[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 102 (Friday, July 11, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9283-S9286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              MINIMUM WAGE

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I pay tribute to our two floor managers 
of a very important bill that I intend to support when we have a chance 
to reach it, which I hope will be done in the not too distant future. I 
commend our floor managers for the work they have done in bringing this 
legislation before the Senate.
  There were two issues I had hoped we would have an opportunity to 
present to the Senate. One was an increase in the minimum wage. Another 
was working with the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith, on the hate crimes 
issue. We are hopeful to be able to address those during consideration 
of this legislation without taking a great deal of time.
  I had intended to offer an amendment on the legislation now and was 
quite prepared to move ahead with a reasonable time period, up to an 
hour of time evenly divided. Then we could make a judgment with regard 
to hate crimes to enter into a similar kind of time agreement so that 
we would not delay the underlying legislation. But the problem we have 
is the leadership has decided we would defer action on the amendment 
until some future time. I regret that, but I understand it. It is the 
prerogative of the leadership. We will at that time have a chance to 
again raise this issue.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. REID. Before the Senator starts his statement, I wondered if the 
Senator would acknowledge that after the vote on the military 
construction appropriations bill, automatically recurring in the Senate 
is the bill that we have been working on for 1 day--1 day--the State 
Department authorization. The Senator understands that bill has not 
passed since 1985, principally because of being held up by the 
distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms. Does the Senator 
acknowledge that and also acknowledge the fact that we only had a few 
amendments left, one of which was the minimum wage, and we could have 
completed this bill in a couple of days? Will the Senator also 
acknowledge because of his offering a minimum wage amendment, they 
simply took the bill down, and we are not now able to offer the 
amendments? Will the Senator acknowledge that?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Nevada is quite correct. As our deputy 
leader, he has an understanding of the amendments on our side. He has 
correctly stated the position; that is, speaking for this side of the 
aisle, we are prepared to move to final passage of the legislation, but 
there are a few amendments, one of which is the minimum wage which, 
under a short time limit, can be disposed of quite rapidly. But quite 
frankly, we have only had 1 day of debate on the State Department 
authorization, and we haven't had an opportunity to raise this issue 
for 7 years.
  I know there are those who say, let's let this issue be deferred. It 
has been 7 long years since we have had an increase in the minimum 
wage. So those individuals who are at the lowest end of the economic 
ladder, working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the year, have been losing 
purchasing power day in and day out. We have not increased the minimum 
wage in 7 years.
  With all due respect to other Members of this body, it is Friday at 
11 o'clock. We are prepared to debate the issue and have a vote on it. 
People are entitled to have an indication of what the membership wants 
to do.
  We take this issue very seriously because of the desperate situation 
affecting those on the lower end of the economic ladder. Quite frankly, 
historically this has not been a Democratic issue. It has been a 
bipartisan issue.
  The long history of increases in the minimum wage has been basically 
bipartisan. It was enacted by Franklin Roosevelt in 1938; increased by 
Harry Truman; increased by Dwight Eisenhower in 1955 by $1; increased 
by President John Kennedy in 1961 by $2.35; increased by Lyndon 
Johnson; increased by a Republican, Gerry Ford; increased by Jim 
Carter; increased by George Bush No. 1; increased by Bill Clinton.
  Republicans and Democrats have voted for an increase in the minimum 
wage since 1938. It has not been a partisan issue. We find in recent 
times that our Republican friends have been unwilling to both support 
it and give us the opportunity to debate the issue.
  This chart shows the long history of increases in the minimum wage as 
well as the amounts. Even with those kinds of increases, if you look at 
the purchasing power of the minimum wage, as this chart indicates, it 
is now at perhaps its lowest level of purchasing power, $4.95. There 
was one other time when it was $4.35. It is $4.95 and continuing to 
drop, and it will reach the lowest level in terms of purchasing power 
since even before 1962, unless we take action.
  With this amendment it would increase, in terms of purchasing power, 
to $6.40, which is well below what the minimum wage has been over the 
period of the last 40 years. So this is a very modest program. It would 
increase to $6.65 in today's dollars.
