[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 50 (Thursday, April 18, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3632-H3639]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE NOW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of May 12, 1995, the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee 
of the minority leader.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I come tonight to the well to talk about an 
issue really of great importance for working middle-class families in 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, America needs a raise. I call on Speaker Gingrich to 
take a pause from the Republican revolution and allow the people's 
House to vote on raising the minimum wage now.
  The Nation's minimum wage today is a paltry $4.25 an hour. I am proud 
to join with my Democratic colleagues and President Clinton to sponsor 
legislation to boost this wage to $5.15. It is the least we can do.
  Hard working American families need a break. The minimum wage has lot 
27 percent of its value over the past 15 years, and now stands at a 40-
year low. It buys less groceries. It buys less gasoline. It buys less 
clothes for the children of these hard working families than it has in 
four decades.
  These statistics are particularly troubling considering the fact that 
corporate CEO salaries have risen at the fast clip of 9 percent a year 
since 1990. In fact, last year the median compensation for CEO's was a 
staggering $2 million a year. That's more than 200 times the salary of 
a minimum wage worker.
  A recent poll in my home State of Connecticut shows that a full 80 
percent of the people support raising the minimum wage--four out of 
five Connecticut residents favor this measure. A New York Times poll 
reports that 94 percent of Democrats, 86 percent of Independents, and 
even 71 percent of Republicans support raising the minimum wage to 
$5.15 an hour.
  Yesterday, a brave group of my Republican colleagues joined the 
Democratic call for a vote on this issue. I congratulate my colleagues 
for having the courage to challenge Speaker Gingrich's wrongful 
opposition to giving minimum wage workers a modest raise in pay. But 
the bottom line is the Republican leadership refuses to bring this 
legislation to a vote. It's all talk and no action. The Republican 
leader has said the minimum wage increase will come to this floor over 
his dead body.
  This morning's Congress Daily reports Speaker Gingrich's latest 
cynical ploy to stiff working Americans. ``We're going to look at it,'' 
Speaker Gingrich is quoted as saying, ``There should be hearings.''
  Hearings. The revolutionary Republican leaders just 3 days ago wanted 
to rewrite the U.S. Constitution without a single hearing.
  Hearings. The revolutionary Republicans last year passed $270 billion 
in Medicare cuts to pay for tax breaks for their rich political 
contributors--all without a single hearing. And now that the American 
people are making their voices heard in support of raising the minimum 
wage, Speaker Gingrich promises hearings.
  Talk is cheap, Mr. Speaker, and so is the minimum wage. So too 
unfortunately is the cynical way the Republican leadership is treating 
this modest proposal. Forget the hearings. I call on Speaker Gingrich 
to allow this House to vote to raise the minimum wage now. It is a no-
brainer. We should do it without further delay.
  Mr. Speaker, a livable wage is not exactly a revolutionary concept, 
but the American people need a raise nonetheless. If we are truly to 
move people from welfare to work, we must make work pay.
  A great American once said, ``No man can be a good citizen unless he 
has a wage more than sufficient to cover the bare costs of living . . . 
so that after his day's work is done he will have time and energy to 
bear his share in the management of the community,

[[Page H3633]]

to help in carrying the general load.'' Which great American said that? 
Theordore Roosevelt, the former Republican President of the United 
States. He was not a revolutionary, but he did understand progress.
  Workers who earn the minimum wage pocket only $8,500 a year. That is 
less than Members of this Congress made when they shut down the 
Government over Christmas.
  Mr. Speaker, working American families do not ask for much. They work 
hard. They pay their bills. They play by the rules. They are not 
looking for a revolution. All they want is a little progress.
  America needs a raise. I call on the House Republican leadership to 
stop the stalling tactics and allow the people's House to vote on 
raising the minimum wage. Now.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, it might 
be of interest in the context that you have just established in regard 
to the minimum wage to note that the State of Hawaii already has a 
minimum wage at $5.25. We were an economy in Hawaii based on 
agriculture. We have moved into one of the most service-oriented 
economies it is possible to have; that is to say, a dependence on 
travel and tourism.
  Yet the argument is always made that if you are in a service economy, 
you have to keep wages at an absolute minimum. If you are in an 
agriculture economy, you have to keep wages at an absolute minimum. Yet 
the prosperity of the State of Hawaii has been based upon the fact that 
we recognized that people who are working, families that have to work, 
are best able not just to survive, but to prosper, when they are able 
to earn more than just a living wage, more than just an adequate wage, 
but a wage which enables them to fully participate in the economy.
  That economy is invested in by the very people who are doing the 
work. The money stays in the area where it is earned. It is not taken 
by multinational companies, by international companies, elsewhere. It 
is not moved into a global economy as such.
  That money earned in that State, whether it is Connecticut, whether 
it is in Hawaii, whether it is anyplace, whether it is in Georgia, in 
Cobb County, in Mr. Gingrich's home district, that money stays in that 
district. That money is invested in that district. Small business 
people make money in that district as a result of it.
  Those kinds of wages, the minimum wage, in service oriented jobs, 
when it is earned, is spent in the clothing store to buy shoes for the 
children right there in the local community. That is where it goes. The 
small investor, the small businesses, are the direct beneficiary of the 
raise in the minimum wage.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Hawaii for his 
comments. It just makes good sense, and he is absolutely right. The 
money that is earned stays in the community. The purchases are made in 
the community, and it helps that local economy to succeed.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


