[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 13 (Tuesday, January 23, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S880-S888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 2007
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2, which the clerk will
report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.
Pending:
Reid (for Baucus) amendment No. 100, in the nature of a
substitute.
McConnell (for Gregg) amendment No. 101 (to amendment No.
100), to provide Congress a second look at wasteful spending
by establishing enhanced rescission authority under fast-
track procedures.
Enzi (for Snowe) amendment No. 103 (to amendment No. 100),
to enhance compliance assistance for small businesses.
Sessions amendment No. 106 (to amendment No. 100), to
express the sense of the Senate that increasing personal
savings is a necessary step toward ensuring the economic
security of all the people of the United States upon
retirement.
Sessions amendment No. 107 (to amendment No. 100), to
impose additional requirements to ensure greater use of the
advance payment of the earned income credit and to extend
such advance payment to all taxpayers eligible for the
credit.
Sessions amendment No. 108 (to amendment No. 100), to
authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to study the costs
and barriers to businesses if the advance earned income tax
credit program included all EITC recipients.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Amendment No. 103, as Modified
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, if I can have the attention of the
Senator from Maine, what I would like to do now is to ask that the
amendment be modified with the modification that is at the desk, if
that is agreeable with the Senator.
Ms. SNOWE. It certainly is.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is
modified.
The amendment (No. 103), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. ENHANCED COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.
(a) In General.--Section 212 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 601
note) is amended by striking subsection (a) and inserting the
following:
``(a) Compliance Guide.--
``(1) In general.--For each rule or group of related rules
for which an agency is required to prepare a final regulatory
flexibility analysis under section 605(b) of title 5, United
States Code, the agency shall publish 1 or more guides to
assist small entities in complying with the rule and shall
entitle such publications `small entity compliance guides'.
``(2) Publication of guides.--The publication of each guide
under this subsection shall include--
``(A) the posting of the guide in an easily identified
location on the website of the agency; and
``(B) distribution of the guide to known industry contacts,
such as small entities, associations, or industry leaders
affected by the rule.
``(3) Publication date.--An agency shall publish each guide
(including the posting and distribution of the guide as
described under paragraph (2))--
``(A) on the same date as the date of publication of the
final rule (or as soon as possible after that date); and
``(B) not later than the date on which the requirements of
that rule become effective.
``(4) Compliance actions.--
``(A) In general.--Each guide shall explain the actions a
small entity is required to take to comply with a rule.
``(B) Explanation.--The explanation under subparagraph
(A)--
``(i) shall include a description of actions needed to meet
the requirements of a rule, to
[[Page S881]]
enable a small entity to know when such requirements are met;
and
``(ii) if determined appropriate by the agency, may include
a description of possible procedures, such as conducting
tests, that may assist a small entity in meeting such
requirements, except that, compliance with any procedures
described pursuant to this section does not establish
compliance with the rule, or establish a presumption or
inference of such compliance.
``(C) Procedures.--Procedures described under subparagraph
(B)(ii)--
``(i) shall be suggestions to assist small entities; and
``(ii) shall not be additional requirements, or diminish
requirements, relating to the rule.
``(5) Agency preparation of guides.--The agency shall, in
its sole discretion, taking into account the subject matter
of the rule and the language of relevant statutes, ensure
that the guide is written using sufficiently plain language
likely to be understood by affected small entities. Agencies
may prepare separate guides covering groups or classes of
similarly affected small entities and may cooperate with
associations of small entities to develop and distribute such
guides. An agency may prepare guides and apply this section
with respect to a rule or a group of related rules.
``(6) Reporting.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, and annually
thereafter, the head of each agency shall submit a report to
the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the
Senate, the Committee on Small Business of the House of
Representatives, and any other committee of relevant
jurisdiction describing the status of the agency's compliance
with paragraphs (1) through (5).''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 211(3) of
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) is amended by inserting ``and
entitled'' after ``designated''.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will take a moment or two to thank the
Senator from Maine and thank the Senator from Wyoming. If one will take
a few moments and look through this amendment and the modification,
they will understand what the good Senators have been talking about. It
talks about posting to make sure the information is going to be
available to small businesses. It talks about distribution, to make
sure there is going to be a generous distribution. It talks about a
timely distribution, so we are not going to have a final date, and then
the Agency is going to delay in terms of posting and distribution.
It explains what is necessary for small businesses to be able to
comply with the rules and the regulations. It doesn't affect those
regulations that have been set and established. And it makes the
requirement that it be put in plain English language so that any person
is able to understand what is intended and what the rule is covering,
and then it has the provision to inform Congress, the appropriate
committees, as to what they have done over previous years.
This makes a lot of good sense. I commend the Senator from Maine and
the Senator from Wyoming, and my colleague, Senator Kerry, who has been
involved in this effort, and Senator Landrieu as well. I am very
grateful to all of them for working with us. This is a very useful and
extremely important and valuable addition to the legislation.
I know the Senator from Pennsylvania is desirous to address the
overall issue. Mr. President, as I understand it, under the previous
order, at noontime, we are going to vote on this amendment; is that
correct?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is no order to that effect.
Mr. KENNEDY. As I understand, shortly, there will be, I expect. At
the appropriate time, we will ask for the yeas and nays. We intend to
have the vote, for the information of offices, at that time.
I see both the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from
Pennsylvania are here.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Amendment No. 112
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 112 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without
objection, the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Sununu] proposes an
amendment numbered 112.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To prevent the closure and defunding of certain women's
business centers)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. RENEWAL GRANTS FOR WOMEN'S BUSINESS CENTERS.
Section 29 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 656) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(m) Continued Funding for Centers.--
``(1) In general.--A nonprofit organization described in
paragraph (2) shall be eligible to receive, subject to
paragraph (3), a 3-year grant under this subsection.
``(2) Applicability.--A nonprofit organization described in
this paragraph is a nonprofit organization that--
``(A) has received funding under subsections (b) and (l);
and
``(B) is not eligible under the programs under such
subsections for the first fiscal year after the end of the
period of financial assistance under subsection (l).
``(3) Application and approval criteria.--
``(A) Criteria.--The Administrator shall develop and
publish criteria for the consideration and approval of
applications by nonprofit organizations under this
subsection.
``(B) Notification.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of the deadline to submit applications for each fiscal year,
the Administrator shall approve or deny any application under
this subsection and notify the applicant for each such
application.
``(4) Award of grants.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to the availability of
appropriations, the Administrator shall make a grant for the
Federal share of the cost of activities described in the
application to each applicant approved under this subsection.
``(B) Amount.--A grant under this subsection shall be for
not less than $90,000 and not more than $150,000, for each
year of that grant.
``(C) Federal share.--The Federal share under this
subsection shall be not more than 50 percent.
``(D) Priority.--In allocating funds made available for
grants under this section, the Administrator shall give
applications under this subsection priority over first-time
applications under subsection (b).
``(5) Renewal.--The Administrator may renew a grant under
this subsection for additional 3-year periods, if the
nonprofit organization submits an application for such
renewal at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Administrator may establish.''.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, this is an important debate and important
discussion, especially in regard to the points made by Senator Snowe of
Maine; that is, if we raise the minimum wage, we need to understand
both the potential impact on small businesses and recognize those small
businesses are creating most of the job opportunities in our country.
