[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 65 (Monday, May 14, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4880-S4882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE MINIMUM WAGE

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I saw in the newspaper this morning the 
headline in the Washington Post ``Business Seeks Tax Breaks in Wage 
Bill.'' This is a reference to the inevitability that I and others are 
going to offer an increase in the minimum wage. This story is a 
reference to what the business lobbying groups are doing in preparation 
for that particular legislation and how they intend to add additional 
kinds of tax reductions for companies and corporations on that piece of 
legislation.
  We have just seen in the Senate last week a tax reduction of $1.35 
that is excessive and unfair in terms of its allocation among 
Americans. A number of us voted in opposition to it. We recognized that 
even in that proposal there wasn't a nickel--not 5 cents--increase for 
education over the next 10 years--not even a 5-cent increase.
  We found $1,350,000,000,000 in tax reductions, but we couldn't divert 
any of those resources to education, particularly educating the needy 
children on whom this legislation is focused, recognizing that these 
children are our future, recognizing that what we are trying to do is 
to give greater support to the children and to get greater 
accountability for the children, the schools, parents, and communities, 
as well, in this legislation.
  It is good legislation, I support it, but it does need to have the 
resources to be able to have life to it. We didn't get any increase on 
that.
  We are going to have a chance to revisit that issue when the Finance 
Committee reports back in the next few days with their product on the 
allocation of taxes, on who is going to get the tax reductions. Many of 
us will have the opportunity again to present to the Senate: Do we want 
to see the reduction in the highest rates for the wealthiest 
individuals, or do we want to use that money, which otherwise would go 
back in terms of reduced taxes--do we want to use that money to fund 
education for children in this country?
  We will have an opportunity to vote on that several times when the 
bill comes back. The idea that the ink isn't even dry on that 
legislation and already our Republican friends on the other side are 
licking their lips, waiting for an increase in the minimum wage, which 
is a target to try to help working families working 40 hours a week, 52 
weeks of the year, to help them out of poverty.
  We have the Republican leader Armey saying:

       There is a general resolve, especially among Republicans, 
     that you can't put this kind of disincentive in the 
     employment of people on the lowest rungs into play without 
     trying to compensate for its adverse employment effects.

  In other words, schools are out, and we are going to have a lot more 
besides the $1.35 trillion in tax reduction, that evidently the 
Republican leadership is waiting for the Senate and the House to take 
action to increase the minimum wage, hopefully $1.50 over 3 years, with 
a 60-, 50-, 40-cent increase in 3 steps, in order to help some of the 
hardest working Americans.
  This is a question about human dignity. It is a question of whether 
we are going to say to Americans working at the lowest end of the 
economic ladder that the work they do is important. What is the work 
they do? Many of them are teachers' aides. Many of them work in 
childcare centers. Many of them work as nursing aides. Many of them 
work in the buildings across this country, cleaning them late at night, 
away from their families. That is what many of these low-income jobs 
are all about. People work hard at them. They sacrifice in order to get 
them in many instances. We want to say to those workers that when we 
have had the strongest economy in the history of the Nation, people who 
work hard should not have to live in poverty.
  It is interesting to note that over the history of the minimum wage 
we have increased the minimum wage 17 times. It was only the last time, 
when we increased it, which was 4 years ago, and evidently this time, 
that we have seen the minimum wage loaded up with tax goodies, tax 
benefits. We didn't do it the previous 17 times. We didn't do that. But 
now our Republican friends are looking for a vehicle to carry this load 
about further tax reductions for the wealthy corporations.

  We have had consideration of the tax reduction bill. We have all seen 
that.

