[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5060-H5069]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1015
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1745, UTAH PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT 
                              ACT OF 1995

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 303 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 303

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1745) to designate certain public lands in the 
     State of Utah as wilderness, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of 
     order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2(I)(6) of rule XI or section 302(f) or 311(a) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the 
     bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     shall be considered as read. Points of order against the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure 
     to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or section 302(f) or 
     311(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. 
     Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in 
     order to consider the amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That 
     amendment may be offered only by the chairman of the 
     Committee on Resources or his designee, shall be considered 
     as read, shall be debatable for ten minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. If that amendment is adopted, the bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the 
     purpose of further amendment. During further consideration of 
     the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of relevant debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for 
relevant debate purposes only.
  (Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and insert extraneous material.)
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 303 is a completely open 
rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1745, the Utah Public 
Lands Management Act of 1995.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Resources Committee. 
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is made in order 
as base text for purposes of amendment under the 5-minute rule.
  The rule makes in order a manager's amendment by Chairman Young 
printed in the report on this rule, debatable for 10 minutes. If 
adopted, the manager's amendment becomes part of the base text for 
amendment purposes.
  As I mentioned earlier, this is a completely open rule permitting any 
Member to offer any germane amendment. Members who have preprinted 
their amendments in the Record may be given priority in recognition. 
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without 
instruction.
  Mr. Speaker, we have called up this rule today, even though it was 
not scheduled for consideration this week, because the minority gave 
notice yesterday that it would otherwise call up this rule pursuant to 
clause 4(c) of rule 11 which permits any Rules Committee member to call 
up a rule after it has been pending on the calendar for more than 7 
days.
  I don't think anyone seriously believes the minority is simply 
interested in considering the Utah wilderness bill. This is just one 
more attempt to circumvent, indeed violate two House rules for ulterior 
motives--and that is to defeat the previous question to offer a 
completely unrelated and nongermane amendment to this rule that would 
be ruled out of order on a point of order.
  Despite repeated warnings, the minority has persisted in violating 
House Rule 14 which requires Members to confine themselves to the 
question under consideration. And they have attempted to defeat the 
previous question on other rules to offer an amendment that would be in 
violation of clause 7 of rule 16, the germaneness

[[Page H5061]]

rule--an amendment that would require the Rules Committee to report a 
rule on a bill completely unrelated to the subject matter of the rule.
  Rules Committee Chairman Solomon, in a letter to Ranking Minority 
Member Moakley, back on May 7, urged Mr. Moakley to join with him in 
helping to enforce House rules during consideration of special rules 
rather than violate House rules--specifically, clause 1 of rule 14 
requiring that debate be relevant to the pending question, and clause 7 
of rule 16 requiring that amendments be germane to the rules to which 
they are offered.
  Those pleas for cooperation and adherence to the rules have obviously 
gone unheeded and ignored.
  Mr. Speaker, while we are willing to continue the custom of granting 
half of our hour on debate on such rules to the minority, we would 
again caution and advise the minority to observe House rules on 
relevancy in debate and the germaneness rule on amendments to rules.
  I urge the adoption of the previous question and the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record:

