Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013

Mr. President, we are told that this week, on Wednesday, we are going to have a vote on the so-called minimum wage, the so-called 40-percent increase in the minimum wage. This is part of a jobs plan by my friends on the Democratic side. Now, it is not a plan that is intended to pass anything, and that was revealed in a New York Times article by my distinguished friend from New York, Senator Schumer, who may be an architect of this. It is to highlight political differences, which is a fair thing to do in the Senate. But lest anyone think that someone is trying to pass a law here, they should not be confused by that.

We have had three hearings on the minimum wage in the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, of which I am the ranking Republican member. We have had time to have those three hearings, but the chairman of the committee, the Senator from Iowa, has said we do not have time to markup the bill in committee or consider any amendments to this idea with better proposals to create jobs. It was reported in one of the Hill newspapers that somebody said: Well, why don't you have time for amendments on the minimum wage, and he said: Well, there might be embarrassing amendments. I think there probably would be votes on embarrassing amendments--embarrassing only if you voted against them.

So let me talk a little bit about this proposal by my Democratic friends to create jobs by raising the minimum wage.

Now, they are on the right issue. The issue is jobs. We have been home in Maine and Tennessee and around the country, and too many people are having a hard time finding a job. Too many people have been out of work for more than 6 months. We call them the long-term unemployed. Mr. President, 10.5 million people are unemployed right now. Unemployed Americans have been out of work an average of 9 months. That is beyond the time for unemployment compensation, on the average.

It is hard to find a job. It is hard to create a job. It is especially tough on people in their forties and fifties and sixties.

Family incomes are lower than we would like for them to be. The critical problem is, there are too few jobs, especially for low-wage workers. Then, we saw a report this morning that said that most of the jobs created since 2008 have been lower-wage jobs rather than higher- wage jobs.

So the issue is right. It is jobs. The American people want it to be easier to find a good-paying job. The Democratic proposal we are going to vote on this week as a solution to the jobs problem is a proposal that will eliminate 500,000 jobs. Now, let me say that again in case anyone thought I misread my page of notes. We are talking about jobs, and the Democratic proposal--this is the big deal this week. We are not going to do anything in the Senate this week of any significance on the floor, so far as I know--a few nominations--except have a procedural vote Wednesday on the minimum wage proposal, and the Democratic proposal to make it easier to find a job is to eliminate 500,000 jobs.

In case you think I am making this up, let me quote where I got this piece of information. This is from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The Congressional Budget Office is something we set up by law because we will make our Republican points and we will make our Democratic points, and we may shade it a little bit this way or a little bit that way. So we say to the CBO: You tell us the truth as best as you can tell. They are nonpartisan. We do not always like what they say. This is what they said about the Democratic proposal to create more jobs:

Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the

$10.10 option [to raise the minimum wage] would reduce total

employment by about 500,000 workers, or .3 percent. . . .

That is according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Should we believe the Congressional Budget Office?

Senator Heller, the distinguished Senator from Nevada, asked Janet Yellen, President Obama's recently confirmed head of the Federal Reserve Board, what her thoughts on the CBO study and the impact of raising the minimum wage would be. This is what she said. I quote President Obama's new Fed chief, Janet Yellen:

The CBO is as qualified as anyone to evaluate that

literature.

And she said:

I wouldn't want to argue with their assessment.

So there we have the Congressional Budget Office saying it will reduce 500,000 jobs and the new head of the Federal Reserve Board-- appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate--saying she ``wouldn't want to argue with their assessment.''

We will be hearing more from Democrats this week about the number of people whose wages will be raised by the minimum wage. There will be that. But the CBO also reported that $4 out of $5 earned from the increase in the minimum wage will go to workers in families who are above the poverty level. Mr. President, $4 out of $5 will go to workers in families who are above the poverty level, and nearly one-third of those families who would benefit from the minimum wage increase already earn more than three times the poverty level.

This reminds me of ObamaCare in this way: According to a recent Washington Post story, only about 1 in 4 people signing up for ObamaCare were previously uninsured. About three-quarters of people with ObamaCare insurance already had insurance before we went through all the turmoil of the last 3 or 4 years.

In the same sort of way, the minimum wage is said to benefit low- income Americans, but only 1 in 5 of the dollars from an increase will go to families below the poverty line. And that is not all.

In addition to cutting 500,000 jobs and providing 80 percent of the benefits to families above the poverty level, the Democratic jobs proposal imposes one more burden on the only Americans who are capable of solving this problem, and that is the job creators.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record following my remarks the testimony of Laurie Palmer of Waterville, ME, who owns four Burger King franchises with approximately 140 employees. I say to the distinguished Presiding Officer, I had no idea he might be presiding today, but I am glad to have a Maine story.

