[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 59 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4419-H4421]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1315
      THE EFFECT OF RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE ON UNEMPLOYMENT RATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May

[[Page H4420]]

12, 1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I stand today on behalf of the working 
people, whose opportunity to work will be jeopardized if we proceed 
with what apparently we are going to, and that is an ill-advised 
increase in the minimum wage. And here is the truth: The politics say 
it is an election year, increase the minimum wage. Never mind that the 
President had the chance to do so in the first two years of his 
administration when his party controlled the Congress. Never mind that. 
Now it is an election year.
  But, please, think of the average man and woman who may be making the 
minimum wage, and ask, do you want to put that person out of a job? Who 
do you benefit, who do you hurt?
  You hurt the person who would not get the job, except that it was at 
the minimum wage. Who do you benefit? You benefit those people who stay 
in their job and whose wages are increased. And that is a trade-off I 
just do not think we should make.
  What data do I have to support this? Let me just recite that every 
time since the mid-70's, which is where my research began, that we 
increased the real minimum wage and the economy was like it is today, 
we saw an increase in unemployment.
  It stands to reason, does it not? Because an increase in the minimum 
wage is a tax on an employer who is offering somebody a job. It is not 
paid for by all of us. It is paid for by the exact person, the 
employer, who is trying to offer a job. And we say an the natural 
result is that there will be fewer such jobs available.
  In 1974 there was an increase in the real minimum wage; unemployment 
went up 14 percent. In 1990 there was an increase in the real minimum 
wage; unemployment went up 4 percent. In 1991, there was an increase in 
the real minimum wage; unemployment went up 22 percent. 22 percent!
  Now, have there ever been instances when the increase in the minimum 
wage did not lead to an increase in unemployment? Yes. And that was 
when the economy was so strongly growing that even an increase in the 
minimum wage could not stop the effect of more jobs. Years in my search 
that were of that nature were in 1976 and 1978, both of which had above 
5 percent real growth.
  We are not at 5 percent real growth. We are at anemic real growth. 
Indeed, the news this morning is so optimistic that we finally achieved 
a 2.8 percent rate of real growth in the first quarter of this year to 
match the barely 1 percent real growth of the last quarter of last 
year.
  Here it is, simply put: An increase in the minimum wage means: First, 
a tax on people who offer jobs to those who most need them; second, as 
a result, fewer jobs offered to those who most need them; but third, 
political again for the President. I will not have any part of that. It 
is not right, it is not fair.


                          situation in bosnia

  Mr. Speaker, I rose for a second purpose and I would like to turn to 
that now, and that deals with the situation in Bosnia and the fact that 
the President has now requested, or told us I should say, he has not 
requested, Mr. Speaker, he has told us that he intends to keep United 
States troops in Bosnia for longer than one year. Do not you recall 
that when he asked, again he did not ask, when he insisted on putting 
United States troops in Bosnia, he said it would only be for one year? 
And now he is informing us it will be more than one year.
  What about the constitutional responsibility of the representatives 
of the people of this great country in the Congress to vote yes or no 
on going to war? Well, I was concerned about this, and I brought it to 
the attention of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations, and he wrote a letter to the Secretary of 
State, excuse me, to the President himself. Let me just recite the 
facts that indicate at the very least the War Powers Resolution should 
now be invoked.
  You remember, the War Powers Resolution was adopted to provide a 
system whereby Congress could decide, as our Constitution says it 
should, whether American troops are put into hostilities overseas, and 
it was a compromise. Realizing the President would occasionally have to 
respond to emergencies, he could go and put troops overseas in 
hostilities for 60 days. But if those American troops stayed for longer 
than 60 days, the President had to come to the Congress, because that 
is what the Constitution says, and let us decide, we the 
representatives of the people, whether our sons and daughters and 
brothers and sisters should be put into hostilities on behalf of what 
purpose and with what prospects of success.
  I argued at the time that Bosnia was not like Kuwait, that the 
prospects of success were extremely unclear, that this 1-year promise 
would probably be breached. How can you say when you have succeeded in 
Bosnia, when the last partisan stops hating the last other partisan? 
That will not be within our lifetime, let alone within a year.
  But what most concerned me was that the War Powers Resolution says 
the President must obtain the permission of Congress if American troops 
are put into hostilities after 60 days. And you will remember January 
28 of this year, Lt. Shawn Watts was wounded by sniper fire in Ilidza, 
Bosnia. On January 31, a U.S. Humvee was struck by snipe fire. On 
February 3, two British soldiers were wounded by sniper fire as part of 
the NATO force and another NATO vehicle was hit by sniper fire on 
February 12 with one occupant wounded. If these are not hostilities, 
the meaning of the word is lost.
  So the chairman of our Committee on International Relations wrote to 
the President and said, Mr. President, are these hostilities? Let me 
just continue with the facts. The New York Times quoted a spokesman for 
NATO on January 29, Lt. Colonel Brian Hoey, as saying, ``Unfortunately, 
this shooting is not an isolated incident . . . In a city like this, it 
would be difficult to establish trends, but this is one of a series of 
recent incidents that have put soldiers at risk.''
  So the chairman wrote the President. He said why not bring this to 
Congress? Are these not hostilities? Is this not what the Constitution 
requires? By the way, would you please let us know if there have been 
any other hostilities since the date of this letter to the time of your 
response?
  The words of the War Powers Resolution require the approval of the 
Congress where U.S. Armed Forces are placed overseas in hostilities, 
``where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the 
circumstances.''

  What response do we have? A very disappointing response dated April 
25, not signed by the President, but by the Acting Assistant Secretary 
of the Department of State, who writes the chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations of the House of Representatives, ``While there 
have been incidents involving sniper attacks by unknown gunmen, such 
sporadic criminal acts are not hostilities as that term is used in the 
War Powers Resolution.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed. You cannot play word games with 
the lives and national interests of our country and its soldiers. Are 
there hostilities in Bosnia? Who would say no? Who would stand up 
before citizens in a town hall meeting like I do when I am back in my 
district, and again this month say, oh, Bosnia? That is not 
hostilities. It is, and now the President is saying 1 more year, or 
perhaps at least some time beyond a year. I will be fair. He did not 
say an additional year, he just said that 1-year promise is no longer 
operative.
  Well, it seems to me the time is appropriate under our Constitution 
for the Members of the House and the other body to stand before the 
American people and say it is our responsibility on behalf of our 
citizens, our constituents, to say yes or no to the use of force in 
hostilities in Bosnia before we put American soldiers lives at risk. 
This is for Congress to decide and for the President to do beyond the 1 
year without congressional approval. It is time that he come to the 
Congress, make his case, and if he succeeds, fine; if he does not, he 
must act to withdraw the United States troops from Bosnia. I put to the 
Speaker that we should put to the President this challenge: Abide by 
the Constitution, its spirit; instead of taking the word 
``hostilities'' and straining it beyond its logical meaning.

[[Page H4421]]



                         SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

  By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the 
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was 
granted to:
  (The following Members (at the request of Mr. Montgomery) to revise 
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
  Mrs. Schroeder, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Volkmer, for 5 minutes, today.
  Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 60 minutes, today.
  Mr. Wise, for 60 minutes, today.
  (The following Member (at his own request) to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material:)
  Mr. Clement, for 5 minutes, today.
  (The following Member (at the request of Mr. Gutknecht) to revise and 
extend his remarks and include extraneous material:)
  Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes, today.

                          ____________________