[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16593-16595]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    MINIMUM WAGE AND THE ESTATE TAX

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise because this week is going to be 
enormously important for the American people and also enormously 
important in terms of deciding what kind of country we are. Over the 
period of these last 4 months, I have had the opportunity, the 
responsibility given by the Senate, to serve on the pension conference 
with a number of our colleagues on our side, and a number of

[[Page 16594]]

our colleagues on the other side. That conference was chaired by our 
friend and the chairman of our human resource committee, Senator Enzi. 
He did a splendid job.
  It took 4\1/2\ months to effectively wind up that conference. There 
are certainly provisions that are included in the conference that I 
would not have included. We were meeting as late as 1 o'clock in the 
morning last Thursday night in order to conclude the conference itself.
  As would happen in a situation like that, I think there were gaps in 
the final recommendations which I wish we had addressed, but we will 
have an opportunity to deal with those issues later this week. It will 
be enormously important.
  I am in strong support of the pensions legislation. But, also, later 
this week we are going to consider legislation that is coming over from 
the House of Representatives on the estate tax. Attached to that estate 
tax--it is not a new issue for this body--attached in the House of 
Representatives has been an increase in the minimum wage, with which I 
have been involved over a long period of time. Actually, since I came 
to the Senate, I have been involved in increasing the minimum wage, 
championing that with many others. Years ago we had Republicans and 
Democrats who supported the increase in the minimum wage. Now 
unfortunately--fortunately, in the last vote that we had on the minimum 
wage, we did have eight Republicans who supported it. We have a clear 
majority in the Senate for an increase in the minimum wage.
  The American people overwhelmingly support an increase in the minimum 
wage. It has not been increased in the last 9 years and over a 
corresponding period of time we here in the Senate have increased our 
own pay more than $30,000. We increased our own pay more than $30,000 
during that same period of time, but the Senate has refused to address 
an increase in the minimum wage for the American workers who are at the 
lowest rung of the economic ladder.
  Most Americans believe a job ought to get you out of poverty. But 
those on the other side believe if you have a minimum wage job, you 
ought to remain in poverty. That is a very big, very major difference.
  What we have seen across the country, however, is sort of a wildfire 
of support for increases in the minimum wage. We have had a number of 
States that have offered the minimum wage increase on the State 
ballots. We have seen increases in Florida, increases in Nevada. In 
more recent times we have seen increases in Arkansas, the home of Wal-
Mart, and increases in North Carolina. The campaigns for increases in 
the minimum wage are alive and well in many different States across the 
country, and they are going to be successful in a number of States. It 
reminds us how the American people feel. They feel we should have an 
increase in the minimum wage.
  What has happened now is our Republican leadership in the House of 
Representatives has added an increase in the minimum wage to an estate 
tax cut for the wealthiest individuals in this country. That is what 
they did, thinking if they put these together maybe those of us who 
believe in an increase in the minimum wage will go ahead and support 
this because we are so committed to the rise in the minimum wage.
  No one in this body is more committed to an increase in the minimum 
wage than am I, but I am going to fight this fraudulent--I think 
arrogant--decision by the Republican leadership, disdaining, 
effectively, and dishonoring hard-working Americans by going about with 
this gimmick of adding an increase to the minimum wage to legislation 
on the estate tax.
  If you look at who is for the increase in the minimum wage, you will 
see only 22 percent of Americans support the repeal of the estate tax, 
and 86 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage. Why, I 
wonder. It is fair enough to say to whom the benefits are going to go 
if we consider a piece of legislation. That is a fair enough rule. Who 
is going to benefit and who is going to lose out? If you look at the 
estate tax, you will see there will be 8,200 of the richest heirs in 
the country. Some have called this the Paris Hilton tax giveaway; 8,200 
of the richest heirs will receive a tax giveaway close to $1.4 million 
per estate. The total cost will be $753 billion for the first 10 years 
of full implementation, according to the Center of Budget and Policy.
  We are talking about a very modest increase in the minimum wage, to 
$7.25. But what will happen to those individuals? As long as they are 
still below the poverty line they are going to be eligible for a number 
of the programs that we have out there that have been built in to try 
to help and assist hard-working Americans who are being hard pressed 
because they don't have adequate income. What we have seen in the most 
recent 5 years is cuts in Medicaid, cuts in food stamps, cuts in 
veterans programs, and cuts in unemployment insurance. That has been 
the record in the past, and that will be the record in terms of the 
future, trying to make up for that $753 billion. These are the 
programs, Medicaid programs that, by and large, look after children, 
long-term care for the elderly, the Food Stamp Program--again, for 
those who are in very serious need.
  That is really what we are faced with. What have we seen over the 
period of these last few years? Let's look at what has been happening 
to our fellow Americans. We have seen an increase in the total number 
of Americans living in poverty that has increased by 5.4 million in the 
United States of America in the last 4 years that there has been no 
increase in the minimum wage. What does the Republican Senate want to 
have us do? Have another tax cut for the largest fortunes in this 
country.
  What has happened in terms of children over the period of the last 4 
years? We have seen a dramatic increase in the number of children who 
are living in poverty. There are 1.4 million more children living in 
poverty. There has been no increase in the minimum wage.
  The list goes on. If you look at what has happened to the purchasing 
power of the minimum wage, it has actually gone down some 21 percent. 
Yet the spread between the most wealthy individuals and the most needy 
individuals has never been more dramatic in the history of this 
country.
  We have an opportunity--we will have--to try to do something, 
hopefully, about an increase in the minimum wage. If it were here 
before the Senate, there is a majority of the Members of the Senate who 
support an increase in the minimum wage. But we are not given that 
opportunity. We are not given that opportunity to just vote on that 
issue and then vote separately in terms of the increase in the estate 
tax. No, no; we are not given the opportunity to do that. Republicans 
say you have to take both or you don't get an increase in the minimum 
wage.
  That is a contemptuous attitude--not toward those of us who are for 
the increase but for those workers, men and women of dignity. They work 
hard, work long, work in our schools, work to look after our senior 
citizens, work to clean the great buildings of American commerce--men 
and women of dignity, and you are saying they can't have what ought to 
be a right in the richest country of this world: If you work hard and 
play by the rules, you and your family should not live in poverty.
  Oh, no. They say: No, you have it wrong over there for an increase in 
the minimum wage, unless we are going to provide another tax benefit 
for the most wealthy individuals in the country--then you can have an 
increase. That is a contemptuous attitude.
  Beyond that, what this proposal contains is an ingenious proposal, 
suggested by the restaurant association. They say: People who work for 
tips in the restaurants, they often make $5.25 an hour. They often make 
that in tips. So why are we required to pay them? They were able to 
persuade Republicans--this is strictly a Republican proposal--to say: 
If they are going to receive tips, you are only required to pay $2.13 
an hour. The rest can be made up in tips. That person still effectively 
gets the minimum wage. But the restaurant doesn't have to pay that. Do