[[Page S4881]]

 We have heard it. We have debated it. That has been done. Hopefully, 
that will be it. Hopefully, we are not going to have another backdoor 
tax reduction here and effectively do it on the backs of our needy 
workers. I certainly hope not. I understand we might have to make some 
adjustments on this.
  The last time we had an increase, it was in the $18 to $20 billion 
range. I found that offensive but nonetheless supportable. But last 
year our Republican leadership was talking about over $100 billion. I 
would certainly do everything I could to resist that kind of action 
here.
  Let me review briefly what is happening with the minimum wage at the 
present time. This says: Working hard but losing ground, the declining 
real value of the minimum wage. If we look at what has happened, in 
1992, we have an increase in the minimum wage. Again, we voted it in 
1996; it went into effect in 1997. What we have seen since that time 
is, now at the year 2000, 2001, we have effectively wiped out the 
increase, the purchasing value of the increase we had in 1996.
  What we are talking about is what the red line shows, which would be 
an increase of $1.50, which would bring it up to a purchasing power of 
$6.14, and we are still not even close to what it was from 1968, 1978, 
up to, really, 1980. We are not even close to that.
  We are talking about the neediest of the needy. Look at this. If we 
look at what has happened to the minimum wage, we have historically 
tried to have a minimum wage which is going to be half the average 
hourly earnings. That has been the basic kind of reference point. Look 
at what has happened in recent years, how the average hourly earnings 
have been going up but the purchasing power, the real minimum wage for 
workers, is falling further and further behind.
  This is another chart. This reflects: The minimum wage no longer 
supports a family above the poverty line. This is the real value of 
poverty guidelines and the minimum wage. If you look at what the 
poverty line is, for a family of three at $15,000, if you look at where 
the minimum wage is, you will see that it is falling further and 
further behind the poverty line. The fact is, the poor today continue 
to be poor and are poorer than at any time in the last 40 years.
  This is our proposal we will be looking at, a minimum wage increase. 
We will be asking for the 60 cents in 2001, 50 cents in 2002, and 40 
cents in 2003. This represents the percent of our proposed increase in 
the minimum wage in relationship to past increases. This is relatively 
small. We are talking about a 12-percent increase. We increased it 
about 12 percent in 1996, in 1991. In 1990, we were higher than in 
1978. We were just about there in 1976, a great deal higher in 1969, 
higher in 1968. So this is right in the mainstream of increases. A 60-
cent increase is right in the mainstream; 50 cents is a little below 
the mainstream, and the final 40 cent increase is down even further.
  This is what we are going to have before us. I reiterate: This is 
basically an issue that affects women because the great majority of 
minimum-wage workers are women--the great majority of workers are 
women. This is a children's issue because a majority of the women have 
children.
  And so it is their relationship, how the minimum wage worker is going 
to be able to provide for the children in that home. What happens, of 
course, is that by and large the mothers have more than one minimum 
wage job; they have two, or even three jobs, in order to provide for 
their families. I read with interest the report last week about how 
parents are spending more time with their parents. While that may be 
true, I don't know where they find the time and can only imagine at 
what price. Low-wage workers are working 416 more hours a year than 
they did twenty years ago. And studies have shown that in 1996, 
families, on average, had 22 hours a week less to spend with their 
children then they did in 1969, because their parents are working 
longer hours and, in some cases, working two, sometimes even three 
jobs.
  So it is a women's issue, a children's issue. It is a civil rights 
issue because many of the men and women who earn the minimum wage are 
men and women of color. And, most of all, it is a fairness issue, that 
here with the strength of our economy, we ought to be able to say that 
in the United States of America, if you work hard, play by the rules, 
try to bring up children, you should not have to live in poverty.
  Finally, I point out that the Senate of the United States was quite 
willing to increase its own salary last year by $3,800. We were glad to 
do that, but we are unwilling to have an increase in the minimum wage. 
Now we are told that they are going to hold the minimum wage hostage 
unless they get billions and billions and billions and billions more in 
tax breaks for the wealthiest corporations and individuals in America--
that is wrong; that is absolutely categorically wrong--and add that on 
top of the tax breaks they have just had. I mean, how much greed can 
there be, Mr. President? How much greed can there be, and at the 
expense of the lowest income working Americans? How much greed can 
there be?
  This idea, well, we have to look and see the pressure that this 
provides in terms of--that it puts on businesses in terms of 
employment, and the inflation rate, well, I hope we are not going to 
hear much about that. You will hear much about it, but it has been so 
discredited, so discredited. We could go back to the times of the last 
increase in the most recent times--1992, 1997--and I will show you the 
expansion in the job rate here in this country among every group, 
including teenage minorities. We are going to hear a lot that you 
really don't care about teenage minorities.
  It is the same people who say I don't care about teenagers who say 
you are not really interested in health insurance; but if you pass a 
Patients' Bill of Rights, a lot of companies will drop the health 
insurance and you will get a lot more uninsured, and that is the reason 
I am not voting for it. That is the first time words ever came out of 
their mouths about how they are interested in expanding health 
insurance--when they are opposing the Patients' Bill of Rights.
  We are going to hear similar arguments, and those arguments have been 
dismissed, shattered, and I understand that we are going to have to pay 
a toll because the Republican leadership is going to insist on it. They 
insisted last year. The price was going to be $100 billion last year--
$100 billion. The newspaper report today says it is going to be just 
about that much this year. That is the toll to get through the gate for 
an increase in the minimum wage put on there by the Republican 
leadership.
  Make no mistake about it. If the Speaker and the majority leader said 
no, it would not be there. It is the second time in the history of the 
minimum wage we are going to have it packaged with tax goodies for the 
wealthiest individuals. The ink is not even dry on the most dramatic 
tax reduction that we have had in recent times, Mr. President, at the 
expense of other vital priorities. It just doesn't work.
  Maybe the Republican leadership is able to try to muscle that 
through, but they are going to take some time on this and they are 
going to have some votes on it. We are going to find out--the American 
people are--who is on the side of those working families and who is on 
the side of trying to make sure that we are not going to have a 
giveaway in terms of these taxes. That would be absolutely wrong.
  Sooner or later, it is going to come down to which party represents 
you and stands by you. Well, you are going to find out; you can tell 
where those special interests are going to be. They will know who 
stands by them. It is going to be the Republican leadership because 
they are going to try to add $100 billion more in tax goodies for them. 
But the workers of America are going to know who stands by them as well 
by the end of this debate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank Senator 
Kennedy for his very strong words about the minimum wage. I want him to 
count me in as a very strong supporter as we bring this legislation to 
the floor of the Senate. I think the Senator from Massachusetts, in his 
own characteristic strong, proud way, has made it very clear what is at 
stake with this minimum wage legislation. I thank him for his remarks.
  I will use this opportunity to reinforce some of the comments made by 
my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts.
  It is pretty amazing to see a front page story in the Washington 
Post,

