[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 30, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1301-S1302]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I wish to, again, thank my friend from 
Illinois and also our leader for their strong support on the increase 
in the minimum wage. We will have more as we go on through the morning. 
We expect to vote at noontime today on the increase on the minimum 
wage. This is day seven. We had five courageous Republicans who voted 
with us to pass what we call a clean minimum wage law that would 
increase the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 without 
additional kinds of tax provisions in there. The nine times we have 
increased the minimum wage we have only added tax provisions on one 
time. It is not necessary to add additional tax provisions, since we 
are restoring the purchasing power of the minimum wage to what it was 
some 10 years ago.
  But I raise another broader issue for a few moments and that is, What 
is it about these working families that so outrages our Republican 
friends? What is it about providing a decent wage--some would say it is 
not decent because it is still so low at $7.25 an hour--but what is it 
about our Republican friends that they refuse to give us a vote in the 
Senate? It is true that 80 Republicans voted for an increase over in 
the House of Representatives. But Republican leadership has been 
strongly opposed to this over the last 10 years that I tried to bring 
up an increase in the minimum wage. It goes back a long period of time. 
We are seeing it once again, here, as the President is against an 
increase in the minimum wage.
  I remind those who are watching the Senate deliberations this morning 
that we do not have any amendments over here on our side. The Democrats 
do not have any. They have more than 90 amendments over on the other 
side. I reminded the Senate, they have had amendments for over $200 
billion. Some are dealing with Social Security. There are $35 billion 
in tax cuts on education, but they didn't include any help or 
assistance for children on the IDEA, those with disabilities or, for 
the neediest children, the Pell grants. We haven't had any 
consideration on that. They dropped that amendment in on the minimum 
wage program, completely unrelated to the minimum wage program. They 
had health savings accounts to benefit people with incomes of $133,000. 
We have had all those kinds of amendments, and they continue, if you 
read through that list. I have gone through those amendments and they 
continue.
  My question comes back to this. What is it that the Republican 
leadership has against working families? I have raised that over the 
period of the last few days and I raise it today. I was looking back at 
the record of our Republican friends over the last year or so. They 
eliminated 6 million workers from overtime. Do we understand that? In 
the last 2 years, 6 million workers have had their overtime effectively 
canceled.
  Since the 1930s, under President Roosevelt, there was a recognition 
that if people work more than 40 hours a week, they were going to be 
able to get overtime. The number of those individuals who work more 
than 40 hours a week is significant. It is over 28 percent in our 
country today. But this administration eliminated that extra time and a 
half for 6 million workers.
  We say: What is it about those 6 million workers? Then we think about 
the opposition to the increase in the minimum wage. We take away their 
overtime when we are seeing this extraordinary increase in executive 
salaries, salaries which are exploding through the ceiling. Take away 
that overtime for 6 million workers. All right.
  Then we see the great tragedy we had with Katrina, and we saw the 
attempts to rebuild after Katrina. What was the first thing the 
administration said? Eliminate any coverage or protection for workers 
in terms of their wages down there, what they call the Davis-Bacon 
program. It means they are not going to get paid what they get paid in 
the various regions, eliminate that so you can drive wages down even 
further in New Orleans. What is the reason for that? It is a good way 
to drive wages down for workers.

