[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 98 (Friday, July 11, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7302-S7303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Johnson and 
        Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 1008. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
that the tax incentives for alcohol used as a fuel shall be extended as 
part of any extension of fuel tax rates; to the Committee on Finance.


                         EXCISE TAX LEGISLATION

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would extend the current excise tax incentive for ethanol use. I am 
pleased to be joined by Senators Moseley-Braun, Johnson, and Wellstone 
in this important effort.
  We are moving forward with this extension today for several reasons. 
Last month the Senate included extension language in the reconciliation 
bill. I believe this sends a strong signal that ethanol enjoys wide, 
bipartisan support on this side of the Capitol. Based on that action, 
now is the appropriate time to pursue extension through any and all 
avenues. Reconciliation is one avenue. Reauthorization of the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act [ISTEA], the 
vehicle used in this legislation, is another. We would prefer that it 
be done sooner in the reconciliation bill, rather than later in the 
ISTEA reauthorization. But we want to make it clear that, one way or 
another, we will not rest until this extension becomes law.
  I stand in strong support of the Senate's reconciliation language 
that would extend the program through 2007. I commend my colleagues, 
Senators Grassley and Moseley-Braun for their tireless efforts to 
include an extension in the Senate language. And, I urge Senate 
conferees to hold fast to that position.
  Despite strong support in the Senate, the House Ways and Means 
Committee voted last month to cut, cap, and kill this important 
program. Even with a moderation of the Committee language in the House 
and the action by the Senate, the House Committee action has caused 
considerable uncertainty about the future of the ethanol program which 
will no doubt affect the growth of this renewable fuel program.
  The ethanol program has been an excellent example of a program that 
works. At a time when we are laboring to enact a balanced budget, I 
believe that programs, like ethanol, that pay for themselves and 
provide important benefits should be maintained rather than summarily 
eliminated.
  Ethanol's benefits are well documented--it strengthens the economy, 
improves the environment, and decreases our dependence on foreign oil. 
A recent study conducted by the Midwest Governors' Conference concluded 
that the ethanol program produces a net savings to the Federal budget 
of more than $3.6 billion, adds over $450 million to State tax receipts 
each year, increases total U.S. employment by 195,200 jobs, and boosts 
net farm income by more than $4.5 billion annually. The Federal 
Government gains $1.30 for each gallon of ethanol sold in America--more 
than double the 54-cent-per-gallon cost of the incentive.
  The increased use of ethanol helps offset the greenhouse gas 
emissions that result from the burning of fossil fuels. Ethanol-blended 
fuels reduce emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and air 
toxics. Also, ethanol reduces the demand for imported gasoline and 
imported oxygenates by more than 90,000 barrels per day.
  Clearly, ethanol is not a favorite of many of the big oil companies. 
But just as clearly, ethanol use is good for America. Each gallon of 
ethanol production capacity not built due to uncertainty about 
ethanol's tax status represents a loss of revenue to the U.S. Treasury 
as well as to our Nation's farmers. If investors are scared away 
because of legislative attacks on ethanol, the taxpayer loses.
  That is why we are introducing legislation to reaffirm and extend our 
national commitment to this domestic, agriculture-based, renewable fuel 
program. We need to give this important sector of our economy the 
stability that will allow it to keep expanding. We need a solid, long-
term commitment to help ensure that the demand for home-grown ethanol 
continues.
  It is a critical time for ethanol. Instead of debating how to cut, 
cap, and kill the ethanol program as a number of legislators on the 
other side of the Capitol have done, supporters, whether from rural or 
urban areas, should be discussing the most appropriate way to extend 
the program. A program that works.
  Mr. President, I invite my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this 
legislation to send a signal that Congress will keep its commitment to 
renewable alcohol fuels.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY:
  S. 1009. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
increase the Federal minimum wage; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


