Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 34 (Thursday, March 23, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 34 (Thursday, March 23, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1655-S1659]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today the distinguished and esteemed
Senator from Massachusetts and I are reintroducing the Democratic
proposal to raise the minimum wage.
For those familiar with the legislation, they know that our
legislation--the bill being reintroduced this afternoon--raises the
minimum wage by $1 over 2 years, to $6.15 an hour. It is a modest but
badly needed bill. It is overdue. It has already passed in the House,
as most of our colleagues know, by an overwhelming margin, with strong
bipartisan support. It deserves equally strong and bipartisan support
in this Chamber.
Among the many people who support our proposal are America's
religious leaders--the U.S. Catholic Conference, the United Church of
Christ, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the American Friends
Service Committee, the Unitarian Association of Congregations, the
Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church, and many more religious
organizations. There are Republicans and Democrats in this coalition of
religious leaders, and all have joined together in supporting the
effort to raise the minimum wage by $1 an hour over 2 years.
A job isn't only a source of income. A job, frankly, is a source of
pride--or it should be. The Catholic Conference tells us that the
minimum wage ought to reflect the principles of human dignity and
economic justice. That is what it ought to reflect. There ought to be
more to a minimum wage than simply what pay you get. There ought to be
a sense of dignity and a sense of pride and a sense of accomplishment.
There ought to be a feeling of goodwill in a workplace. But today's
minimum wage precludes much of that. The U.S. Catholic Conference is
right, the minimum wage today denies dignity, it denies economic
justice.
When you adjust the increased cost of living, the real value of the
minimum wage today is almost $2.50 below what it was in 1968. This
chart reflects, very graphically, what we are talking about. This shows
the value of the minimum wage over the years.
We started in 1968, with a value of the minimum wage, in today's
dollars, at $7.66. But look what has happened. We come down now to the
year 2000, and we have a minimum wage value of slightly over $5.
But look what has been happening to the trendline representing the
value of the minimum wage, in the last couple years. While there have
been peaks the trend is actually going down. Next year, the value of
the increase, in constant dollars, will be $4.90--almost $3 below what
it was 30 years ago.
Is it any wonder people are working two and three jobs? Is it any
wonder we have lost some of the value, some of the dignity, some of the
economic justice that was concomitant with the minimum wage of 30 years
ago?
What is remarkable is that all we are asking with this increase is to
bring it to $5.85 next year. This proposal, as you can see, is still
below the value of the minimum wage in 1968. That is what is
disconcerting. If we do not raise the minimum wage by the end of the
year, every single penny of the value of the 1996 increase will be
erased by increases in the cost of living.
As the chart shows, at one time we were able to increase the value of
the minimum wage. Now, we would like to bring the wage back to its
value in 1996. But look what happens. If we do not raise the wage, we
will have eliminated entirely the previous increases of the minimum
wage.
I think people ought to remember, all we are trying to do is to
maintain virtually the status quo. We are not even able to bring it up
to where it should be. So forget economic justice, dignity--working
families are living in poverty.
The Senate passed the welfare reform legislation several years ago.
We said we want to dignify work. We want to reward work. We want to
ensure that people who work get the rewards that otherwise they would
get on welfare. Look what has happened. As the minimum wage continues
to decline, the poverty line continues to go up. So even with the
minimum wage increase, minimum wage workers are going to be below the
poverty line. How does that reward work? How does that keep people off
welfare? If this gap continues to spread, where is the economic
justice?
Under our proposal, a full-time minimum-wage worker would earn
$12,792 a year. That is an increase of $2,000. That doesn't sound like
a lot of money. As I noted, right now minimum wage workers are below
the poverty line. But the fact is, $2,000 would buy 7 months of
groceries for a family of four.
I was in a grocery store not long ago. Somebody came up to me, a
total

