[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 115 (Thursday, September 3, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9903-S9907]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, under the leadership of President
Clinton, the country has enjoyed six years of economic growth.
Unemployment is at its lowest level in a generation. Inflation is the
lowest in 40 years. Despite this week's gymnastics by the stock market,
economic indicators continue to be strong. Job growth is projected to
continue throughout this year, and inflation is predicted to remain at
historically low levels.
But for most Americans, it's someone else's boom. Too many citizens
are just one paycheck away from bankruptcy. Facing a sudden health
crisis, a divorce, or some other family emergency--these families often
have no choice but to declare bankruptcy.
My Republican colleagues respond with legislation to make it easier
for banks and credit card companies to squeeze these already-struggling
families even harder. I say, giant corporations don't need the help as
much as families do.
And the best way to provide effective help is to raise the minimum
wage. The amendment I have introduced today will raise the minimum wage
by 50 cents on January 1 next year and another 50 cents on January 1,
2000. As we begin the next century, the minimum wage will be $6.15 an
hour.
Mr. President, as this chart illustrates, we can see where the
minimum wage has gone since 1955 in terms of real dollars.
We were back here at $4.34 in 1988. We raised the minimum wage here
in a two-step procedure, and then it declined in terms of real
purchasing power. And now we are talking about raising it up to what
would be $6.15 an hour in the year 2000. But if you look at this chart,
Mr. President, you will see that the actual purchasing power in the
year 2000 in today's dollars would be only $5.76. This chart is a
constant, real dollar chart. And even if we raise it to this level, we
will still be below where the minimum wage was for some 15 years from
the 1960s through the 1970s under Republicans and Democrats alike--
below that level at a time of extraordinary prosperity for millions of
Americans--millions of Americans--even with that increase.
If we do not increase it, if we do not accept this amendment, we will
find out that the minimum wage effectively will be not $5.15 an hour,
but $4.82 an hour, which will put us close to the lowest levels in the
last 35 years in terms of purchasing power for working families at the
lower end of the economic ladder.
Those at the bottom of the economic ladder have not received their
fair share of the nation's remarkable growth. Working 40 hours a week,
52 weeks a year, minimum wage workers earn just $10,700--$2,900 below
the poverty level for a family of three.
In the midst of what many experts are calling ``the best economy
ever,'' 12 million working Americans are still earning poverty-level
wages.
For them, survival is the daily goal. If they work hard enough and
their hours are long enough, they can make ends meet--but only barely.
They don't have time for their families. They can't participate
adequately in activities with their children.
They can't afford to buy birthday presents or do the countless other
things that most of us take for granted.
We know who minimum wage workers are. They assist teachers in
classrooms across the country. They care for the chronically ill in
their homes. They are child care workers and aides in nursing homes.
They sell us groceries at the supermarket, and serve us coffee at the
local coffee shop. They clean corridors and empty trash in office
buildings in countless communities around the nation.
They are workers like Valerie Bell, a custodian for a contractor in
Baltimore, who told us what a higher minimum wage means in human terms.
For workers and their families, it means far more than dollars and
cents. It means dignity. As she said, ``We no longer have to receive
food stamps or other social services to supplement our incomes. We can
fix up our homes and invest in our neighborhoods. We can spend more at
the local grocery store. We can work two low-wage jobs, rather than
three low-wage jobs, and spend more time with our families. Our
utilities won't be cut off. We can pay the medical bills we accumulated
from not having health benefits in our jobs.''
Minimum wage workers are people like Cathy Adams, a home health aide
from Viola, IL. Cathy is a high school graduate who is currently
enrolled in a computer training program at the local
[[Page S9904]]
community college. She lives with her two daughters, who are 10 and 11.
Cathy works 11 and one-half hours a day, five days a week, caring for
a woman with multiple sclerosis. She bathes her, dresses her and feeds
her. She does the grocery shopping, the laundry, and the cleaning. She
runs errands and schedules doctors' appointments.
