[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.
____________________