Ms. Palmer says in her testimony:

An increase in the minimum wage will directly and

negatively impact my ability to create new jobs while

limiting the benefits available to my current employees. I

currently employ 60 people who work an average of 25 hours

per week and earn the current minimum wage as defined by

Maine law--$7.50 per hour. All but a handful of these people

were hired within the last 6 months. Mathematically, an

increase in the federal minimum wage would cost me an extra

$3,900 per week or $208,000 per year . . . my net income for

last year was approximately $35,100--with an extra $208,000

in expenses, I will very likely be forced to close my

business.

She also notes, ``One hundred percent of my current staff starting at minimum wage are under 25.''

Republicans believe that if we want to create jobs, there is a better way. We would like to offer our ideas through the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. But as I mentioned, we only had time for three hearings. Although we are able to spend a whole week on this on the floor for one procedural vote, we are not allowed to offer amendments in the committee and, so far as I know, here because there might be embarrassing amendments.

Let's consider what those embarrassing amendments might be. They might be about the earned-income tax credit. Senator Rubio of Florida, and Congressman Paul Ryan, have all suggested the earned-income tax credit is a better way to make sure the lowest earning workers in America have a better wage if we are going to get the government involved in it.

Of course, if we are going to do that, we are going to have to deal with some problems, including the Internal Revenue Service estimate that 21 or 25 percent of the payments are improperly made in 2012. We could consider the proposals that, rather than giving those earned- income tax credits out in a lump sum each year, they might be given out with each paycheck.

But the Congressional Budget Office also said something about earned- income tax credits. They said one-third of low-wage workers would be in families [benefiting from the minimum wage increase] whose income was more than three times the Federal poverty level in 2016. By contrast, said CBO, an increase in the earned-income tax credit would go almost entirely to lower income families. CBO also noted that the earned- income tax credit encourages more people in low-income families to work, a value we should encourage.

So if our goal as a country is to provide a minimum wage for working Americans, why is it fair to assess the cost of that goal on just the Americans who create the jobs? Of course it makes creating the jobs harder, but even more importantly, why should not every one of us who pays taxes share in the burden of increasing America's workers' pay? That is what happens with the earned-income tax credit.

There is another proposal, a bipartisan one. We call it the 30-to-40- hour workweek. Senator Collins of Maine is one of the principal sponsors. The Senator from Indiana I believe is the lead Democratic sponsor. It is a bipartisan proposal that would, in effect, be a 33- percent pay increase for millions of American workers who already have seen their hours cut because of ObamaCare. It is a way to prevent--to say it another way--millions more workers from getting a 25-percent pay cut.

The reason all of this occurs is because ObamaCare defined full-time work as 30 hours. We would like to change it to 40 hours. ObamaCare says employers with 50 or more full-time workers must offer government- approved insurance or pay a fine. Full time is defined as 30 hours or more. That sounds as though it was written in France.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says 74 percent of their members say the health care law makes it harder for their firms to hire workers. Changing the definition of full time to 40 hours would make it easier to hire. Senators Collins and Donnelly have introduced the Forty Hours is Full Time Act. It would change the definition of full time in the law to 40 hours per week. We could be discussing that this week. We could have brought that up in our committee, had we been allowed to, or the SKILLS Act.

There are 47 separate Federal jobs programs for which taxpayers are spending $18 billion. The Government Accountability Office says 44 of those programs are duplicative. The SKILLS Act, passed by the House, consolidates 35 Federal programs and creates a single workforce investment fund. Members of the Senate have been working with Members of the House to see if we can agree on a revision of the Workforce Investment Act. We are making good progress.

If we can do a better job spending those dollars across America, that would be a good way to help create more jobs in America or at least make them easier to obtain. But we do not have time for that in our hearings. We could spend time debating amendments to transform long- term unemployment compensation into job training. But we do not have time for that amendment.

Today, Americans have been out of work for an average of 9 months. They need new skills. They need skills that help them get a job. Then ask almost anyone on either side of the aisle what is the best long- term way to make sure that children of low-income families are prepared for a good job. Almost every Governor I know is focused like a laser on this. That is the chance to go to the best possible school.

I have introduced legislation that would allow States, such as Tennessee or Maine, to take their money from approximately 80 existing federal elementary and secondary education programs and turn it into $2,100 scholarships that would follow 11 million low-income children to the school they attend. We could create $2,100 scholarships for 1 out of 5 school-aged kids in America.

When I say ``schools they attend,'' that could include a private school, if the State decided that. But this would not be a Federal mandate to that effect. The State would make that decision. It would simply make sure these Federal dollars follow the child to the school the child attends. If the State wants it to be public, if the State wants it to be on this corner, that is up to the State. We could offer and discuss that amendment.

Why not give elementary and secondary children a ticket to a better school? We give them a ticket to a childcare development center. We did that in a bipartisan way last month. We have tickets to college. We call those Pell grants. Why not help them go to better schools?