           minimum wage increase beneficial to all americans

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). The Chair 
recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] for the remainder of 
the hour as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to continue the 
discussion on the minimum wage. I serve as the ranking Democrat on the 
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, which is directly responsible 
for the minimum wage, and I am certainly delighted that I hear rumors 
that suddenly there are manifestations taking place within both the 
House and the Senate, which means that our great logjam on the minimum 
wage may soon be broken.
  I understand there are some Members of the Republican majority in 
this House who have begun developing a bill calling for an increase in 
the minimum wage, and this may lead to the call we hoped for for a long 
time. There are moments in this House when reason does prevail. There 
are times when parties lay aside their particular ideological bents and 
understand the best interests of the American people are served by a 
particular course of action and the two parties come together.
  I hope we are on the way to doing that. I hope the Republicans will 
recognize that there is a terrible injustice that has been done to 
working people over the last 20 years. We have a wage gap that is 
increasing. The value of the dollar has fallen, the minimum wage value 
has fallen, and we should take steps to do something about that as soon 
as possible.
  As the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Workplace Protections, I 
chaired a hearing on the minimum wage increase on Thursday, November 30 
of last year. I invited several people to come. One of them was the 
minority leader for the Democrats, Mr. Gephart. Mr. Gephardt's 
testimony summarizes it very well.
  That testimony I think is such that it would be good to quote it here 
again, because it does summarize very well where we are and it talks 
about where we should be going. Mr. Gephardt is the sponsor of the 
prime legislation that is now introduced in the House on increasing the 
minimum wage.
  Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Clay together are calling for a minimum wage 
increase of 45 cents per year for 2 years. We are talking about a 90-
cent increase in the minimum wage over a 2-year period. This is a very 
modest increase, and the President has endorsed the increase, and 
indeed held a press conference at the White House where he announced 
that endorsement.
  I just want to read some excerpts from the testimony of the Democrat 
minority leader, Mr. Richard Gephardt.
  I would ask unanimous consent to include for the Record the statement 
in its entirety. I would like to note that I have requested unanimous 
consent on a few documents and they have not been entered in their 
entirety. In addition to entering this in its entirety, I will comment 
on it now. I would like at the end of the presentation to have it 
entered in its entirety.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Taylor of North Carolina). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Gephardt said ``I want to thank you for holding this 
important hearing--for realizing that, even as many Republican call for 
the outright abolition of the minimum wage--even as they refuse to 
schedule real hearings or a vote on a minimum wage increase--it is an 
issue we simply cannot ignore.''

  I might emphasize that we have repeatedly called for hearings in the 
committee. I am on the committee of jurisdiction. Just yesterday we 
called for hearings again on the minimum wage, and so far have had no 
response from the chairman of the subcommittee or the chairman of the 
committee.
  Quoting Mr. Gephardt, ``Real wages for all working people have been 
declining in this country for 20 years; some economists believe it is 
our longest and steepest income slide since 1820.
  ``And the people at the bottom of the income scale have been doing 
the worst. Between 1983 and 1989, two-thirds of all new wealth created 
in the United States went to the top 1 percent of American households. 
The bottom 80 percent actually saw their assets drop by about 3 
percent. No wonder America has the greatest gap between the rich and 
the poor of any industrialized nation in the world.''
  Continuing to quote from the statement by the minority leader, ``That 
is why we must question the wisdom of the Republicans' supply-side 
revival, which would shower more tax breaks on the wealthy, while 
raising taxes on the poorest working families, and making huge cuts in 
Medicare, student loans, and education. The Republican agenda would 
actually make America's income gap much worse.
  ``Democrats have a different philosophy. We believe in valuing and 
encouraging work--not passive profit and speculation. We believe in 
making work pay, and making sure that no working family has to live in 
poverty and deprivation. That's why, early this year, President Clinton 
joined with Congressional Democrats to propose a 90-cent increase in 
the minimum wage over the next 2 years--a way to lift up millions of 
hard-working families who have been falling behind.''
  Continuing to quote Minority Leader Gephardt, ``Even before we 
announced

[[Page H3634]]

this proposal, it came under fierce attack by Republicans who see 
stagnant wages and eroding job security not as problems, but as the 
solutions to their ultimate goal: ``Helping those at the top of the 
economic ladder, even while they're sawing off the bottom rungs. Why 
else would Republicans propose a tax plan that cuts taxes by $8,500 a 
year for the top 1 percent of families, while raising taxes on the 
poorest working families by slashing the earned income tax-credit, 
cutting back on one of the best ways for struggling families to lift 
themselves into the middle class:
  ``The fact is, for the millions of Americans who try to support a 
family on the minimum wage, real wages have plummeted by 30 percent 
since 1979.
  ``We're not talking about a bunch of kids working at summer jobs. The 
fact is one-third of America's 4.8 million minimum wage earners are the 
sole earners in their families. Seventy percent of them are adults. 
They are now faced with the virtually impossible task of raising a 
family on $8,700 a year. In fact, one in five of them are still living 
below the poverty line.
  ``Is that the message we want to send to working America? That you 
can work hard, and take responsibility for your family, and still live 
in poverty and deprivation?
  ``That is why it's time to raise the minimum wage by 90 cents. It's a 
matter of fundamental fairness. It's a matter of basic decency for 
those at the bottom of the ladder, struggling to climb up. But there 
are other reasons to support this proposal.
  ``Raising the minimum wage would help make work pay more than 
welfare--and too often, that's just not the case today.
  ``Republicans keep saying a minimum wage increase will cost jobs. But 
it has been proven time and again that raising the minimum wage won't 
cost jobs. The last time we raised the minimum wage, Republican Members 
of the House said it would be a `death warrant * * * for small 
business,' and that it would destroy jobs, increase the Federal 
deficit, and raise inflation. It did none of those things.