                                               Committee on Rules,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                      Washington, DC, May 7, 1996.
     Hon. John Joseph Moakley,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Rules, The Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Joe: The Congressional Budget Office has been kind 
     enough to provide me with copies of its responses to your 
     inquiries on the last two efforts to defeat the previous 
     question on rules to offer amendments directing the Rules 
     Committee to report back minimum wage legislation.
       As CBO points out in both instances (on H. Res. 412 waiving 
     the two-thirds vote requirement on same-day consideration of 
     rules, and H. Res. 418, the U.S. Marshals Service Improvement 
     Act), the proposed amendments to the rules would not 
     constitute an unfunded mandate (being procedural in nature 
     only), but the subsequent legislation they would direct be 
     reported, ``would impose both an intergovernmental and 
     private sector mandate as defined in Public Law 104-4.'' 
     (Letters from CBO Director O'Neill to Rep. Moakley, April 25 
     and May 1, 1996).
       I appreciate your diligence in monitoring these potential 
     rule violations so carefully. By the same token, however, I 
     would respectfully ask you in the future to check with the 
     Parliamentarian in advance on both the germaneness of such 
     amendments to the pending rules and the relevancy of extended 
     debate on this unrelated matter. Our own discussions with the 
     Parliamentarian confirm that: (a) a discussion of the minimum 
     wage was not relevant to either of the above cited rules and 
     thus in violation of clause 1 of rule XIV (decorum in 
     debate); and (2) the proposed amendments to the rules were 
     not germane to the rules and thus in violation of clause 7 of 
     rule XVI (germaneness).
       Given your earlier, extensive correspondence with me on the 
     subjects of the minimum wage, unfunded mandates, and the need 
     for a strict adherence to House Rules, I would ask that you 
     in turn see to it that during House debate on special rules 
     you and the speakers you yield to observe both of these 
     important House rules by avoiding the use of irrelevant 
     debate on nongermane amendments that would be rule out of 
     order even if you defeated the previous question.
       As I suggested earlier, a simple check with the 
     Parliamentarian, just as you check with CBO, would go a long 
     way towards ensuring compliance with these two important 
     House Rules on relevancy in debate and germaneness of 
     amendments. I am sure you will agree with me that we do not 
     set a good example for the House so long as we countenance 
     such abuses of the fundamental rules of debate and amendment 
     by mischaracterizing the previous question process and vote 
     as something it is not.
       I look forward to working closely with you in the future to 
     ensure full compliance with House rules during House 
     consideration of our order of business resolutions.
           Sincerely,
                                                Gerald B. Solomon,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes. I appreciate the gentleman's wanting us to abide 
by the rules of the House. I agree. We take, for example, how they try 
to ram a constitutional amendment through this House here without even 
having a hearing in the Committee on the Judiciary. So we will operate 
under the same set of rules.
  Mr. Speaker, once again the House Democrats are going to try it 
again. Today we are going to try for the fifth time this year, the 
fifth time this year, to give 12 million hardworking Americans a long 
overdue pay raise. We are hoping that our Republican colleagues will 
stop voting no and start voting yes. We are hoping they will join us 
and join 85 percent of the American people who believe that the minimum 
wage increase is a very, very good idea.
  Some of my colleagues may wonder how it is that we are considering 
today's rule. Well, this rule concerning some public lands in Utah was 
reported out of the Committee on Rules last December. The House rules 
allow any member of the Committee on Rules as a matter of privilege to 
call up a rule which has been waiting on the House Calendar for over a 
week. So I used my privilege, in order to try again to convince my 
Republican colleagues to allow us to raise the minimum wage for 12 
million Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a lot of money. We are talking 
about a very small raise for our people. Our people, who work very 
hard, our people, who still only make $8,400 a year. We are talking 
about giving a long overdue raise to 12 million Americans, who work 
very long hours and still live below the poverty level.
  Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues and I believe very strongly 
that American workers deserve a raise, and you probably noticed we are 
going to still fight until we finally get one. It has been 5 years 
since the last increase in the minimum wage. Its value has now dropped 
to a 40-year low. Working people deserve this long overdue raise, and I 
think we really owe it to them. So, Mr. Speaker, at the end of this 
debate I will oppose the previous question in order to offer an 
amendment which provides for an immediate vote on the minimum wage 
increase.
  Mr. Speaker, if any of my colleagues do not think we should give a 
raise to the minimum wage earner, if any of my colleagues think those 
on minimum wage should not have it increased, they should vote yes on 
the previous question. But everybody else, those who think that an 
increase in the minimum wage is long overdue, as I do, should vote with 
me and oppose the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, let us make sure that hardworking Americans with full-
time jobs can finally support their families on their income.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, under the House rule XIV, which requires 
that a Member must ``confine himself to the question under debate,'' is 
it relevant to the debate on either this rule or the bill it makes in 
order to engage in a discussion on the merits of the minimum wage?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair acknowledges the gentleman's 
parliamentary inquiry, and would advise Members that under clause 1 of 
rule XIV, they should confine themselves to the question under debate 
in the House. As explained on page 529 of the House Rules and Manual, 
debate on a special order providing for the consideration of a bill may 
range to the merits of the bill to be made in order, but should not 
range to the merits of a measure not to be considered under that 
special order.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Could the 
Chair enlighten us as to the subject matter of the subject under 
debate?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The subject for debate in this rule is the 
resolution providing for consideration of the Utah Wilderness bill, and 
the debate should be confined to that topic.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this rule, but I want to explain to 
the people of Utah and the rest of America that this procedural move is 
not about H.R. 1745, my Utah Wilderness bill, but is about procedural 
maneuvering to address unrelated issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I was before the Committee on Rules last December, 
wherein I requested an open rule to fully debate the issues of H.R. 
1745, the Utah Wilderness Act. I support this rule and