Then there are other amendments that we think, on our side of the aisle, have more to do with creating jobs than a so-called minimum wage proposal that the Congressional Budget Office says will destroy 500,000 jobs. For example, we could build the Keystone Pipeline, which passed the Senate last year during our budget discussions 62 to 37. That would create jobs.

We could pass trade promotion authority. President Obama has asked us to do that. Both in Europe and in Asia, the President has a chance to negotiate trade agreements that would create more jobs in America as we ship automobiles and soybeans from Tennessee and other places to the rest of the world. But the majority leader of the Senate says: No, that is dead for this year.

We could debate a proposal to reform the National Labor Relations Board. I do not like the fact that they have become more of an advocate than an umpire, with micro unions, with ambush elections, with undermining state right-to-work laws. But Democrats come back and say: Well, when the Republicans are in power, they are more of an advocate for employers. Maybe there is some truth to that. Let's pass a law saying: It would be better to create jobs in America if employers and employees could count on the NLRB to be a fair and unbiased tribunal, an umpire, not an advocate.

We could create jobs in America and slow the spread of jobs to Europe from America by repealing the medical device tax. That also passed the Senate last year, 79 to 20, which means there are lots of Democrats for it as well as lots of Republicans. So as I say, the only thing embarrassing about these amendments to a jobs bill would be voting against them.

On the most important issue facing the country, surely we can do better than the stale, bankrupt idea that will be voted on this week on the floor of the Senate, that according to the office we are supposed to trust for advice, the Congressional Budget Office, would, No. 1, destroy 500,000 jobs; No. 2, concentrate most of the benefits on those above the poverty line; No. 3, make it more expensive to create jobs; and, No. 4, tax only some taxpayers for a policy designed to benefit the entire society.

This kind of thinking is right in line with ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and all of the other policies that have spread a big wet blanket of rules and regulations over our free enterprise system and made it harder to create a job and harder to find a job in the United States of America. That is why we have 10.5 million people unemployed in America today for an average of 9 months. It is this constant parade of ideas that increases the big, wet, smothering blanket of rules and regulations over the free enterprise system and that does nothing to make it easier to create jobs and easier to find a job.

There are better ideas. Reform refundable tax credits to benefit all low-income workers; replace long-term unemployment compensation with job training; change ObamaCare's workweek definition from 30 hours to 40 hours to encourage full-time work; use existing Federal education dollars to give children of low-income families a $2,100 scholarship to choose a better school. All of those would create an environment in which the job creators could create more jobs and in which these who want them could find a job more easily.

That is what we should be about, instead of pretending we can pass a law in America and give many people a higher income. We can do that. We can do that. But when we do it, make no mistake about it, we are destroying 500,000 jobs and giving benefits to people above the poverty line instead of below.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, my colleagues, I rise today to introduce a bill that has a long title: Improve Nutrition Program Integrity and Deficit Reduction Act of 2013. Big title, but it is a good bill.

Last June, I stood in this body, along with Chairperson Stabenow of the Agriculture Committee, to encourage my colleagues to pass bipartisan reform legislation known as the farm bill.

The legislation we put together in the Senate Agriculture Committee would have strengthened and preserved the safety net for our farmers and ranchers while also being responsible to taxpayers by providing billions of dollars for deficit reduction. At the time we were told by the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, that the farm bill passed by the Agriculture Committee, one of the first bills, by the way, that we were able to pass under regular order and in record amount of time, 2\1/2\ days--the CBO estimated at that time the farm bill that was passed by the Agriculture Committee in the Senate would save $24 billion over 10 years, including $4 billion from the nutrition title.

However, according to the latest CBO projections, a projection that has reverberated in farm country, released just last Friday, the farm bill we passed last year would now only save $13 billion and no longer represents savings in the nutrition title. We could have done more last year, and we must do more this year to rein in the largest expenditure within the Department of Agriculture budget.

No, it does not go to farmers. We are talking about specifically the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, called SNAP, more commonly known as food stamps.

In the context of sequestration, SNAP was exempted from any across- the-board cuts, along with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. It was in that pasture. A lot of other things were in different pastures, especially national security.

However, it is clear there are several areas within the program that could provide significant savings that were, unfortunately, left untouched. The legislation I introduce today, along with Senator Johanns and Senator Thune, builds off of several amendments previously offered in a piecemeal fashion. We have wrapped them all together. Each should be enacted, but combined in this bill they represent over $36 billion in savings.

By eliminating loopholes, duplicative programs, unnecessary bonuses, inflation adjustments, and restricting lottery winners from receiving benefits, this legislation will instill and restore integrity to SNAP while still providing benefits to those truly in need. I ought to repeat that this restores integrity to SNAP while still providing benefits to those truly in need.