  ``On the contrary, recent research--including a study of noted 
economists David Card and Alan Krueger--shows that a minimum wage 
increase has little or no effect on the number of jobs. Since when it 
is bad for our economy to put more money in the pockets of our workers 
and families and consumers?
  ``And it has been proven that raising the minimum wage pushes up 
wages for millions who already earn more than the minimum wage today.
  ``Republican leaders have already pledged to fight this increase, as 
they have resisted similar increases in the past. Republican Leader 
Dick Armey does not merely oppose an increase--he wants to abolish the 
minimum wage altogether. To the Republicans, lower wages--combined with 
huge corporate tax breaks--are just money in the bank. Never mind that 
people are suffering while those profits soar.
  ``The American people want this increase by overwhelming margins. 
After too many years of declining wages and opportunities, they deserve 
it. And Democrats are going to fight to give it to them--because it's 
right for our economy, and it is right for the hard-working families 
who are the heart of our country.''
  I end my quote from the statement made by Minority Leader Gephardt on 
November 30, 1995, at a hearing held by the Democrats on the workplace, 
Subcommittee on Work Force Protections, which I will include for the 
Record.

Testimony by House Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt in Support of 
Minimum Wage Increase, Hearing of Democratic Members of House Economic 
 and Educational Opportunities Committee, Thursday, November 30, 1995, 
                               10:00 a.m.

       Ranking Member Clay, and Members of the Committee on 
     Economic and Educational Opportunities:
       I want to thank you for holding this important hearing--for 
     realizing that, even as many Republicans call for the 
     outright abolition of the minimum wage--even as they refuse 
     to schedule real hearings or a vote on a minimum wage 
     increase--it is an issue we simply cannot ignore.
       Let's begin at the beginning: America needs a raise.
       Real wages for all working people have been declining in 
     this country for twenty years; some economists believe it is 
     our longest, steepest income slide since 1820.
       And the people at the bottom of the income scale have been 
     doing the worst. Between 1983 and 1989, two-thirds of all new 
     wealth created in the United States went to the top one 
     percent of American households. The bottom eighty percent 
     actually saw their assets drop by about three percent. No 
     wonder America has the greatest gap between the rich and the 
     poor of any industrialized nation in the world.
       That is why we must question the wisdom of the Republicans' 
     supply-side revival, which would shower more tax breaks on 
     the wealthy, while raising taxes on the poorest working 
     families, and making huge cuts in Medicare, student loans, 
     and education. The Republican agenda would actually make 
     America's income gap much worse.
       Democrats have a different philosophy. We believe in 
     valuing and encouraging work--not passive profit and 
     speculation. We believe in making work pay, and making sure 
     that no working family has to live in poverty and 
     deprivation. That's why, early this year, President Clinton 
     joined with Congressional Democrats to propose a ninety-cent 
     increase in the minimum wage over the next two years--a way 
     to lift up millions of hard-working families who have been 
     falling behind.
       Even before we announced this proposal, it came under 
     fierce attack by Republicans who see stagnant wages and 
     eroding job security not as problems, but as the solutions to 
     their ultimate goal: helping those at the top of the economic 
     ladder, even while they're sawing off the bottom rungs. Why 
     else would Republicans propose a tax plan that cuts taxes by 
     8,500 dollars a year for the top one percent of families, 
     while raising taxes on the poorest working families by 
     slashing the Earnest Income Tax Credit, cutting back on 
     one of the best ways for struggling families to lift 
     themselves into the middle class?
       The fact is, for the millions of Americans who try to 
     support a family on the minimum wage, real wages have 
     plummeted 30 percent since 1979.
       We're not talking about a bunch of kids working at summer 
     jobs. The fact is, one-third of America's 4.8 million minimum 
     wage earners are the sole earners in their families. Seventy 
     percent of them are adults. They are now faced with the 
     virtually impossible task of raising a family on $8,700 a 
     year. In fact, one in five of them are still living below the 
     poverty line.
       Is that the message we want to send to working America? 
     That you can work hard, and take responsibility for your 
     family, and still live in poverty and deprivation?
       That is why it's time to raise the minimum wage by 90 
     cents. It's a matter of fundamental fairness. It's a matter 
     of basic decency for those who are at the bottom of the 
     ladder, struggling to climb up. But there are other reasons 
     to support this proposal.
       Raising the minimum wage would help make work pay more than 
     welfare--and too often, that's just not the case today.
       Republicans keep saying a minimum wage increase will cost 
     jobs. But it has been proven time and again that raising the 
     minimum wage won't cost jobs. The last time we raised the 
     minimum wage, Republican Members of the House said it would 
     be a ``death warrant . . . for small business,'' and that it 
     would destroy jobs, increase the federal deficit, and raise 
     inflation. It did none of those things.
       On the contrary, recent research--including a study by 
     noted economists David Card and Alan Krueger--shows that a 
     minimum wage increase has little or no effect on the number 
     of jobs. Since when is it bad for our economy to put more 
     money in the pockets of our workers and families and 
     consumers?
       And it has been proven that raising the minimum wage pushes 
     up wages for millions who earn more than the minimum wage 
     today.
       Republican leaders have already pledged to fight this 
     increase, as they have resisted similar increases in the 
     past. Republican Leader Dick Armey does not merely oppose an 
     increase--he wants to demolish the minimum wage altogether. 
     To the Republicans, lower wages--combined with huge corporate 
     tax breaks--are just money in the bank. Never mind that 
     people are suffering while those profits soar.
       The American people want this increase by overwhelming 
     margins. After too many years of declining wages and 
     opportunities, they deserve it. And Democrats are going to 
     fight to give it to them--because it's right for our economy, 
     and it's right for the hard working families who are the 
     heart of our country.
       Thank you for listening. Now I'm happy to take your 
     questions.

  Mr. Speaker, I now would like to yield to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] for a statement.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New York 
allowing me to participate in his time and particularly on the issue of 
the minimum wage.