[[Page H5062]]

urge its adoption. When Utah Wilderness does come before this body, I 
will be proposing several changes to H.R. 1745 that moderate this 
legislation significantly. I and the Utah delegation have worked hard 
to add significant acreage, propose release language that is very 
moderate, and other changes that would make this bill acceptable to 
everyone. An open rule on this issue will allow for an open and 
complete discussion of the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I understand the political maneuvering of my colleagues 
on the other side to use the Utah Wilderness bill as a tool to get at 
issues like the minimum wage, but Utah Wilderness is critical to my 
constituents and the people of Utah. This is an important debate, and I 
am hopeful that Utah Wilderness does not become a pawn, as it looks 
like someone is trying to do, in the larger battle that it is unrelated 
to.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I look 
forward to future debate on the Utah Wilderness bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, several months ago the Republican leadership had 
scheduled for a debate on this House floor a bill concerning public 
lands for the State of Utah, I think it was back in December or 
thereabouts. What happened, for those of you who are interested, is 
that the moderates on this side of the aisle who are concerned about 
the environment, who have joined with us over 25 years to preserve the 
environment, clean water, clean air, good public lands, looked at this 
bill and had some serious objections. They were concerned about the 
extreme agenda in which our colleagues on this side of the aisle were 
taking the issue of the environment, cutting enforcement funds for EPA, 
cutting sewer grant money, not dealing with the question of Superfund. 
They are very much concerned about all of that.
  So what happened was they decided, the leadership on the Republican 
side, not to bring it up. They just kind of let this rule, which was 
reported out of the Committee on Rules, hang on the desk up here.
  What they failed to do was to table the rule. That is what you 
generally do when you do not let something hang around. So they failed 
to table that rule, and, under the rules of the House, after a 7-day 
period, the minority can call up this rule for purposes of amending the 
rule. And that is what we are about this morning. We are calling up 
this rule, and we have called up this rule. The majority, taking 
advantage of their prerogative to move it, has done so, and now we are 
engaged in a debate on whether this is a proper rule to address 
questions of concern to the Nation.
  We believe it is our prerogative at this time to get a clean vote on 
something that has been denied this body four separate times, and that 
is a vote on the minimum wage. As the gentleman from Massachusetts has 
eloquently stated today, these are the folks in this country today who 
are working for $4.25 an hour. They are the people who take care of our 
mothers and our fathers in nursing homes. They clean our airports. They 
clean our offices. They are breaking their backs every single day for 
their kids. And all they want in this Congress is for us to stand up 
and say yes or no, should we raise the minimum wage for the first time 
in 5 years, which has now reached a 40-year low, or shall we sort of 
just ignore these folks?
  What we are saying on our side of the aisle is that we agree with the 
100 economists in this country, the three Nobel laureates, that this is 
an important issue for the country.
  Mr. Speaker, what happens to people who work for the minimum wage? 
What happens is that you cannot support a family on $8,500 a year. Two-
thirds of these people are adults, and about 60 percent of them are 
women with children. So they end up working one job, plus overtime, 
with two jobs or three jobs. And, as a result of that, these 
individuals are not there in the evening. The mothers are not there to 
teach their kids right from wrong, they are not there for bedtime 
stories. Fathers are not there, because they are working two jobs. They 
are not there for Little League or soccer. They are not there for PTA 
or dinner conversations, and the whole fabric of civil society starts 
to unravel.

