THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senate will shortly vote on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4516, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for 2001.
As the managers have stated, this conference report also includes the Treasury-general government bill for fiscal year 2001.
Many Senators have voiced concern about the inclusion of the Treasury bill, which had not previously passed the Senate, in this conference report. Many Senators have questioned me personally about this. Having served in this body for nearly 32 years, I understand and share that commitment to the procedures of the Senate and want to do my best to preserve the rights of all Senators.
I am here to ask Senators in this case to consider the product rather than the process by which this conference report comes before the Senate. This report addresses critical funding priorities for all of the elements of the legislative branch. Senator BENNETT and Senator FEINSTEIN have achieved a very balanced agreement with the House on the underlying bill that merits the support of the Senate.
In the Treasury bill, substantial changes were made to the committee-reported bill, the bill that came out of our Appropriations Committee, to accommodate priorities of the Members of the House and of the executive branch, both in terms of funding and of legislation. It would be preferable to have this bill come separately before the Senate, but the Appropriations Committee now finds itself in the stranglehold of the calendar.
In all likelihood, we have about 10 voting days remaining in this Congress. We are working to compress weeks of work into a handful of days. There are additional changes that Members and the President seek in the Treasury portion of the conference report. I have extended my personal commitment to Senator DORGAN to work with him and Senator CAMPBELL to try to incorporate those adjustments into another conference report. I also have given my word to Senator REID concerning problems regarding the police section of the legislative bill itself.
Adoption of this report now will permit us to redouble our efforts to conclude our work as rapidly as possible on the other bills that still pend before Congress, and we will be able to achieve the changes some sought to make in the current bill. Any other course will set the Senate and the Congress way back in getting our job done.
If this conference report is not approved, we will have to find some way to go back to conference with the House. And if it is decided that we must bring the Treasury bill before the Senate, I can assure Senators that we will have a postelection session.
It is just not possible to finish these bills before the election and get home in a reasonable amount of time--at least before the election--for the Members of the House and Senate who are up for election to conduct their campaigns.
I don't know of any other way to do what we have to do, other than to try to match up some of these bills in conference. There are lots of issues that both sides of the aisle may disagree on and fight over during the days that remain in this Congress.
The bill before the Senate, I believe, is a reasonable bill, comprised of two separate bills that meet important national objectives. I have come to the floor to urge the Senate to support this conference report, to accept the commitments that I and others have made concerning the additional concerns expressed on the floor, and let our committee complete its work.
I report to the Senate that conferences are scheduled today on the Interior bill and Transportation appropriations bill. But there is one thing Senators should know; our committee will be working every day--not just the 10 days of votes--between now and adjournment to try to finish the bills before the scheduled day of adjournment, October 6. Even when that day comes, it will not be the last day for the Appropriations Committee. We will have to await the outcome of the President's review and determine whether there have to be changes made in the bills following the veto, should that occur. I am not predicting it will occur, but it might.
If the Senate votes and approves this bill and sends it to the President, it is going to lend real momentum to concluding the appropriations process in a very responsible way this year. There have been things that held up these bills this year, including many days on the Senate floor with cloture motions and other matters. I am not critical of those. That is very important work for the Senate to do.
[Page: S8794] GPO's PDF
Now we are in the appropriations process and we are trying to deal with a period that will really end on the 28th, not the 30th, because of the holiday and our recess next week. We have to find a way to complete these bills.
The Senators who want to vote against the bill ought to be prepared to come back after the election. We are not going to be able to finish these bills separately this year. We are going to have to find a way to join them together. I, for one, have lived through too many postelection sessions. I don't want to live through another one. I urge Members of the Senate to support this conference report and let us get on about our work.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, with passage of the legislative branch appropriations conference report, the Senate will successfully roll back one of the most regressive taxes in history and given Americans everywhere a much-deserved break.
For some time, now, I have pushed to repeal the telephone excise tax , a tax that is placed on individuals and families, regardless of income or circumstances.
Quite simply, if you owned a phone, you paid the tax , and along with its regressive nature, the tax was lamentable because it stood as one more example of how antiquated, unfair, counterproductive government policies not only outlive their original design, but become almost impossible to abolish.