                              {time}  1715

  Also, Mr. Speaker, and to those who are privileged to have heard the 
reading of the statement from the minority leader, indeed those same 
issues are as pertinent now as they were then, and it is indeed the 
fair thing to do, it is the right thing to do, and in the final 
analysis it is the economical thing to do;

[[Page H3635]]

for all of us to have a livable wage so Americans can live better and 
therefore our economy prosper.
  Mr. Speaker, it makes no sense that a person in America who wants to 
work, and who has a job and works more than 40 hours a week, can still 
fall below the poverty level. That is the situation we have under the 
current minimum wage.
  The President has proposed, and many Members are supporting, and even 
a few Republicans are supporting a modest increase. And I want to 
repeat, it is a modest increase. Only 90 cents over a period of 2 
years, 45 cents per year.
  Yes; Mr. Speaker, I know that some in the business community have 
argued that an increase in the minimum wage will cause many businesses 
to lay off workers. Yes; I know that some of the business community 
have maintained that an increase in the minimum wage would cause many 
businesses to increase the price of their products and their services 
in order to recoup what they pay the workers who provide services for 
us.
  But, Mr. Speaker, let us be honest and recognize the fact that while, 
over the course of the past few years, without the minimum wage, we 
have witnessed the economy prospering. Wall Street is boasting of a 
great margin of profits, and indeed our economy is moving. But it is 
not moving for all Americans. And the minimum wage simply says that the 
average worker also should see their wages go up as well.
  In fact, the average wages have stagnated and the minimum wage, 
indeed, has not moved at all. Mr. Speaker, the value of the minimum 
wage is now 29 percent lower than it was in 1979. In fact, it has 
fallen nearly 50 percent in real value since it was last increased. Yet 
we hear the Republicans say, ``Well, you had 2 years and you have not 
done it''. Well, this may be the time we should go ahead and do it. 
Simply because we have not done it does not mean it should not be done 
now. That is why workers who work full time, 40 hours a week and more, 
are not able to provide, because the value of that has decreased over 
50 percent in real value in the last few years.
  And who are these people we are talking about? And by the way, why 
should we, those of us who make over $130,000, despair of other people 
getting a 50-cent increase? It is unbelievable that we have the gall, 
the arrogance, to be so uncaring about people.
  Who are these workers we care about, Mr. Speaker? They are our 
fathers, our mothers, our children, our neighbors, their friends. Two-
thirds of them are adults in working families, and only one-third of 
them are actually teenagers, which we hear thrown out as an excuse.
  We also hear the excuse there are so few of them. Well, we are 
concerned about the top few of our economy; why not be concerned about 
the bottom few of our economy as well? Forty percent of those who are 
on minimum wage are the sole providers, the sole providers of their 
children.
  Speaker Gingrich often has compared this Congress with the New Deal 
under President Roosevelt, and he apparently is a great admirer of 
President Roosevelt, as I am; but I want to tell you there is no 
comparison. The New Deal Congress offered people hope, hope; it did not 
increase their economic insecurity or anxiety, where we are refusing to 
give people any hope. We are depressing their opportunity.

  In this Congress, the Speaker offers only cynicism and anxiety by 
attempting to enrich the few at the expense of the poor.
  It is unconscionable to me that the majority in control of this 
Congress would propose a huge tax cut for the wealthiest among us, 
while simultaneously attempting to eliminate the earned-income tax 
credit, and at the same time refusing to have any opportunity for 
increasing the minimum wage, as well as wanting to take Medicaid and 
other things that help the poor away.
  True, Mr. Speaker, these are indeed tough times. Our Nation is faced 
with a staggering national debt, built up over the past decade, that is 
threatening to rob our children and our grandchildren. But what will 
rob our children and our grandchildren, Mr. Speaker, is an inability 
for their parents and their grandparents to earn for them, rather than 
to be dependent on welfare.
  There is a growing gap between the rich and the poor, creating 
economic anxiety and fear, that has led many to question their place in 
society and to look with suspicion and envy at others of us. 
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, during these tough times, we must always 
remember the true test of a government is not where we stand when times 
are easy but, rather, where we stand when times are tough. History 
recalls how good government has responded during similar times, and I 
would say, Mr. Speaker, history will certainly ultimately judge this 
Congress and the this Government.
  America has traditionally rewarded work. Why should we not reward 
work? It is better for us to reward work rather than welfare. If this 
Congress fails to pass a minimum wage, it would the tantamount to 
making the will to work a penalty rather than a prize. Reward work, 
raise the minimum wage. It is the right thing to do. It is the American 
thing to do.
  Thank you, Mr. Owens for allowing me to participate with you.
  Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, and I wonder 
if she knows that she has about 11.3 percent of her working population 
in North Carolina that earns a minimum wage. I wonder if she also knows 
a lot of fuss has been made about Davis-Bacon and how Davis-Bacon 
artificially inflates wages. The figures for North Carolina for Davis-
Bacon, prevailing wages under Davis-Bacon, are only slightly higher 
than the minimum wage in North Carolina.
  So the gentlewoman has a great depression of wages in her State. It 
is very interesting.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. If the gentleman would yield, as those figures are 
depressing as a State, I want the gentleman to know that my district is 
even more disadvantaged because the earned-income tax credit 
eligibility is higher than it is for my State as a whole. Also, those 
who are working at lower wages in my district, which is the First 
Congressional District in North Carolina, again a higher percentage of 
my workers are working at lower wages.
  So this is critical, critical to the survivability of a lot of my 
families in my district. It is not incidental. Their earned-income tax 
credit, Medicaid, minimum wage, all of these issues go to whether 
families in my district----
  Mr. OWENS. Some of these people are at the very bottom of the rung. 
Although they are working, they are at the very bottom in terms of 
wages and income and were benefiting from the earned: income tax 
credit. You just mentioned that. But not only have the Republicans 
refused to allow a discussion of an increase in the minimum wage, but 
they have gone ahead and cut the earned-income tax credit also.