I am not proposing a dramatic change in the policy of nutrition programs. Instead, this legislation enforces the principles of good government and returns SNAP spending to much more responsible levels. While saving over $36 billion, our legislation also makes commonsense and comprehensive reforms to SNAP, the Food Stamp Program, that can and should be enacted immediately.

Over one-half of the SNAP food benefits in our country are utilized by households with children, and SNAP can play, and does play, a critical role in helping people put food on the table in times of need. However, at least 17 States, I am sorry to report, 17 States are gaming the system by designing their Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--the acronym for that is

LIHEAP, a very commonly used term with regards to nutrition programs and the energy programs. But these 17 States designed their programs to exploit the Food Stamp Program. This is not right. It is not right.

The LIHEAP loophole works like this: A participating State agency annually issues extremely low LIHEAP benefits to qualify otherwise ineligible households for standard utility allowances, which then result in increased monthly food stamp benefits. For example, today a State agency can issue only $1 annually in LIHEAP benefits to increase monthly food stamp benefits on an average of $90 a month. That is $1,080 per year for households that do not otherwise pay out-of-pocket utility bills.

That is not right. Last year the Senate farm bill included a provision to tighten the LIHEAP loophole. Even though it would only reduce the loophole, it set the minimum qualifying LIHEAP benefit at $10 annually--not $1, $10. At the time it would have saved taxpayers nearly $450 million every year for a total of $4 billion over a 10-year period.

Completely eliminating the LIHEAP loophole, as my legislation does, will save taxpayers $12 billion. Let me be very clear about it. Eliminating the LIHEAP loophole does not affect SNAP eligibility for anyone using the Food Stamp Program. Eliminating the LIHEAP loophole would only decrease SNAP benefits for those who would not otherwise qualify for the higher SNAP benefits, the food stamp benefits.

Let me point out another area that must be reformed: States using categorical eligibility for automatic eligibility to provide food stamp benefits. Categorical eligibility is simply known as Cat-El. It was designed to help streamline the administration of SNAP by allowing households to be certified as eligible for the food stamp benefits and be certified without evaluating household assets or gross income, a previous requirement.

Now, 42 States, unfortunately--I do not like to report these kinds of things. However, 42 States are exploiting an unintended loophole of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Program and simply provided informational brochures and informational 1-800 numbers to maximize the food stamp enrollment and the corresponding increase in Federal food benefits.

These States are gaming the system to bring otherwise ineligible SNAP participants into the program. My legislation ties categorical eligibility to cash assistance, thereby eliminating this loophole. That saves taxpayers $11.5 billion, a lot of money. To be clear, this represents a cut to SNAP food benefits. However, this amount represents the amount of benefits to people who would not otherwise be eligible for these benefits were it not for States gaming the system.

In an ongoing effort to streamline government programs and reduce redundancy and taxpayer spending, we should also look at the unnecessary spending in Federal employment and training programs. According to a GAO report last year, there are currently 47 such programs that annually cost $18 billion. Let me repeat that. There are 47 programs annually costing $18 billion--Federal employment and training programs.

Nobody would object to a Federal employment and training program given the problems we have with our country. But 47, according to a GAO report, $18 billion. Eliminating the duplicative SNAP employment and training programs would save more than $4 billion and would not affect SNAP food benefits. I repeat. This provision of this legislation would not cut the buying power of any food stamp household to put food in their refrigerators and also their kitchen cupboards.

What am I talking about? In addition to the base program funding that we are talking about with employment and training help, States have the option of providing their own funding to their State education and training program. Then the Department of Agriculture is required to match that.

Currently, four States receive over 80 percent of the total 50-50 match funding. Four States, 80 percent? What about the rest of the States? They include New York, California, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. New York, 36, 37, percent; California, 21 percent; Pennsylvania, about 13 percent; New Jersey, about 10.

This optional 50-50 Federal match is uncapped. It can be used by States to provide reimbursement for participant expenses in regard to education and training that are deemed reasonable and necessary. But somebody has to define ``reasonable and necessary.'' The following items have come under ``reasonable and necessary,'' especially in these four States: union dues, test fees, clothing and tools required for the job, relocation expenses, licensing, bonding fees, transportation, childcare, tennis lessons. I made that up. I thought it would catch your attention, Mr. President. No, there are no tennis lessons. There might be, could be. But at least in regards to this reform, let's go to another provision of my legislation.

It ends the USDA practice of giving $48 million in awards every year to State agencies for basically doing their job to ensure proper use of the American tax dollar. Currently, bonuses are given to States for ``best program access,'' signing up as many people for food stamps as possible. ``Most improved program access.'' How many more people signed up for SNAP compared to the previous year? So if you sign up more people then you signed up last year, well, you get an award. ``Best application timeliness.'' That is handling applications within the required guidelines, and we are getting a benefit from that.