They fuel our economy. Over the long term, as those smaller
entrepreneurial firms grow, they provide support for a growing wage
base, for benefits, and for support of the families who depend on those
small businesses for their jobs.
I welcome her amendment that deals with small business regulation. It
is an important step in the right direction, and I certainly hope it
continues to receive bipartisan support in the Senate. I think many of
the provisions that are in the substitute that deal with support for
small business will receive bipartisan support.
Senator Snowe also mentioned the importance of tax treatment for
small business investments and capital spending, and that they be
allowed to expense that, in turn, allowing them to find additional
resources to continue that pattern of investment.
The amendment I have called up also deals with the issue of small
business, entrepreneurship and job creation and a small, but important,
program in our Government called the Women's Business Centers. There
are about 100 Women's Business Centers across the country. There is one
in Portsmouth, NH, that was among the very first created in the United
States, and it deals with a range of issues from providing an incubator
for women entrepreneurs just starting out a firm, to providing training
and counseling, support for marketing services, information about
Government procurement, so many of the issues that have already been
addressed on the floor.
What this amendment does is to simply ensure that those high-
performing Women's Business Centers that have continued to serve a
strong, important
[[Page S882]]
clientele and have supported entrepreneurship and investment in their
community continue to be eligible for funding.
Under the current restrictions, some of those centers, after 5 years
of sustainability grants, lose the opportunity for additional funding.
My amendment would create a new program within the WBC program that
allows those centers to apply for a 3-year continuation of Federal
funding, provided they continue to meet high standards, serve their
clients effectively, and attract sources of funding from the community.
I think it is a reasonable approach, one that makes sense. Look at
the great example that has been set in Portsmouth. With the limited
amount of Federal funding and other community resources, in the past
year, it has served over 1,300 individual entrepreneurs. That, as we
like to say in Washington, is real leverage, real performance.
This does not require additional funding. It is a straightforward way
to ensure that an important need continues to be met and that this bill
has the appropriate balance and support for the small business
community.
I commend the work of the Senator from Maine, for her work on small
business generally within the Small Business Committee. This is
something they have tried to address before and the Senate has
supported in the past. I hope it is something that will continue to
receive bipartisan support.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with regard to the amendment of the
Senator from New Hampshire, it seems by both the explanation and a
first look, this is something that will be very useful and valuable. If
the Senator will work with us--I am not prepared, at this time, to
recommend the amendment, but we will work on it with him and indicate
what our position is in the very near future. But it certainly seems,
trying to give some focus and attention to small businesses that are
initiated by women, to make a good deal of sense, and it is subject to
an authorization, so there is no point of order.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his comments.
Obviously, I just called up the amendment. I don't expect him to
endorse it wholeheartedly. I think he will find he has supported it in
the past and many in the Chamber have supported it in the past and it
is worthy of our consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 115 to Amendment No. 100
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I seek recognition for the purpose of laying
down an amendment and not speaking to it. I ask unanimous consent that
the pending amendment be laid aside for that purpose.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment that deals
with extending some current provisions and adding additional provisions
to assist small businesses to pay for a minimum wage increase, should
one be adopted. I will speak to this later. I appreciate others
allowing me to lay it down.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl] proposes an amendment
numbered 115 to amendment No. 100.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To extend through December 31, 2008, the depreciation
treatment of leasehold, restaurant, and retail space improvements)
On page 4, line 21, strike ``April 1, 2008'' and insert
``January 1, 2009''.
On page 6, lines 5 and 6, strike ``April 1, 2008'' and
insert ``January 1, 2009''.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 2 which, as
we know, will increase the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an
hour. I thank my colleague, Senator Kennedy, and the bipartisan work
that went into developing this issue.
I speak today of an issue which I believe is one of economic justice.
Those earning the minimum wage have not had an increase in 10 years. We
should ask ourselves today not only about the information in the bill
and the data, as important as that is, we should ask ourselves who are
these Americans who have not had an increase in 10 long years?
Most, of course, we know are adults working full time. In fact, in my
home State of Pennsylvania, 71 percent of the workers whose wages would
be raised directly by an increase in the minimum wage are adults ages
20 and older.
Also, these Americans in many cases are women. Sixty percent of those
who would be affected by an increase in the minimum wage are women,
working every day to make ends meet, to support their children. In
fact, if the minimum wage is raised, 6 million children will benefit.
Recently, the Children's Defense Fund reported that a single parent
working full time at the current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour earns
enough to cover only 40 percent--just 40 percent--of the cost of
raising children.
Those who earn the minimum wage are not people who are connected to
the wealthy and the powerful. They don't have high-paid lobbyists in
Washington advocating for them. No, these people are Americans who lead
quiet, triumphant lives of struggle and sacrifice, overcoming hardships
and setbacks every day. They do hard work, very hard work, such as the
waitresses we see every day carrying heavy trays, on their feet hour
after hour, as they dream of a better life for themselves and for their
children. And at the end of a long day, these Americans return to work
and go home at the end of a long day often exhausted, often working not
one job but two jobs or three, and the dignity of their labor gives
meaning to their lives. We know, and they would tell us that if they
were standing here today next to me. So that work they do gives meaning
to their lives without a doubt.
But no one, no matter how hard they work, can keep pace with the
avalanche of cost increases we have seen over the last 10 years. Let me
take my colleagues through a couple of those cost increases.
Since 1997, congressional pay has increased 24 percent, about
$31,000. This has occurred while the value of the minimum wage has been
eroded by 20 percent.
Let me say that again: Congressional pay up 24 percent, the value of
the minimum wage down 20 percent. We cannot say that enough. The cost
of living is up 26 percent, the cost of food up 23 percent, the cost of
housing up 29 percent, the cost of gasoline up over 130 percent, the
cost of health care up 43 percent. Families who are listening to this
today know this. The average premium for a family of four costs over
$10,000, almost $11,000, which is more than a minimum wage worker earns
in a year.
The cost of raising a child since 1997 has increased 52 percent; the
cost of educating those children has risen 61 percent; the cost of
heating a home has increased by 120 percent.
What we are talking about here is an issue, indeed, of economic
justice. Raising the Federal minimum wage will give our workers more
than $4,000 per year. Let's consider what that could buy for a family
in America. You can buy almost 2 years of childcare with over $4,000,
full tuition at a community college, 2 years of health care, 1 year of
groceries, 1\1/2\ years of heat and electricity, and 8 months of rent.
That is how we affect, in a positive way, people's lives, the lives of
hard-working men and women in America today.
Those who argue against an increase in the minimum wage will say that
an increase will hurt small business and/or the economy. I do not agree
with that because if you look at the data, when the minimum wage was
increased in 1997, what happened in the aftermath? Millions and
millions of jobs were created and raising the minimum wage did not slow
that down one iota.
Recently, over 650 economists issued a statement calling for an
increase in
[[Page S883]]
the minimum wage. We do not have time today to go through that, but it
is an important statement from leading economists in America. With an
increase in minimum wage, employers will get a lot in return: higher
productivity they will get with an increase in the minimum wage; lower
turnover; and, of course, increased worker morale.
Mr. President, you know as well as I do that more than 28 States now
have increased the minimum wage, including my home State of
Pennsylvania. In July of this year it will increase to $7.15 an hour,
as a result of State legislation. That should not have had to take
place. The Federal Government long ago--we are years overdue on this--
should have taken the responsibility for increasing the minimum wage,
but that did not happen here in Washington. There were other
priorities, other interests, more powerful interests that took
precedence.