                 legislation to raise the minimum wage

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today, we renew the battle for a fair 
minimum wage. Last year, after an unacceptable lag of 5 years, Congress 
enacted legislation to raise the minimum wage, which had shamefully 
been allowed to fall below acceptable levels and was no longer a living 
wage for the 10 million Americans who rely on it for their income.
  We all remember the battle in the last Congress. For over 18 months, 
Republican Senators, newly in the majority, stalled action on any 
increase. The irresponsibility and unfairness of that obstruction 
became increasingly obvious, and the opponents became increasingly 
nervous about their position. Public support for a fair increase in the 
minimum wage finally became overwhelming. As the 1996 elections came 
closer, the obstructionists surrendered--and a fair two-step increase 
was signed into law by President Clinton last August. Under that 
legislation, the minimum wage rose from $4.25 an hour to $4.75 an hour 
on October 1, 1996, and it will rise to $5.15 an hour on September 1 
this year.
  Current law stops there. No further increases will take effect unless 
Congress acts again. It is time for us to do so now, in order to 
guarantee that further fair increases take place in the years ahead.
  Today, therefore, I am introducing legislation to provide increases 
of 50 cents an hour in each of the next 3 years and increases of 30 
cents an hour in each of the following 2 years--to $5.65 an hour on 
September 1, 1998, to $6.15 an hour on September 1, 1999, to $6.65 an 
hour on September 1, 2000, to $6.95 an hour on September 1, 2001, and 
to $7.25 an hour on September 1, 2002.
  At a time when Congress is making many other decisions on taxing and 
spending over the next 5 years, it is entirely appropriate that we act 
on the minimum wage over the 5-year budget period, too.
  The increases I am proposing are based on a simple principle. Intense 
Republican opposition to raising the minimum wage during the 8 years of 
the Reagan administration, and periodic opposition during the past 7 
years, have left the real value of the minimum wage far below the 
levels it had in the previous 40 years. The bill introduced today will 
restore the purchasing power of the minimum wage to the level it had 
when the Reagan administration came to power.
  The experience with the 50-cent increase that went into effect for 
the minimum wage last October refutes the doomsday predictions that 
opponents have always raised whenever Congress considers a fair 
increase. A study released today by the Economic Policy Institute sums 
up the experience of the past 9 months. As the title of the study 
states, ``The Sky Hasn't Fallen'' because of the increase.

[[Page S7303]]

  The study documents several clear facts about last year's increase: 
It raised wages for 4 million workers; 66 percent of these are adults, 
and 58 percent are women.
  Some 40 percent of the increase went to families in the bottom 20 
percent of the income scale, whose earnings average $14,000 a year; 55 
percent of the increase went to families in the bottom 40 percent of 
the income scale, who earn $30,000 a year or less.
  Contrary to opponents' claims, the increase did not primarily go to 
teenagers in part-time jobs after school.
  There was no significant effect on employment of adults, minorities, 
teenagers or anyone else. The crocodile tears shed for these groups by 
opponents of the minimum wage have no basis in fact.
  The bottom line is clear. Employment does not go down because the 
minimum wage goes up. The overall conditions of the economy determine 
the levels of employment for all sectors of the work force. Reasonable 
increases in the minimum wage have no significant effect on these 
levels.
  Even the Wall Street Journal threw in the towel, and it did so soon 
after the increase last October took effect. An article published on 
November 20, 1996 was headlined ``Fears Over Raising the Minimum Wage 
Appear Unfounded.'' And the facts since then have amply verified that 
statement.
  Raising the minimum wage was the right thing for Congress to do last 
year, and it's the right thing for Congress to do this year. No one who 
works for a living should have to live in poverty. Everyone who works 
for a living deserves a living wage. I urge the Senate and the House to 
act expeditiously on the legislation I am introducing today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous Consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1009

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``American Family Fair Minimum 
     Wage Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE.

       Paragraph (1) of section 6(a) of the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206 (a)(1)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section not less 
     than
       ``(A) $5.65 an hour during the year beginning on September 
     1, 1998;
       ``(B) $6.15 an hour during the year beginning on September 
     1, 1999;
       ``(C) $6.65 an hour during the year beginning on September 
     1, 2000;
       ``(D) $6.95 an hour during the year beginning on September 
     1, 2001; and
       ``(E) $7.25 an hour during the year beginning on September 
     1, 2002.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 1010. A bill to suspend the rate of duty with respect to certain 
chemicals; to the Committee on Finance.


           duty suspension with respect to certain chemicals

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which 
will suspend the duties on two chemicals used in the manufacturing of 
pharmaceuticals, ultraviolet protection products, and fragrances. 
Currently, these chemicals are imported into the United States.
  The first chemical, benzyl alcohol, is used to produce esters. In 
1996, this product was listed in the pharmaceutical category and 
carried a duty free status which has been overturned.
  The second chemical, benzophenone, is primarily used to produce 
pharmaceuticals, ultraviolet protection products, and fragrances. 
Currently, no domestic producer of this product exists. Therefore, 
suspending the duties on this item would not adversely affect domestic 
industries.
  Mr. President, suspending the duty on these chemicals will benefit 
the consumers by stabilizing the costs of the end products. I hope the 
Senate will consider this measure expeditiously.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1010

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. DUTY SUSPENSIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 
     United States is amended--
       (1) in subheading 2906.11.00 (relating to dl menthol), by 
     striking ``2.1%'' and inserting ``Free''; and
       (2) in subheading 2906.21.00 (relating to benzyl alcohol), 
     by striking ``5.9%'' and inserting ``Free''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The Amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
     consumption, on or after the date that is 15 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

                          ____________________