[[Page 16595]]

you hear me? They don't have to pay the worker the $5.15 an hour.
  A number of States said that is not fair; that is not really fair. We 
have, now, seven States that say to the restaurants: You have to pay 
the full tally. It says minimum wage of $5.15 an hour, you have to pay 
the $5.15 an hour. The States have said it. Seven States have said 
that. About 30 States have done somewhat in between, but seven States 
have said: You have to pay the whole thing.
  The Congress has said an increase in the minimum wage--a tip is a 
tip. That goes with the territory. I wonder how many Americans, when 
they go into the restaurant and they are thinking about being served, 
try to figure out--I wonder, should I give this person $1 or $2 because 
they really are only getting $2.13 an hour paid by the restaurant. Of 
course they don't. If the service is good they give them something to 
show their appreciation for it.
  What have our Republican friends said? We don't like the fact that 
States have made that judgment, that decision. We know more than the 
seven States that said you have to pay the full fare. We in the Senate 
of the United States are saying you don't know what is necessary in 
your State, about paying an adequate sum to those workers. So we, the 
Congress, are going to tell you, the State, and tell your workers, that 
we, the Republicans in the Senate and the House of Representatives, are 
going to say we are going to tell you that you only can pay $2.13.
  I hope we don't hear any more about the one big solution to all of 
the problems back home. How many times do we listen to a large 
solution, a single solution for all the problems back home? How many 
times do we hear: Let the States make a judgment and decision in order 
to protect their workers?
  Here the States have made a judgment, here the States have made a 
decision, and the Republican Party says: We know better. We know 
better. We know how to save our constituency a little more money, for 
them, and a little less for the workers. A wonderful, Republican, 
ingenious concept tied on to this proposal.
  At another time, and we will have more time, we will have a chance to 
get into this in greater detail. I will just conclude.
  I note, as I gave the figures about the number of families who are 
living in poverty, and also the number of children in poverty, there 
has been a different story in one of our neighboring countries. The 
second strongest economy in Europe is England. No. 1 is Germany, No. 2 
is England. Their minimum wage is going to nearly $10 in October--
$9.83. They have increased it now over the last 5 years. Do you want to 
know something? They have taken 1.8 million children out of poverty 
with their increase. And they have a strong economy and a more fair 
economy.
  But not here. Nine years, eight pay increases for Members of the 
Senate over 9 years, and we have not been willing to give an increase 
in the minimum wage. No, if you want that increase, you vote to give 
the wealthiest individuals another bouquet, another bouquet. How 
contemptuous can it be?
  At another time later in this debate--I know we have limited time. 
There are others who want to speak on the underlying bill. I look 
forward to addressing the Senate in greater detail on this issue and 
also on the pension issue, which is going to be extremely important.
  I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

                          ____________________