More than 400,000 Pennsylvanians will be affected positively by an
increase in the minimum wage. I am thinking of them today as I am of
families across America who will be affected positively by an increase
in the minimum wage. Yes, I do believe that small businesses across
Pennsylvania and America do need help. However, in my judgment, based
upon the people to whom I have spoken in my State, the No. 1 priority
or the No. 1 burden faced by small business owners, men or women, is
the cost, the crushing cost of health care. We need to deliver health
care relief to those small businesses, and that as well is long
overdue, because those small business owners and their workers deserve
the same kind of economic justice I talked about today.
I fervently urge support for this legislation, and I appreciate this
time.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for
speaking in favor of this minimum wage amendment. This was an issue, I
know, out in the State of Pennsylvania during the course of the
campaign. Senator Casey was resolute in his commitment to the working
families in his State and I am very grateful for his comments and
strong support for this issue.
As I understand it, we expect Senator Grassley is going to speak to
the Senate, and my friend and colleague from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, is
going to address the Senate. We are working out the consent agreement
for the time for the vote. It had initially been set tentatively for
noontime. Now, I want to tell our colleagues, it is going to be after
the caucuses. We are working out the final time and we will make that
announcement in a very few moments. But for the information of our
colleagues, and their schedules, we will not be voting prior to the
caucuses. We will be voting after the caucuses and we will be more
precise in a very short period of time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to address two aspects of this
legislation because they are necessarily connected. One is, obviously,
the increase in the minimum wage. The other one is the small business
tax provisions that have come out of the committee Senator Baucus
chairs and on which I am the ranking member, the Finance Committee. I
want to deal with the minimum wage part of this issue first.
Popular support for raising the minimum wage is based on a number of
widely held beliefs: First, that no one can support a family at $5.15
an hour; second, minimum wage earners will not get a pay raise unless
Congress gives them one; and third, raising the minimum wage helps
millions of poor workers and hurts no one.
Unfortunately, these popular beliefs are in some cases misleading and
in some cases outright wrong. First, minimum wage earners are not
trying to support a family--or you might argue a small percentage of
them are trying to support a family, but I want to say why most are
not. Those who are, of course, can get additional benefits through
Government programs to supplement family income; thus, no one has to
rely solely on the minimum wage to support a family.
Second, minimum wage jobs are generally entry level jobs. Most
workers who start at the minimum wage quickly earn more. Few workers
remain stuck at the minimum wage for very long and, unfortunately,
those who do are most at risk of losing their jobs from a minimum wage
increase.
Third, the benefits of a minimum wage increase do not go exclusively
to poor families. Only 15 percent of the proposed minimum wage increase
would go to those living below the poverty level, as an example.
Increasing the minimum wage would result in higher prices for consumers
of minimum wage products, higher unemployment among the least skilled
minimum wage workers--and that particularly affects minority groups
within our country--increased poverty among minimum wage families, and
in some cases it could be a combination of these three things I
mentioned.
Much of the popular support for the minimum wage is based on a
fallacy, that the Government can help the poor without hurting anyone
else. But if the Government can increase wages with no ill effects,
then why stop at $7.25, as is currently proposed? Why not make it
$10.25? Why not make it $20.25, or even more? The fact is, this does
have limited impact and it does have some negative consequences, so
that is why these occasional increases are justified.
Popular support for increasing the minimum wage is tempered by the
fact that virtually everyone agrees that there is some level at which
the minimum wage would produce obvious negative effects. In the past,
policymakers have attempted to mitigate any negative effects by
limiting the size of the minimum wage increase, providing tax credits
to employers who hire at-risk workers, and providing tax or regulatory
relief to business generally, particularly small businesses.
However, additional research in recent years has cast some doubt on
the effectiveness of these previous efforts. First, research suggests
raising the minimum wage does not reduce poverty among minimum wage
earners. Instead, it most likely increases poverty.
Second, legislative action by various States to adopt their own
higher minimum wage has led to significant differences within our 50
States.
Third, research shows that the earned income tax credit could provide
a cost-effective way to help poorest workers and be more effective than
even increasing the minimum wage.
I am pleased that over the last few years we have enhanced the earned
income credit for many families by making the child tax credit
refundable. That is through the work of the Senate Finance Committee.
Before I go on to my next point I would say parenthetically there are
studies that have been updated quite frequently over the last 20 or 25
years, where economists have followed people in quintiles: the lowest,
the second, you know, for five quintiles from the lowest income up to
the highest income. Following people over a period of years, they have
been able to study the mobility of the American worker. In other words,
once you are in the workforce, most people work themselves up the
economic ladder--some way up, some part way up. But we find that only
about 2 percent of our population seems to be stuck in the lowest
quintile of income for long periods of time--a very small percentage.
But other people go from the second quintile--from the first to the
second to the third, and we also find that there is a larger percentage
of our population that moves up from the lower two quintiles into the
third or the fourth quintiles--a lot more rapidly and with a lot more
mobility than we find people moving from the fourth to the top. While
there are some people moving down from the highest to a lower quintile,
history proves the mobility of the workforce in America is very much
upward.
Despite some serious policy concerns, public support for increasing
the minimum wage remains strong. That is why the Senate is taking up a
minimum wage increase. The political reality is a majority of Senators
support a minimum wage increase.
So a lot of economists would make an argument that you should not
have any increase in the minimum wage at all and that the mistakes,
going back to the 1930s, were mistakes; that you should not interfere
with the marketplace. But Congress has decided for 70 years to do that.
We are in the process for doing it. Regardless of the economic
arguments, as long as this is a
[[Page S884]]
political issue, without a doubt, from time to time it is going to be
raised and I suppose you could make an argument that, as long as it is
political it ought to be raised, or else you should not even have a
minimum wage.
Now I would go to the tax incentive portions we hope stay in this
bill when it goes to the other body. Tax incentives targeted to small
business and other businesses impacted by a minimum wage increase have
been linked to the minimum wage legislation. We have done this in the
past decade. Democrats have at times joined Republicans supporting this
language.
I would quote from two former chairmen on this committee in their
opening remarks on the conference agreement on the last piece of
legislation that went through this body to raise the minimum wage.
Senator Roth, then the chairman of the committee, described taxes as
the sand that grinds the gears of small business. So he saw merit in
small business tax relief as a separate matter. Senator Roth went on to
say:
[We will] proceed to the legislation on the minimum wage
and small business taxes. We're anxious to move ahead on the
small business tax legislation.
Senator Moynihan, who at times was chairman of the committee and at
times the ranking Democrat, said, at the same time Senator Roth was
speaking:
My distinguished chairman, as always, has so stated the
facts. But there is a small semantic issue here. Some call
this a small business relief act; others on this side call it
the minimum wage bill. But we will not resolve that tonight,
nor need we.
Now, the next time the Senate deals with this, about 8 or 9 years
since we last dealt with it, it is still the same issue. Senators Roth
and Moynihan were right then, and if they were still living today, I
would tell them they are right now.
To different groups of Senators, these topics carry their own
benefits or burdens. Many on my side don't like the idea of second-
guessing the labor market with a federally mandated minimum wage. I
pointed out some of the related issues that should give us pause,
arguments put forth by economists when considering this legislation,
that it is not all positive.