  Mrs. CLAYTON. In some instances they wanted to eliminate it. They cut 
it, but they wanted to eliminate it in many instances.
  Mr. OWENS. So there is a kind of war on the poor.
  I want to yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia and say to her that 
her State is about the same in terms of the percentage of people who 
are making only the minimum wage, working people who are earning only 
the minimum wage, about 11.9 percent in Georgia.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Well, I would begin by thanking the gentleman from New 
York for reserving this time so that we could talk about how America 
does need a raise, and our constituents, in particular, need to have a 
raise.
  I brought with me a cartoon from the Washington Post, Saturday, April 
13. I want to read this cartoon. It says: ``The bad news, Johnson, is 
you are being let go. The good news is you can have your old job back 
at half your former pay.'' And then poor Johnson says: ``I can't live 
on that.'' And then his boss says: ``The rest of the good news is we 
can offer you a second job, also at half your former pay.''
  The title of this cartoon is job growth. And now at the bottom it 
says: ``I'd offer you a third, but I'm afraid of overheating the 
economy.''
  Mr. OWENS. They have been reading Alan Greenspan.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I think this poignantly demonstrates the situation that 
America's workers are facing today, even those people who had white-
collar jobs, who thought that they were secure.

[[Page H3636]]

  I have a constituent who was employed by IBM, who thought that that 
was a contract for life employment, and now, of course, finds himself 
among those others who have been downsized, dispossessed of their 
dignity, while corporate CEO's, of course, make salaries that even our 
athletes, our star athletes, begin to blush at.
  Last year the heads of about 30 major corporations made 212 times 
more in compensation than the average American worker. And as we saw in 
the newspaper yesterday with Mr. Allen, the chairman of AT&T, he said 
that he really was not prepared to talk about his salary. And we saw 
him on ``60 Minutes''; ``60 minutes'' did a thing, and he was not 
prepared to talk about his salary.
  But, of course, what about those 43,000 who were downsized. What do 
they face? The fate that they face is jobs at half the pay, sometimes. 
If they are lucky, it is at half the pay of what they were formerly 
making.
  I have another chart here. This is a quote from our right honorable 
majority leader. He says the minimum wage is a very destructive thing. 
I will resist a minimum wage increase with every fiber in my being.
  Now, I do not know about my sister and my brother, my sister from 
North Carolina, my brother from New York, but I cannot imagine 
leadership of the United States of America that would resist giving 
people who are working every day------
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Fifty cents.
  Mr. OWENS. Forty-five cents.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Yes, 45 cents.
  Ms. McKINNEY. A dollar. Because now we have some Republicans who have 
said, well, we are willing to support a dollar increase in the minimum 
wage. I would suggest just with my last little quote here from my 
charts----
  Mr. OWENS. Would the gentlewoman yield for just a minute?
  Ms. McKINNEY. I will.
  Mr. OWENS. Most Americans do not realize that this is not a budget 
issue. An increase in the minimum wage will not cost the taxpayers a 
single penny. We are not talking about the Government paying an 
increase in the minimum wage. It is the people working out there for 
employers in the private sector who would receive the wages. It is not 
an item we put in the budget to increase the minimum wage. So we are 
not talking about downsizing the Government or helping to get rid of 
the deficit. We are talking about a humane action to make it possible 
for every American to pursue happiness

  The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence talk about the 
right to pursue happiness. They need to have a decent wage before they 
can pursue happiness.
  Ms. McKINNEY. But this is the same group of people who want welfare 
reform, and they want to kick people off of welfare and send them to 
work, but they want to send them to work at a job that does not even 
sustain a decent living.
  Mr. OWENS. I think $8,400 a year is what the present minimum wage 
comes out to. Eight thousand four hundred dollars a year. And we just 
pointed out about 4 million of these people are the sole wage earners 
in their families.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Kevin Phillips, a conservation political analyst, said 
the 104th Congress may be the worst in 50 years. Now, can you imagine 
that we are presiding over something that is going down in history, but 
going down in history the wrong way?
  Mr. OWENS. Would the gentlewoman yield to correct that? We are not 
presiding over it.
  Ms. McKINNEY. That is true.
  Mr. OWENS. There is a Republican majority in power for the first 
time; they are presiding over it.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Thank you very much for the correction. Perhaps this is 
one way that they can get on the right side of history, by doing 
something that is a moral obligation to working Americans so that they 
can at least go to work every day and then come home and not have to 
live in poverty.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Would the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. McKINNEY. I certainly will.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I think you are right, it is the moral thing to do. And 
so often we hear values about family and we hear values about trust and 
honesty and decency. Well, how we really cause families to unite is to 
give them the resources to be self-sufficient. And the best welfare 
reform to take away dependency is to have sufficient income to take 
care of yourself.