  I want to share with the Senate what the minimum wage is in relation 
to the issues of poverty in the United States. Look at this chart. Here 
is the poverty level. Just $14,500 is the poverty level. The blue 
indicator is what has happened to the minimum wage in relation to 
poverty.
  Most Americans believe that if people are going to work hard 40 hours 
a week, 52 weeks of the year, they should not live in poverty. They 
should not live in poverty. In the wealthiest, most successful economy 
in the world, this is what is happening. We find that the minimum wage 
workers are well below the poverty level.
  As a result, every day that we delay we see minimum wage workers 
falling further behind. All of the gains since the 1997 increase in the 
minimum wage already have been lost.
  What are we talking about? We are talking about an increase of $1.50, 
75 cents this year, 75 cents next year. What does that amount to? That 
amounts to $3,000 over the course of a year. Translated, it means 15 
months of groceries, 8 months of rent, 7 months of utilities, and the 
full tuition for a child of the minimum wage worker. This is what we 
are talking about. We are talking about groceries; we are talking

[[Page S9284]]

about rent; we are talking about utilities; we are talking about 
education at this time.
  We have had a good deal of debate in terms of the tax cuts and what 
that will do for the wealthiest individuals. This is the kind of 
difference that this will make over the period of 1 year.
  Let me just put this in some perspective about what the increase in 
the minimum wage will mean in terms of the total combined income for 
workers over the course of the year because you will hear the argument: 
Can we do this now because of the issues of inflation? I would like to 
anticipate that argument. And then: Can we afford to do it in 
anticipation of the problems of high unemployment?
  First on the issue of an increase of $1.50 to workers, it is vital to 
minimum wage workers; it is a drop in the bucket in the national 
payroll. All Americans combined earn $5. 4 trillion a year. At a $1.50 
minimum wage increase this will be less than one-fifth of 1 percent of 
the national payroll. The idea that we are contributing to inflation 
just does not carry.
  I will take a moment of the Senate's time to look over what has 
happened, the increase in the minimum wage as to the issues of 
employment and unemployment. An argument will be made: Look the 
Democrats make a good deal about the unemployment that we are facing 
today. If we pass this increase in the minimum wage, are we going to 
increase unemployment? All you have to do is look at the various 
studies which I will speak to later in the presentation. But I would 
like to just look back over the history of the last increase in the 
minimum wage. If you look at 1996, the minimum wage was increased to 
$4.75. In 1996, we had unemployment just above 5.3 percent. So the 
increase in the minimum wage was going up during this time while the 
unemployment was coming down.
  Then the second phase of the increase to the minimum wage which we 
passed was September 1997. That raised it from $4.75 to $5.15. The 
chart shows unemployment continuing to decline. Study after study 
indicates that this it virtually has no effect or impact on the 
unemployment rate.
  Let me just say, the issue in the increase of the minimum wage is a 
women's issue because the great majority of the people who receive the 
minimum wage are women. This increase in the minimum wage is a 
children's issue because a many of the women who are receiving the 
minimum wage have children. And it is about their quality of life and 
that of their families. It is a civil rights issue because forty 
percent of those individuals who earn the minimum wage are men and 
women of color.
  Finally, this increase in the minimum wage is a fairness issue. 
Americans understand fairness. They understand if you are going to work 
hard 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of the the year, you should not live in 
poverty.
  That is the case. This is a no brainer. We do not have to spend a lot 
of time in debate. We voted on this. It is as old an issue as 1938. We 
can vote on this. It is a simple issue of whether this institution 
believes in fairness and decency for some of the hardest working men 
and women in our country. And it is about time that we do it.
  From our point of view as the proponents, we are prepared to vote at 
any time that the other side will give us the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for continuing to 
raise this issue, sadly, for 7 years. Unfortunately, we have not done 
our part to raise the minimum wage, but I would go to the point that 
the Senator from Massachusetts raised.
  Last week I went to a summer feeding program for children who 
ordinarily get school lunches. These are struggling families in my city 
of Chicago. I sat down at a table with a young African American girl, 
second grader, named Sharya, and I said to her: ``What did you have for 
dinner last night?'' She said: ``Well, my mom was working late and she 
got home after I went to sleep. I had a bowl of cereal for dinner.''
  The point I am making to the Senator, and I ask him if he would 
return and tell us the impact, here is a young girl being raised by a 
mother who is probably working two jobs because we will not increase 
the minimum wage. The point being made by the Senator from 
Massachusetts is, we are not talking about welfare recipients; we are 
talking about working people who get up and go to work every day to 
sometimes two jobs. Sometimes they are invisible to our lives. These 
are the people who are washing the dishes in the kitchens, busing the 
tables, and cleaning our rooms.
  I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, is this not first and foremost 
a family issue in terms of dignity for working families and people who 
are trying to keep their kids well fed and clothed and keep them 
together? I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, how in this great 
nation, when we are giving away trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the 
weathiest people in this country, can we not afford 50 cents or a 
dollar an hour for people who are struggling to try to keep their 
families together?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has put his finger on one of the key factors 
and legitimate reasons for the increase in the minimum wage, because 
this is a family issue--the number of minimum wage workers working two 
jobs, some even three jobs, the testimony that we have had where the 
only times that young parents see their children together may be for a 
few hours on a Sunday morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time in morning business has 
expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent for 10 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Let me continue, if I may. So this is a family issue. It 
is about, as the Senator knows, the numbers of mothers and fathers who 
have to look into the eyes of their children and say, ``No, you can't 
get a little birthday present,'' or, ``No, you can't go to the skating 
party where all the other children are going.'' ``No, you can't do this 
because we haven't got the resources.'' That is happening every day. 
These are hard-working men and women. It is the family issue.
  As the Senator has mentioned, who are these minimum wage workers? 
These minimum wage workers are teacher's aides.
  We say we care about education. We know the challenges we are facing 
on education. We know the particular stress that is taking place in the 
States on education. These workers are teacher's aides. We say we care 
about our senior citizens, men and women who have sacrificed. They 
ought to have their golden years in peace and dignity. These are 
workers in nursing homes. They are the recipients. They are taking care 
of the parents and the grandparents in this country.
  These are the men and women who clean the great facilities where the 
American enterprise continues to grow and strive throughout this 
country. As the Senator points out, these are hard-working men and 
women. This is a family issue. These are decent, hard-working fellow 
Americans, and they have seen their purchasing power fall and fall.
  If my colleagues look over at this chart, it indicates where the 
disparity has been going in the United States over the past years. As 
we all know, the wealthy are getting wealthier and the hard-working 
Americans who are at the lower rung of the economic ladder are falling 
further behind.
  We know we have the earned-income tax credit that assists families 
with children, and that is important. But if one is talking about a 
single parent with a single child, the minimum wage makes all the 
difference in the world.
  Mr. DURBIN. May I ask the Senator one other question. Is it not part 
of an interesting pattern that when we talk about the economy, jobs, 
and growth, we talk about tax breaks primarily for wealthy people, but 
when we talk about struggling working families, we cannot seem to find 
an increase in the minimum wage, we cannot find a child tax credit for 
people in lower income categories? Why is it that this administration, 
this Government, turns a blind eye to the people who are struggling 
with the lower income jobs, the middle-income jobs, really the backbone 
of America's economy, people who need the help the most? Does not this 
minimum wage issue tell us the same story?

[[Page S9285]]

  There is absolutely no recognition or sensitivity by this 
administration and the White House to these people. Here we stand, 2\1/
2\ years into this administration, and I ask the Senator from 
Massachusetts, has President Bush suggested at any point in those 2\1/
2\ years any increase in the minimum wage to help people who are 
struggling to survive in this tough economy?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct. There has been no mention 
of this by this administration. We have had other administrations that 
at least advocated some increase, and eventually we were able to work 
out an accommodation over a period of time. This administration, as the 
Senator has pointed out, has not only not mentioned the increase in the 
minimum wage and not only has resisted the tax credit for children but 
also put in new rules and regulations on the earned-income tax credit 
that are going to make it more difficult for the same individuals at 
the bottom end of the economic ladder who have children, who are 
working hard, playing by the rules, to be able to participate in this 
program.
  The Senator is quite correct that the neediest Americans, the ones 
who are working trying to make a living for themselves, trying to bring 
up children, facing the most serious economic challenges of our time, 
are basically shunted aside and ignored by this administration.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for four questions?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. REID. No. 1, the Senator has mentioned, and I want to ask if the 
Senator will emphasize this, that the minimum wage is a program in 
which 40 percent of the people who draw minimum wage are women; is that 
true?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Sixty-three percent of those who receive the minimum 
wage are women.
  Mr. REID. It is 20 percent more than my statistics indicate, and I am 
sure the Senator is right. For the majority of those women, that is the 
majority of the money they get for themselves and their family. Do they 
depend on that totally, is what I am trying to ask.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. More often than not, they not 
only work at one minimum-wage job, they work probably at two. So they 
are working not only 40 hours a week but more often 80 hours a week.
  Mr. REID. I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, also, is it not true 
that we, the Democrats, have tried for 7 years to get an increase in 
the minimum wage? Is that true?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is correct. We have not been able to get a 
vote on this issue of an increase in the minimum wage over that period 
of time. I must say if it had not been for the persistence of our 
Democratic leaders, Senator Reid and Senator Daschle, we would not have 
gotten a vote on it this time. If it had been up to the other side, 
they would have said, no, we only want the relevant amendments and we 
can wait for consideration of an increase in the minimum wage. These 
workers cannot wait. They do not need to wait.
  During this period of time, we have found the opportunity to raise 
our own salaries on five different occasions. We have not found the 
time to raise the minimum wage, but we have raised the Senate salaries 
on five different occasions.
  I think that is something the American people can understand as well. 
We are doing something for these Members--and I do not begrudge it, and 
I voted for those increases--but the fact is we should not leave these 
people behind.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator also acknowledge that even during the 
years President Clinton was President, which includes part of the 7 
years, we were stopped by the Republicans through procedural measures 
from having an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage? Is that a fair 
statement?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the Senator probably remembers, we had to file 
cloture on this in order to try to get a vote, and during that period 
of time we were able always to get a majority of the Senate, some 
Republicans and Democrats, but we were blocked because we could not get 
the 60 votes. We were required to get the 60 votes for the 
consideration, and we were denied that opportunity.
  The Senator remembers very well, as I do, that we were effectively 
blocked from taking action on the minimum wage.
  Mr. REID. The final question I ask my friend from Massachusetts: The 
minimum wage, I am confident the Senator would acknowledge, is not some 
wild-eyed idea that someone came up with in the last 5 or 10 years. It 
is true, is it not, that the minimum wage legislation was initiated 
during the Great Depression? We have had a minimum wage, and it has 
been increased, for approximately 70 years. Is that a fair statement?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct. Absolutely correct.
  Mr. REID. So for approximately a tenth of that time, we have been 
blocked from giving these hard-working men and women, who are not 
drawing welfare, they are not out being bums and in gangs, they are 
people of all ages who want to work for a living and are doing the best 
they can, they are working at minimum wage, and what we want to do, and 
we are prevented from doing because of the majority, is simply have a 
vote to allow these people to have a raise in their minimum wage, their 
basic wage that these people depend on to make it through life.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the Senator has made the compelling case on this. 
We have heard these arguments against it, that it adds to inflation, 
adds to unemployment, that it works to the disadvantage of minority 
youth. We had that argument. We can show the statistics that that is 
not true.
  They say, well, what we really need is not an increase in minimum 
wage but we need an increase in the training wage. We have said, fine, 
we will add an increase in the training wage. We are prepared to meet 
any legitimate argument, but we do believe that people who have been 
working, and working hard and playing by the rules and have waited 7 
years and have seen the reduction in terms of the purchasing power, are 
entitled to at least an accounting in the Senate. That is what we want 
to find out.
  This is not an issue that takes a great deal more discussion and 
debate. Members knew about the minimum wage before they were elected to 
the Senate. It is an old issue, older than most of us in this Chamber. 
People are familiar with it. They have heard the arguments. It is not a 
new issue, but it is an issue of fairness and decency. It is an issue 
that should be acted on.
  To reiterate, millions of minimum wage workers are suffering because 
of the continuing weak economy. For years, they have not had any wage 
increase at all, because Congress continues to refuse to raise the 
minimum wage.
  Even in this troubled economy, Congress has not hesitated to raise 
its own pay. It is only fair that we raise the minimum wage, too.
  That is why I am proposing this amendment to enact a long-overdue 
increase in the minimum wage. My amendment will raise the current 
minimum wage of $5.15 an hour by 75 cents this year and another 75 
cents next year, bringing it up to $6.65 an hour.
  We know that poverty has doubled among full-time, year-round workers 
since the late 1970s. Nearly 33 million people live in poverty today in 
this country, and an unfairly low minimum wage is a large part of the 
problem.
  Congress has not acted to raise the minimum wage in 7 years. Minimum 
wage employees working 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earn only 
$10,700 a year. That's $4,500 below the poverty line today for a family 
of three.
  The current minimum wage fails to provide enough income for minimum 
wage workers to afford adequate housing in any area of this country. A 
worker earning the minimum wage in Georgia or Illinois, or many other 
areas of the country, would have to work more than 100 hours a week to 
afford a two-bedroom apartment.
  Every day the minimum wage is not increased, it continues to lose 
value, and workers fall farther and farther behind. Minimum wage 
workers have lost all of their gains since we last raised the minimum 
wage in 1997. Today, the real value of the minimum wage is $3.00 below 
what it was in 1968. To have the purchasing power it had in 1968, the 
minimum wage would have to be more than $8 an hour today, not $5.15.
  It is shameful that Members of Congress have raised their own pay by 
$21,000 in the last 7 years--almost twice what a minimum wage workers 
makes

[[Page S9286]]

in a year--without giving the Nation's lowest paid workers any increase 
at all.
  Nearly 7 million workers would directly benefit from the proposed 
minimum wage increase, and many of them are parents and the sole 
breadwinners in their families.
  The minimum wage is an economic issue, but it is also a woman's 
issue. Sixty-three percent of the workers who would benefit from 
minimum wage increase are women and one-third of those women are 
mothers.
  The minimum wage is also a civil rights issue. An increase in the 
minimum wage boosts the wage levels of people of color--who are often 
segregated into low-paying jobs. Millions of African American and 
Hispanic workers will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.
  Raising the minimum wage is a family issue, too. It is so low that 
many workers must work long hours to make ends meet. The increase in 
work hours has a damaging impact on every aspect of life: on families, 
on personal time, and on employers. At least one in five workers has a 
work week that exceeds 50 hours.
  According to the Families and Work Institute, three out of the top 
four things that children would most like to change about their working 
parents are these: They wish their parents were less stressed out by 
work; they wish they were less tired because of their work; and they 
wish they could spend more time with them.
  Employers as well pay a high price for overworked employees. 
Productivity suffers, and so does turnover. Overworked employees are 
more susceptible to illness. They need more sick days, and they are 
less productive on the job.
  Raising the minimum wage obviously will not solve all these problems. 
But a higher minimum wage may mean that employees can work a little 
less, and have a few more hours a week of family time and personal 
time.
  Minimum wage earners are forced to make impossible choices--between 
paying the rent and buying groceries or between paying the heating bill 
and buying new clothes.
  It has been too long since Congress last acted. History clearly shows 
that raising the minimum wage has not had a negative impact on jobs, 
employment, or inflation. In the four years after the last minimum wage 
increase, the economy had its strongest growth in three decades. Nearly 
11 million new jobs were added, at a rate of more than 200,000 per 
month.
  A fair increase in the minimum wage is long overdue. How can Congress 
keep saying no, when more and more workers cannot make ends meet? Can't 
we all at least agree on this basic principle--that no one who works 
for a living should have to live in poverty?

                          ____________________