimum wage is raised
to $5.15 or $5.25 an hour. To those millions of working Americans, the
issue is not politics. It's paying the rent and putting food on the
table for themselves and their families.
An overwhelming majority of Americans want the minimum wage
increased. They do not want to see this legislation buried in
procedural maneuvers, or loaded up with antiunion amendments. They want
to see it increased, and increased now.
Yet, ignoring the clear interest of low-wage workers and the desire
of an overwhelming majority of the American people, Senator Dole
intends to
[[Page S3767]]
prevent a straight up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. We can only
wonder why. Senator Dole says it is politics, but it is hard to believe
that this kind of inside-the-beltway politics will work to his
advantage.
A Lou Harris poll released 2 weeks ago found that 85 percent of
surveyed adults support an increase to $5.15 an hour, and Chilton
Research Services found that 80 percent support such a raise. Even 73
percent of Republicans support raising the minimum wage to $5.15.
But no group feels more strongly about this than women. The Chilton
survey asked about the strength of the respondents' feelings and found
that a clear majority--57 percent--feel strongly that the raise should
be enacted. But 64 percent of women strongly agree with the
legislation.
What explains the strength of women's support?
First, 60 percent of the 10 to 12 million people who will get a pay
increase from this legislation are women, and 77 percent of those women
are adults.
That means 7 million women, and 5 million adult women will get a pay
raise from this bill.
Second, who are these 5 million adult women? Two million are single
heads of households with at least one dependent. They are raising
families, caring for children, and trying to get by on poverty level
wages.
Third, 60 percent of minimum wage workers are married. They
contribute, on average, 51 percent of family earnings. We are not
talking about teenagers earning pocket money. We are talking about
people whose families depend on them for their survival and well-being.
Fourth, what kinds of work do these 7 million women do? Many of them
are in the retail, hospitality, and food service industries, where they
work as cashiers, serve meals, clean hotel rooms, and work in
laundries. Their jobs are hard and unrewarding, but they do them with
dignity, working to provide for their families.
Fifth, but many of these women work directly with children in
occupations that are almost entirely held by women, such as child care.
The vast majority of child care workers would get a pay increase from a
raise in the minimum wage to $5.15. Teachers aides, too, hold low-paid
jobs dominated by women. These people deserve more for the care they
give the Nation's children--it is time they got a raise.
Sixth, the other major industry that employs large numbers of women
at or just above the minimum wage is health care, including occupations
such as nurses aides and home health care aides. These are some of the
hardest jobs in our society, caring for the sick and helpless, washing
them, feeding them, cleaning their bedpans. The women who hold these
jobs deserve a raise.
Seventh, raising the minimum wage is the best, most targeted solution
we have to the problem of the income gap between the richest and
poorest American families. Its distributional effects are powerful and
positive.
Since 1979, the bottom three-fifths of American families have
experienced a loss in their real income, while the top 1 percent of
families saw its income grow 62 percent.
The bottom 40 percent of American families, whose incomes have
suffered the most since 1979, would get 60 percent of the gains from
raising the minimum wage.
That says that those workers who are out there now working 40 hours a
week, 52 weeks of the year, the ones that have fallen the furthest
behind since 1979, they would get 60 percent of the benefits of the
increase in the minimum wage, and they are the ones who have been left
furthest behind.
This is the single most effective thing Congress can do for those
families. Compared with balancing the budget--I ask the attention of
our colleagues on this issue--compared with balancing the budget, for
example, which the Congressional Budget Office claims will raise
average wages one-half of 1 percent by the year 2002, the Congressional
Budget Office says, if you pass the Republican balanced budget
amendment by the year 2002, average wages will increase one-half of 1
percent. Raising the minimum wage will increase the earnings of people
in the bottom 40 percent by 4 percent in just 2 years--the bottom 40
percent. If you go down to 30 percent or 20 percent it becomes 8 or 10;
down to just the bottom line, you go up to about 20, 22 percent,
because you will go from $4.25 to $5.15, or $5.25, as suggested over in
the House of Representatives. That represents almost 25 percent of the
wages.
But just with this very modest increase, we are seeing for the bottom
40 percent of American workers that they will go up 4 percent while
just the balanced budget in and of itself will provide one-half of 1
percent.
Eighth, women will not lose jobs, despite the scare tactics of the
Republicans. The economy has added 10 million new jobs since the last
increase 5 years ago. A dozen studies show that even teenagers won't
lose jobs. In fact, the Card & Krueger study of New Jersey and
Pennsylvania showed that employment in the fast food industry increased
after New Jersey raised its minimum wage. Other studies have also found
employment increases. There are two reasons: First, better wages
attract more employees to the job market; second, because workers have
better pay, they have more to spend and the economy gets a boost that
leads to more employment.