[[Page S4882]]

``Business Seeks Tax Breaks in Wage Bill''--I believe I heard the 
Senator from Massachusetts say perhaps to the tune of $100 billion or 
thereabouts.
  I want to say to Senators, I think this minimum wage bill goes to the 
heart and soul of the question of whether we have a heart and soul as a 
Senate. We are now at $5.15 an hour, and we are talking about trying to 
get this up to $6.15 an hour, then to $6.65 an hour, in increments.
  I am going to make two or three points. The first is personal, but it 
really is true. If we are going to vote ourselves a raise of over 
$4,000 a year--Senators make about $140,000-some a year--it seems to me 
we ought to be able to vote for a raise in the wage of the lowest paid 
workers. We are talking about people who work 40 hours a week, almost 
52 weeks a year, and they are still poor.
  I think there is no standard of justice here if we are going to vote 
a hefty increase for ourselves--we are handsomely rewarded for our 
work--and yet are unable to raise the minimum wage for the lowest paid 
workers.
  Second, in Minnesota there is a stereotype that it is teenagers 
working part-time who receive the minimum wage. The fact is, many more 
people are paid the minimum wage. At the moment--and we will see what 
happens with the economy, some employers are paying higher wages--many 
people are working minimum wage, a disproportionate number of them 
women. I think it is a matter of elementary justice for women and other 
working poor people to raise the minimum wage.
  Finally, it takes some real chutzpah on the part of my colleagues, 
the Republican leadership, to say the only way you are going to get a 
minimum wage bill through, which speaks to people who are working 52 
weeks a year and are still poor in America, is to add in all kinds of 
corporate welfare and breaks for large businesses.
  Democratic Senators, that is the deal you have to accept. We are 
going to bleed the revenue base with these Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax 
cuts that the majority party is trying to push through the Senate this 
week or next week, with over 40 percent of the benefits going to the 
top 1 percent, and a pittance, if that, for children, for education. 
Whatever happened to our commitment for affordable prescription drug 
costs for elderly people? Now, according to this piece, the strategy is 
to load onto a minimum wage bill more corporate welfare and more breaks 
for large financial interests and economic interests in the country.
  I think it is transparent. I look forward to the debate. Not that 
long ago--it seems like just yesterday--we had several weeks' worth of 
debate about campaign finance reform. There were a variety of different 
arguments made. I suggest that our failure to raise the minimum wage is 
all about the need for campaign finance reform. These working poor 
people, men and women in our States--nobody can say they are not hard 
working --who cannot support their families, they are the last people 
in the world to be able to hire the lobbyists. They do not have 
lobbying coalitions here. They are the last people in the world to give 
the big contributions. They are the last people in the world to be the 
investors in either political party.
  But you know what? If you believe it is important for people to earn 
a decent standard of living so they can support their families and give 
their children the care they know their children need and deserve, then 
we ought to be willing to support a raise in the minimum wage. It is 
just unbelievable to see in today's Washington Post this story.