                              {time}  1030

  And the Members come to the floor and they argue with us about 
juvenile delinquency, about crime, and all these other social 
pathologies and maladies affecting the American public.
  A good decent livable wage is important as a foundation for providing 
families the wherewithal to take care of the educational needs, the 
discipline needs and the attention needs that their kids deserve.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he has read 
H.R. 1745, the Utah Wilderness bill, which he just typified as an 
extreme antienvironmental bill?
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, if I did that, I did not mean to do so, 
because I did not want to characterize the bill from my perspective. I 
just wanted to characterize it in terms of what some of the Members on 
the Republican side of the aisle were concerned about when the bill was 
pulled.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
do not think that is a correct interpretation. It is not an extreme 
bill and I really think the gentleman should stick to what he is 
talking about, because that is not an extreme bill. It is a moderate 
reasonable bill, and I somewhat, having worked on it for 20 years, kind 
of resent that being said. I apologize to the gentleman.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I recognize my colleague's concern and I 
recognize the hard work he has put on this bill. It is not my 
characterization, it is the characterization of some in his own party 
who have labeled it as such.
  Mr. HANSEN. I would like to know who they are. They have not talked 
to me about it.
  Mr. BONIOR. They obviously talked to the gentleman's leaders because 
it was pulled from consideration on this floor.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Is it my understanding the gentleman from Utah does not want to 
discuss the Utah Wilderness bill here, after asking us to stick to the 
subject?
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. I would be happy if my friend would join us on the 
minimum wage issue. If he would like to talk about that, I would be 
delighted to continue to talk on the minimum wage.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. 
Solomon], the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and, Mr. 
Speaker, sometimes it gets pretty disheartening around here because 
everything seems to turn into a partisan fight.
  I am just hearing my good friend from Massachusetts, Mr. Moakley, and 
my good friend from Michigan, Mr. Bonior, friends from the other side 
of the aisle, say that this bill is being held up for some reason 
because there is a lot of disagreement.
  I have asked the chairmen of all of the standing committees to give 
us legislation, send it to the Committee on Rules, so that we can issue 
rules and have it out there so that when we do have lapses and windows 
here on the floor, that we can bring up issues like this. This is one 
of them. I wish we had 8 or 9 or 10 of these standing and waiting so 
that we could.
  There are times when we finish the debate, like this afternoon, we 
are going to finish a very important bill, the defense authorization 
bill, which normally takes days and days and days, and we are probably 
going to finish it at 1 or 2 o'clock this afternoon and we would like 
to have standby legislation like this. The only thing is, now, if we 
are going to have the minority, the minute that these rules have been 
waiting for 7 days, jump up and call up a rule so that they can make 
some partisan stand, how can we do that? It interrupts the flow of this 
House.
  Let me just tell my colleagues something. During the month of June, I

[[Page H5063]]