Massachusetts raised the minimum wage to $4.75 an hour as of January
1, 1996. Unemployment has fallen in Massachusetts since the start of
the year, while in neighboring New Hampshire, which left its minimum
wage at $4.25, unemployment has increased.
In Massachusetts, we have seen the continued reduction in the
unemployment figures virtually across the State, even with that
increase up to $4.75 an hour.
The opponents of raising the minimum wage cry crocodile tears about
its effect on the employment of people at the bottom of the economic
ladder, but the people at the bottom of the economic ladder want the
raise.
Lou Harris' most recent poll showed that 94 percent of Americans with
household income of $7,500 or less support the legislation.
So to all those on the other side from whom we hear the arguments
that they are most concerned about those poor workers, many of them
women, many of them minorities; we do not want to have them thrown out
of a job, the fact is the poor workers are the ones who overwhelmingly
say they want the increase in the minimum wage.
Industry lobbyists probably should not try to speak for families at
the bottom of the economic ladder.
This is an issue about women and the children they raise; 100,000 of
whom will be lifted out of poverty with this bill's passage--100,000
Americans lifted out of poverty when this bill passes. Two million
single heads of households who have to feed their children on poverty
wages, get them to school while getting themselves to work, arrange for
child care and provide them shelter is the issue in this legislation.
Mr. President, $1,800--the annual increase in the earnings this bill
will provide to minimum wage workers--provides 7 months' of groceries
for those families, 9 months' worth of utility bills, and an entire
year of health care costs; the tuition for a community college or a
State 2-year college.
This is an issue of fairness. CEO pay is up 30 percent and corporate
profits are higher than they have been since the 1960's. It is time
businesses shared that wealth with the lowest paid of their workers.
Productivity has increased 25 percent over the last 20 years, but the
value of the minimum wage has fallen 25 percent.
Is that not an interesting phenomenon? Productivity has increased 25
percent and generally at other times when we have had a level playing
field, where all of the country moved up in terms of wages, the
standard of living, the hopes and dreams for everyone, for the families
and for their children, and for the parents, everyone moved up
together. Now we have seen a 25-percent increase in productivity, which
is usually associated with the increase in the wages for those workers,
and we have seen a 25-percent reduction for those individuals at the
lowest level of the economic ladder, again men and women that are
working.
Finally, Mr. President, this legislation could mean important savings
to the Government. This is an argument that is forgotten by those who
are unalterably opposed to the minimum wage. It would mean savings to
the
[[Page S3768]]
Government in food stamps, Medicaid, and other public welfare programs.
We can save more than $600 million in AFDC, $350 million in Medicaid,
$300 million more in food stamps.
In a two-earner family where both parents earn the minimum wage,
$3,600 in additional pay would make a dramatic difference in their
dependence on public support. Why? Because their income would be
sufficiently raised that they would no longer qualify for that kind of
safety net. And if they no longer qualified for it, that would be a
savings. And what should that mean savings for? Workers and workers'
families because they are the principal ones paying taxes.
Or you can ask the question the other way. Why should all American
workers, who are the bulk of the taxpayers, subsidize certain companies
that are using sweat labor and refuse to pay the minimum wage for those
who are working in the workplace?
That is what is happening today. So this is action in the interest of
saving American taxpayer funds because it will raise sufficient numbers
of needy people out of eligibility for these various support payments.
Mr. President, it is time to stop playing games and raise the minimum
wage. I urge the majority leader to schedule a clean up-and-down vote
on our bill to raise the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour. We need that.
American workers need it.
It is interesting to those of us who had introduced at the start of
the last Congress the increase in the minimum wage; that could have
taken effect a year ago. We have already lost that year. Purchasing
power has already declined. At that time, it was 50 cents, 50 cents, 50
cents. Instead, we went 45, 45, 45 as a way of compromise, and it is
time we address this issue. This issue is not complex, nor complicated.
It is a simple, straightforward issue that every Member is familiar
with. We do not need to have more studies, more hearings. It is a
matter of fundamental economic justice and fairness for hard working
Americans. It is about time we get about that business.
I thank the Senator from Tennessee for allowing me the opportunity to
speak at this time. I yield the floor.
Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair. Before I discuss the pending
business, I might make one comment. It certainly seems that partisan
accusations are still alive and well. I sit here and listen to
Republican this and Republican that. Of course, we are in the middle of
an election year, but it occurs to me that in a 2-year period when the
President of the United States was a Democrat, the Democrats controlled
the Senate and Democrats controlled the House, we did not hear these
calls on behalf of women and children and lower income workers. Such a
bill was not introduced, and no committee hearings were held. In fact,
the President indicated that was not the way to go. So now I am
relieved that we have discovered women and children and the lower paid
workers of this country and perhaps we can have a debate on it and do
the right thing. But I would like to discuss something that should be
of bipartisan concern.