  I don't know, maybe I should not be surprised. Frankly, I do not want 
to be dishonest. You never want to be dishonest. I don't want to feign 
total shock because I have looked at the greed that is reflected by 
this tax cut bill that my colleagues want to bring to the floor, and I 
have looked at who gets the benefits. So I guess I should not be 
surprised that now what we have is this all-out vigorous opposition to 
raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 and to $6.65 unless there 
is corporate welfare, unless we do well by all these large economic 
interests, unless we get yet more tax breaks for them.
  It is really pretty simple to figure out. When I was a political 
science professor, was it Harold Lasswell's definition that politics is 
all about who gets what, when, why? That is what this question is 
about: Who gets what, when, and why?
  As I would put it as a Senator from Minnesota: Who decides and who 
benefits and who is asked to sacrifice? Who decides to keep the minimum 
wage so low that there are so many people who are poor still today in 
America?
  If you are working hard, and, as some of my colleagues have said, 
playing by the rules of the game, then you shouldn't be poor in 
America. You should be able to support your family.
  Who decides to keep the minimum wage down? Who decides that instead 
now we have to load on all kinds of corporate welfare and all kinds of 
additional tax breaks for large economic interests in the country?
  I think people in the country are going to focus on this debate. I 
look forward to joining Senator Kennedy and other Senators.
  I remember a number of years ago when we first started this debate. I 
am a proud original cosponsor of this legislation. I don't think any of 
the arguments that have been made about how, if we raise the minimum 
wage, we would see a decline in jobs that turned out to be true. The 
last time we had a raise in the minimum wage--it was very modest--we 
had colleagues in the Chamber talking about how people were going to 
lose their jobs. It didn't happen. I would be willing to say that if 
there is a point at which you raise the minimum wage at too high of a 
level you could lose jobs, but it is not going from $5.15 an hour to 
$6.65 an hour.
  It seems to me Senators are in a fairly awkward situation when we 
voted ourselves over a $4,000 increase in our already high salary and 
we are not willing to vote to raise the minimum wage for working poor 
women and men in this country from $5.15 an hour to $6.65 an hour so 
people have a better chance of being able to support their children and 
support their families. This is a perfect example of the song that was 
written by Florence Reese from Harland County, KY--the song about which 
side you are on. In this particular case, it is, whose side are you on? 
Are you on the side of hard-working people? We all say we are for hard-
working people. Or are you on the side of large economic interests? Are 
you on the side of elementary justice to raise the minimum wage for 
workers and their families? Or are you going to insist on somewhere in 
the neighborhood of $100 billion of yet more tax breaks for economic 
interests so there is even less for children, even less for education, 
and even less for affordable prescription drug costs?
  I am telling you, my colleagues like to say in the Republican 
majority that some of these comments are class warfare. And I just have 
to smile because if there ever were an example of ``class warfare'', if 
that is what you want to call it, it would be a U.S. Senate that is so 
generous to itself in giving ourselves big increases in a big salary 
and are unwilling to raise the minimum wage for poor working people in 
our States and in our country.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________