[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.

                          ____________________