[[Page S1656]]

stranger, and said: I know you are Senator Daschle. I hate to
interrupt. I know you are out there buying your groceries. I am just
one person, but I want to thank you. I want to thank you for trying to
fight for the minimum wage increase because I am a minimum wage worker.
I have two jobs. I have no health insurance. I have a daughter who is
very sick. You don't know me, and you may never see me again. I'm
telling you, Senator Daschle, I need that money, without it I don't
know what I am going to do.
You remember conversations like that. That brings life to charts like
this.
It is very troubling to me that, as we fight over the minimum wage
this year, we are fighting about that worker, working two jobs, trying
to stay above the poverty line with a sick daughter. We are trying to
decide in the Senate today whether we are going to make this worker
wait another year and lose $1,200 over that period of time in this era
of economic growth and vitality.
What do we say to that man in that grocery store: Look, I am glad you
are working two jobs. I am sorry your daughter is sick? We want you to
stay off welfare? And while we have more and more people becoming
billionaires in this country, we are going to make you wait 1 more year
to get that full $1 increase in minimum wage, even though it is $3
below what it was in 1968?
I can't do that. I don't know how anybody can do that. But that is
what we are asking. That is why we care so much about this fight now.
We didn't have the chance to bring it up last year. We forced it on the
bankruptcy bill. Now the House, because I believe we forced that action
last year, has acted, as they should, on minimum wage. I have some real
problems with the House-passed tax package, but they acted
appropriately on the minimum wage.
Why, in Heaven's name, given the economic strength we have in this
economy, given the extraordinary increase we have seen in income at
just about all levels but the lowest, why would we make that man, or
anybody like him, wait 3 years rather than 2 to get a $1 increase so
that he might be able to stay above the poverty line?
Recently, my State created 17,000 new jobs. Unemployment is lower now
than it has been in 30 years. Yet we hear our colleagues say this
somehow is going to hurt small business. This age-old argument has been
so totally ripped apart by virtually every credible source. The Wall
Street Journal, Business Week--hardly the mouthpiece of a liberal
agenda--now say the 1996 predictions about job loss, the last time we
increased the minimum wage, could not have been further from the truth.
They were wrong. We have created more jobs in my State and in every
State. Unemployment is lower, not higher. There is no question
whatsoever, we can create more jobs and still provide dignity in the
workplace.

Of what value is a job if you need four of them to survive? Of what
value can a job be if you can't even buy health insurance for your
children?
The other argument we hear so often is that minimum-wage workers are
teenagers, or that they are part-time people, who pay for cars and CD
players, who will be working in a high paying job someday. Again, the
facts could not be more the opposite: Seventy percent of all minimum-
wage workers are in their twenties or older; 60 percent of minimum-wage
workers today are women in that age category; 40 percent of minimum-
wage workers today are the sole breadwinners in their families.
You hear these arguments over and over again: The minimum wage costs
jobs. These jobs are for teenagers. That is just bunk. There is
absolutely no truth to these assertions that we hear over and over
again. We are talking about people who walk up to me in grocery stores
telling me about their kids, telling me they have more than two jobs,
telling me that unless they get this increase in the minimum wage, they
don't know how they are going to survive. What an irony--talk of
survival in a period of unprecedented growth and prosperity.
I am hopeful that somehow over the course of the next couple of weeks
we can reach an agreement. The House has acted on an overwhelmingly
bipartisan basis. The Senate ought to go to conference. We ought to
resolve this minimum wage issue. But we ought to accept the fact that
we have no real argument to ask that person or anybody else to wait 3
years for a $1 increase in the minimum wage when they need it so badly
right now. I am very hopeful that we can work out a procedural
arrangement whereby every single person this year can count on a
minimum wage increase within 2 years.
The average family now works an additional 265 hours a year just to
maintain the same standard of living they had at the beginning of this
decade. That is an additional 6 weeks a year that parents could be
spending with their children that they are not. How much more in that
direction should we be going? Three hundred hours more a year to
maintain the status quo; 7 or 8 weeks a year that parents ought to be
spending with their kids that they are now spending on a second or
third job?
The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and I, and so many of
our colleagues, have said if we do anything this year, if we really
mean what we say about economic justice and about dignity in the
workplace and keeping people off welfare and addressing the real needs
of working families, there is nothing more important than ensuring an
increase in the minimum wage, this year, over 2 years. It ought to be
over 1 year, but if we can't do it in 1 year, the compromise was, well,
then let us at least try it in 2. If we can't do it in 2 years, I don't
know how we turn to those working those extra hours, those extra weeks,
with any sense of compassion or understanding for their circumstances.
I ask whether or not it could be a bipartisan goal that we sign and
pass a measure before Mother's Day this year. What better opportunity
to tell those women who make up 40 percent of the minimum wage
workforce and who head households that we are going to give you some
help. We are going to do all we can to keep you off welfare. We are
going to try to put a little more dignity into the workplace, and we
are going to provide the kind of economic justice we all say is
important to us.
I have admired Bob Dole for a lot of reasons, but one thing he once
said, while he was the Republican leader, is something we ought to
remember again and again. He said:

I never thought the Republican Party would stand for
squeezing every nickel out of the minimum wage.

That wasn't something Senator Kennedy or I said or anybody else on
our side said. That was the Republican leader who said it wasn't the
role of the Republican Party to squeeze every nickel out of the minimum
wage.
I hope the majority will not squeeze every last nickel from this
minimum wage either. I hope they will join us. I hope they will
remember the families below the poverty line. I hope they will remember
where we are and from where we have come, when it comes to dignity,
economic justice, and the minimum wage today. I hope they will join us
in passing this 2-year bill before Mother's Day.
Let's sign it into law. Let's send the right message.
Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the senior Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator agree with me that here we are on
Thursday afternoon, early afternoon, 2:45, most Americans are out
working. The Senate, as I understand the schedule, will not be voting
until next week on Tuesday. It is Thursday afternoon. Does the Senator
agree that we have an opportunity to debate this this afternoon, and,
if there were additional questions, we could debate it on Friday where,
again, most Americans are working? We could stay here, doing our
business, and then vote sometime on Friday or Friday afternoon, that we
could dispose of this issue in a timely way? Will the Senator not agree
with me that someone who bears a responsibility--as well as the
majority leader, in terms of a schedule--that this particular issue
could be easily disposed of this afternoon, or on tomorrow, without
interrupting the Senate schedule?

Mr. DASCHLE. The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts is
absolutely right. We have declared now an end of official business. We
are in morning business this afternoon. We are not going to be in
session tomorrow. We will be taking up the flag

[[Page S1657]]

amendment on Monday and voting on it on Tuesday. But we are told there
is not time to bring this matter to the floor. Yet tomorrow is a
perfectly opportune time for us to be debating and talking about this.
We would love nothing more than to have a good debate. Let's talk about
whether or not this affects jobs. Let's talk about whether or not this
is for teenagers or for working mothers and working families. Let's
entertain amendments.
The fact is, we wouldn't have debated this last year were it not for
the extraordinary efforts made by the Senator from Massachusetts who
offered this amendment to a bankruptcy bill. That is what triggered the
action in the Senate. I believe that is what triggered the action in
the House. Now we are in a situation where we are prepared to split the
bankruptcy conference from the minimum wage conference. But unless we
have a vehicle with which to go to conference, it is very hard for us
to conference a minimum wage that has never been considered in the
Senate.
How can we go to conference without a vehicle? That is unheard of. I
think Daniel Webster would be rolling over in his grave trying to
understand what the modern Senate has done to the process. The process,
as I used to understand it is you pass a bill in the Senate, you pass
it in the House, it goes to conference, you work out the differences,
and you bring it back. We haven't passed a minimum wage bill in the
House.
The distinguished Senator is right. We are introducing this bill. We
could bring it up today. We could have a vote on it tomorrow.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, this is an
issue on which I believe every Member of this body has voted at one
time or another. It is not an extraordinary, complex issue, as issues
go that we deal with. This is a rather basic issue and a rather
fundamental issue. As the leader pointed out, it is basically a
question of whether we are going to respect the dignity of those who
want to work and can work, who are willing to work 40 hours a week, 52
weeks of the year.
Institutionally, we have voted, if my memory serves me correctly,
over the history of this, probably 10 to 14 times. It is not a new
issue. Members know what the dimensions of this particular question are
really about.
The Senator, as I understand it, would agree with me that it wouldn't
take a very long period of time to permit the Senate to express its
will on whether they believe there should be an increase in the minimum
wage.
As I understand the leader's position, he introduced this
legislation. It is 50 cents this year; it is 50 cents next year. If we
don't see this increase, we will see that the increase we provided in
the 1996-1997 period will effectively be wiped out. It will be about
the lowest period in the history of the country in terms of the
purchasing power of the minimum wage at a time perhaps of greatest
prosperity.