Many on the Democratic side want a straight minimum wage hike and
refuse to consider the burden that policy puts on employers and
workers. Those Members do not want any linkage between the minimum wage
policy and small business tax relief. As Senator Moynihan said,
however, we don't have to agree now whether the upcoming legislation
will be a minimum wage or a small business tax relief bill.
Some, mostly Democrats, will call it a minimum wage bill. Some,
mostly Republicans, will call it a small business tax relief bill.
Still others will call it both a minimum wage and small business tax
relief bill. President Bush, like President Clinton, the last President
who signed an increase in the minimum wage bill years ago, will
recognize both parts of the package. If my friends on the other side
review the statement made by President Clinton, they will see that he
saw merit in small business tax relief.
Our Committee on Finance chairman, Senator Baucus, recognizes the
linkage. I told him Republicans will insist on a small business tax
relief package. He, in his cooperative way, as I hope I have been
cooperative with him in the past, has heard us. Some in his caucus,
their labor union friends and sympathetic ears of the east coast media,
attacked Senator Baucus--which I don't understand--for recognizing a
basic reality, as Senator Moynihan and Senator Roth worked together a
decade ago to do, to see that there is some negative impact on small
business from an increase in the minimum wage so you ought to offset
that with some benefit to small business through the tax portions of
the legislation.
Those folks who are criticizing Senator Baucus don't have the
responsibility to find the middle ground and evidently think we can get
a bill through the Senate that can get the votes without finding the
middle ground. It can't be done.
Now, if I were chairman--and I am not chairman, and I am not crying
about that--I would have tilted this package a little bit more toward
the depreciation incentive and less toward the work opportunity tax
credits. The reality is, Republicans don't have a majority on the
Committee on Finance or in the full Senate, so chairman Baucus has
struck a balance between majority Democrats and minority Republicans.
I will assist Senator Baucus in defending the tax relief package that
goes for the offsets and the revenue-losing provisions. We should not
disturb the core structure of this package. I am hopeful, however, that
we will improve the package by enhancing the package on the
depreciation side, as Senator Kyl has suggested. It is important these
incentives coincide with the time when the minimum wage increase will
take effect. In seeking this objective we will need to find appropriate
offsets, obviously. There may be other improvements.
The bottom line is the Committee on Finance package is a well-known
set of small business tax relief measures, things we have done before--
extending, mostly. These proposals have merit by themselves, but a
minimum wage increase is not likely to pass the Senate without them. I
hope everyone understands that.
As many know, I am a working family farmer. For farmers, fields look
familiar because we work our fields every year. This linkage, then, to
put a commonsense touch on it, is that the linkage between minimum wage
and small business relief is a familiar feel. I can quote Roth and
Moynihan ad infinitum to prove it. It is not something new that is
coming up with Baucus and Grassley. We have plowed this ground before.
This is well-known common ground.
I referred to President Clinton in a signing ceremony about 10 years
ago. That legislation was founded on a small business tax relief
package twice this size. I emphasize it was twice the size of what
people are complaining about now that we are presenting to the Senate.
It was supported at that time by many seeking cloture on the bill that
is before the Senate.
President Clinton singled out the work opportunity tax credit and the
depreciation proposals in his remarks. My friend, Senator Kennedy,
attended the signing ceremony and was recognized by President Clinton
for the great product they brought to President Clinton. And John
Sweeney was recognized, the head of the AFL-CIO.
I ask unanimous consent the remarks be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The White House,
Office of the Press Secretary,
August 20, 1996.
Remarks by the President at signing of the Small Business Job
Protection Act of 1996
The President: Thank you very much. Cathy, it may be your
birthday, but I would say that everybody feels that you have
given us a great gift today by reminding us about what this
is all about. And we wish you and your fine children well.
And I don't think being in the band will hurt them a bit. I'm
glad you're going to do that. (Laughter.)
I want to thank the members of our administration who are
here--Secretary Reich, Small Business Administrator Phil
Lader and others. I want to thank all the members of Congress
who are here, especially Senator Kennedy who, himself,
probably broke the wage in hour laws by working so hard to
pass this bill. If we'd been paying him by the hour we'd be
underpaying him in the last year. Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
There are a lot of people who worked hard on this bill who
aren't here--Senator Daschle, Congressman Gephardt,
Congressman Bonior, Congressman Clay, in particular did. I
want to join with others and thank the countless labor unions
who have championed this bill, led by the truly tireless John
Sweeney. (Applause.)
I'd like to remind the American people of something,
because sometimes our unions are criticized for looking out
for their members too much. There are very few unions in
America that have minimum wage workers. Most of these unions
did this because they thought it was the right thing to do.
They spent their time and their money and their energy trying
to help other people who do not belong to their organization,
and I thank you for that. (Applause.)
I'd like to thank the religious groups, the economists, the
business people who have made this their cause of concern.
Again, I thank the members, including members of both
parties, who supported this legislation.
I'll say more in a moment about the rest of the bill, but
let me just begin by saying this is a truly remarkable piece
of legislation. It is pro-work, pro-business and pro-family;
it raises the minimum wage; it helps small businesses in a
number of ways that I will
[[Page S885]]
explain in a moment, including retirement and incentive to
invest; and it promotes adoption in two very sweeping ways
that have long needed to be done in the United States. This
is a cause for celebration for all Americans of all parties,
all walks of life, all faiths. This bill represents the very
best in our country.
It will give 10 million Americans, as Cathy said, a chance
to raise stronger families and build better futures. By
coming together across lines that have too often divided us
and finding common ground, we have made this a real season of
achievement for the people of America.
At its heart, this bill does reaffirm our most profoundly
American values--offering opportunity to all, demanding
responsibility from all, and coming together as a community
to do the right thing. This bill says to the working people
of America: If you're willing to take responsibility and go
to work, your work will be honored. We're going to honor your
commitment to your family, we're going to recognize that
$4.25 an hour is not enough to raise a family.
It's harder and harder to raise children today and harder
and harder for people to succeed at home and at work. And I
have said repeatedly, over and over again to the American
people: We must not force our families to make a choice. Most
parents have to work. We have a national interest in seeing
that our people can succeed at home where it counts the most
in raising their children, and succeed at work so they'll
have enough income to be able to succeed at home. We must do
both, and this bill helps us achieve that goal. (Applause.)
These 10 million Americans will become part of America's
economic success story. A success story that in the last four
years has led us to 900,000 new construction jobs; a record
number of new businesses started, including those owned by
women and minorities; a deficit that is the smallest it's
been since 1981, and 60 percent less than it was when I took
office; 10 million new jobs; 12 million American families who
have been able to take advantage of Family and Medical Leave;
almost 4.5 million new homeowners and 10 million other
Americans who refinanced their homes at lower mortgage rates.
And, most importantly of all, perhaps, real hourly wages,
which fell for a decade, have finally begun to rise again.
America is on the move. (Applause.)
But our challenge, my fellow Americans, is to make sure
that every American can reap the rewards of a growing
economy, every American has the tools to make the most of his
or her own life, to build those strong families and to
succeed at home and at work. As the Vice President said, the
first step was taken in 1993 with the passage of the Family
and Medical Leave Law and with the Earned Income Tax Credit,
which cut taxes for 15 million working families. Today, that
earned income tax credit is worth about $1,000 to a family of
four with an income under $28,000 a year.