Mr. KENNEDY. Could I just respond?
Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. I just wanted to mention the fact that, of course,
during that debate in the earlier Congress we were debating
comprehensive health care. The value of the comprehensive health care
was between 40 and 50 cents an hour. It was the request of the workers
at that time that we focus on that rather than the minimum wage, and
the minimum wage came back into play right after that was defeated. It
was very easy and understandable for those of us who had been working
on it, but I just mention to our colleague that the last time we had a
bipartisan increase in the minimum wage, as the Senator knows, was in
1989. At that time we had two-thirds of the Republicans who supported
it. We had a Republican President, Democratic Congress, and now we have
a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. Presidents Eisenhower
and Nixon supported it as well.
So this is, as we have tried to point out over the period of time,
what Republicans and Republican Presidents and Republican Congresses
have supported, as Senator Dole and Congressman Gingrich did at other
times. So it is a bit of a stretch to say that they would have
supported it another time if it was just a partisan issue but not
supporting it now.
I know we may have differences on the understanding of those series
of events, but I wanted to just have a chance to add those brief
comments to the Record.
Mr. THOMPSON. I would just say to my colleague that it is not I who
was making it a partisan issue or saying it was a partisan issue. It
has not been that in times past. It seems as if recently it has become
a partisan issue. And I think the point still is well made that for a
period of 2 years, both before and after the health care debate,
certainly after the health care debate, when control of the Congress
was well within the power of the other side, this could have been
brought up and discussed. And the President did indicate that the
minimum wage was not the way to go. As I understand it, the position is
that there was other legislation which would obviate the need for the
minimum wage, and some would say today there is other legislation that
could obviate the need for the minimum wage. I am not even saying where
this Senator would come down. I would like to listen to the debate on
it. We have not had a chance to debate it.
I just find two things that are happening very strange. First, is now
it is an issue that is first and foremost in the minds of some of my
colleagues on the other side. And, second, they seem to be the ones who
are trying to make this a partisan issue. I say, let us consider it on
its merits, both sides of the aisle, and do the right thing about it.
But, if we start off in the very beginning making it a partisan issue
and trying to draw lines and distinctions when the people on the other
side of the aisle have sat and done nothing with regard to the minimum
wage when they had it within their power to do so, we are not going to
have much progress.
Mr. KENNEDY. Could I have one final moment in the exchange? Of
course, as the Senator knows, we have had good Republican support on
the last vote for an increase in the minimum wage. That, I think, was
something that was notable.
Second, as the Senator knows, we have not been given an opportunity
to get to this issue scheduled as an order of doing business. As we
have said--and I am sure the Senator is familiar with this--if we were
able to get a time agreement on a clean bill, we would certainly
welcome that opportunity. We have indicated we would be glad to let
time go, as the Senator knows, on the two last occasions where the
Senate has addressed it. We have had Republican support, the majority
of the Members. There was Republican support.
Finally, as the Senator knows, we have both the minimum wage and the
EITC, both of which affect the working poor. The increase in the
minimum wage has the greatest advantage for single individuals, which,
increasingly, are numbers of single women. The EITC has a greater
impact on those families where they have a number of children. Really,
if we are interested in doing it, these matters ought to be embraced
and put on together. We have seen the expansion of the EITC in recent
times, although there were attempts to cut back on that during the
budget consideration.
So I agree with my colleague and friend. I would welcome the
opportunity to join with him so we could have a good discussion. Let
Members of this body have a look at these items and then make a
judgment. I am just concerned, as the time goes on, and as we know we
have less than 40 days legislatively where we expect the Congress to
meet and where the House has not taken action, it might be appropriate
to do so at a particular time. But I am grateful to the Senator for his
comments, and I certainly welcome the chance to engage in further
discussion when we focus on this particular matter.
Mr. THOMPSON. I appreciate the comments of my colleague, and I share
his view this is something that ought
[[Page S3769]]
to be considered deliberately and fully at the appropriate time. I
think it is wise that we approach it from the standpoint of what is
good for the country; that neither side try to make undue political
points at the outset. Otherwise, we are not going to get anywhere. I
simply say, I share my colleague's concern and desire to get anything
up for a vote.
It has taken 49 years to get the matter I am about to discuss up for
a vote in this body, so I would like to turn to that now unless my
colleague has any more comments.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.
____________________