The telephone excise tax was first imposed in 1898, more than 102 years ago. Its purpose was to fund the Spanish-American War, to provide for those who, like Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders, needed the wherewithal to defend U.S. interests.
At the time it was imposed, it came as something of a luxury tax --a tax on the wealthy, as few Americans owned telephones.
Roosevelt rode up San Juan Hill. The war came to an end. But Washington couldn't resist holding on to the revenue. From time to time, the tax was repealed, but it always seemed to get reinstated--rising as high as 25 percent at one point--and placing an unfair burden on millions.
Today, however, we shall successfully eliminate the telephone excise tax , and this--in my mind--is cause for celebration. Studies show that individuals and families with income less than $10,000 spend almost 10 percent of their income on telephone bills. Individuals and families earning $50,000 spend 2 percent of their income for telephone service. Because of what we have done here today, these families--and all families--will benefit.
I'm proud of this action, grateful to those who supported repealing this excise tax . What we have done is not only in the interest of Americans everywhere, but it is a clear demonstration that we are willing and able to appropriately address the need to reduce the excessive tax burden that has been placed on the back of America's middle class.
My sincere hope is that this is the beginning of a long and successful trend.
On another issue, I am concerned that the legislative branch appropriations conference report--while it contains good news for taxpayers--while it contains good news for taxpayers--does not meet the full funding needs of the Internal Revenue Service. As you know, 2 years ago in a major bipartisan initiative, Congress successfully passed the largest IRS reform and restructuring effort in history. That law has been effective in protecting taxpayers and giving the IRS the direction necessary to re-engineer its business practices, upgrade its computer systems, and provide taxpayers with better service.
But in order to most effectively carry out Congress' mandate, and to fulfill its mission to collect and protect the Federal revenue, the IRS needs adequate funding.
This appropriations conference report, unfortunately, provides hundreds of millions of dollars less than what the agency needs. And the absence of proper funding will cut directly into the improved conditions that Congress desires. Unless additional funding is provided, the Service may be unable to effectively perform its audit and collection functions. Without adequate funding, service functions will diminish.
There will be a loss of telephone and walk-in service for taxpayers, a decrease in the level of toll-free service, and it will become more difficult for taxpayers to receive assistance.
We must provide additional funds to the IRS in other appropriate bills before this Congress adjourns. Only by doing this can we ensure that the IRS has the resources it needs to meet the standards of service and accountability that Congress has required.
Along with eight members of the Senate Finance Committee, I have signed a letter to members of the Appropriations Committee asking that funding be restored. And I intend to work with my colleagues toward this end.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask consent that the vote occur on adoption of the pending conference report at 3 p.m., and that paragraph 4 of Rule 12 be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GREGG). Without objection, it is so ordered.
MINIMUM WAGE
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak this afternoon on an issue which is important to all Americans, particularly the 10 million who are presently working for a minimum wage. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts will join me in a few minutes to discuss the issue, which has been a major crusade for him for the last several years.
Earlier I noted that until the mid-1980s the issue of a minimum wage increase was never a partisan issue. In fact, Republican and Democratic Presidents alike endorsed the idea of periodically trying to increase the minimum wage to reflect the cost of living. But for some reason, in the mid-1980s, that all changed. It became a Democratic and Republican battle as to whether people who were earning a minimum wage should be able to keep up with the cost of living, keep up with inflation. Because of that battle, fits and starts and the wins and losses, many minimum wage workers across America started falling behind. In fact, their buying power, working for a minimum wage, was diminishing because Congress had failed to give them an adequate increase in their income to keep up with the cost of living.
Some arguments on the other side suggested: If you raise the minimum wage for workers who have no skills, entry level workers, it is going to basically kill jobs because employers are going to have to make a choice. They are either going to pay more to a minimum wage worker on the job and then reduce the size of the workforce or pay less to that minimum wage worker and keep a larger workforce.
It seems as if there is linear logic to this argument, but, in fact, when you look at it, the economic history of this country just does not back it up. As you will notice on this first chart which I am showing, as we have seen increases in the
minimum wage from April of 1995 where the wage was increased, in October of 1996, to $4.75, and then again in October of 1997 to $5.15 an hour, the current minimum wage, the number of people working in America has continued to grow. So the argument that increasing the minimum wage is a job killer just does not make any sense.
