Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007
FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - January 29, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 8 minutes, and following that, the Senator from Alabama to speak for up to an hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have two amendments before the body I would like to explain briefly. Then I am impelled to respond to some of the argument we have heard from the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I guess the question he put was what do Republicans have against hard-working Americans? I will respond to that in a moment.
AMENDMENT NO. 135
My first amendment has to do with the Federal unemployment surtax. In the 1970s, the Unemployment Trust Fund faced financial strains, so Congress imposed a surtax to bring money into the unemployment system, the unemployment compensation system, in order to meet its obligations. That debt was paid off in the 1980s. Congress has continued, however, to collect the unemployment surtax, proving the maxim once stated by Ronald Reagan that the closest thing to eternal life here on Earth is a temporary government program. I think this proves that.
The Federal unemployment surtax should have expired 20 years ago. Since 1987, the surtax has taken approximately $28 billion out of the pockets of U.S. businesses. Is that $28 billion over 20 years worth the broken promise to eliminate it? I think not. Elimination of the surtax, which this amendment will do, will save businesses across the country--and in my particular State, $135 million--but it will save businesses across the country proportionate amounts.
This is an easy and logical way to trim payroll taxes. The FUTA tax without the surtax is sufficient to fund State and Federal unemployment administrations. Without the surtax, the Federal unemployment tax generates nearly $6 billion a year, and all accounts associated with the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund have ample balances.
It is simply a matter of keeping the faith with the American people, when we tell them we have a temporary program and that program runs its course and serves its purpose, to eliminate it. That is what this amendment would do, and I ask the support of my colleagues for that amendment.
AMENDMENT NO. 138
My second amendment addresses the issue of preventive health care. You might ask what does that have to do with regulatory and tax relief to small businesses and the minimum wage?
Well, this amendment, which asks for the adoption of a stand-alone bill called the Workforce Health Improvement Program Act, would put small businesses on a level playing field with big businesses to provide health benefits to their employees that they can deduct but for which small businesses cannot deduct the same benefits they might want to give by outsourcing those to health clubs, for example.
Let me explain where I am coming from. Public health experts unanimously agree that people who maintain active and healthy lifestyles dramatically reduce the risk of contracting chronic diseases. A physically fit population helps decrease health care costs, 50 percent of which, by the way, are borne by the Federal taxpayer. A physically fit population reduces Federal Government spending, reduces illnesses, and improves worker productivity.
The costs, though, are not just measured in dollars. According to the Surgeon General's ``Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity' published in 2001, 300,000 deaths per year in America are associated with being overweight or obese. Regular physical activity reduces the risk of developing or dying from some of the leading causes of illness and death in the United States.
Additionally, Medicare and Medicaid programs currently spend $84 billion annually on five major chronic diseases: diabetes, heart disease, depression, cancer, and arthritis. It is important we not only treat these diseases once they are manifested but that we also explore ways to prevent them in the first place. Consider this statistic--the numbers are staggering. This is from the American Diabetes Association:
The total annual economic cost of diabetes in 2002 in the United States of America was $132 billion. Direct medical expenditures totaled $92 billion and $23.2 billion of that was for diabetes care, $24.6 billion was for chronic diabetes-related complications, and $44.1 billion was for excess prevalence of general medical conditions related to diabetes. Indirect costs resulting to lost work days, restricted activity days, mortality, and permanent disability due to diabetes totaled $40.8 billion.
One NIH study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that modest changes in exercise and diet can prevent diabetes in 58 percent of the people at high risk for the disease. What is more, the trial showed that participants over 60 years of age benefited the most, preventing the onset of diabetes by 71 percent. Even assuming that intervention with modest changes in exercise and diet is only half that effective, they estimated the possible 10-year savings to the health care system would be $344 billion.
I think it makes enormous sense, as we look to try and level the playing field for small businesses as part of this comprehensive package, that we seriously consider leveling the playing field by providing an ability to prevent the occurrence--the incidence, I should say--of obesity-related diseases, namely diabetes, which causes so much human misery and so much unnecessary expense that could be avoided if we could encourage more Americans to a more active lifestyle and a better diet.
So I ask my colleagues for their consideration of this amendment as well.
Mr. President, could I ask how much time I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, if I may ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes, for a total of 3 minutes, I would appreciate it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts a moment ago asked--because Republicans have asked for additional tax and regulatory relief for small businesses that employ 70 percent of the American people--what it is that Republicans have against hard-working Americans because of our desire to pass not just a minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, up from the $5.15 an hour. He said that this was an effort to politicize the issue.
So I would have to ask the Senator, when the minimum wage affects 2.5 percent of the workforce in America, mainly teenagers and part-time workers, people entering the workforce, is this the way to address the needs of hard-working Americans? Why is it we are so focused on a minimum wage, when what we ought to be focused on is maximizing the wages of American workers primarily, I believe, through increased training, workforce initiatives, working through community colleges with the private sector to train people for good wages, much higher than minimum wage, that exist in this country but go wanting for lack of trained workers. These programs exist in our communities in my State and throughout the country, and I think we would do better to focus our efforts to try to improve the standard of living for people across America.
I simply disagree with the Senator from Massachusetts, if he says by focusing on 2.5 percent of the workforce and by trying to ameliorate some of the harm to small businesses that generate 70 percent of the jobs, we are doing anything that would harm hard-working Americans. To the contrary, what we are trying to do is make sure those hard-working Americans have jobs, not that they are put out of work by well-intentioned but unsuccessful attempts for Government to mandate wages without taking into account the impact on small businesses, the primary employers in our country.
Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Alabama, who was supposed to start speaking at 4 o'clock, allowing a couple of us to speak, and I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/