Cathy likes her job and is fond of her client. But she finds it hard
to live on $5.30 an hour. She told us in March that ``I literally live
paycheck to paycheck. After paying the bills, whatever is left over
goes to groceries. I have $9 in my savings account and worry about
being able to save for my girls' education. We rarely have money to go
to a movie or eat out at a restaurant.
The other day, my girls asked me to take them ice skating at school.
While it only cost $10, I had to think twice about whether we could
afford it.''
And minimum wage earners are workers like Kimberly Frazier, a child
care aide from Philadelphia. Kimberly works full time and earns $5.20
an hour. She is a single mother with three children.
Kimberly says that her salary barely covers her bills--rent of $250 a
month, food, utilities, clothing for three growing children, and
carfare to get to work. Kimberly says, ``I can't afford a car and pay
for gas and insurance so I rely on public transportation. If I had a
car, I could get out to the places where there are better paying jobs.
And, like all Americans, I dream of buying my own house so that I can
raise my kids in a neighborhood that has less crime and more trees. But
I know that, although I work and study as hard as I can, I will never
have the down payment for a house earning the minimum wage.''
Kimberly concluded that ``A dollar an hour probably doesn't sound
like a lot to many people, but to me and my children it would mean a
real improvement in our lives.''
Workers like Valerie Bell, Cathy Adams, and Kimberly Frazier tell
stories that are repeated in communities across the nation. That's why
we say now is the time to raise the minimum wage.
Nay-sayers parrot the same arguments they have always used against a
fair increase. They claim an increase will damage the economy, cut
jobs, and hurt the very people it's intended to help. The facts belie
those claims.
A study released May 6 by the Economic Policy Institute proves the
point. The two most recent increases in the minimum wage did not cause
the sky to fall. There was no measurable effect on jobs; no measurable
effect on inflation. The only measurable effect on low-income workers
was positive. They received the pay increase they deserved. Mr.
President, 60 percent of the benefit of the 1996-1997 increases went to
families in the bottom 40 percent of the income groups; a third of the
benefit went to the poorest families, those in the bottom 20 percent.
Nearly three-quarters of those who benefited were adults over the age
of 20. On the average, minimum-wage workers contributed over half of
their family's weekly earnings.
The most recent data support the increase. Raising the minimum wage
does not cause unemployment for men and women, adults, teens or anyone
else. Look at the teenagers. We have a chart for the teenagers. The
argument is made that the most vulnerable group is teenagers. But if we
look at the employment levels for ages 16 through 19, before the
minimum wage increased to $4.75 in 1996 and then to $5.15 in 1997, we
see that the total employment for teenagers has risen steadily. Nearly
400,000 more teenagers are working today than before the increase took
effect. So increasing the minimum wage has not lowered teenage
employment.
Teenage unemployment has dropped dramatically during the same period,
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate was
nearly 17 percent when the minimum wage was first increased. Today the
unemployment rate among teenagers is 14 percent, a drop of almost 20
percent since the last increase.
Minimum wage opponents typically claim that low-wage industries will
lay off workers rather than pay a higher minimum wage. But look what
happened in the retail industry where many low-wage workers are
concentrated. In the year before the minimum wage was increased, retail
employment grew by just under 400,000 jobs. In 1994 and 1995, before we
increased the minimum wage to $4.75, there were 394,000 new retail
jobs. In the eleven months since we raised the minimum wage, there have
been 500,000 new retail jobs; retail employment has increased since the
last raise. The argument that raising the minimum wage causes job loss
for the most vulnerable, the teenagers and those who are the working
poor, does not hold. The facts are not there. That argument cannot be
made.
Retail employment grew over 25 percent faster since the minimum wage
was actually increased because, many economists believe, when you do
get a respectable wage for minimum wage, people will go back to work
and go to work and increasingly move off unemployment or the welfare
system, because they are able to provide for their families.
Despite these figures, too many of our Republican friends oppose
giving minimum wage workers an additional $1 an hour. Instead, their
priority is reforming bankruptcy laws by rewarding banks and credit
card companies who target low-income families. That will be the item on
the agenda, according to the majority leader. So today I am filing the
minimum wage as an amendment to the bankruptcy bill.