Does the Senator find that is something that is difficult to explain
to people back in his own State of South Dakota, as I do in
Massachusetts, and who wonder why we aren't willing to take some
action?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator is so right. This is a $2,000
increase. That $2,000 increase is probably made, in the case of many
American entrepreneurs, in a matter of moments, minutes, or hours. We
are talking about a $2,000 increase over the course of a couple of
years. That is what we are talking about. These people are already
struggling to retain some form of dignity in the workplace. They are
determined not to go back on welfare. They are determined to try to
find ways to ensure that their children have the quality of life we all
dream about as Americans.
As the Senator said, how ironic it is that at a time when we have
more billionaires in this country than we have ever had in our Nation's
history, at a time when income has gone up exponentially for the top 20
percent of those in this country, at that very time we see potentially
the lowest level of purchasing power the minimum wage has ever brought
about in our Nation's history. What an incredible irony that is.
The Senator is absolutely right. I appreciate his calling attention
to that.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question,
something perplexes me.
Is the Senate in session tomorrow?
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senate is not in session tomorrow.
Mr. BAUCUS. Are there going to be votes on Monday?
Mr. DASCHLE. There are not any votes on Monday. We will not have any
votes now until Tuesday afternoon.
Mr. BAUCUS. Has the Senate had many votes lately on Mondays or
Fridays?
Mr. DASCHLE. I do not recall the last time we had a vote on Monday or
Friday.
Mr. BAUCUS. Is there any reason the Senate cannot meet, do its
business, and vote on matters of importance on Mondays and Fridays?
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Montana raises a very good point. It
used to be that we considered a workweek working 5 days. The workweek
is becoming more and more 3 days. Not only that; our work periods are
only 3 weeks. Then there is no workweek at all. It is a remarkable
juxtaposition.
First of all, we have a limited time each week. Then we have these
periods for which there is no legislative work. Then we are told we
don't have time to bring up the minimum wage. We don't have time to
bring up issues that are of importance to families all across this
country.
The Senator is absolutely right.
Mr. BAUCUS. Maybe the Senator can answer another question.
I think the Senator may have a good answer for this. But I don't. Why
is it that the Senate spends so much time debating campaign
contributions and campaign expenses at such astronomical and almost
exponential rates so they can get elected but doesn't want to be here
to do the Nation's work?
Can the Senator explain that discrepancy?
Mr. DASCHLE. I wish I could. All I know is that if you take what it
costs to get elected to the Senate and divide it over the number of
legislative days, it comes out to millions of dollars per day. It is a
remarkable change in the circumstances we face since I have come to the
Senate.

