[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 79 (Monday, June 19, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6043-S6047]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act of fiscal year 2007, and I commend the 
impressive way in which the distinguished Senator from Virginia has led 
the Senate Armed Services Committee over these last 6 years. He has 
provided a consistently steady hand on the tiller in these troubled 
times, and the Senate's action in naming the bill is eminently well 
deserved.
  In a time of conflict, our first and foremost responsibility is to 
provide for our troops in the field, and this bill provides for our 
soldiers, our sailors, marines, and airmen defending our great country 
in all parts of the world. We have improved on the administration's 
request for our service members. Our forces overseas are being 
stressed, and they bear the heavy burden of combat. Yet the 
administration would cut their end strength and reduce the value of the 
retirement health benefits they may well need to cope with the effect 
of the war.
  The committee wisely chose not to follow this path. Instead, we 
maintained the end strength and benefits in addition to a 2.2-percent 
pay raise and larger targeted increases for midgrade, enlisted, and 
warrant officers. The bill also improves on the administration's 
request for future readiness. It authorizes substantial investments in 
key ships, aircraft, and Army transformation programs. It also ensures 
long-term value for the taxpayer by preserving competition in our vital 
aircraft engine and shipbuilding industries.
  In addition, it calls for continued acquisition reforms to reduce 
fraud and waste in defense spending. Even more important, the bill 
invests in the protection of our personnel. It authorizes over a 
billion dollars in force protection equipment, including up-armored 
HMMWVs and body armor. And it also provides $2.1 billion for the joint 
improvised explosive device defeat fund to support a Manhattan project 
effort to deal with IEDs, the No. 1 threat to our forces in the field 
and to innocent Iraqis.

  So this is a very worthy piece of legislation. It bears the name of 
one of our most honorable Members, the chairman of our committee, and I 
welcome the opportunity to support that.
  I had intended this afternoon to offer an increase in the minimum 
wage as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. I think it is a 
fair question to ask, does this really make sense on a Defense 
authorization bill? I respond to that that so many of those brave men 
and women are fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq or fighting for the 
values this Nation represents, and one of the values this Nation 
represents is fairness and decency to hard-working American workers. 
Fairness and decency for hard-working American workers means they are 
going to be paid a fair, just wage. That is why I think it is 
consistent with this legislation. I know we are going to have important 
debates and discussions on other parts of the Defense authorization 
bill, but we welcome the opportunity to raise this issue. It is not a 
new issue, it is a familiar issue. It doesn't take a great deal of 
time, although a number of our

[[Page S6044]]