                              {time}  1730

  So that is indeed the right thing, the moral thing, the American 
thing, but in addition to that, this money goes right back into the 
economy. Why? Because people want to provide food, they want to provide 
shelter, they want to provide clothing. So this is not money that is 
going to be taken out. This money generates consumers who are 
purchasing services that they cannot purchase now; so this idea that it 
will be detrimental to the economy because it will reduce jobs, and 
think the comment that Congressman Owens read earlier from the minority 
leader referenced a couple of studies that were made, one in New Jersey 
and the other in Pennsylvania, where they actually studied that there 
were increasing jobs. Why? Because there were demand for greater 
service. Philadelphia did not waste theirs, Pennsylvania did not raise 
theirs, New Jersey did raise theirs. New Jersey increased jobs; 
Pennsylvania did not.
  In fact in my State, North Carolina, when they raised the minimum 
wage the last time, indeed there was a slowing of jobs. But when you 
looked at over a period of a year, that increase came back in, and I 
would ask some farmers, the minimum wage is, said you know what we have 
found out: you cannot keep good workers at the minimum wage. So people 
understand if you are going to sustain your company, you have to have a 
stable work force that you can depend on so it is good for the economy, 
it is the right thing to do, it is the moral thing to do.
  And I agree with you. We do not want to be a part of a Congress that 
would be held accountable because I said earlier history records what 
we do and tough times, and indeed these are tough times, but there are 
a lot of people who are having tough times that government should give 
some hope to. The minimum wage gives just a little of that. Does not 
give a lot, but we should do that.
  Mr. OWENS. I think it is important to point out at this point that I 
said earlier that there are rumors that the Republicans or some Members 
who are beginning to generate a bill calling for an increase in the 
minimum wage. In fact, the increase, as you pointed out, they are 
calling for a 50 cent per year for 2 years which means maybe a $1 
increase.
  I welcome that, and I hope that the American voters out there will 
also begin to encourage their Congressmen, whether they are Republicans 
or Democrats, to go forward. We need this increase.
  And some of the brightest moments of my 14 years here in Congress 
have been the times, all too few, when Republicans and Democrats have 
come together on something that makes sense. We did it in terms of 
sanctions against South Africa, very tough sanctions against South 
Africa. We did it to pass the law which created the Martin Luther King 
birthday. We have done it on the occasion of the Americans With 
Disabilities Act; you know, Republicans and Democrats coming together 
to do something that makes sense and benefits large numbers of people.
  In the next few days and weeks nothing would make me happier than to 
see the Republicans join us and do the right thing. You know, let us go 
forward on a minimum wage increase.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. My understanding is that the minimum wage has been 
traditionally a bipartisan. In fact, Speaker Gingrich has voted for the 
minimum wage. Senator Dole has voted for the minimum wage. Why not now 
vote for it? You are right. Why cannot we join in that bipartisan 
effort, because when you look at who has been voting for the minimum 
wage, they are already. So why you at this time are refusing to do the 
right thing which you already have done? History has reported you have 
had a vote on the minimum wage, and they voted for it. So why not now? 
Is this just a political effort? People are suffering, so they need 
that effort, and I agree with you. It would be the right thing to do, 
and the Republicans have a bill that says a dollar, I think the dollar 
is better than 45 cents. I certainly would want to join that.
  Mr. OWENS. People in the poorest parts of my district would welcome 
an increase of 45 cents or 50 cents. We

[[Page H3637]]

really need more. They do not care where it comes from Republicans or 
Democrats. There are people who are suffering that need that increase 
in the minimum wage.
  Ms. McKINNEY. To deny an increase in the minimum wage and also to cut 
the earned income tax credit is nothing other than mean, and that is 
not the kind of government that the American people deserve, and I know 
that is not what they voted for.
  Mr. OWENS. I think it is very important to note that 20 percent of 
those living on the minimum wage the last time it was raised in 1991 
were in poverty. An additional 13 percent were near poverty. In 1993 
the President expanded the earned income tax credit which we noted the 
Republicans have tried to cut out completely, but they certainly 
decreased, and it raised income to 15 million families that helped many 
working families move above the poverty line. Yet to complete the goal 
of insuring the full-time working families, getting them out of 
poverty, we need to raise the minimum wage.

  Recent analysis by the economic policy institute and preliminary work 
by the Department of Health and Human Services suggest that 300,000 
people would be lifted out of poverty if the minimum wage was raised to 
$5.15 an hour we are proposing. The figure includes 100,000 children 
who are currently living in poverty. The current poverty line for a 
family of four is $15,600. A family of four with one worker earning 
$4.25 an hour and working full-time year round earn $8,500, and they 
will receive a tax credit of $3,400 under the 1996 provisions of the 
earned income tax credit. They would collect food stamps worth $3,516 
and would pay $615 in payroll taxes out of what they earn. This family 
would end up $834 below the poverty line.
  With all that help, they go to work every day, they get the help from 
the food stamps, they get the earned income tax credit, they are still 
$835 below the poverty line.
  On the other hand for a family of four with one worker earning 
$10,000, $300 a year, that would be a full-time worker on $5.15 an hour 
after the increase takes place. The EITC, the earned income tax credit, 
would provide the maximum tax credit of $3,560, food stamps would 
provide $2,876, and they would pay $788 and payroll taxes. The increase 
in the minimum wage, along with EITC and food stamps would lift this 
family out of poverty. A family of four with those kinds of, that kind 
of, assistance, plus working every day would be lifted out of poverty.
  Ms. McKINNEY. That is certainly an inducement to those who would want 
to get off welfare but who find welfare more attractive because working 
every day pays less than welfare in some places. This is an inducement 
for those people who want to work to go to work and then to be able to 
live a decent life at the end of their work.
  Mr. OWENS. Now the problem is we have a kind of elite minority 
decadent reasoning that takes place. Even though it does not cost the 
government one penny, the elite minority reasoning is that you do not 
want to do anything which might lessen the profits of the people who 
are making all the money already.
  The corporations are making tremendous amounts of money. We are in a 
boom cycle. You got a bull stock market, you know. Why are they 
watching so closely to see to it that the bottom line should be kept so 
low? Why are they trying to keep our wages in this country at the same 
level of the wages in Bangladesh or China, Mexico? Or why are they 
trying to bring down the American workers? Why not let everybody share 
in the prosperity?
  We have this kind of decadence that has been made into a very 
complicated philosophy. We have Alan Greenspan adding to this decadent 
economics. But Alan Greenspan argues that whenever you have 
unemployment up, that is good because it means that it keeps inflation 
in check, but unemployment goes down, it is bad because inflation will 
increase because the number of workers out there, if the supply is less 
than the demand, and when the supply is less than the demand and the 
workplace that drives up the ability of the wages because the workers 
can negotiate for higher level of wages.
  So our Federal Reserve has been pursuing a policy of keeping wages 
low, keeping unemployment high. You know, we have the body that is set 
up to promote prosperity for everybody, deliberately joining forces 
with the kind of reasoning that says wages should be kept at the 
present level or not increased in order to keep down the amount of 
money paid by corporations to the lowest-level workers in America.
  These are decadent institutions they must be challenged head on. The 
American people need to understand. We recently had Mr. Greenspan up 
for reappointment, and he sailed through. Everybody agrees that Alan 
Greenspan should be reappointed. And he is the great untouchable on the 
Federal Reserve Board. But I think we better stop and take a look at 
the policies being promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board, especially 
since that same Federal Reserve Board which is responsible for keeping 
our economy well managed, for seeing to it that we have policies which 
promote prosperity, for seeing to it that we minimize waste, that same 
Federal Reserve Board was found by the GAO to have $3.7 point billion 
in a slush fund. They have $3.7 billion lying around that they are not 
using that they have not returned to the Treasury. If we had that $3.7 
billion in the Treasury, the deficit would be decreased by $3.7 
billion.