Well, today, we complete the second half of that effort.
Together with our tax cut for working families, this bill
ensures that a parent working full-time at the minimum wage
can lift himself or herself and their children out of
poverty. Nobody who works full-time with kids in the home
should be in poverty. If we want to really revolutionize
America's welfare system and move people from welfare to work
and reward work, that is the first, ultimate test we all have
to meet. If you get up every day and you go to work, and you
put in your time and you have kids in your home, you and your
children will not be in poverty. (Applause.)
We have some hard working minimum wage people here today
supporting Cathy. Let me tell you about them. Seventy percent
of them are adults, six of 10 are working women, and for
them, work is about more than a paycheck, it's about pride.
They want a wage they can raise their families on. By raising
the minimum wage by 90 cents, this bill, over two years, will
give those families an additional $1,800 a year in income--
enough to buy seven months of groceries, several months of
rent, or child care. Or, as Cathy said, to pay all of the
bills from the utilities in the same month.
For many, this bill will make the difference between their
ability to keep their families together and their failure to
do so. These people reflect America's values, and it's a lot
harder for them than it is for most of us to go around living
what they say they believe in. It's about time they got a
reward and, today, they'll get it. (Applause.)
I would also like to say a very special word of thanks to
the business owners, especially the small business owners who
supported this bill. Many of the minimum wage employers I
talk to wanted to pay their employees more than $4.25 an hour
and would be happy to do so as long as they can do it without
hurting their businesses, and that means their competitors
have to do the same thing. This bill will allow them to
complete and win, to have happier, more productive employees,
and to know they're doing the right thing. For all of those
small businesses, I am very, very appreciative. (Applause.)
I would also like to say that this bill does a remarkable
number of things for small businesses. In each of the last
three years, our nation has set a new record in each
succeeding year in the number of new businesses stated. And
we know that most of the new jobs in America are being
created by small- and medium-sized businesses. In 1993, I
proposed a $15,000 increase in the amount of capital a small
business can expense, to spark the kind of investment that
they need to create jobs. Well, in 1993 we only won half that
increase, but today I'll get to sign the second half into
law, and I thank the Congress for passing that, as well.
(Applause.)
As the Vice President said, this bill also includes a Work
Opportunity Tax Credit to provide jobs for the most
economically disadvantaged working Americans, including
people who want to move from welfare to work. Now, there will
be a tightly drawn economic incentive for people to hire
those folks and give them a chance to enter the workforce, as
well. It extends the research tax credit to help businesses
stay competitive in the global economy. It extends a tax
incentive for businesses to train and educate their
employees. That's good news for people who need those skills,
and it's good news for America because we have to have the
best educated workforce in the world in the 21st century.
This legislation does even more to strengthen small
business by strengthening the families that make them up. It
helps millions of more Americans to save for their own
retirement. It makes it much easier for small businesses to
offer pension plans by creating a new small business 401(k)
plan. It also lets more Americans keep their pensions when
they change jobs without having to wait a year before they
can start saving at their new jobs. As many as 10 million
Americans without pensions today could now earn them as a
result of this bill.
I'm delighted we are joined today, among others, by Shawn
Marcell, the CEO of Prima Facie, a fast-growing video
monitoring company in Pennsylvania, which now has just 17
employees--but that's a lot more than he started with. He
stood with me in April and promised that if we kept our word
and made pensions easier and cheaper for small businesses
like his, he'd give pensions to all of his employees. Today,
he has told us he's making good on that pledge. I'd like him
to stand up, and say I predict that thousands more will
follow Shawn's lead. Thank you, Shawn. Please stand up. Let's
give him a hand. God bless you, sir. Thank you. (Applause.)
I'd also like to say a special word of thanks to our SBA
Administrator, Phil Lader, and to the White House Conference
on Small Business. When the White House Conference on Small
Business met, they said one of their top priorities was
increasing the availability and the security of pensions for
small business owners in America. This is a good thing. It is
also pro-work, pro-family and pro-business.
Finally, this bill does something else that is especially
important to me and to Hillary--and I'm glad she's here with
us today. It breaks down the financial and bureaucratic
barriers to adoption, giving more children what every child
needs and deserves--loving parents and a strong, stable home.
(Applause.)
Two weeks ago, we had a celebration for the American
athletes who made us so proud in Atlanta at the Centennial
Olympics. Millions of Americans now know that one of them--
the Decathlon Gold medalist, Dan O'Brien--speaks movingly
about having been an adopted child and how much the support
of his family meant in his life. Right now, there are tens of
thousands of children waiting for the kind of family that
helped to make Dan O'Brien an Olympic champion. At the same
time, there are thousands of middle class families that want
to bring children into their homes but cannot afford it.
We're offering a $5,000 tax credit to help bring them
together. It gives even more help to families that will adopt
children with disabilities or take in two siblings, rather
than seeing them split up.
And, lastly, this bill ends the long-standing bias against
interracial adoption which has too often meant an endless,
needless wait for America's children. (Applause.)
You know, as much as we talk about strong, loving families,
it's not every day that we here in Washington get to enact a
law that literally creates them or helps them stay together.
This is such a day. Although he can't be with us today, I
also want to thank Dave Thomas, himself adopted, who went on
to found Wendy's and do so much for our country. Perhaps more
than any other American citizen, he has made these adoption
provisions possible, and we thank him.
Lastly, I'd like to point out that we do have some
significant number of adoptive families here with us today,
including some who are on the stage. And so I'd just like to
acknowledge the Weeks (ph.) family, the Wolfington (ph.)
family, the Outlaw (ph.) family, the Fitzwater (ph.) family,
and ask them and anyone else here from the adoptive family
community to stand up who'd like to stand. We'd like to
recognize you and thank you for being here. Thank you all for
being here. Thank you. (Applause.)
Beside me, or in front of me now, is the desk used by
Frances Perkins--Franklin Roosevelt's labor secretary and the
very first woman ever to serve in the Cabinet. She was one of
our greatest labor secretaries. It was from her desk that
many of America's pioneering wage, hour and workplace laws
originated--including the very first 25 cent an hour minimum
wage signed into law by President Roosevelt in 1938.
Secretary Perkins understood that a living wage was about
more than feeding a family or shelter from a storm. A living
wage makes it possible to participate in what she called the
culture of community--to take part in the family, the
community, the religious life we all cherish. Confident in
our ability to
[[Page S886]]
provide for ourselves and for our children, secure in the
knowledge that hard work does pay. A minimum wage increase,
portable health care, pension security, welfare to work
opportunities--that's a plan that's putting America on the
right track.
Now, we have to press forward, giving tax cuts for
education and child-rearing and child care, buying a first
home, finishing that job of balancing the budget without
violating our obligations to our parents and our children and
the disabled and health care, to education and the
environment and to our future. That's a plan that will keep
America on the right track, building strong families and
strong futures by working together.
For everyone here who played a role in this happy day, I
thank you, America thanks you, and our country is better
because of your endeavors. God bless you. Thank you.
(Applause.)
(The bill is signed.) (Applause.)