colleagues wish to be heard on it because it is an issue we have 
debated and discussed going back to the 1930s. The Members of this body 
are extremely familiar with it as a public policy issue in question and 
can express an informed judgment about it in virtually short order.
  For generations, Americans have believed that if they worked hard and 
played by the rules, they could achieve the American dream. They 
believed they could be better off than their parents or could join the 
middle class. They could earn more each year, provide safety and 
security for their families, and save for their retirement. But today, 
more and more Americans are losing faith in that dream as prices for 
everyday necessities, such as gasoline and housing and health care, 
skyrocket. Too many hard-working people are living on the edge--just 
one serious illness, one pink slip away from bankruptcy.
  For minimum wage workers, the American dream is even further from 
reality. Minimum wage workers are men and women of dignity. They care 
for their children and for young children in daycare centers. They care 
for senior citizens in nursing homes. They check out groceries in the 
supermarket. They clean our office buildings. But the minimum wage they 
receive no longer covers their bills. A minimum wage worker who works 
40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earns just $10,700. That is almost 
$6,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.
  At these wages, no matter how hard they work, minimum wage workers 
are forced to make impossible choices between paying the rent and 
buying groceries, paying the heating bills or buying clothes. They 
cannot afford health care. They cannot earn enough to pay for adequate 
housing for their families anywhere in the country. Minimum wage 
workers' daily fear is poverty, hunger, and homelessness. Our 
Republican colleagues continue to turn a blind eye to the struggles of 
working families in this country, particularly the hard-working people 
who work for the very lowest wages.
  It has been almost 10 years since Congress raised the minimum wage. 
Time and again, many have called on the Senate to increase the minimum 
wage. Yet, time and again, Republican colleagues refuse to give working 
people the raise they deserve, even though we grant annual pay 
increases to Senators. What could be more hypocritical?
  Fortunately, the American people understand what the Republican 
leadership does not, and that is nobody who works hard for a living 
should have to live in poverty. That is why the American people 
overwhelming support an increase in the minimum wage. Year after year, 
as the GOP Congress keeps refusing to help minimum wage workers, the 
American people are rising up. They are marching in the streets and 
praying in churches and synagogues. They are also taking their battles 
to the ballot box and telling us overwhelmingly that a minimum wage 
increase is long overdue.
  This amendment that I am offering with a number of my colleagues will 
raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour in 3 steps over the next 2 
years--70 cents now, 60 cents a year from now, and 60 more cents 2 
years from now. This increase will directly raise the pay of more than 
6.5 million workers, indirectly benefitting more than 8 million more.
  Contrary to public perception, these workers are not teenagers 
looking for their first job for pocket change. Eighty percent of those 
who benefit are adult workers, more than a third the sole breadwinners 
of their families. Raising the minimum wage is something I believe is 
enormously important, and the time to do it is now.
  I want to review for the Senate for a few minutes a brief history of 
where we are in terms of the minimum wage. It started in 1938. We see 
the Presidents listed here. They represent Republican Presidents, as 
well as Democratic Presidents, who have supported an increase in the 
minimum wage, going back to 1938. Franklin Roosevelt, three different 
steps; Harry Truman; Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican; John Kennedy saw 
an increase; Lyndon Johnson; Richard Nixon; George Bush; and William 
Clinton.
  The history of the minimum wage up to the last few years has 
basically been a bipartisan effort. Yet we have not been able to get a 
bipartisan effort to increase the minimum wage over the period of the 
last 9 years. What has happened to those who are on the lowest rung of 
the economic ladder? As I mentioned, these are men and women of 
dignity.
  At the start of this debate, we have to understand who the minimum 
wage workers are. They are men and women of dignity. These are tough, 
difficult jobs, but they try to do them well, and they take great pride 
in their jobs. They work as assistants to teachers, in nursing homes 
looking after the elderly, cleaning out the great buildings of American 
commerce, and they are maids in various buildings all across this 
Nation. They are men and women of dignity.
  I thought we had sort of an agreement in this body, with Republicans 
and Democrats alike, that if you have a job, you ought to have a job 
that gets you out of poverty, not one that keeps you in poverty. 
Currently, the minimum wage keeps you in poverty; it doesn't get you 
out of it. I thought we could all agree that we want to get people who 
work hard and play by the rules out of poverty and have their work be 
rewarding. I thought that would be something at least Republicans and 
Democrats could agree on. But we have not been able to get that 
agreement, Mr. President.
  What we have seen over the period since 2000 to 2004 is the number of 
Americans now living in poverty--those lowest income people have 
increased by 5.4 million of our fellow American citizens. Well over a 
million of those are children who are living in poverty in the United 
States. The principal reason for that is because we have not seen an 
increase in the minimum wage, which is something we can do that can 
make a major difference in the reduction of poverty for these people 
who are working hard.

  Now, this chart shows what the poverty line is. Look where the 
minimum wage is in the 1960s, right at the poverty line. In the late 
sixties, it was even above the poverty line. It would have been close 
to $19,000 a year in terms of real purchasing power. Then in the 1970s 
and through the 1970s up until 1980, we kept the minimum wage at the 
Federal poverty level. Then we have seen the decline in the purchasing 
power of the minimum wage now to be less than $5,888. It was up to 
$19,000 at one time, but is now down to $5,888. You see, Mr. President, 
if you look at this chart, the 1990 figure--just above it--that was 
when we raised the minimum wage. And again, in 1997, we saw an increase 
in the minimum wage. That is when we see those red indicators go up. 
That shows how far we have seen a decline in the minimum wage. The real 
minimum wage declined 20 percent in the 9 years of Republican 
opposition. It is not just the fact that the figures have been frozen, 
it is the fact that its purchasing power has declined significantly.
  Look at this, Mr. President. This shows the dramatic reduction down 
20 percent in the purchasing power of what we have passed previously. 
We are not only not increasing the value of the minimum wage in terms 
of purchasing power, which has declined; now we see in our proposal, 
effectively over a 2-year period, we raise it to $7.25. We know that we 
will hear from some that we cannot raise that to $7.25 because of the 
dramatic impact, adverse impact, it would have on the American economy. 
It is interesting that this fall in the No. 2 economy in Europe, which 
is Great Britain, it will be $9.80 an hour. In another leading economy 
in Western Europe, which happens to be Ireland, it is $9.60 an hour. 
They have robust economic growth in their economy.
  Listen to their chancellor, Gordon Brown, talk about the difference 
the increase in the minimum wage has made. The number of people they 
brought out of poverty is 2\1/2\ million people, and a million and a 
half people they brought out of poverty in Great Britain. We have the 
possibility of making a modest difference with this. This is a modest 
increase to $7.25.
  I put this chart up because it is a clear indication about what is 
happening out in the workforce with American workers. They are working 
longer and harder. More than 39 million Americans, which is 28 percent 
of the workforce, work more than 40 hours a week. Nearly one in five 
workers works more than 48 hours a week.

[[Page S6045]]