  What is it about people in the construction industry? They average, I 
think it is $29,000 a year. That is too much for our Republican 
friends? Or $10,712 for a working American, a man or woman at the 
minimum wage, and they refuse to give some increase in that to $7.25 an 
hour? Here you have the average construction worker at $29,000 a year, 
and you are saying that is too high. What is it about this Republican 
Party, against the working families?
  What was in their minds when they eliminated safety positions and 
reduced the budget for mine safety, prior to the Sago and Alma mine 
disasters? What was in their minds at that time, to reduce the kind of 
safety provisions? Is the power of the mine companies so great they can 
increase the risks for workers? Oh, yes, there are workers down there. 
They are the ones we want to cut back on, in terms of their overtime. 
They are the ones we are going to cut back on, in terms of safety.
  I remember when this President Bush--after the first hearings we had, 
I think, in our committee--acted to eliminate the protections that had 
been recommended by President Clinton in the area of ergonomics, 
particularly affecting women who spend a great deal of time on 
computers. It affects others--those in the meat-packing industry and 
poultry industry, workers who perform repetitive kinds of procedures. 
We had extensive hearings. The Clinton recommendations were very 
modest. He encouraged companies to get into this and work with 
industry. Some people thought they were too weak, but they were 
protecting workers, hard-working people doing some of the most 
difficult work in America, protecting them so they are not going to get 
the kinds of complicated health challenges that will disable so many of 
those.
  We know what the science is. We have had study after study by the 
National Academy of Sciences that said do something in Congress. We did 
something. But oh, no, the Republican leadership said: No, we are not 
going to do that. We are not going to provide protection for those 
workers. We are going to cut back on safety for those who work in the 
mines. We are going to cut back on overtime for 6 million. We are going 
to refuse to cover the workers down there in New Orleans who are 
working, trying to rebuild, when this administration basically ignored 
the problems there. Workers who were out there working, we are going to 
cut back and skimp on their salaries on this.
  What is it about working people that this administration--the list 
goes on. Look at the amendments that are lined up to weaken OSHA. We 
see the number of lives that have been saved--tens of thousands of 
lives were saved. We have cut the death rate by more than 77 percent 
since OSHA has been in effect. There are new problems, new challenges, 
in terms of toxic substances, we have to look at. What is the voice 
over there? We hear great speeches about what is happening to the 
middle class. Let's take a step that can make some difference--
certainly to 6 million children who will benefit if we increase the 
minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25--6 million children's parents will 
benefit. We will have that opportunity.
  I don't know what has changed in productivity. We worked closely 
together, for years and years, for a decent wage. It shows back in the 
1960s, 1965 into the 1970s, we saw where our great American economy was 
moving along, increasing productivity. That increase in productivity 
was shared between the corporate world, the business world, and the 
workers. That is what was happening. We will get the charts later on.
  Evidently our friends on the other side want to prolong this debate. 
We will get the charts to show that all America moved along in the 
1940s and the 1950s, all the way through the 1960s--each quintile moved 
along virtually together. If you saw growth in the economy, it 
benefited all the groups together.
  What has come over this country, and particularly the Republican 
Party, to say that no longer works in the United States? We don't want 
an economy that is going to work for everyone. We want an economy that 
is going to work for some--a few. What is it about it? I termed it 
``greed.'' It is greed.

[[Page S1302]]

  We have seen now what has happened in the change, in the increase in 
productivity. Still, the minimum wage goes down.
  Mr. President, my excellent staff found that chart I was referring 
to--``Growing Together, 1947 to 1973.'' The lowest quintile, the 
second, third, right up to the very top--if you look at the different 
colors, you will see that all America moved along together. Now look 
what has happened. Corporations get a $276 billion tax break, small 
business a $36 billion tax break, and no increase in the minimum wage.
  I hope somewhere during the course of this debate, our Republican 
friends will come out and make at least some argument about either the 
economics--it is an impossible one to make. You can't say it is the 
loss of jobs. We have dealt with that issue.
  They will say you can't increase the minimum wage because it is 
inflationary in our economy. We show it is less than one-fifth of 1 
percent of total wages paid over the course of the year. That argument 
doesn't work.
  They will try to say it is not what our country is about, we can't 
afford that in the richest country in the world, where people are 
working. We demonstrate that the States which have an increase in 
minimum wage have grown faster and grown stronger and have a better 
economic record. And most important, child poverty has gone down.
  I imagine, over the period of this year, we will hear 100 speeches in 
the different parts of our country about our children being our future. 
We have an opportunity today at noontime to do something about that. 
You don't have to make a speech, you have to vote right. You can vote 
today and, with that vote, hopefully, expedited process, that we can 
wind this legislation up and work out the differences with the House of 
Representatives and get it to the President to sign. Six million 
children will benefit.
  So if you are talking about your concerns about middle class, if you 
are talking about working families, if you are talking about fairness 
and decency, if you are talking about children's issues, women's 
issues, civil rights issues, today at noon you have a chance to do 
something about it.
  So I hope we will have more of an opportunity as we get closer to the 
time to add some additional comments. But I would hope that finally 
this basic, fundamental, and I think irrational, irresponsible, 
unacceptable, postured position our Republican friends have in terms of 
opposition--continued opposition, opposition, opposition--to the 
minimum wage would end. Today we are on the seventh day, but we debated 
this 16 other days to try to get an increase in the minimum wage 
without the Republicans letting us have it. How many days? What is the 
price? We don't even know what the price is. What are we supposed to 
do--keep bidding it out and sweetening the pot until the Republicans 
come along? Is that what the Americans want us to do? That is not what 
we are prepared to do.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I assume we are proceeding as in morning 
business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair. I would just say that like many Members 
on my side of the aisle, we pushed for a minimum wage bill last fall. 
Regrettably, it was filibustered, so we couldn't bring it to a vote. We 
are looking for and I intend to support a minimum wage bill if it has 
some reasonable tax incentives for small businesses that would be 
seriously harmed in some instances by the cost of a very drastic rise 
in the minimum wage. But I am hoping we will be allowed and not be 
prevented from adding those tax breaks that I think everybody needs.

                          ____________________