Mr. GRASSLEY. President Clinton said in the signing ceremony:
I want to thank all the Members of Congress who are here,
especially Senator Kennedy who, himself, probably broke the
wage in hour laws by working so hard to pass this bill.
And then in another place:
There are a lot of people who worked hard on this bill who
aren't here--Senator Daschle, Congressman Gephardt--
He went on to name other Members--
led by truly tireless John Sweeney.
And there was applause. Now, some of the same people are objecting to
what we are doing now.
Another quote:
I would also like a very special word of thanks to the
business owners, especially the small business owners who
supported this bill. Many of the minimum wage employers I
talked to wanted to pay their employees more than $4.25 an
hour and would be happy to do so as long as they can do it
without hurting their businesses, and that means their
competitors have to do the same thing. This bill will allow
them to compete and win, to have happier, more productive
employees, and to know they are doing the right thing. For
all those small businesses, I am very, very appreciative.
Continuing:
I would also say that this bill does a remarkable number of
things for small businesses. . . .[a]nd we know that most of
the new jobs in America are being created by small- and
medium-sized businesses. In 1993 I--
Meaning President Clinton--
proposed a $15,000 increase in the amount of capital a small
business can expense, to spark the kind of investment that
they need to create jobs.
As the Vice President said--
Meaning at that time Mr. Gore--
this bill also includes a Work Opportunity Tax Credit to
provide jobs for the most economically disadvantaged working
Americans, including people who want to move from welfare to
work. Now, there will be a tightly drawn economic incentive
for people to hire those folks and give them a chance to
enter the workforce, as well.
Well, if Senators who were on the stage at that time thought that the
work opportunity tax credit was a good thing to have, why isn't it a
good thing to have it here, to extend it? Why not?
This is a win-win situation. There is a win for the workers, a win
for small business. Why should we chortle over a little thing such as
increasing the minimum wage or having a tax provision in it?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:45
today the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relation to Snowe amendment
No. 103, as modified, with time from 2:15 to 2:45 equally divided and
controlled in the usual form, with no second-degree amendments in order
prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Appointment of Committee to Escort the President of the United States
Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the Presiding Officer of
the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the
Senate to join with a like committee on the part of the House to escort
the President of the United States into the House Chamber for the joint
session to be held at 9 p.m. Tuesday.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see my friend and colleague from Hawaii
wishes to address the Senate on morning business time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10
minutes as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Akaka and Mr. Kennedy are printed in today's
Record under ``Morning Business.'')
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are going to go into a recess in a
moment. We will come out of the party caucuses at 2:15. We are working
on some additional amendments. The amendments of the Senator from
Alabama, the Sessions amendments, we will try to include, if necessary,
votes on those issues as well around the 2:45 hour. We are making some
progress. We have a shorter evening tonight because of the President's
State of the Union, but we want to move this legislation. It is not
complicated. Everyone in this body, new Members who have arrived here,
understands what the increase in the minimum wage is all about. It is
not complex. Is it not difficult. It is not hard to understand. There
is no reason we can't move this process quickly. If it is necessary to
have votes, we are prepared to move along on those issues.
We have listened this morning to those who believe that raw economic
arguments ought to control the question of the minimum wage. We as a
country have moved away from that. We have accepted the great
traditions of Judeo-Christian teachings as well as the underlying
teachings of all the religions that talk about responsibilities we all
have for the least among us. In the Constitution of the United States,
they have what is called the general welfare clause. The general
welfare clause was written into the Constitution for those very
purposes.
The fact is, this country has rejected the law of the jungle as it
applies to economic conditions for workers. In my State of
Massachusetts, we had individuals at the turn of the last century,
children, 10, 11, 12 years old, who were working 12, 15 hours a day,
6\1/2\ days a week. We had the exploitation of children, of women, the
exploitation of workers. We, as a country and a society, have
recognized that we can be the strongest economy in the world and treat
people with respect and dignity. That is why the members of Let Justice
Roll, an extraordinary number of religious leaders representing a wide
group of churches, talk about what the Scriptures say about poverty in
their letter.
I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
January 5, 2007.
Dear Members of Congress, We, the undersigned religious
leaders, in partnership with the Let Justice Roll Living Wage
Campaign, call on the 110th Congress to raise the minimum
wage! Let Justice Roll is a nonpartisan coalition of more
than 80 faith, community and labor organizations working to
raise the minimum wage at the state and federal level. In
2006, we played a major role in increasing the minimum wage
throughout the country at the state level.
We strongly support the Miller/Kennedy bill that increases
the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. Furthermore, we
strongly oppose any attempts to add provisions to the bill.
We urge you to vote for this clean minimum wage bill.
The Prophet Amos proclaims, ``Let justice roll down like
waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream'' (5:24,
NRSV). We are morally outraged by the number of people living
in poverty in the United States, and believe that now is the
time to give hard-working low-wage workers a raise and take
the first step toward a true living wage for America's
workers.
It has been nearly 10 years since the last federal increase
in the minimum wage, and low-wage workers urgently need a
raise. A minimum wage employee--making $5.15 an hour, working
40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earns about $10,700 a
year--about $6,000 below the federal poverty line for a
family of three. This situation is unconscionable and
immoral, as the wealth of our nation continues to be built on
the backs of the working poor. Working poor families in
America are struggling to meet the rising costs of health
care, gasoline and housing, and $5.15 an hour is simply not
enough.
Minimum wage legislation in the past has stalled in
Congress because of attempts to attach unrelated provisions
such as tying the minimum wage to a repeal of the estate tax,
rolling back over-time protections or reducing the minimum
wage of tip workers. In addition, such provisions are harmful
to the very workers that a minimum wage increase is intended
to help. The strong victory on all the minimum wage ballot
initiatives is evidence that there is strong and widespread
support from Americans for a prompt, clean minimum wage
increase at the federal level.
We appreciate the commitment made by the leadership of the
110th Congress to address the woefully inadequate federal
minimum wage. We will continue to raise our
[[Page S887]]
voices on behalf of ``the least of these'' and proclaim that
a job should keep you out of poverty, not keep you in it.
Signed, Rev. Dr. Paul Sherry, National Coordinator, Let
Justice Roll, Cleveland, OH, Rev. Dr. Bob Edgar, General
Secretary, National Council of Churches, New York, NY, The
Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop, The
Episcopal Church, NY, NY, Rev. Jim Wallis, President and CEO,
Sojourners/Call to Renewal, Washington, DC, Rev. John H.
Thomas, General Minister and President, United Church of
Christ, Cleveland, OH, Rabbi David Saperstein, Director,
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Washington, DC,
Rev. Dr. Roy Medley, Gen. Secretary, American Baptist
Churches in the USA, Valley Forge, PA.
Rev. Jennifer Butler, Executive Director, Faith in Public
Life, Washington, DC; Mary Ellen McNish, General Secretary,
American Friends Service Committee, Philadelphia, PA; Rev.
William G. Sinkford, President, Unitarian Universalist
Association, Boston, MA; The Rev. Dr. James A. Forbes, Senior
Minister, The Riverside Church, New York, NY; The Rev.
Clifton Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church
USA, Louisville, KY; Rev. Dr. Sharon E. Watkins, Gen.
Minister and President, Christian Church (Disciples of
Christ); Rev. Roy Riley, Chair of the Conference of Bishops
and Bishop of the NJ Synod ELCA, NJ; Bishop Thomas J.