State agencies are rewarded for performing the minimum expectations for stewardship of the Food Stamp Program and also of the American tax dollar. The bonuses are not even required to be used for food stamp administration. A recipient State may choose the funding for any State priority. So we are talking about $48 million.

That goes to State agencies of these four Oscar Awards in regard to food stamps, but they can use the funding for anything, for any State priority. Eliminating these unnecessary State bonuses will save taxpayers, over 10 years, $480 million.

Another area where my legislation streamlines government programs is through the elimination of the SNAP Nutrition Education Grant Program. A number of existing nutrition education programs are delivered more equitably with a cost-benefit ratio that makes more sense, at least six Federal programs administered by the Department of Agriculture and the National Institutes of Health and Land Grant University Extension Programs.

In practice, the SNAP Nutrition Education Program is inequitably distributed with the top four States--here we go again--receiving over 54 percent of the funding. The bottom 33 State agencies receive less than 1 percent of the total funding. That is not right.

Additionally our bill ends inflation adjustments for countable resources and for emergency food assistance, saving over $600 million.

The legislation also terminates the ongoing stimulus of several years ago enacted by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which provided extra funding to increase monthly SNAP food benefits.

Finally, the legislation does prohibit lottery winners--Senator Stabenow insisted on this in the last farm bill and it makes a lot of sense--from receiving SNAP benefits and keeps them from receiving new benefits if they do not meet the financial requirements of SNAP.

Overall, by eliminating several duplicative programs, closing loopholes, and ending unnecessary spending, the Improve Nutrition Program Integrity and Deficit Reduction Act will save taxpayers over $36 billion, the latest score by the CBO.

I understand the importance of domestic food assistance programs for many hard-working Americans, including many Kansans. I know that. In 1996, when I was chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, there was an effort to send the Food Stamp Program back to the States--and the Governors wanted it. They wanted the money, they didn't want the food stamps. We made an effort under a very historic farm bill at that time not only to save and reform but restore integrity to the Food Stamp Program. We have another opportunity right now. I do understand the importance of domestic food assistance programs for many hard-working Americans and Kansans.

My goal is very simple, again restoring integrity to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in a commonsense and comprehensive manner. Enacting this package of reforms will allow the Federal Government to continue to help those who truly need SNAP food benefits and assistance.

Again, I thank Senators Thune and Johanns for their assistance in this effort. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact these reforms for the benefit of all Americans.

Mr. President, for several years now I have come to the floor to talk about the need to bolster the middle class in this country and restore the American Dream. The American Dream is supposed to be about building a better life. If you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to support your family, join the middle class, and provide a bright future for your children.

But tens of millions of hardworking Americans who are earning at or near the minimum wage are not only struggling to reach the middle class and achieve the American Dream, they are falling behind. We need to do more to support these workers as they try to build opportunity for their families and their futures. A critical first step is to ensure that they earn a fair day's pay for a hard day's work. That is why today I am joining with Congressman George Miller to introduce the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 to raise the minimum wage.

Our bill will do three things: first, it will gradually increase the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour in three annual steps. Second, our bill will link future increases in the minimum wage to the cost of living, through the Consumer Price Index, so that people who are trying to get ahead don't fall behind as our economy grows. Finally, our bill will-- for the first time in more than 20 years--raise the minimum wage for workers who earn tips, from a paltry $2.13 per hour to a level that is 70 percent of the regular minimum wage. This will be gradually phased in over the course of 6 years, which will give businesses time to adjust while providing more fairness for hardworking people in tipped industries.

These raises are long overdue. Over the past several decades, average wages in this country have stagnated, but the minimum wage has actually declined in real terms. It has not kept up with costs, average wages, or rapid growth in productivity.

Since its peak in 1968, the minimum wage has lost 31 percent of its purchasing power. That means minimum-wage workers are effectively earning almost a third less than they did four decades ago. In fact, if the minimum wage had kept up with rising prices for food, rent, utilities, clothing, and other goods, then the wage would be $10.56 today. But instead it's $7.25. My bill will restore much of the buying power of the minimum wage.

The minimum wage also used to be a meaningful standard compared with what most people earned and compared with what workers in the economy produced. In 1968, it was just over half of average production wages. But today the minimum wage has fallen to 37 percent of the average production wage.

While Americans are working longer and harder than ever, their paychecks don't reflect their contribution. Workers are much more productive now than in the past. Productivity has risen more than 130 percent since 1968. But average wages have not budged in real terms and the minimum wage has lost ground. So while companies have reaped the benefits of all this productivity growth, the people who actually do the work have seen none of these gains.

As Congress has allowed the minimum wage to languish, working families have fallen below the poverty line. In the 1960s and 1970s, the minimum wage kept a family of three above the poverty line--20 percent above it in 1968. But today, a family of three with one minimum wage earner working full-time, year-round, will bring home a paycheck that is 18 percent below the poverty line.