Democrats agree, plums for the rich and crumbs for everyone else is
the wrong priority. We need to do more for working families and
communities across America. We can do more by raising the minimum wage,
and with the strong support of President Clinton, Democrats in the
Senate and House and some courageous Republicans, I intend to do so.
I see my colleagues here. Let me just point out what this issue is
really all about. This is a women's issue, because more than 60 percent
of the recipients are women. This is a family issue, because many of
those women have one child or more. So it is a children's issue. What
kind of life are these children going to lead? What kind of atmosphere
are they going to be growing up in? Are they going to have a parent
available to them or is that parent going to be out working two or
three jobs? Is that parent going to be able to treat that child with
dignity?
So this is an important issue. It's a family issue, a children's
issue, a women's issue, and most of all, more than any other issue we
will vote on here in the U.S. Senate, it is a defining fairness issue.
It is a fairness issue. It is an issue whether America is going to say
to those Americans who are prepared to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a
year, that they will be able to live out of poverty. That is the issue.
Are we going to back up the speeches here in the U.S. Senate that say
we applaud work? We are talking about those who are working. If you are
working, you deserve a fair wage. With the most extraordinary
prosperity we have seen in recent times, with the kind of creation of
wealth we all read about--the stories about $2 trillion being lost in
the stock market in a period of 24 hours, we are talking about nickels
and dimes for working men and women. We are not even talking about the
kinds of increases Members of Congress have received during the same
period of time. We are not talking about that, which is far in excess
of what we are talking about for minimum wage workers. How bold will
our colleagues be. Will they turn thumbs down on working families, and
continue to accept the increases in their own pay received since the
last increase in the minimum wage?
This is a fairness issue. It is whether we, as a country, are going
to follow a proud tradition of Republican Presidents and Democratic
Presidents, Republican support in the Congress of the United States and
Democratic support. This has been, until recent years, a bipartisan
effort--a bipartisan effort. The question is whether it will continue
to be a bipartisan effort, to try and make sure that working families
in this country have a living wage.
I hope this body will be willing to accept this amendment.
I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do we have left? I have
split time with Senator Durbin. However he would like me to do it, I
say to my colleague from Massachusetts.
[[Page S9905]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader has until 10:30.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take just a few minutes then.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend from
Massachusetts once again to speak about one of the most important
issues facing American working families. At a time when our economy is
performing well, many Americans who work hard, who work full time,
still live in poverty. I don't know what better signal we could send at
the end of this Congress to people who are working hard, trying to
provide for their families, than to pass the American Family Fair
Minimum Wage Act.
This increase in the minimum wage, which Senator Kennedy and I and
others intend to offer as an amendment, perhaps to the Bankruptcy bill,
is the single most important step we can take in this country
immediately to promote economic justice. It would lift the federal
minimum wage to $6.15 an hour over two years. That is a one-dollar-an-
hour raise for American workers who labor near the bottom rung of our
economic ladder as we enter the 21st century. Many of these men and
women work just as hard if not harder than many of us here in the
Congress. Yet they very often live economically insecure lives. They
deserve a raise.
This modest raise would still leave the federal minimum wage at a
level that would be worth less in real terms less than it was in 1968.
We all know that glaring economic injustice and inequality remain in
America. We can say that there are two Americas--one with greater and
greater access to all the things that make life richer in
possibilities, the other struggling daily to make ends meet. Even as
our economy is generally performing well, the disparity between rich
and poor continues to grow. If we want to declare that we honor work,
we must value it properly.
When I have toured the cafes of Minnesota, the streets of East L.A.,
the inner city of Chicago, people want to know how they can earn a
decent living, how they can give their children the care they need and
deserve. This minimum wage increase will help hard-working Minnesotans
and all Americans in their efforts to make ends meet.
Seventy-four percent of those who receive the minimum wage are
adults. Sixty percent are women. Fifty percent work more than 35 hours
a week. Eighty-two percent work at least 20 hours. These numbers tell a
story. Raising the minimum wage will help hard-working Americans, many
supporting families, to earn a decent living.
The minimum wage disproportionately affects women, many of whom are
single heads of households with children. Sixty percent of those who
earn minimum wage are women. They are teachers' aides, they are child
care providers. They work hard, yet they make $10,700 a year. That's
$2,900 below the poverty line for a family of three. That's not a
living wage. To lift themselves from poverty, they must earn a fair
living wage.
Some opponents of increasing the minimum wage argue that it will
cause job losses and actually hurt workers. Recent experience
effectively rebuts that claim. An Economic Policy Institute report
released this year demonstrates that the minimum wage increase which
took effect during 1996 and 1997 raised the wages of almost 10 million
people. Seventy-one percent were adults and 58 percent were women. Just
under half worked full-time. The research also found that the increases
had disproportionately benefited low-income working households.
Although households in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution
receive only 5 percent of total family income, they received 35 percent
of the benefits from the minimum wage increases. Four different
economic tests of these minimum-wage increases failed to find any
systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 increases.
The overall conclusion of the EPI report was that the 1996-97
increase in the minimum wage proved to be an effective tool for raising
the earnings of low-wage workers without lowering their employment
opportunities. In other words, it worked.
So now it is our responsibility to continue this process and assure
that more Americans are able to earn a liveable wage. If we do not
raise the minimum wage now, by the year 2000 the real value of the
minimum wage will only be $4.28 an hour--almost as low as it was when
the 1996 bill was enacted. We must act now to allow 12 million workers
to benefit from this increase.
In my home state, this minimum wage increase will benefit at least
147,000 working Minnesotans and probably more because when we increase
the minimum wage, it applies pressure to increase wages for people also
making slightly more than the minimum wage. In 1996, 39% of Minnesota's
workers paid at the minimum wage were between the ages of 16 and 21.
Now, those numbers show us two important things: first, that the
majority of Minnesotans just like the majority of Americans earning the
minimum wage are adults. This issue is not just about helping
youngsters looking for a paying job after school. But second, at the
same time, many of these minimum wage workers between the ages of 16
and 21 are trying to make money to stay in school, to pay the bills as
they study to receive their college degrees. In Minnesota, we have
record low unemployment, but state statistics show that increasing the
minimum wage will not significantly affect the number of minimum wage
jobs available for people needing the work to make ends meet.
We celebrate the affluence that so many Americans have enjoyed in
recent years. We need to make sure that the opportunity to share in
that prosperity is available to all Americans, whether they are in the
top 20 percent of wage-earners or the bottom 20 percent. People rightly
believe that if you play by the rules in America, if you work 40 hours
a week, 52 weeks a year, then you should not be poor.
Increasing the minimum wage is about justice and a livable wage. The
American public supports it, and we should pass it.
Let me again thank Senator Kennedy. This will be my eighth year in
the Senate. I don't think there is anybody in the U.S. Senate, I don't
think there is anybody close, to Senator Ted Kennedy leading this
fight. It is an economic justice fight. We raised the minimum wage to
$5.15 an hour and people thought that couldn't be done. Senator Kennedy
led that fight and we did it. I am confident we are going to do it
again. We are going to have an amendment on the bankruptcy bill and are
going to talk about raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 over a
2-year period, and I think we will have a positive vote for it. It is
the right thing to do. The majority of the people support it and this
should be a priority for us.
Let me make three points. I heard my colleague from Massachusetts,
and I am proud to join him in this effort and can't wait to have the
debate. And I am proud to join Senator Durbin from Illinois. I heard my
colleague from Massachusetts talk about this being a family issue. I am
pretty well convinced now, from the Minnesota State Fair to talking
with people in cafes, to traveling the country, that this really is a
family issue. If there is one thing we could do--and, you know what, my
colleague, the Presiding Officer, I think, agrees with me, at least in
part of what I am about to say--if there is one thing we can do more
than anything else, it is to try to basically say our major goal is to
make sure that parents, or parent, can do their very best by their
kids. Because if parents can do their best by their kids, they are
going to do their best for Arkansas or Minnesota or Illinois or
Massachusetts or for the country. And part of being able to do well for
your kids is to have a living wage job, to be able to make a decent
living.
As I travel around the country, whether it be in metropolitan
Minnesota or whether it be in the farm and rural areas, or whether it
be Delta, MS, or East L.A. or Watts or inner-city Chicago or inner-city
Baltimore, or where my wife's family are from, Letcher and Harlan
Counties, Appalachia, KY, I think more than anything else, what people
say to me--and my most recent focus group is the Minnesota State Fair,
where about half the population comes in about 2 weeks--right now we
have the State Fair there. People are focused on how to earn a decent
living
[[Page S9906]]
and how to give their children the care they know they need and
deserve.
That is what it is all about.
Mr. President, I think the policy goal for us ought to be as follows:
When people work almost 52 weeks a year, 40 hours a week, they should
not be poor in America. I bet any poll will show that 80 percent of the
people agree with that. When people work almost 52 weeks a year, 40
hours a week, they shouldn't be poor in our country. It is that simple.
There are a number of things we can do that will make a real
difference for families. We can have affordable health care. We should
do that. We haven't done it yet. We should have affordable child care.
We should figure out ways of providing assistance to parents, whether
their child is in a family child care setting or child care center or
staying at home.
The final thing we ought to do is raise the minimum wage; $5.15 to
$6.15 is not unreasonable. My colleague from Massachusetts pointed out
the work of the Economic Policy Institute. Everybody said the sky would
fall. We have been going through this, I say to Senator Kennedy, for
half a century: If you raise the minimum wage, people will lose jobs.
It did not happen; it will not happen. People, in fact, will have more
money to buy and consume, which helps our economy.
Mr. President, I simply say to my colleagues that this is terribly
important to women, because many of our minimum-wage workers are women.
It is terribly important to adults, because the vast majority of
minimum-wage workers are adults. It is also important to younger people
whom maybe we do not view as adults--18, 19, 20, 21. Many of them are
working to go to college.
This is a matter of economic justice. It is a matter of elementary
decency.
I close with a more hard-hitting point. This is one I am not that
comfortable with, but I think it really is true and needs to be said.
My colleague said it once, and I will say it again. We don't have any
hesitation in voting to raise our salaries. We make $130,000 a year. We
ought to be willing to vote a decent minimum wage for people. We really
ought to be able to do that.
Colleagues have talked to me about how ``I need to make $130,000; I
have two children, they are in college; I have an apartment here, live
back home, it is very hard.'' My gosh, that is a pretty significant
salary we make. I am not bashing public service. I believe in public
service. But I think we also can vote for a higher minimum wage for
working families in this country. We should do this, and we will bring
this amendment to the floor.
We are going to have a major debate, and all of us will be
accountable as to how we vote. I hope we have an overwhelming vote for
increasing the minimum wage. I yield the floor.
Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Under the agreement this morning, how much time is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader has time reserved until
10:30.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank you, Mr. President.
In this brief period of time, I first applaud my colleagues. I am
glad that I have had the honor to serve in the U.S. Senate. I am
particularly happy to represent a great State like Illinois. I am
honored to be a Member of the Senate with my colleagues and, in
particular, Senator Kennedy who, time and time again throughout his
career, has taken this floor to speak for those who do not have a lobby
in Washington, to speak for those who do not have a special interest
group with a large political action committee. When Senator Kennedy
comes to the floor to speak for the poor, for the dispossessed, for
those who do not have health insurance and lack the opportunity many of
us take for granted, I am honored in joining him. Now that I am in the
Senate, I find I am joining him more and more. I want to do that this
morning on this particular issue.
A few years ago at one of the National Democratic Conventions--I
believe it was San Francisco--a resident of the city of Chicago, Jesse
Jackson, the Reverend Jesse Jackson--not to be confused with his son,
the Congressman--took to the floor of the convention hall and gave a
speech I still remember today.
He spoke to that assembled multitude of people about why we are
involved in politics and what Government should be about. Jesse Jackson
said in his own way--and I can't even hope to get close to imitating
his style or his conviction--he wanted to speak to us about the people
who get up every morning and go to work every day. He talked about the
people who clean the hotel rooms of the conventioneers. He said they
get up every morning and they go to work every day. The people who
remove the dishes and glasses and cups from your table in the
restaurant, they go to work every day. The people who watch our
children in day-care centers, they go to work every day. The people who
guard our homes, our offices, our schools, they go to work every single
day.
For many of us, they are invisible. They are the work force of
America. We tend to focus on the leadership, those who rise to the top
in terms of the public spotlight, but for millions of Americans who are
part of our workforce, they are such an essential part of American
life, and, unfortunately, too many of us take them for granted.
What Senator Kennedy is challenging us to do today as the U.S. Senate
is not to ignore these workers and their families but, rather, to show
them that we respect them, we respect the contribution they make to
America, we honor their work, and we do it with a vote to increase
their minimum wage.
Many of the critics of increasing the minimum wage like to argue,
``Well, if you raise the minimum wage, people are just going to lay off
a lot of these workers; employers can't afford to pay them.'' That
argument has been going on since the days of Franklin Roosevelt when we
established the minimum wage. In very few instances, if ever, has that
been the case.
The most recent increase in the minimum wage had exactly the opposite
impact. More and more people were employed. What Senator Kennedy is
suggesting, raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 an hour over a
2-year period of time, is hardly unreasonable. It is a reasonable way
for us to address the needs of many families.
We like to get on the floor here--and I have joined in this debate--
and talk about eliminating welfare, changing welfare as we know it,
moving people from welfare to work. I say to my friends, this is part
of moving people from welfare to work, giving to those new workers a
decent pay, a decent wage. These are people who get up and go to work
every single day.
It is also about family dignity. If we really believe in family
values, it has to go beyond a speech on the Senate floor. It has to go
to a question of whether or not we will vote to make sure that families
receive the money they need to make a living.
A lot of people argue, ``Wait a minute, the minimum wage is just for
kids, just for new employees--pay them a little amount of money because
they don't have the experience.'' Seventy-four percent of the people on
minimum wage are adults; 57 percent of the gains of the increase in
this minimum wage will go to working families in the bottom 40 percent
of the income scale.
The other people argue, ``Wait a minute, don't worry about the
minimum wage, that is for part-time workers.'' That is not the case.
Fifty percent of the workers on minimum wage are full-time workers; 40
percent of them are the sole breadwinners for their families.
What will $2,000 a year mean? That is what it will be if the increase
goes through, $2,000 a year for a family. To a low-income family
struggling to survive, it means money for groceries and rent, to pay
for drugs, and to pay perhaps for health insurance for their children.
It is the difference in quality of life which we cannot overlook.
When the record is written about this Congress, questions will be
asked: What did we achieve? Well, we haven't passed a budget
resolution. We are now more than 4 months after the requirement to do
it. We are struggling through the appropriations bills. I believe we
will pass them. We have renamed the National Airport after President
Ronald Reagan, and, folks, that's about it. Shouldn't we, before we
leave, address the millions of Americans--200,000 in my home State of
Illinois--who are, frankly, in a position where this increase in
minimum wage could mean a dramatic increase in their quality of life?
[[Page S9907]]
I will be coming to the floor on this bankruptcy bill debate. My
friend, Senator Grassley from Iowa, and I have worked long and hard on
this bill. We have our differences on it. But I will tell you this: I
fully support what Senator Kennedy and Senator Wellstone have set out
to do, to make sure it is part of this debate that we will increase the
minimum wage.
I hope those who are about to consider this issue, Republicans and
Democrats alike, will understand that we are talking about people in
America who get up and go to work every single day. They deserve our
respect. They deserve an increase in their minimum wage.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Under the previous order, the time between 10:30 and 11:30 a.m. shall
be under the control of the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, or
his designee.
Senator Thomas is recognized.
Mr. THOMAS. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I will alleviate your
concern that I will take the whole hour. Nevertheless, I think I will
be joined by some of my colleagues.
____________________