think there are only 15 legislative days. We are in an election year. 
We are supposed to be off so that we can go home and do some 
campaigning for about 4 weeks starting with the first week of August 
and into Labor Day. We will hardly have time to deal with all of this 
legislation that has got to come before us, never mind the banking and 
campaign finance reform and all of these issues coming out to the 
authorizing committees. We have the budget to deal with, then we have 
to follow that with all of the appropriation bills and the 
reconciliation legislation, all of which is going to be so time 
consuming, and yet here we are fooling around here wasting time.
  The gentleman knows that on Tuesday, and I will tell him right now, 
the Committee on Rules will be having a meeting and we are going to put 
out legislation that is going to give an up-or-down vote on the minimum 
wage.
  I, for one, happen to think that there is a need for an increase in 
the minimum wage, but let me tell my friends what happened the last 
three weekends I went home. I was in the Adirondack Mountains in the 
northern end of my district, I was in the Catskill Mountains in the 
southern end, and all in between is the Hudson Valley, made up of apple 
farmers and dairy farmers. All of them asked me, ``Jerry, how can you 
increase the minimum wage when we have such heavy regulatory burdens on 
us now?''
  If we are going to increase the minimum wage, why can we not give 
small businessmen in this country a little relief to remove some of the 
cost off their backs so that they can afford to give the minimum wage? 
In the resort industries in the Adirondacks they told me that if they 
hire four college students, and in my district most of the college 
students have to work their butts off in order to get money to go to 
college because in my district they are not rich people. We do not have 
the money and kids have to pay part of their own tuition, so they have 
to work in the summertime. Well, if every single restaurant and motel 
in the Catskills and the Adirondacks are going to have to lay off one 
out of four people in order to have the money, what are we going to do? 
How will these kids make a living?
  So that is what the argument has been all about. On Tuesday we will 
put out a rule which is going to bring this issue to the floor and have 
a legitimate debate. In the meantime, we are tied up here with this 
challenging of the previous question, which cannot go anyplace. And I 
wish the gentleman would withdraw it and let us get back to regular 
business and let us deal with the issues that are so terribly important 
to the American people, and I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to answer my friend and dear colleague from New York.
  We, on the minority side up in the Committee on Rules, have sat back 
because the gentleman wanted to rush the matters before the Committee 
on Rules up there and said, look, when we get to the floor we can do 
all the debating the minority wants to do. Well, Mr. Speaker, the 
gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot stifle us in the 
committee and then stifle us on the floor.
  So I think this is our only opportunity to vent our feelings on how 
we feel about some of these matters and by using the proper rules.
   Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to urge my colleagues 
to defeat the previous question so that we can go back to the Committee 
on Rules and have a vote on raising the minimum wage.
  Republican House leader Dick Armey is quoted in today's New York 
Times saying people are, and I quote, ``in a panic about raising the 
minimum wage.'' The Republican leader has said in the past that he will 
fight an increase in the minimum wage with every fiber of his being. No 
wonder people are in a panic about the minimum wage.
  Yet the Republican leadership is not in a panic about dealing with 
tax breaks for investors with enough money to own racehorses. Yesterday 
the Committee on Ways and Means took up the issue of a special tax 
break for wealthy racehorse owners, but Speaker Gingrich says any vote 
on raising the minimum wage is still weeks away, at best.
  This is why the hard-working families of this country do not believe 
that Congress is on their side, because even though the minimum wage is 
at a 40-year low, even though many minimum wage earners are the sole 
breadwinners for their families, Republicans are still stalling on 
bringing up a minimum wage issue for a vote.
  My Republican colleagues are fond of talking about family values, 
personal responsibility. Well, the families working for the minimum 
wage are working hard and taking the responsibility to stay off 
welfare. Somehow this Congress can find the time to help wealthy 
investors who can play at the track but not the time to help the hard-
working men and women struggling to pay their bills and to keep their 
head above water.
  Some of my Republican colleagues have had the courage to break ranks, 
cosponsor a bill to raise the minimum wage. They cannot be missing in 
action today on this vote. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Lazio], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn]. We need 
these gentlemen. The working men and women of this country need them 
today.
  The Republican leadership of this Congress has its priorities all 
wrong. Stop the stonewalling, give us a vote on raising the minimum 
wage.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Let me just say, leave it to the Democrats to suggest that elected 
officials can give people raises. If they want to give these people a 
raise, hire them and put them on their payroll, and then they can pay 
them anything they would like.
  Of course 80 percent of America agrees other people should have 
raises, in the abstract. Ask the 250,000 people that the President's 
leading economic adviser says will lose their jobs over this how much 
they like it. Raising the minimum wage is income redistribution among 
poor people. For every four people who get a dollar raise, one person 
loses his job.
  I wanted to tell my colleagues some of the bad effects of the minimum 
wage. Studies by Professor Masanori Hashimoto of Ohio State and Llad 
Phillips of the University of California at Santa Barbara both show 
increases in the minimum wage increase teenage crime. A study of 
professor William Beranek of the University of Georgia found the 
minimum wage increases employment of illegal aliens.
  Research also shows the minimum wage increases welfare dependency. 
For example, a study by Peter Brandon of the University of Wisconsin 
found the average time on welfare among States that raised the minimum 
wage was 44 percent higher than States that did not.