  Why is the Federal Reserve holding on to the money? I have an answer, 
Mr. Greenspan, but the General Accounting Office points out they say 
they keep the money for a rainy day, they keep the money in case their 
operations, which are quite huge, they earn money on the interest they 
charge the banks, they earn money on the services they provide the 
banks.
  In the last 79 years they have never had a rainy day, the last 79 
years they have never had a loss, never broken even. They always have a 
surplus, but the surplus is now increased to the point where it is $3.7 
billion.
  Now, Mr. Greenspan is in charge of this, the same mentality that says 
keep unemployment up, keep wages low, also said that, ``I need $3.7 
billion around in my slush fund just because I might have a rainy 
day.''
  We ought to do something about that. The American people ought to 
listen closely to what is happening. You know, it is just like what 
happened in another one of those sacred cow agencies, the CIA; they 
found $2 billion lying around in a petty cash slush fund of the CIA, 
you know. If we get all of these slush funds cleaned out, you know, we 
could balance the budget properly.
  You know, my friend from New York, Carolyn Maloney, has done a study, 
and she shows that the debts owed to the U.S. Government by the Farmers 
Home Loan Mortgage, which is one of the worst perpetrators, and many 
others, section A, the royalties that are due by companies that are 
supposed to pay, oil companies that are supposed to pay royalties to 
the Government, when you add it all up, there is $55 billion out there 
uncollected that, if we were to pursue with more zeal, we could get 
that money, help balance the budget, and we would not be talking about 
keeping the economy in check with inflation so that it can generate for 
profits; hopefully those profits would be taxed, and that is the way we 
get our revenue.
  Let us bring down the deficit. Let us take care of the minimum wage. 
Let us begin to manage our economy better, and let us not have a 
balancing of the budget, a driving of the economy by shortchanging the 
people who are at the very bottom who are earning the minimum wage. It 
is a decadent scenario that ought to be challenged by every fair-
thinking American.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. I want to add, too, it has been usually the principle 
that we have been working on that would reward work, that productivity 
is a factor of the profit, and that we reward that when the 
productivity goes up and the profit goes up, you share that with the 
workers. But somehow the wages have been stagnant even for those who 
are not at the minimum wage; I mean those who are middle income. The 
wages have been stagnant at the same time the profit has been going up. 
So the productivity, which is a factor of that high profit, is not 
necessarily a benefit of the workers, and we need to change that 
principle, as well, also.
  The other principle we need to change, it seems to me, is that 
America is a country of great opportunity. It is the entrepreneurship 
and the opportunity to work that should give

[[Page H3638]]

hope to all of us that we always will work harder, train and be better 
skilled to get the next job. However, when we give messages that create 
such a disparity between the top 5 percent and the lower 5 percent, and 
it is growing, it is growing and we seem not to even concern ourselves 
about that, I mean the distance between the richest of the individuals 
in America and the poorest of the individuals is larger now than ever 
before, and yet at the same time we are having great profit, great 
productivity. You would think that that would inure to the workers as 
well. Just as you share the profit with your stockholders, you reward 
people for doing a good job; they get an increase.
  And also the minimum wage should move up. And by the way, the cost of 
living has gone up rather than wages now, so it is costing the people 
to get a gallon of milk or bread or Medicare; all of those things that 
they must provide for their families, that is going up.
  Ms. McKINNEY. And in order for the minimum wage to have the same 
purchasing power as it did in the 1970's, it would need to be $6.07 an 
hour. So when you talk about purchasing power and inflation, it has 
eroded the minimum wage, the purchasing power of the minimum wage.