The Fair Minimum Wage Act will restore the value of the minimum wage, bringing families back above the poverty line, to 106 percent of the poverty line for a family of three. With its provision to index the minimum wage to the cost of living in the future, the minimum wage will no longer lose value. It will rise as the economy grows, which will allow working families to keep up with rising costs.

I think it is very important that we talk about the people who will benefit from the Fair Minimum Wage Act. There are 30 million Americans who will get a fair wage because of this bill, either directly by the legislation or indirectly through the ``trickle up'' effects of a higher wage floor. That's one out of five workers in our country that will be impacted.

They do the hard, important jobs to keep our economy running. They are cashiers and sales help in stores; waiters, waitresses, bussers, runners and hostesses in restaurants. They care for our children, elders, and other loved ones. They help us at the gas station or in the parking garage. They clean offices and homes, and maintain buildings and grounds. They provide administrative support in offices. They work in the fields to bring food to our tables. They all deserve a fair wage.

The families of these 30 million workers will also benefit. Eighteen million children have parents who will get a raise. This will be so meaningful for these families, who are working to build a better life. For a full-time, year-round worker earning right at the minimum wage, it will mean gradually moving from $15,000 a year to $21,000 a year. Think about that. Most of us in this Chamber would not take too much notice of a $6,000 raise. But for minimum wage workers, that's nearly 40 percent more, and that will go a long way to buying groceries and school supplies, paying rent, and saving for college or retirement.

Everyone in our country who works hard and plays by the rules deserves these opportunities: and not just to survive, but to aspire to the middle class.

Raising the minimum wage will benefit our economy as well. With an increase in the minimum wage, workers will have more money to spend. This is just basic economics: increased demand means increased economic activity. They will spend their money in their local economies, giving a boost to Main Street. In fact, economists estimate that the Fair Minimum Wage Act will boost our GDP by $33 billion as it is implemented over the course of three years, generating 140,000 jobs in that time.

We know we can afford this. Wages aren't stuck at rock-bottom levels because our economy isn't growing. Our economy is growing. The problem is that growth is going to profits, to shareholders and executives. Inequality is at the highest level we have seen since the eve of the Great Depression. CEOs are raking in millions, while the people who do the real work in this country are struggling just to get by. In 2011, S&P 500 CEOs earned an average of $13 million. The average CEO earns more before lunchtime on his first day of work than a minimum wage worker earns all year. That is simply appalling.

Now some people, specially the big corporations with these lavish salaries, will criticize my bill, saying it will force businesses to lay off workers or cut back their hours. They say workers will be hurt if the minimum wage goes up. But history proves that these assertions are just plain wrong. We know from decades of rigorous research analyzing the real-life effects of minimum wage increases that minimum wage raises along the lines what I am proposing do not result in job losses or reduced hours. Second, these raises do, in fact, boost workers' earnings. This research applies to teenagers, too. I will say it again: minimum wage increases do not cause teenage unemployment.

So we will not see negative effects from raising the minimum wage. But

we will see positive effects for businesses and our economy. We know that increased wages boosts productivity and morale. Turnover falls significantly, which saves businesses thousands of dollars in recruitment, hiring, and training costs. Moreover, all businesses would have the same minimum wage, meaning businesses that are doing the right thing by paying fair wages will not be undercut by competitors who pay rock-bottom wages.

The American public knows that opponents' outlandish claims about raising the minimum wage don't hold water. That is why raising the minimum wage is incredibly popular among the American public. A national poll last year showed that 73 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour and linking it in the future to the cost of living. Even 50 percent of Republicans support raising and indexing the minimum wage. A 2011 poll showed that more than seventy percent of Americans believe that indexing the minimum wage to keep up with inflation will be good for the country.

The Fair Minimum Wage Act has been endorsed by nearly 200 national and local organizations around the country, and the support is only growing. They represent a wide cross-section of the American community. They are working to end poverty, hunger, and homelessness; to increase community involvement; and to ensure fairness for women and people of color. They are organizations of people of faith and organizations of workers. They are retirees and moms and members of the LGBT community. They are social workers, direct care workers, and steelworkers. And they are small businesses. The bill has been endorsed by the US Women's Chamber of Commerce, representing 500,000 small businesses around the country; by the Main Street Alliance, with chapters in a dozen states and 12,000 small business members; by the American Sustainable Business Council, which along with its member organizations represents more than 150,000 businesses nationwide, as well as more than 300,000 entrepreneurs, managers and investors; and by Business for a Fair Minimum Wage and Business for Shared Prosperity.

Because raising the minimum wage is so popular, and so necessary, many States have moved ahead of the Federal Government to do so. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have raised their minimum wage above the federal level, all across the country. Ten states have already implemented annual indexing of the minimum wage to keep up with the rising cost of living. Thirty States have increased their minimum wage for tipped workers above the Federal level.