Mr. BAUCUS. Isn't it true that people at home who elect us want us to
do the Nation's work? Isn't that what the people at home expect us to
do?
Mr. DASCHLE. We are talking about minimum-wage workers working 40
hours and sometimes 80 hours a week. If we are not in session long
enough to address the concerns they have, it seems to me, we will have
a lot of explaining to do to a lot of those people who are wondering:
If they are working that long, why can't we work a 5-day week?
Mr. BAUCUS. Didn't we just get a pay raise that went into effect this
year?
Mr. DASCHLE. It was a cost-of-living increase.
Mr. BAUCUS. It went into effect this year.
I compliment the Senator. I compliment both Senators for what they
want to do. I want to join them. To me, it is a tragedy that the Senate
is not doing the Nation's work, particularly on an issue such as the
minimum wage. I commend the Senators.
Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator makes a good point. I defended the cost-of-
living adjustment. I think there are times when we have to recognize we
want people in public service. But if we want to bring about the kind
of cost-of-living increases that we understand we need at our salary
level, I think everyone would also understand the need for a cost-of-
living adjustment for minimum-wage workers to at least stay equal to
the poverty line, and to at least give them some encouragement not to
go back on welfare.
I appreciate very much the Senator from Montana pointing out that
matter.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see others who wish to address the
Senate.
On this issue of the scope of what we are talking about and
increasing the minimum wage 50 cents and 50 cents, as I understand it,
all Americans combined earn about $4.2 trillion per year. The impact of
a $1 wage increase over 2 years would be one-fifth of 1 percent of the
national payroll. This is effectively what we are talking about.
If the leader has given up the floor, I ask for recognition on my own
right.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see others who desire to be recognized.
But

[[Page S1658]]

I want to at this time join with our leader, Senator Daschle, in the
introduction of this measure. He has pointed out that it is 50 cents
this year and 50 cents next year. That is a very modest increase.
We have been debating this issue for the last 2\1/2\ years. We have
been denied the opportunity to bring this up to the Senate. We have
been told by Republican leadership, day in and day out, that we haven't
the time to debate this issue, that this is a complex issue that will
impact inflation, that it will impact employment.
These are very important macroeconomic issues. We need time to
debate.
Let the record show that our Democratic leader and others introduced
this measure this afternoon. We are prepared this afternoon, on a
Thursday in late March, to consider this legislation and deal with
amendments, as we have done day in and day out over the period of the
last 2 and a half years since we introduced minimum wage legislation.
But we are prepared to deal with those arguments and finally take
action.
We are being denied the opportunity as elected officials of our
respective States to be able to have a vote on the increase in the
minimum wage because of process, because of procedures, and because of
the rules of the Senate. That is so today. But it isn't always going to
be that way. As the leader pointed out, we are strongly committed to
getting a vote on this measure as soon as we possibly can. We would
like to do it in an orderly way so Members can participate in the
debate and offer amendments. We can reach a final resolution. But if we
are denied that opportunity, we are going to find a way or means to
insist that the Senate address this particular issue.
I will just take a few moments to review exactly where we are in
terms of the people about whom we are talking and those who would be
the beneficiaries of this particular action.
We have taken action at other times in our history in order to
provide for and to say to those who are working at different levels of
our economy 40 hours a week for 52 weeks of the year that they are not
going to have to live in poverty. That is what this is all about.

Are we going to say in the United States of America that men and
women who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, who play by the
rules, are not going to have to live in poverty in the year 2000 and
2001, when we have this extraordinary prosperity? We say yes; the other
side says no. That is a principal difference between our two parties on
this issue. The American people ought to understand it.
If Tom Daschle were the majority leader, we would be debating and
acting on this issue this afternoon in the Senate. But we are not. We
are denied it because of the Republican position. Our leader has
pointed out, all Members, Republicans and Democrats, were quite
willing, without delay, without any kind of prolonged debate, to take
the cost-of-living index increase of $4,600 without delay, which is
what our Republican friends want us to do, delay the increase of the $1
minimum wage over 3 years. We didn't hear any of them say during the
debate on the increase in the cost of living of $4,600: Spread that
out.
No, no, no, we took that quickly.
We want for those working, who are needy and who are poor and who are
struggling, we are saying we will spread out your increase of $1 over 3
years. How does anyone dignify that position?
We can see what has happened. The bottom fifth of families have
fallen behind some 6 percent. This is from 1979 through 1999, over the
last 20 years. Middle-income families are working harder. Generally,
additional members of the family are going into the workforce. These
middle-income families have seen a 5 percent increase in income. But
most of them are working longer.
The United States of America today has workers working over 50 hours
more a year than any other industrial society in the world. They are
working harder and barely hanging on. Look what has happened to the top
5 percent of income families, those earning $246,000 versus the bottom
20 percent earning $12,500. Of the bottom 20 percent, many are minimum
wage earners, with incomes of $10,000 or less.
Look what has been happening in the workforce during this period.
People have always said the real issue in question for wage increase is
productivity. There must be an increase in productivity for a wage
increase. Look what has happened regarding productivity and the
American worker. The real value of the minimum wage drops as
productivity grows. We have had one of the greatest spurts in American
productivity in the history of this Nation by American workers in
recent years. At the same time, the real value of the minimum wage has
collapsed. We have a dramatic increase in productivity, with more goods
being produced by these workers, and they are still getting paid less
and less.
What is the possible justification for that? Every indicator we
have--the size of employment, the impact on inflation, the issues of
productivity--all come to the same conclusion, that this Nation at this
time as never before can afford an increase in the minimum wage. That
is what this is about.
Finally, as the leader has pointed out, we have found now in order to
get some action in the House of Representatives in the Senate of the
United States, our Republican leader said we are going to ``piddle''
out an increase in the minimum wage over 3 years. We will take 3 years.
However, we will provide $75 billion in unpaid for tax expenditures.
I hope we don't hear from the other side about being responsible
economically. Mr. President, that is $75 billion for 3 years.
That wasn't good enough for the House of Representatives. Do you know
what they said? We will give you 2 years, but we have $122 billion in
unpaid-for tax cuts where 94 percent of the benefits go to the top
fifth. Is that not interesting? We have to take care of the small
little mom-and-pop stores; we have to help them out. We are interested
in doing that. We would work with our Republican friends in terms of
the mom-and-pop stores. Our Democratic leader indicated a willingness
to do that. We did it in the last minimum wage increase. We are glad to
take modest steps in order to be able to do that. We heard we are going
to have some tax expenditures in order to protect the mom-and-pop
stores. Except under this tax cut, mom-and-pop stores aren't helped; 94
percent goes to the top fifth.

Maybe that goes over in some areas of the country, but we want our
friends on the other side to know this issue will not go away.
When we have that kind of action that has been taken previously, a
delayed minimum wage increase spread out over 3 years, added to a $75
billion in unpaid-for tax expenditures, it makes me wonder. How many
times have we come on the floor of the Senate saying: Let's do
something about Head Start; let's do something about immunization, or
on mental health. How much will it cost? Is it paid for? Is it paid
for? Is it paid for? Well, you are not getting that, Senator.
I don't know what happened to that particular position where we have
now $75 billion and $122 billion in play, holding that minimum wage
hostage to benefit the wealthiest individuals in this country.
Can we justify that? Is it a position that is defensible? I don't
believe so. It is wrong. Fundamentally, it is wrong.
This issue is basically a women's issue because the majority of those
who receive the minimum wage are women. It is a children's issue
because many women who are receiving the minimum wage have children.
This is about the quality of life. As the Council of Economic Advisers
has pointed out, the children in minimum-wage families spend 22 hours a
week less with their parents than they did 20 years ago.
When we talk about the minimum wage, it is a family issue. It is a
civil rights issue because many of the people who earn the minimum wage
are people of color. And it is a fairness issue because it says in the
United States we stand for men and women who work hard, play by the
rules, and they ought not to live in poverty. We believe the
overwhelming majority of Americans support it.
I thank our leader for bringing this matter to the Senate again and
for all of the leadership he has provided. I am proud to stand with
some of my colleagues on this side who have stood for

[[Page S1659]]

that kind of increase and for the brave few on the other side who have
joined. As the leader has pointed out, we will have this issue up one
way or the other. It will come back again and again and again until we
get fairness in our society for working men and women.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I hope people listened to the words of the
Senator from Massachusetts. He couldn't be more right on; namely, it is
the right thing to do. Purely and simply, it is the right thing to do.
For that reason only I urge Members of the Senate and my colleagues to
take requisite action to get to the issue, pass the minimum wage, and
do the right thing, which is pass this very significant increase in
minimum wage.

____________________