Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007
FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - January 30, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I intend to vote against the bill before us today because it really does not do anything to help low wage workers in this country in supporting families, buying health care, or giving them the flexibility they need to deal with family issues as well as hold a full-time job. I have consistently opposed a Federal wage mandate because I believe it is bad policy that hurts the very people we are trying to help with this bill. Despite that, I have sought to engage in constructive debate on this bill and offer amendments that would make it better. Unfortunately, over the course of this discussion, I have been forced to conclude that this whole debate is--let's just say less than honest. What we are talking about here in the Senate is not really about helping low-income workers; this is about mandating a starting wage, not a minimum wage, in a select group of States. This is a mandated starting wage because the facts show that two-thirds of minimum wage workers earn a raise within a year. We also know that most of these are working for restaurants and small businesses, and most of them are teenagers or young folks working part time.
The Democratic proposal before us targets certain States disproportionately while leaving many other States completely or relatively unaffected. If passed, my home State of South Carolina would be subjected to a 41-percent increase in the Federal mandate and the inevitable job loss that will come with this. However, States such as California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon, and others would not be required to raise their minimum wage at all. This is because 28 States plus the District of Columbia have passed laws raising their minimum wage above the federally mandated $5.15 per hour. Some of those States, such as the ones I just mentioned, have gone well beyond the $7.25 which this Federal mandate will implement.
If we are to have a minimum wage at all, it is better to have a Federalist system of government and individual States could continue to set their own minimum wage levels, rather than the Federal Government. After all, different States have very different economies as well as very different costs of living. We know that a dollar will go a lot further in San Antonio than in San Francisco, and we need to recognize that. Mr. President, $7.25 in San Francisco is not a bit of help, but in another State that is a lot more money.
To that effect, I have offered an amendment to the current proposal that would have raised the minimum wage $2.10 in every State across this land. Had my amendment been adopted, this bill would have at least been more fair in the way it imposed its unfunded mandate. Ironically, the motion to strike my amendment was based on the fact that it was an unfunded Federal mandate, which is precisely what the underlying bill is at this point.
We have tried to add some other provisions. There is some tax relief for small businesses that mostly hire minimum wage workers, but we have not gone nearly far enough.
I heard my dear colleague from Massachusetts oppose very vocally any tax relief for small businesses that will bear the brunt of an increased minimum wage. I think it is just important to point out what we are trying to do. This is a chart which compares the amount of, what some of us would call porkbarrel spending for what we call the Boston Big Dig. The Federal Government's part of bailing this out is $8.5 billion. What we are asking for, for thousands of businesses and millions of low wage workers across this country, is tax relief of less than that, that would help people keep more workers and be more profitable.
I understand I am running out of time. I hope this whole debate about helping low wage workers would include those areas which will really help people who are working full time at $8, $10, $12 an hour and having a difficult time getting by: If we could make that health care more accessible and more affordable; if we could do for them what we do for Federal Government workers and give them flexibility so if they need an afternoon off to drive on a field trip one day on one week, they can work an extra 4 or 5 hours the next week to make it up, then they call it even--there is no overtime, there is no penalty. Government workers get it, but we will not give that same benefit to workers all across this country.
I am going to vote against cloture on this bill because cloture is designed to cut off debate. Many of the amendments that would help low wage workers are being eliminated. What it comes down to is just an unfunded mandate on several States, leaving out others.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/