Just the opposite seems to be true. In a growing economy, when you give to
[Page: S8795] GPO's PDF
People say these minimum wage jobs are just for kids who do not have any skills or background. When they come to the workplace and get their first job, they have to be prepared to be paid very little for it. I used to be one of those a long time ago. Take a look at what has happened here between September of 1996 and August of the year 2000. The 1996 minimum wage increase did not kill job opportunities in a single category here: Among teenagers, even among high school dropouts, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, or women in the workforce.
One of the other misconceptions is that somehow the minimum wage is just going to be paid to those who are, frankly, children who have limited work experience, a first job, so they will get a minimum wage. Who are these 10.1 million workers across America who would benefit from an increase in the minimum wage? I think you would be surprised to learn, as I was, that 69 percent of the workers who benefit are adults over the age of 20. So the idea that this is a children's wage or a teenager's wage is just wrong. Mr. President, 69 percent of minimum wage workers, 7 million of them, are over 20; 60 percent of these are women and many of these women have children.
You know what we are talking about here. We are talking about someone who has gone through a divorce, perhaps has a child they are trying to raise and do their very best by working a minimum wage job. Sixty percent of these minimum wage workers are women and 45 percent of them have full-time jobs. They are full-time minimum wage workers making less than $11,000 a year: 16 percent African American, 20 percent Hispanic; 40 percent of them work in retail. They sell us our hamburgers and our CDs at the store and all the things we buy; 27 percent are in the service sector; 83 percent of the minimum wage workers are heads of households and they are earning between $5.15 an hour and $6.14 an hour. Mr. President, 40 percent of minimum wage workers are the sole adult breadwinners in their families.
The argument that we are talking about a training wage for kids who really just want a first time on the job overlooks 40 percent of the minimum wage workforce who are adults trying to make enough money to feed a child--those are the minimum wage workers. I can recall a speech given many years ago by Rev. Jesse Jackson from Chicago, which I am proud to represent in the Senate, when he talked about these people going to work every day--the invisible workforce. We do not see them cleaning our hotel rooms, clearing off the tables, working in the kitchens and the day-care centers and the nursing homes; people we rely on to make America a better place, who do the tough, often thankless jobs in America for $5.15 an hour.
In my home State of Illinois, the estimate is we have over 400,000 minimum wage workers. These are people who deserve an increase in that minimum wage for a chance to be able to get out of poverty. Frankly, most Americans agree: If you are a hard-working person who is not looking for a handout but just looking for a chance to go to work, you really deserve some sort of basic living wage.
Look at this chart. ``Americans Support Wages That Keep Working Families Out Of Poverty.'' Overwhelmingly, 81 percent strongly agree with this. Does anyone really, listening to this speech, this debate, believe if you are making $10,700 a year you are out of poverty? That you have a comfortable life? Even with the Earned-Income Tax Credit, one of the few things with which we try to help these working families, by and large life is from payday to payday. They are striving just to meet the necessities and basics of life. So when we talk about an increase in the minimum wage, we are talking about helping these families who are going to work every single day finally reach up over the ledge and look ahead, beyond poverty.
If welfare reform was not about rewarding that type of person, what was the debate all about? I voted for it. Some of my colleagues said don't do that because you are going to leave the poor behind when they really need help. I hope we never do.
But I can tell you, this minimum wage debate is about those people, folks with limited job experience. They are finally off the dole, off welfare, trying to do their best, stuck in a $5.15-an-hour job; showing up for work on a regular basis, full-time employees--45 percent of them--and still stuck at $5.15 an hour.
During the Republican Convention in Philadelphia, there was a lot of talk about the economy. It was amazing, in a way, because they failed to acknowledge, as you might expect, we are in a period of prosperity unparalleled in the history of the United States. We have had the longest run of economic expansion ever. We are now talking about eliminating our national debt. That has not happened since the Civil War, I might add--the Civil War in the 19th century, if there is any doubt what I am referring to.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents