[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 17 (Wednesday, February 7, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1132-S1134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, 
        Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Durbin, 
        Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. harkin, Mr. Kerry, Ms. 
        Landrieu, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 277. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this afternoon I and others will be 
introducing legislation to increase the minimum wage. We will increase 
the minimum wage by 60 cents this year, 50 cents next year, and 40 
cents the year after.
  The reason we are doing this is to recognize that over the last 8 
years, we have had the most extraordinary economic expansion, but there 
are a number of Americans, about 11 million to 13 million Americans, 
who have not benefitted from our economic expansion.
  They are the individuals who are on the lowest rung of the economic 
ladder. This is an attempt to make an adjustment in their income, and 
this increase in the minimum wage will provide an extremely modest 
increase in that income.
  This issue is a women's issue because the great majority of those who 
receive the minimum wage are women.
  This is a children's issue because the great majority of the women 
who are receiving the minimum wage have children and their lives are 
directly affected by the amount of income their mother or their parents 
make, and if they are making the minimum wage, often it is not just one 
job, but two jobs, and their lives are dramatically affected.
  It is a civil rights issue because so many of those who are earning 
the minimum wage are men and women of color.
  Most of all, it is a fairness issue. Men and women in this country 
who work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year should not have to live in 
poverty.
  This is about rewarding work. It is a recognition that people in our 
country who are playing by the rules attempting to provide for their 
family, if they are making a minimum wage today with a family of three, 
they are still falling $3,400 below the poverty line in the United 
States of America. This minimum wage will reduce that, but they will 
still fall within the definition of poverty.
  With this extraordinary expansion we have seen, with the 
extraordinary benefits that have gone to so many millions of Americans, 
it is time that we ought to give some attention to those who have been 
left out and left behind.
  Who are these minimum wage workers? First of all, they are men and 
women of dignity; men and women who take pride in the work they do; men 
and women who are proud to go to work and understand the value of work, 
frustrated as others might be, but nonetheless are willing to put their

[[Page S1133]]

shoulder to the wheel because they want to take care of their families 
and because they have a sense of pride.
  What do they do? By and large, minimum wage workers work in child 
care centers. They are helping to look after the children of others who 
are working hard in American industry. Many of them are assistants to 
teachers in our schools and, again, are working with children all 
across this country. Many others are working in nursing homes looking 
after those who have retired, those who need nursing home attention. 
These are men and women who are doing very important work, in many 
instances helping to make sure that the major buildings that house our 
industries and corporations are attended to during the nighttime. These 
are hard-working people, and they are people who take great pride in 
what they do, as they should.
  Let's look at what their situation has come to. This chart says: 
Working hard, but losing ground. The real value of the minimum wage. If 
we look at constant dollars, the purchasing power of the minimum wage 
was $7.66 in 1968. Over the years, we have seen how that has fallen, 
with just a few interruptions when there was an increase in the minimum 
wage in 1988 and another increase in 1994. We can see what has happened 
with the purchasing power of the minimum wage. Without an increase in 
the minimum wage, in the year 2002, it would be down to $4.75, just 
about the lowest that it has been since the mid-1960s. This is in real 
purchasing power.
  If we raise the minimum wage 60 cents, 50 cents, and 40 cents, and 
add that $1.50 on top of the $5.15 an hour now, the purchasing power 
would only be $6.14, which is identical to what it would be if we 
actually increased the minimum wage in the last 2 years by 50 cents and 
50 cents, which was our proposal. Since we lost a year, there has been 
further deterioration in the purchasing power of the minimum wage. Even 
with the step-up of 60 cents, 50 cents, and 40 cents, its purchasing 
power will still only be $6.14.
  This is an extremely modest increase. Historically, the percentage 
increase in the minimum wage we are asking for is extremely modest. 
Most other times, the percentage has been a good deal higher than it is 
in this proposal. This is a modest increase, but a very important 
increase.
  What has been happening to our minimum wage workers? This chart 
indicates what has happened to average hourly earnings from 1969 to the 
year 2000.

  You can see from the chart that the average hourly earnings have been 
constantly going up. Going back to 1969, the minimum wage was 53 
percent of average hourly earnings. In the year 2000, do you think it 
has even held at 53 percent? No. It has dropped to 37 percent of 
average hourly earnings--a dramatic reduction, even in comparison to 
what has been happening to the average American workers across the 
country. They are falling further and further behind.
  This chart is very interesting in that it shows what is happening out 
there in the workplace among those who have families with children who 
are in the bottom 40 percent of U.S. family incomes from 1979 to 1999.
  All workers are averaging 416 hours more a year. Do we understand 
that? In 1999, they are working more than 400 hours a year more than 
they were working in 1979, even when their amount of income 
proportionately was a good deal better. Now we find American workers 
are working longer and harder than any other workers in any other 
industrial country in the world. And this is true about minimum wage 
workers, who, in most instances, have not just one job but have two 
jobs.
  So for all those from whom we are going to hear in this Chamber about 
the importance of rewarding people who work, here we have some of the 
hardest workers in the world who are making pitiful little and find it 
enormously difficult to be able to provide for their families.
  Four hundred sixteen hours, what does that translate into? What it 
translates into is this: The average minimum wage worker today gets to 
spend 25 hours a week less with his or her children than they did 15 
years ago. When we are talking about family values--and we will hear a 
great deal about family values--one of the most important and basic and 
fundamental family values is having an adequate income to provide for 
one's children. The minimum wage does not provide it.
  We see from this chart that working families are increasingly living 
in poverty. The red line indicates what the poverty line represents 
here in the United States. What we have seen for many years--in the 
1960s, 1970s, right up to about 1980--is that the minimum wage was 
effectively the poverty wage. That was the bare minimum to be able to 
live with some degree of dignity in terms of providing the housing, the 
food, the shelter, the clothing, the essentials for families. What we 
have seen is this spread has been growing and increasing. Minimum wage 
workers are falling further and further behind.
  Now, this is against a very important chart here which reflects the 
changes in family incomes from 1979 to 1999. The top fifth of families' 
incomes have increased by 42 percent in the last 20 years; middle-
income families by about 11 percent over the last 20 years; the bottom 
fifth has actually declined in terms of their quality of life and in 
terms of what their income is. It shows they are going down, working 
longer, working harder, providing important kinds of services at a time 
of extraordinary economic prosperity. They are falling further and 
further and further behind. We have an opportunity to do something 
about that.
  We provided an increase in the earned-income tax credit in the recent 
times, which is helpful for those with larger families who have a 
number of children; but still, for the single mom, or the mother and 
father with a single child, the minimum wage is the way to go when you 
are talking about benefitting and increasing the income for families.
  We often hear on the Senate floor we cannot do that because if we do 
do it, we are going to have an adverse impact in terms of our 
employment situation. That is a lot of hogwash.

  Let's look at what has happened since the last time we increased the 
minimum wage. Since 1996, when we increased the minimum wage in two 
steps, we heard: We do not want to do that because it is going to have 
an adverse impact on teens. That is wrong. The unemployment rate for 
teens has actually gone down with our two-step increase in the minimum 
wage.
  For those who are lacking high school diplomas--they said: They will 
not be able to get employment at the McDonald's in order to gain work 
habits--wrong again. We found that the unemployment rate has gone down 
even for those lacking a high school diploma.
  How about, we often heard: This isn't fair to African Americans. 
Wrong again. We found out the unemployment rate has still declined. It 
is certainly more than double what it is for the national average, but 
the employment level has dropped over what it was previously. The same 
is true with regard to Hispanics. And the same is true with regard to 
women.
  So we believe this is an issue of fairness. We believe it is a matter 
of urgency. We have tried, over the period of recent years, to get this 
measure up before the Senate. We were denied that opportunity to have 
an up-or-down vote. We were told by the Republican leadership at the 
end of the last Congress: You can have this if you provide $73 billion 
in tax breaks for American companies and corporations. Effectively, 
they were saying: We are going to hold this hostage. They were going to 
hold this hostage until they got the $73 billion. They did not hold 
their own pay increase hostage. They did not hold hostage increasing 
Members' pay $3,800 a year in order to benefit businesses and 
corporations. But they are holding hostage those who are at the lowest 
level, the most vulnerable people, working hard, trying to make ends 
meet for their families. They are holding them hostage until they get 
additional tax breaks for companies and corporations at an unparalleled 
level.
  The last time we had the increase we had a modest tax break for small 
business. Small business may need help and assistance, I am for that. 
But at that time, it was $20 billion. Now that they have that up at $73 
billion, and they refuse to let us give consideration to an increase in 
the minimum wage, they are saying to all of those women, all of those 
children, all of those workers who are minimum wage workers: No,

[[Page S1134]]

you can just wait there. You can stay at $5.15 an hour. You can 
continue to work at $5.15 until we get around to developing our package 
in order for the $73 billion in tax breaks. And then at that time, when 
we are ready to get that $73 billion, the Senate of the United States 
better take all $73 billion or we are not going to increase your 
minimum wage.
  I think that is an outrageous position to take in terms of a 
contemptible attitude toward our fellow Americans.
  I want to indicate, we welcome the support we have. This issue is not 
going to go away. We are going to have to face this issue. We want to 
have a fair opportunity. It is not one of those issues that needs a 
great deal of study. All of us remember the situation where people tap 
us on the shoulder and say: Will you support H.R. 222 or S. 444? and we 
are unfamiliar with the details of a particular program. This one is 
very simple. Increase in the minimum wage: Three steps, 60, 50, 40 
cents. You don't need to have a lot of hearings.
  To reiterate, Mr. President, the minimum wage is one of the Nation's 
fundamental workplace protections. It is a bedrock right of every 
working man and woman. For over 60 years, this country has been 
committed to the principle that employees are entitled to a fair 
minimum wage that guarantees a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and 
protects the dignity of their employment.
  In recent years, the country as a whole and most Americans have 
benefitted from unprecedented prosperity--the longest period of 
economic growth in the Nation's history and the lowest unemployment 
rate in three decades. But minimum wage workers have been left out and 
left behind. A fair increase in the minimum wage is long overdue.
  The real value of the minimum wage is now nearly $3 below what it was 
in 1968. To have the purchasing power it had in that year, the minimum 
wage would have to be $8.05 an hour today, not $5.15 an hour.
  At the same time, poverty has almost doubled among full-time, year-
round workers. Since the late 1970s, it has climbed from about 1.5 
million to almost 2.5 million in 1999. An unacceptably low minimum wage 
is part of the problem. Minimum wage employees working 40 hours a week, 
52 weeks a year, earn only $10,700 a year--$3,400 below the poverty 
line for a family of three. Minimum wage workers today fail to earn 
enough to afford adequate housing in any area of this country. No one 
who works for a living should have to live in poverty.
  In too many cases, minimum wage workers are forced to work longer and 
longer hours to make ends meet, with less and less time to spend with 
their families--still without sharing fairly in the Nation's 
prosperity. In fact, the lowest paid American families worked 416 more 
hours in 1999 then they did in 1979. Since 1969, the ratio of the 
minimum wage to average hourly earnings has dropped from 53 percent to 
37 percent.
  It is shameful that Congress acted to raise its own pay by $3,800 
last year--the third pay increase in 4 years--yet we did not find time 
to provide any pay increase at all to the lowest paid workers.
  The increase in the legislation we are introducing today--the Fair 
Minimum Wage Act of 2001--will directly benefit over 11 million 
workers. It will raise the minimum wage by $1.50 in three installments: 
60 cents on the 30th day after the bill's enactment; another 50 cents 
on January 1, 2002; and 40 more cents on January 1, 2003. The bill will 
also apply the federal minimum wage to the Mariana Islands, which now 
has an unacceptably low level of $3.05 an hour.
  The $1.50 increase is necessary to make up for lost time. In real 
value, the $1.50 increase will bring the minimum wage up to the same 
level it would have been if our proposed one dollar increase had gone 
into effect last year.

  Raising the minimum wage is a labor issue, because it guarantees that 
American workers will be paid fairly for their contribution to building 
a strong Nation and a strong economy. It is a women's issue, since 60 
percent of minimum wage earners are women. It is a children's issue, 
because 33 percent of minimum wage earners are parents with children--
and 4.3 million children live in poverty, despite being in a family 
where a bread-winner works full-time, year-round. And it is a civil 
rights issue, because 16 percent of those who will benefit from a 
minimum wage increase are African Americans, and 20 percent are 
Hispanic.
  The record of past increases clearly shows that raising the minimum 
wage has not had a negative impact on jobs, employment, or inflation. 
After the last increases in the minimum wage in 1996 and 1997, the 
economy continued to grow with impressive strength. The unemployment 
rate has fallen from 5.2 percent to 4.2 percent. Twelve million new 
jobs have been created, at a pace of 230,000 per month, with more than 
6 million new service industry jobs, including one and a half million 
new retail jobs, and over a half a million new restaurant jobs. 
Similarly, the minimum wage increase during the recession in 1991 
provided needed support for low-income workers and caused no loss of 
jobs.
  President Bush supports raising the minimum wage, but suggests that 
states should be able to opt out of the increase. But allowing states 
to opt out of the minimum wage would violate the basic principle, which 
we have stood by for over 60 years, that working men and women are 
entitled to a fair minimum wage. Millions of workers across the country 
deserve a pay raise, and they deserve it now.
  The Federal minimum wage guarantees a floor, but it also allows 
States to set wage rates higher than the Federal minimum. Massachusetts 
recently raised its minimum wage to $6.75 an hour, one of the highest 
levels in the country. Other states, such as California, Connecticut, 
Vermont and Rhode Island, have also set their State rates higher than 
the Federal minimum.
  In other States, however, the State minimum wage is far below the 
Federal level. In these States, the Federal level applies to the vast 
majority of workers. But for those not covered by the Federal law, the 
State level is often extremely low. It is $1.60 in Wyoming, $2.65 in 
Kansas, and $3.35 in Texas. Clearly, Congress should not leave the 
minimum wage to the tender mercy of the States.
  A fair increase in the federal minimum wage is long overdue. I urge 
Congress to act as quickly as possible to pass this long overdue 
increase.
  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. 277

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of 
     2001''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE.

       (a) In General.--Section 6(a)(1) 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) $5.75 an hour beginning 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2001;
       ``(B) $6.25 an hour during the year beginning January 1, 
     2002; and
       ``(C) $6.65 an hour beginning January 1, 2003;''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF MINIMUM WAGE TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF 
                   THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206) shall apply to the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands.
       (b) Transition.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the 
     minimum wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) shall be--
       (1) $3.55 an hour beginning 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (2) increased by $0.50 an hour (or such lesser amount as 
     may be necessary to equal the minimum wage under section 
     6(a)(1) of such Act), beginning 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and every 6 months thereafter until the 
     minimum wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands under this subsection is equal to the minimum 
     wage set forth in such section.
                                 ______