More than 7.6 million Americans are working two or more jobs, and 
334,000 of them hold two full-time jobs. So American workers' hours 
have increased more than in any other industrialized nation.
  American workers are working longer and harder and getting less pay, 
Mr. President. We have seen an explosion in terms of productivity, but 
that is not being passed down to the workers at the lower rung, 
although it was done at other times by Republicans and Democrats. So 
what do we say? Are we saying the minimum wage workers are slackers, or 
that these workers are not working the full time? Are we saying they 
are not showing up for work? Absolutely not. We see from these 
statistics that American workers--and particularly the workers at the 
lower income--are working longer and harder than any workforce in any 
other industrialized nation in the world.
  These are the figures from the OECD in 2004. You see that Americans 
have increased more than any other industrialized country. Many 
countries have actually gone down. Canada has gone up, from 16.8 
percent since 1970 to 2002, and America is up 20 percent. This is what 
we have.
  So what are we talking about? We are talking about an issue that 
primarily affects women because nearly 60 percent of workers affected 
by a minimum wage increase are women. So this is primarily a women's 
issue. Better than half of all of those women have children. So this is 
also a children's issue. This is a children's issue and a women's 
issue.
  We hear a great deal about family values in this Chamber. This is a 
family value--how that child is going to grow up, whether that worker 
will be treated with respect and dignity, whether that mother or father 
is going to be able to spend time with that child. That is all 
reflected in whether we are going to get the increase in the minimum 
wage. This is also a civil rights issue because so many of those who 
earn the minimum wage are men and women of color. So it is a women's 
issue, a children's issue, and civil rights issue.
  Mr. President, this $4,400 means that would be the cumulative value 
of that over the period of a year--2 years of childcare--at a time that 
this body is cutting back on childcare, and the waiting lists in our 
States are becoming extensive.
  We know now this would help a family with childcare, with a full 
tuition for a community college degree, a year and a half of heat and 
electricity, more than a year of groceries, and more than 8 months of 
rent. This is not insignificant. It may be to Members of this body, but 
it is not insignificant to those people who are out there working hard.
  What I believe is the most difficult point for Americans to 
understand is that from the time we raised the minimum wage last in 
1997 to 2006, Members of Congress have increased their salary by 
$31,600, but we have refused to increase the minimum wage by 5 cents. 
Maybe someone can explain that. We have increased our salaries by 
$31,600, and we haven't increased the minimum wage 5 cents. That is not 
right, that is not fair, that is wrong, and we have an opportunity to 
change it.
  At other times when we have talked about the minimum wage and the 
impact it has had on the total wages that have been paid in this 
country, many have said: If you increase the minimum wage, it is going 
to add to the problems of inflation. We see that the increase in the 
total amount of minimum wage we include in this is less than one-
quarter of 1 percent of total wages that are paid. So it is incidental 
to that.
  If we look back over the increases of the minimum wage in the 1990s, 
it had virtually no impact in terms of employment. Employment actually 
increased, and unemployment was reduced during that period of time. If 
we look at the various polls that have been taken even with small 
business, they say they don't believe they are adversely impacted by an 
increase in the minimum wage.
  I submit that we are prepared to move ahead and increase the minimum 
wage as I open these remarks. I want to retain a few minutes for my 
friend from New Mexico. We sent our fighting men and women to 
Afghanistan and Iraq to fight for the values of fairness, decency, and 
justice, and we are talking about economic justice in this instance. If 
we are talking about trying to maintain our commitment to the kind of 
values for which they are fighting--economic justice, economic fairness 
is certainly one of them--then this issue about increasing the minimum 
wage is about as basic and fundamental in terms of economic justice as 
any issue we will have before the Senate.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls an additional 10 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield such time as the Senator from New Mexico uses.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for bringing this 
amendment to the Senate for consideration. I understand he is not 
offering it at this moment but will at a later point. I wish to speak 
briefly about some of the points he has made and make a few others.
  There is a philosophical argument which has raged around the world 
for a long time about whether it is appropriate to have a minimum wage. 
I am certain that when this Congress decided in 1938 that the United 
States should have a minimum wage, there was a substantial amount of 
debate on that philosophical issue. So I concede that to start with.
  They are having a similar debate in Mexico today. They have a 
Presidential election coming up in Mexico in a couple of weeks. One of 
the issues in Mexico is whether they should raise the minimum wage. The 
minimum wage in Mexico is $4.50 a day. The question is, Should we have 
a minimum wage and, if so, should it be a minimum wage that actually 
helps people to stay out of poverty or to work their way out of 
poverty? That is the issue which the Senator from Massachusetts is 
raising for consideration today.
  I believe very strongly that we should have a minimum wage. I believe 
very strongly that we should change that minimum wage as necessary to 
keep up with the cost of living and with the poverty rate, as we have 
determined it, so that people who do work full time for a minimum wage 
can stay above the poverty line. That would be the ideal.
  In fact, when we look at the chart that was referred to by the 
Senator from Massachusetts, which I think is an excellent chart, it 
points out that beginning about 1980, the minimum wage began to drop 
precipitously relative to the Federal poverty line. It remains very low 
and is declining even further today because of the refusal of this 
Congress and this administration to take action to deal with it.
  I fear, while very few today would argue that we should have no 
minimum wage, in fact, that is where we are headed with the policy this 
administration has adopted. We are continuing to resist efforts to 
change the minimum wage. The minimum wage is becoming less and less a 
support for the low-paid workers of this country, and clearly we are 
way behind in trying to deal with this issue.
  There is one other issue which I wish to particularly call to my 
colleagues' attention, and that is the question of whether or not, if 
there should be a minimum wage, should it be set at the national level 
or should it be set at the State level or the local level? In fact, we 
made a decision in 1938 to have a minimum wage set at the national 
level. Now since the Federal Government has refused in the last 9 years 
to take any action to moderate or adjust that minimum wage, more and 
more communities, more and more States are acting to fill that vacuum, 
and that is what we are seeing all over my State.
  Let me point out that in my State in 2003, the Santa Fe City Council 
passed the highest minimum wage increase in the country. In January of 
2004, the minimum wage increased to $8.50 per hour. In January of this 
year, the minimum wage went to $9.50 per hour. It is scheduled to go to 
$10.50 per hour in 2008 in the city limits of Santa Fe, NM. According 
to the mayor of Santa Fe, approximately 9,000 families received a raise 
because of that city ordinance that changed the minimum wage. Believe 
it or not, the Santa Fe economy did not crumble. In fact, according to 
a University of New Mexico study that was released last year, job 
growth in Santa Fe was 3.5 percent the first year

[[Page S6046]]

that the $8.50 wage was in effect. It was ahead of the 2.1-percent 
growth in jobs for our State as a whole. Overall, employment increased 
in each quarter after the living wage went into effect, and it has been 
especially strong for hotels and restaurants, which have the most low-
wage jobs.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, there have been a number of cities, 
including Boston, across this country that have adopted a living wage. 
Of course, as the Senator knows, there have been a number of States 
even in the most recent times--North Carolina, Arkansas, the most 
recent--that have increased the minimum wage. I am wondering whether 
the Senator from New Mexico found out in Santa Fe, with an increase in 
the living wage, what we found out in Baltimore, for example, and that 
was, first of all, there is much lower turnover by workers in the 
community, and therefore there is much less training that is necessary 
for the municipality when they get new workers. There is a much higher 
degree of attendance, fewer people who are dropping out of the labor 
market, productivity has increased, and in all we have seen in so many 
living-wage communities that the concerns which have been expressed by 
the opposition have melted away because what has happened is the 
workforce that has remained has become more loyal, more productive, 
higher morale, and less willing to move or change jobs, better and 
continued training for their job, and the output for those workers has 
been a significant improvement. I wonder if the Senator has some 
general impressions with regard to his own observations and results.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do think my strong impression is there 
have been many of the positive benefits the Senator cited that we have 
realized in Santa Fe and other communities in my State where there has 
been an increase in the minimum wage.
  One other I would mention is that the number of families in need of 
temporary assistance has declined significantly since we moved to a 
higher minimum wage in Santa Fe, and that has been another benefit to 
the community.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. KENNEDY. What we have seen is if the employers are not paying the 
minimum wage, then the workers are eligible for a variety of different 
Federal programs that are paid for by the general taxpayers; while if 
they pay the minimum wage or a living wage--and the living wage is more 
in correspondence to the poverty wage--then these workers are no longer 
eligible for the range of social programs that are available and there 
is less of a burden on working Americans. In other words, we find that 
many of the companies that are paying low wages are actually being 
subsidized by the taxpayers with either food assistance or additional 
housing or additional benefits for which they otherwise would not be 
eligible. This has been estimated to be in the billions of dollars.
  The Senator makes a very good point that this is just an example 
about how many of these employers are being subsidized by the taxpayers 
by keeping low wages so their workers are eligible for other 
governmental programs, while if they are paid a decent wage, they 
wouldn't be eligible, and that would relieve the burden on the American 
taxpayers.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I agree entirely with what the Senator 
from Massachusetts has said. In fact, the governmental assistance 
programs that are required and that are in place do not have to do the 
job of filling in the gap between this poverty line and the minimum 
wage as we have allowed it to exist. So there is a serious issue here.
  I wish to mention one other aspect of this issue.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 30 minutes. The Senator's 
time has expired.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
be allowed to speak in morning business not to exceed 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we 
have yet to bring up the Defense authorization bill. The leadership is 
continuing to work out, hopefully, an accommodation for the initiative 
of the Senator from Massachusetts on the very important amendment on 
minimum wage. So I wish to inform colleagues that hopefully this will 
be procedurally worked out, such as we can bring the bill up and then 
proceed on the bill. But in the meantime, we remain in morning 
business, and if there is additional time the Senator from 
Massachusetts would like or the distinguished Senator from New Mexico--
and I see the Senator from Kentucky--I will be perfectly willing to try 
to accommodate Senators.
  Might I inquire of the Senator from Kentucky the subject on which he 
would like to speak?
  Mr. BUNNING. It is on the nomination of the Federal Reserve vice-
chairmanship.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, could the Senator from New Mexico just be 
given a final few minutes to wind up, and then I have no objection to 
proceeding with the nomination.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I ask 
unanimous consent that another 10 minutes be allocated to Senator 
Kennedy under his jurisdiction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I thank the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Warner. Let me just make one 
additional point and then yield the remainder of the time to Senator 
Kennedy to conclude the argument.
  The other point is I find the positions of many of the employers who 
have come in to see me and talk to me about this issue of minimum wage 
has changed very dramatically over the last year or two. For a long 
period of time, I found that the owners of hotels and restaurants and 
other businesses in my State would come to town each year and lobby me 
against an increase in the minimum wage, believing that increasing the 
minimum wage would make it more difficult for them to compete. The 
truth is, now the local communities such as the community of Santa Fe, 
the community of Albuquerque, and other local communities around the 
country have begun to change the minimum wage and to essentially take 
action where the Federal Government has failed to take action. I am 
finding that these same employers are now coming in and saying: Would 
you please adjust the Federal minimum wage? Would you please take what 
is the normal course and keep the Federal minimum wage at a reasonable 
level so that we do not have every community in the country feeling 
under pressure to pass an ordinance on the subject? I think that is a 
reasonable position for them to take.
  So those same businesses that used to lobby me against increasing the 
minimum wage are now lobbying me in favor of increasing the minimum 
wage because they believe very strongly that this is a national issue, 
that we ought to have a national minimum wage, it ought to be 
reasonable, and it ought to be adjusted as the cost of living goes up 
and as the Federal poverty line requires.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment when it 
actually gets offered. I thank my colleague for allowing me to speak on 
this issue.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will just speak briefly and then yield 
to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Just a point I want to underline, and that is the impact of a low 
minimum wage on children--on children. America's children are more 
likely to live in poverty than Americans in any other group. Nearly one 
in five children live in poverty. The poverty rate for children in the 
United States is substantially higher, often two or three times higher, 
than that of most of the other major western industrial nations. 
Sweden's child poverty rate is a fifth of America's. Poland's child 
poverty rate is half of America's. African-American and Latino children 
are more likely to live in poverty than White children.

[[Page S6047]]

One-third of African-American children live below the poverty line, as 
do nearly one-third of Latino children. We must give these children a 
boost in life by ensuring that their hard-working parents receive a 
living wage. Raising the minimum wage will help raise these families 
out of poverty, making a difference in the lives of their children. 
Increasing the minimum wage will help nearly 7.5 million children whose 
parents would receive a raise, and over 3 million kids have parents who 
would get an immediate raise.
  Reducing child poverty is one of the best investments that Americans 
can make in our Nation's future. Fewer children in poverty will mean 
more children entering school ready to learn, more successful schools 
and fewer dropouts, better child health, and less strain on hospitals 
and public health systems, less strain on our juvenile justice system, 
and less child hunger and malnutrition and other important advances. It 
is long past time to raise the minimum wage. No child in this country 
should have to live in poverty.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand from the distinguished 
Senator from Massachusetts that this concludes for this period of time 
his comments on the minimum wage. I would simply ask at this time 
unanimous consent that those Senators desiring to have statements on 
the minimum wage amendment printed in the Record appear following 
Senator Kennedy's colloquy with his colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. We will, of course, I say to my good friend, in due 
course comment and provide a response to, first, your request on 
procedure, and, second, to the substance of this very important 
amendment. So I thank you for the cooperation that you have shown this 
morning.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator.

                          ____________________