Gumbleton, Archdiocese of Detroit, MI; Rev. Dr. Stan Hastey,
Executive Director, The Alliance of Baptists, Washington, DC;
James E. Winkler, General Secretary, United Methodist Church,
Gen. Board of Church in Society, Washington, DC; Rev. Michael
Livingston, President, National Council of Churches and
Executive Director, ICCC, Trenton, NJ; Rev. John L.
McCullough, Executive Director, Church World Service; Charlie
Clements, President, Unitarian Universalist Service
Committee, Cambridge, MA; Rabbi Rebecca Alpert, Temple
University, Philadelphia, PA.
Most Reverend Gabino Zavala, Auxiliary Bishop, Archdiocese
of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; Rev. Dr. Rita Nakashima
Brock, Director, Faith Voices for the Common Good, Christian
Church (Disciples of Christ), Oakland, CA; David A. Robinson,
Executive Director Pax Christi USA: National Catholic Peace
Movement, Washington, DC; Simon Greer, President and CEO,
Jewish Funds for Justice, New York, NY; Dr. Michael Kinnamon,
Chair, Justice and Advocacy Commission, National Council of
Churches, St. Louis, MO; Sr. Catherine McDonnell, OP,
Prioress of the Dominican Sister of Hope, Ossining, NY; Rev.
Kim Bobo, Executive Director, Interfaith Worker Justice,
Chicago, IL; Rev. Tom Youngblood, United Methodist, Decatur,
AL; The Rt. Rev. Mark MacDonald, Episcopal Bishop of Alaska
and Navajoland, AK; Rev. Trina Zelle, Arizona Interfaith
Worker Justice, Tempe, AZ; Rev. Briget Nicholson, Pastor,
First Congregational United Church of Christ, Tucson, AZ;
Rev. Stephen Copley, President, Arkansas Interfaith
Conference, United Methodist Church, North Little Rock, AR;
Imam Ali Siddiqui, Corona Valley, CA.
The Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser, Executive Director, CA Council
of Churches, California Church IMPACT, Sacramento CA; Bishop
Allan C. Bjornberg, Rocky Mountain Synod, ELCA, Denver, CO;
Fidel ``Butch'' Montoya, Minister Confianza, An Association
of Latino Ministers, Denver, CO; Sister Maureen McCormack,
President, The Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, Denver, CO;
The Right Rev. James E. Curry, Bishop Suffragan, Episcopal
Diocese of Connecticut, Hartford, CT; Rev. Dr. Davida Foy
Crabtree, Conference Minister, Connecticut Conference, United
Church of Christ, Hartford, CT; Rev. Dr, William L. Rhines,
Jr., Harriet R. Tubman United Methodist Church, New Castle,
DE; The Rt. Rev. Philip M. Duncan, II, Bishop, Diocese of the
Central Gulf Coast, Pensacola, FL; Rev. John F. Stanton,
Associate Priest, Trinity Episcopal Cathedral, Miami, FL;
Rev. Charles Buck, Conference Minister, Hawaii Conf. United
Church of Christ, Honolulu, HI; The Rt. Rev. Harry B.
Bainbridge, III, Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Idaho, Boise,
ID; Bishop Paul R. Landahl, Metropolitan Chicago Synod,
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Chicago, IL; The Rev.
Dr. Larry L. Greenfield, Executive Minister, American Baptist
Churches of Metro Chicago, Chicago, IL; Megan M. Ramer,
Pastor, Chicago Community Mennonite Church, Chicago, IL; The
Rt. Rev. Catherine Waynick, Bishop of Indianapolis, IN.
Rev. Stephen C. Gray, Conf. Minister, Indiana-Kentucky
Conference, UCC, Indianapolis, IN; Rev. Dick Clark, Pastor,
St. Timothy's United Methodist Church, Cedar Falls, IA; Sr.
Joy Peterson, PBVM, President, Sisters of the Presentation of
BVM, Dubuque, IA; Rev. David Hansen, Conference Minister,
Kansas-Oklahoma Conference, United Church of Christ, Wichita,
KS; Rev. Albert M. Pennybacker, Former National Chair, Clergy
and Laity Network, Former Natl. President, The Interfaith
Alliance, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Lexington
KY; Sr. Margaret Stallmeyer, CDP, Thomas More College
President, Congregation of Divine Providence, Melbourne, KY;
Rev. David F. Kniker, Kewanee, LA; Rabbi Darah R. Lerner,
Congregation Beth El, Bangor, ME; Rev. David R. Gaewski,
Conference Minister, Maine Conference, United Church of
Christ, Yarmouth, ME; The Right Reverend Robert W. Ihloff,
Episcopal Bishop of Maryland.
Sr. Gayle Lwanga Crumbley, National Coordinator, National
Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, Silver
Spring, MD; The Rev. Dr. Jim Antal, Conference Minister and
President, Massachusetts Conference, United Church of Christ,
Framingham, MA; Rabbi David Lerner, Temple Emunah, Lexington,
MA; Johanna Chao Rittenburg, Economic Justice Program
Manager, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, Cambridge,
MA; Rev. Dr. Kent J. Ulery, Conference Minister, Michigan
Conference United Church of Christ, East Lansing MI; Lucinda
Keils, Executive Director, Detroit Metropolitan Interfaith
Committee on Worker Issues, Detroit, MI; Rev. Peg Chemberlin,
Executive Director, Minnesota Council of Churches,
Minneapolis, MN; Rev. Dr. Karen Smith Sellers, Conference
Minister, Minnesota Conference United Church of Christ,
Minneapolis, MN; Rev. Charlene B. Burch, Interim Conference
Minister, Missouri Mid-South Conference, United Church of
Christ, St. Louis. MO; Rev. W. Audrey Hollis, Organizer, St.
Louis Area Jobs With Justice, St. Louis, MO.
The Rev. Randall Hyvonen, Conference Minister, Montana-
Northern Wyoming Conference, United Church of Christ,
Billings, MT; Rev. F. Vernon Wright, Minister, UCC, Helena,
MT; Rev. Dr. Dallas Dee Brauninger, Burwell, NE; Mr. David
Lamarre-Vincent, Exec. Dir., New Hampshire Council of
Churches, Concord, NH; The Rev. Eleanor McLaughlin, Ph.D.
Rector, St. Barnabas Episcopal Church, Berlin, NH; The Rev.
Bruce H. Davidson, Dir., Lutheran Office of Governmental
Ministry in NJ, Trenton, NJ; Frank McCann, Director, Just
Neighbors Program, Summit, NJ; The Reverend Elizabeth Purdum,
Pastor, St. Luke Lutheran Church, Albuquerque, NM; The
Reverend Arthur Meyer, Manager, Pastoral Care Dept, San Juan
Regional Medical Center, Farmington, NM; The Rt. Rev. Jack
McKelvey, Episcopal Bishop of Rochester, NY.
The Rt. Rev. Catherine S. Roskam, Bishop Suffragan of the
Episcopal Diocese of New York; Rev. Ned Wight, Executive
Director, Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter
Rock, Manhasset, NY; Rabbi Jill Jacobs, Director of
Education, Jewish Funds for Justice, New York, NY; Rev.