                              {time}  1745

  Mrs. CLAYTON. We are not talking about even taking people up to 
purchasing power, as you have indicated. This is just the beginning of 
the process.
  Ms. McKINNEY. That is correct. I would just like to say something 
about the notion of a social good. At some point we have got to start 
thinking about the community. We have got to think about the community 
that is America.
  I know we went through the 1980's, and the 1980's was the ``I-me'' 
decade. We are seeing the fruits of that now. The fruits of that, as 
you have correctly pointed out, is the fact that we have got 
concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer Americans. They 
are getting more and more and more of the pie. The rest of us are being 
left out.
  At some point when you have productivity increases, you would think 
that America as a whole, the community, would grow as a result of that 
productivity growth. But what we have seen is that we have got this 
``winner take all,'' and the winner is the CEO and those folks who are 
in that orbit. They get everything, and can even get rewarded by laying 
people off, by putting people on the streets, by telling them ``We 
don't need you anymore.''
  At some point we also have to think about the dignity of work and how 
people define themselves and their self-worth by what they do in life. 
If they have nothing to cling to because their commitment that they 
thought they had with their company, with their corporation, has been 
broken, not for the social good, not for America's good but for the 
good of individual people, one or two people get all of the results, 
all of the rewards, and they have to pay the price.
  At some point America and Americans have to wake up and say that it 
is one thing to be an individual who can soar to the top, but there is 
also some emptiness in being at the top if everyone else beneath you is 
way down at the bottom. We all can soar, and that is what is so good 
about this country, is that there is room for everybody, if the value 
is there that includes everybody.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. That is what America was built on. Give me your weak 
and your frail.
  Ms. McKINNEY. That is correct.
  Mrs. CLAYTON. This is what the Statue of Liberty is all about. That 
is why people want to come to America, for a better opportunity to 
live. So the quality of life adds to that community spirit, and also 
the quality of life and the community spirit adds to the stability in 
our communities.
  When you find the family down the street who has no economic stake in 
that community, pretty soon he becomes a factor of the criminal element 
that finds themselves not feeling they need to protect you either. So 
we need to see how we keep our families together by ensuring that they 
have the resources to take care of themselves. That also will help 
stabilize our community as a place that is caring and protective.
  We are all in this boat together. We are all in this American boat 
together. Obviously someone with greater skills is going to be rewarded 
but, as the gentlewoman said, we should be equally concerned for those 
who are at least among us, because their quality of life helps our 
quality of life.
  Mr. OWENS. I thoroughly agree with both of my colleagues. We have a 
moral duty, and we are charged as public officials by our Constitution 
to promote the general welfare.
  If you look at it in hard, cold terms in terms of promoting the 
general welfare, Henry Ford was a smart man. He might have had some 
problems with unions, et cetera, but he came to the reality that if he 
is going to sell his cars in large amounts, he has got to pay his 
workers enough wages to buy his cars, and that is just plain old 
American common sense.
  We have serious problems in our economy right now with consumer 
spending. The retail establishments are suffering. Why they are 
suffering is because the people on the bottom, from the bottom up, are 
the ones who spend the money in the stores because they need immediate 
necessities. They need food, clothing, shelter, they need 
refrigerators, they need the kinds of things that you buy from our 
stores.
  The people at the very top who are drawing large amounts of profits 
from Wall Street, they are the rich and the famous who pick up and 
travel around the world, and spend their money all over the world and 
buy real estate all over the world, buy diamonds, jewels, and certain 
kinds of things that do not feed back into the economy. They do not 
turn the money over.
  The great locomotive of the free world economy has been the American 
consumer. We are about to destroy the American consumer and end the 
great economy that has fed the free world for all these many years. If 
you do not have those consumers with basically good salaries on a 
steady basis, then you are going to take the heart out of what drives 
our economy.

  Other economies recognize this more so than we do. A higher standard 
of living of workers now is not in America. It is in Germany. Japan, 
with all of its economic difficulties, has a far lower rate of 
unemployment than America. Japan does things to protect its workers, 
and its workers are considered a large part of its middle class.
  Japan does not have to spend large amounts of money on prisons, on 
crime prevention or crime detection. They do not have to spend large 
sums of money on drug rehabilitation and drug-related crimes. They do 
not spend almost any money on guns and the results of people being 
destroyed, mangled, injured by guns. We have got something like 16,000 
people killed by guns 2 years ago. The statistics are complete. At the 
same time less than 100 people were killed by guns in Japan.
  A more stable society, including gun control laws, by the way, a more 
stable society with a middle class preserved. We criticize Japan a lot 
about the way they resist our imports coming in. They have all kinds of 
tricks to slow down the flow of goods from the outside because they 
protect each industry, the middlemen and all the folks down at every 
level in their economy to maintain a middle class. The biggest part of 
that middle class are the workers in the factories who earn wages which 
are good enough to make it unnecessary for them to have to have EITC or 
food stamps or all the other benefits that we have to generate as a 
result of our failure to pay our workers.
  In Japan, in Germany, in France, in all of the industrialized 
nations, the executives, the chief executive officers and the middle 
management earn far less than the chief executives in the United States 
corporations. Far less. You will have to look for a long time to find a 
chief executive officer in Japan who was paid more than $1 million in 
compensation last year. You might find a few more in Germany but you 
will not find them in Japan.
  Let us make a comparison. If Majority Leader Armey is really 
interested in doing what is good for the economy instead of saying he 
wants to abolish and eliminate minimum wage, let us put some kind of 
hold on the unbridled, forever escalating amount of money that the 
chief executive officers of corporations are earning. Of course the

[[Page H3639]]

chief executive officer earns, what is it, the top guy is $20 something 
million. AT&T or Disney, I forget, somebody is past $20 million in 
compensation per year.
  Ms. McKINNEY. I saw a newspaper article from I believe the Washington 
Post about a company called Greentree, and that CEO was being 
compensated at around $60 million. It is absolutely unbelievable.
  Mr. OWENS. $60 million. Oh, that is an aberration, most of them are 
at around $20 or $15 million.
  Ms. McKINNEY. That is correct.
  Mr. OWENS. Nowhere in Japan will you ever find anybody earning $60 
million or $20 million.
  Ms. McKINNEY. It is absolutely incredible. Two hundred and twelve 
times more in compensation than the average American worker.
  Mr. OWENS. Let us take care of our economy. Mr. Greenspan wants to 
take up inflation. Seems to me Mr. Greenspan would address his concern 
to inflated salaries at the top levels, and deal not so much and 
scrutinize not so much the wages paid to people at the very bottom.
  Ms. McKINNEY. If the gentleman and the gentlewoman would recall the 
arguments around NAFTA, do you remember that some people were saying 
that if we pass NAFTA and NAFTA becomes law, that American standards 
then would become global standards? So we did not have to fear about 
workers' wages going down, because workers' wages would go up. We did 
not have to fear about environmental standards going down because 
environmental standards were going up.
  I do not know that that has been the experience.
  Mr. OWENS. Just the opposite has happened. The common denominator is 
becoming the prison laborer in China, the workers in Bangladesh, the 
workers in Mexico. The philosophy behind the assertion by the 
Republican majority that we need to keep our wages low is that in order 
to be competitive, the lowest wages in the world is what we are 
competing with. So just the opposite has happened as a result of GATT 
and NAFTA. We are pulling down the standards of the American workers.
  I thank my colleagues for joining me on the special order on minimum 
wage. I hope everybody understands we are moving forward and common 
sense will prevail. I hope our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle will soon join us in increasing the minimum wage.

                          ____________________