I am proud to introduce the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013. It is long past time to give Americans a raise. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for several years now I have come to the floor to talk about the need to bolster the middle class in this country and restore the American Dream. The American Dream is supposed to be about building a better life. If you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to support your family, join the middle class, and provide a bright future for your children.

But tens of millions of hardworking Americans who are earning at or near the minimum wage are not only struggling to reach the middle class and achieve the American Dream, they are falling behind. We need to do more to support these workers as they try to build opportunity for their families and their futures. A critical first step is to ensure that they earn a fair day's pay for a hard day's work. That is why today I am joining with Congressman George Miller to introduce the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 to raise the minimum wage.

Our bill will do three things: first, it will gradually increase the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour in three annual steps. Second, our bill will link future increases in the minimum wage to the cost of living, through the Consumer Price Index, so that people who are trying to get ahead don't fall behind as our economy grows. Finally, our bill will-- for the first time in more than 20 years--raise the minimum wage for workers who earn tips, from a paltry $2.13 per hour to a level that is 70 percent of the regular minimum wage. This will be gradually phased in over the course of 6 years, which will give businesses time to adjust while providing more fairness for hardworking people in tipped industries.

These raises are long overdue. Over the past several decades, average wages in this country have stagnated, but the minimum wage has actually declined in real terms. It has not kept up with costs, average wages, or rapid growth in productivity.

Since its peak in 1968, the minimum wage has lost 31 percent of its purchasing power. That means minimum-wage workers are effectively earning almost a third less than they did four decades ago. In fact, if the minimum wage had kept up with rising prices for food, rent, utilities, clothing, and other goods, then the wage would be $10.56 today. But instead it's $7.25. My bill will restore much of the buying power of the minimum wage.

The minimum wage also used to be a meaningful standard compared with what most people earned and compared with what workers in the economy produced. In 1968, it was just over half of average production wages. But today the minimum wage has fallen to 37 percent of the average production wage.

While Americans are working longer and harder than ever, their paychecks don't reflect their contribution. Workers are much more productive now than in the past. Productivity has risen more than 130 percent since 1968. But average wages have not budged in real terms and the minimum wage has lost ground. So while companies have reaped the benefits of all this productivity growth, the people who actually do the work have seen none of these gains.

As Congress has allowed the minimum wage to languish, working families have fallen below the poverty line. In the 1960s and 1970s, the minimum wage kept a family of three above the poverty line--20 percent above it in 1968. But today, a family of three with one minimum wage earner working full-time, year-round, will bring home a paycheck that is 18 percent below the poverty line.

The Fair Minimum Wage Act will restore the value of the minimum wage, bringing families back above the poverty line, to 106 percent of the poverty line for a family of three. With its provision to index the minimum wage to the cost of living in the future, the minimum wage will no longer lose value. It will rise as the economy grows, which will allow working families to keep up with rising costs.

I think it is very important that we talk about the people who will benefit from the Fair Minimum Wage Act. There are 30 million Americans who will get a fair wage because of this bill, either directly by the legislation or indirectly through the ``trickle up'' effects of a higher wage floor. That's one out of five workers in our country that will be impacted.

They do the hard, important jobs to keep our economy running. They are cashiers and sales help in stores; waiters, waitresses, bussers, runners and hostesses in restaurants. They care for our children, elders, and other loved ones. They help us at the gas station or in the parking garage. They clean offices and homes, and maintain buildings and grounds. They provide administrative support in offices. They work in the fields to bring food to our tables. They all deserve a fair wage.

The families of these 30 million workers will also benefit. Eighteen million children have parents who will get a raise. This will be so meaningful for these families, who are working to build a better life. For a full-time, year-round worker earning right at the minimum wage, it will mean gradually moving from $15,000 a year to $21,000 a year. Think about that. Most of us in this Chamber would not take too much notice of a $6,000 raise. But for minimum wage workers, that's nearly 40 percent more, and that will go a long way to buying groceries and school supplies, paying rent, and saving for college or retirement.

Everyone in our country who works hard and plays by the rules deserves these opportunities: and not just to survive, but to aspire to the middle class.

Raising the minimum wage will benefit our economy as well. With an increase in the minimum wage, workers will have more money to spend. This is just basic economics: increased demand means increased economic activity. They will spend their money in their local economies, giving a boost to Main Street. In fact, economists estimate that the Fair Minimum Wage Act will boost our GDP by $33 billion as it is implemented over the course of three years, generating 140,000 jobs in that time.

We know we can afford this. Wages aren't stuck at rock-bottom levels because our economy isn't growing. Our economy is growing. The problem is that growth is going to profits, to shareholders and executives. Inequality is at the highest level we have seen since the eve of the Great Depression. CEOs are raking in millions, while the people who do the real work in this country are struggling just to get by. In 2011, S&P 500 CEOs earned an average of $13 million. The average CEO earns more before lunchtime on his first day of work than a minimum wage worker earns all year. That is simply appalling.

Now some people, specially the big corporations with these lavish salaries, will criticize my bill, saying it will force businesses to lay off workers or cut back their hours. They say workers will be hurt if the minimum wage goes up. But history proves that these assertions are just plain wrong. We know from decades of rigorous research analyzing the real-life effects of minimum wage increases that minimum wage raises along the lines what I am proposing do not result in job losses or reduced hours. Second, these raises do, in fact, boost workers' earnings. This research applies to teenagers, too. I will say it again: minimum wage increases do not cause teenage unemployment.

So we will not see negative effects from raising the minimum wage. But

we will see positive effects for businesses and our economy. We know that increased wages boosts productivity and morale. Turnover falls significantly, which saves businesses thousands of dollars in recruitment, hiring, and training costs. Moreover, all businesses would have the same minimum wage, meaning businesses that are doing the right thing by paying fair wages will not be undercut by competitors who pay rock-bottom wages.

The American public knows that opponents' outlandish claims about raising the minimum wage don't hold water. That is why raising the minimum wage is incredibly popular among the American public. A national poll last year showed that 73 percent of Americans support raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour and linking it in the future to the cost of living. Even 50 percent of Republicans support raising and indexing the minimum wage. A 2011 poll showed that more than seventy percent of Americans believe that indexing the minimum wage to keep up with inflation will be good for the country.

The Fair Minimum Wage Act has been endorsed by nearly 200 national and local organizations around the country, and the support is only growing. They represent a wide cross-section of the American community. They are working to end poverty, hunger, and homelessness; to increase community involvement; and to ensure fairness for women and people of color. They are organizations of people of faith and organizations of workers. They are retirees and moms and members of the LGBT community. They are social workers, direct care workers, and steelworkers. And they are small businesses. The bill has been endorsed by the US Women's Chamber of Commerce, representing 500,000 small businesses around the country; by the Main Street Alliance, with chapters in a dozen states and 12,000 small business members; by the American Sustainable Business Council, which along with its member organizations represents more than 150,000 businesses nationwide, as well as more than 300,000 entrepreneurs, managers and investors; and by Business for a Fair Minimum Wage and Business for Shared Prosperity.

Because raising the minimum wage is so popular, and so necessary, many States have moved ahead of the Federal Government to do so. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have raised their minimum wage above the federal level, all across the country. Ten states have already implemented annual indexing of the minimum wage to keep up with the rising cost of living. Thirty States have increased their minimum wage for tipped workers above the Federal level.

I am proud to introduce the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013. It is long past time to give Americans a raise. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Family Self- Sufficiency Act, and I am pleased this Congress to be joined in this effort by my colleague, Senator Blunt of Missouri.

The Family Self Sufficiency, FSS, program is an existing Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, employment and savings incentive initiative for families that have section 8 vouchers or live in public housing. The FSS program provides two key tools for its participants: first, it provides access to the resources and training that help participants pursue employment opportunities and meet financial goals, and second, it encourages FSS families to save by establishing an interest-bearing escrow account for them. Upon graduation from the FSS program, the family can use these savings to pay for job-related expenses, such as additional workforce training or the purchase or maintenance of a car needed for commuting purposes.

Our bipartisan legislation seeks to enhance the FSS program by streamlining the administration of this program, by broadening the supportive services that can be provided to a participant, and by extending the FSS program to tenants who live in privately-owned properties with project-based assistance. In short, we seek to make the FSS program easier to administer and more effective.

First, to streamline the FSS program, our bill would combine two separate FSS programs into one. Today, HUD operates one FSS program for those families served by the Housing Choice Voucher Program and another for those families served by the Public Housing program. This is the case even though the core purpose of each FSS program, to increase economic independence and self-sufficiency, is the same. Unfortunately, Public Housing Agencies, PHA, have to operate essentially two programs to achieve the same goal. With our bill, PHAs would be relieved of this unnecessary burden.

Second, our legislation broadens the scope of the supportive services that may be offered to include attainment of a GED, education in pursuit of a post-secondary degree or certification, and training in financial literacy. Providing families in need with affordable rental housing is critical, but coupling it with the support and services to help families get ahead increases the effectiveness of this federal investment. Our legislation makes it easier for FSS participants to obtain the training necessary to secure employment and the education to make prudent financial decisions to better safeguard their earnings.

Lastly, our bill opens up the FSS program to families who live in privately-owned properties subsidized with project-based rental assistance. It shouldn't matter what kind of housing assistance a family gets, and families seeking to achieve self-sufficiency shouldn't be held back by this sort of technicality.

I thank Senator Blunt for his partnership, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, which will help give those receiving housing assistance a better chance to build their skills and achieve economic independence.