Nelson Johnson, Board Chair, Interfaith Worker Justice,
Greensboro, NC; Rev. Ginny N. Britt, Director, The Advocacy
for the Poor, Winston-Salem, NC; Rev. Dr. Charles R. Traylor,
Executive Presbyter, Presbytery of the Northern Plains,
Presbyterian Church (USA), Fargo, ND; Rt. Rev. Kenneth Price,
Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio, Columbus, OH;
Rev. Callon Holloway, Jr., Bishop for Southern Ohio Synod,
ELCA, Columbus, OH.
Rev. Rebecca Tollefson, Executive Director, Ohio Council of
Churches, Columbus, OH; Rev. Ron Hooker, Chair of Church in
the World Commission, Central-Southeast Association of the
Ohio Conference UCC, Columbus, OH; Fr. Clark Sheckelford,
Rector, Emmanuel Episcopal, Shawnee, OK; Rev. Robin Meyers,
Pastor, Mayflower UCC, Oklahoma City, OK; Rev. John M. Gantt,
interim Conference Minister, Central Pacific Conference of
the United Church of Christ, Portland, OR; Norene Goplen,
Director, Lutheran Advocacy Ministry of Oregon, Portland OR;
Gary Straughan, President, Eastern District Executive Board,
Moravian Church, Northern Province, Bethlehem, PA; Rev.
Sandra L. Strauss, Director of Public Advocacy, Pennsylvania
Council of Churches, Harrisburg, PA; Rabbi Gail Glicksman,
Dean of Students, Reconstructionist Rabbinical College,
Wyncote, PA.
Rev. Christopher H. Bender, Pastor, Dormition of the
Theotokos Greek Orthodox Church, Aliquippa, PA; Father Jack
O'Malley, Labor Religion Coalition of Western PA; Rev. John
Zehring, Kingston Congregational Church, Kingston, RI; Rev.
Peter E. Lanzillotta, Ph.D., Minister, The Unitarian Church
in Charleston, Charleston, SC; Bishop Craig B. Anderson (VIII
South Dakota)--Retired, SD; Rev. Rebekah Jordan, Executive
Director, Mid-South Interfaith Network for Economic Justice,
Memphis, TN; Dr. Nabil Bayakly, Muslims in Memphis, Memphis,
TN; Rev. Janet Wolf, United Methodist Clergy, Hobson United
Methodist Church, Chair, Division of Church Vocations,
American Baptist College, Nashville, TN; The Reverend Jeff
St. Clair, Pastor, New Hope Lutheran Church, EI Paso, TX.
Rev. Tom VandeStadt, Pastor, Congregational Church of
Austin United Church of Christ, TX; Linda Hilton, Director,
Coalition of Religious Communities, Salt Lake City, UT; Kay
Miller, Salt Lake City Police Dept Chaplain, All Saints
Episcopal Church, Salt Lake City; The Rt. Rev. Neff Powell,
Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia, Roanoke,
VA; Rev. C. Douglas Smith, Executive Director, Virginia
Interfaith Center for Public Policy, Richmond, VA; Francis X.
Doyle, (retired) Associate General Secretary, U.S. Conference
of Catholic Bishops, Ashburn, VA; Rev. Paul Benz, Director,
Lutheran Public Policy Office of Washington State Don Kelly,
Co-chair, UU Voices for Justice, Seattle, WA.
Fr. James E. Hug, S.J, President, Center of Concern,
Washington, DC; Rev. Marvin M. Silver, United Church of
Christ Justice & Witness Ministries, Washington, DC; Rev. Dr.
Ken Brooker Langston, Director, Disciples Justice Action
Network, Coordinator, Disciples Center for Public Witness,
Washington, DC; Mr. Curtis Ramsey-Lucas, National Coordinator
of Public and Social Advocacy, National Ministries, American
Baptist Churches USA, Washington, DC; Rev. Elenora Giddings
Ivory, Director, Washington Office, Presbyterian Church
(USA), Washington, DC; Rev. Romal J. Tune, CEO,
[[Page S888]]
Clergy Strategic Alliances, LLC, Washington, DC; Alexia
Kelley, Executive Director, Catholics in Alliance for the
Common Good, Washington DC; Rev. Ernest S. Lyght, Bishop,
West Virginia Conf., United Methodist Church, Charleston, WV;
Rev. Lori Fell, Morgantown, WV; Scott Anderson, Executive
Director, Wisconsin Council of Churches, Sun Prairie, WI;
Rev. Robert Chapman, Pastor, Mount of Olives Lutheran Church,
Rock Springs, WY.
For a complete list of signatories in formation, please
visit http://www.letjusticeroll.org
/pdfs/20070105NationalMinWageletter.pdf
____
I am a member of NETWORK, A Catholic Social Justice Lobby,
and I support S. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007--to
increase to the minimum wage from $5.15 to 7.25. Long
overdue, this bill provides a first step towards a dignified
life for low-wage workers in poverty. I urge you to support a
``clean'' bill to raise the federal minimum wage--one that
does not attempt to add provisions of any kind and instead
allows it to pass as a stand-alone issue.
Catholic Social Teaching reminds us that all persons are
created by God, which is the basis for their dignity. In
justice and to live with dignity, each human person working
full time should be compensated enough to support him/herself
and a family. It has been almost ten years since Congress
voted to increase the minimum wage. Currently, a minimum wage
employee who works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks in a year makes
$10,700 for that year. For a single parent with two children,
that amount is thousands of dollars below the poverty line.
This is unconscionable. Workers who provide security, clean
hotels, wash dishes and haul supplies should not have to rely
on charity or government assistance to get by. The proposed
minimum wage increase to $7.25 an hour (from $5.15/hr.) would
give an additional $4,368 per year to a full-time worker
making minimum wage. This would bring them a step closer to
obtaining a livable wage which would provide for a family's
basic needs: food, shelter, health care, clothing, education
and recreation.
The minimum wage should be increased without any extra
provisions or tax breaks in order avoid establishing such a
precedent. Since the last minimum wage increase, congress has
passed no fewer than five tax relief packages which have
provided small businesses with up to $36 billion in tax
breaks. While congress has had no problem providing tax
breaks for small businesses without considering raising the
minimum wage, it seems impossible for some that the minimum
wage be raised without a tax break for small businesses.
Given the urgency of the minimum wage increase it is best to
avoid linking it to other issues and pass it as a stand-alone
``clean'' bill.
The American people have spoken out on the urgency of this
bill. With strong victories in all six minimum wage ballot
initiatives this election, voters have shown concern for
hardworking people in poverty. People who work full-time
should earn enough to support themselves and their families.
Consequently, I call on you to act justly, and challenge your
other members to do the same. I urge you to quickly pass the
minimum wage bill with no extra add-on provisions as it comes
up this January.
Mr. KENNEDY. They mention Matthew's great teachings. The questioner
says: When did I fail to treat you well? And the Lord says: When you
failed to treat the least of these among us.
We are talking about a minimum wage, not an optimum wage. As the
charts show, it has declined dramatically over a period of years, now
at $5.15, far away from what it was in the 1960s and 1970s, right
through the 1980s. We believe that in this country, with the strongest
economy in the world, people who work hard 40 hours a week, 52 weeks of
the year, should not have to live in poverty. An increase in the
minimum wage is long overdue. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity in
this body to express our views on this in the near future.
If there are no further speakers, I suggest that we recess, according
to the leadership's earlier request.
____________________