  Economist Carlos Bonilla of the Employment Policies Institute found a 
dramatic example in California after the minimum wage rose from $3.35 
to $4.25. After accounting for the phaseout of AFDC, Medicaid and food 
stamps. and for Federal, State and local taxes, a single parent earning 
a minimum wage after it was increased was $1,800 worse off per year 
than before.
  Finally, the latest research has shown increases in the minimum wage 
encourage high school students to drop out, enticed by the lure of 
higher pay, reducing their lifetime earnings and displacing lower 
skilled workers at the same time.
  The 22-percent increase in the minimum wage in 1976 added just $200 
million to the aggregate income of those in the lowest 10 percent of 
income distribution. Only 22,000 men, according to the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, and 191,000 women nationwide maintained families on a 
minimum wage job in 1993. That will decline by 250,000 people in total 
after we raise it.
  Thirty-seven percent of minimum wage workers in 1995 were teenagers. 
Fifty-nine percent were 24 years old or younger. Seventeen percent of 
minimum wage workers are spouses and are likely to be secondary 
earners. Sixty-six percent of minimum wage workers work only part-time, 
including students, the elderly with pension or Social Security income, 
and people simply looking for a little extra cash.

[[Page H5064]]

  Employers also respond to this, because they are touched, really, by 
laying off people and cutting back on hours. This is one reason why it 
is difficult to find a bank teller or someone to wait on you at the 
local department store. Between 1963 and 1995, average weekly hours 
worked in retail trade, the industry most affected by the minimum wage, 
fell from 37.3 hours per week to 28.9, while hours worked in higher-
paid industries basically unaffected by the minimum wage, such as 
mining and construction, increased.
  Mr. Speaker, this is politics and it is mean politics, using as pawns 
the very people they are purporting to help to make a political point 
to the rest of the world on a bill the subject of which is not even 
germane to. Mr. Speaker, let us move forward with germane discussion of 
this rule and the bill this rule applies to, and have a vote on the 
previous question as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority leader, who could not let some 
statements go by without replying.
  Mr. BONIOR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have just listened to some of the most outrageous 
arguments I have ever heard with respect to the minimum wage. The 
gentleman from Georgia, who just talked, blamed illegal aliens coming 
into this country on the minimum wage; an increase in crime because of 
the increase in the minimum wage. He talked about students dropping out 
of school because of the increase in the minimum wage, and he talked 
about job layoffs all over the country because of the minimum wage.
  Now, I have never heard of a recipe of disaster for trying to help 
working people who are trying to help their kids struggle through life. 
This last point, with respect to layoffs, I might add that he cited a 
number of studies. There were five recent studies done from California 
to New Jersey.
  The New Jersey study studied the people who worked in the restaurant 
industry and found, in fact, Mr. Speaker, that there was not a decrease 
in the number of jobs, there was an increase as a result of the 
increase of the minimum wage in the State of New Jersey. About 10 
States have increased their minimum wage since we last did it in 1991, 
and as a result of that there has not been any dramatic unemployment in 
this country.

                              {time}  1045

  In fact, unemployment numbers are down in this country. People are 
working. For the gentleman from Georgia to get up here and to suggest 
to this body and to this country that raising the minimum wage will 
increase crime, will increase illegal aliens, will increase the drop 
out of students in this country is just an absolute outrage and is 
wrong.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it might be pointed out that I did not make any of these 
claims. All these claims were made by college professors doing studies, 
including Ohio State, University of California, University of Georgia, 
University of Wisconsin. All of these are legitimate studies that are 
in the literature.
  For someone to stand there and say that there is no evidence that 
increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment is someone who has 
not looked at the record.
  In the 2-year period between 1973 and 1975, we increased the minimum 
wage 31 percent. Unemployment at the end was 73 percent worse off than 
before, from 4.9 percent to 8.5 percent. The period 1974 to 1976, when 
the minimum wage was increased 15 percent, unemployment went from 5.6 
to 7.7 percent, 37 percent worse off. In the period between 1978 and 
1980, we increased the minimum wage 17 percent, unemployment went from 
6.1 to 7.1, 26 worse off.
  Between 1979 and 1981, we increased the minimum wage 16 percent, 
unemployment went from 5.8 percent to 7.6 percent, 31 percent worse 
off. 1989 to 1991, we increased the minimum wage by 27 percent, 
unemployment rate went from 5.3 to 6.7 percent, 26 percent worse off. 
And in four of those five occasions, four of those five occasions GDP 
growth was declining after the raise.
  To say that increasing the minimum wage has no impact on the economy 
is to say, then why be so cheesy, give them $20. Then every family will 
have about $40,000 a year. That it is not going to hurt anybody. Do not 
be so cheesy with $4.25. If it is not going to impact the economy, give 
them all a big raise.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I do not know who was making those 
allegations on the floor. It certainly was not a college professor. The 
gentleman from Georgia was making those assertions.
  Let me just counteract his claims with respect to employment; 1967, 
when the wage was increased from $1.25 to $1.40, unemployment decreased 
from 3.8 to 3.6 percent; 1974 to 1976, an increase in the minimum wage 
from $1.06 to $2.30, despite a recession, retail employment increased 
about 5.2 percent generating 655,000 jobs in this country. And in 1990 
to 1991, from $3.35 to $4.25, despite a severe recession, which I might 
add was the responsibility of the Republican President in the White 
House, despite that period of time when the wage was increased and the 
severe recession, the numbers of total jobs quickly leveled off in this 
country.
  There is no empirical data that during times of increases in the 
minimum wage that unemployment decreases. In fact, it is just the 
reverse.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would say that the gentleman from 
Michigan's words have the quality of Alice in Wonderland, seeming to 
say when I use a word it means exactly what I want it to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining for 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder] has 15 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley] has 16 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to defeat the previous 
question so that we can go back to the Committee on Rules and bring up 
a rule dealing with increasing the minimum wage. I might say to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, offer to say that the 
American people might not be interested in this debate as it relates to 
germaneness. They might not be interested in whether or not we need to 
have additional time to go back to our districts and campaign. I think 
they are interested in making a decent living.
  Fifty-nine percent, if we are throwing out numbers, of those who are 
earning a minimum wage are women, working women with children. We also 
find that over 80 percent of the American people of all economic levels 
suggest that we should raise the American minimum wage. And in fact in 
1969, the minimum wage at that time was comparable to $6.25. We now 
have a minimum wage in 1996 of $4.25.
  I would simply suggest to my Republican colleagues that they, too, 
have Members who simply want to vote on the floor of the House and be 
given the opportunity to increase the minimum wage. Vigorous debate, 
yes, but an opportunity to do so, because there are people suffering 
who need an increase in the minimum wage. Let us defeat the previous 
question, go back to the Committee on Rules and fairly bring up a 
resolution rule that would allow us to do so.
  I would hope that we would not engage in the bantering of statistics. 
We can all do that. I hope that we will look realistically at what the 
American people need. Working people need to be affirmed and that will 
not decrease the numbers of those working. It will increase the number 
of those working and give them a decent wage.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself a few seconds to instruct the 
gentlewoman from Texas. I hope not to sound remedial, but if we defeat 
the previous question, it comes immediately to the floor of the House. 
Whereupon, the proposed amendment would be stricken on a point of order 
because it is not germane.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5065]]

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute the candor, ultimately, of 
my colleague in Georgia, because after some parliamentary mumbo jumbo 
about what page of the rules book could be used to thwart the desire of 
the American people for a raise, he has finally come forward in his 
last few minutes and he has indicated that what all this parliamentary 
maneuvering is about is his objection to raising the minimum wage. He 
has told the American people, in response to my colleague from 
Michigan, Mr. Bonior, that it is not himself but it is the professors 
that made him do it.
  The American people knew that Professor Gingrich and Professor Armey 
were ready to fight with every fiber in their body to block the 
legitimate desire of the American people for a raise. All this 
parliamentary mumbo jumbo stuff can be explained in this chart.
  We have considered this issue of the minimum wage a number of times 
in this body. There is a strange thing that has occurred. Those 
Republicans who stood outside in front of the cameras and said they 
were for the minimum wage got their arms twisted, once they got in here 
at the voting box. They refused to vote to give the people of America a 
raise even though they said they were for it. As they begin to hear 
from the people, the number of those people change.

  The votes against the minimum wage have been going steadily down in 
this body. The votes for the minimum wage have been going steadily up.
  All that it will take this morning in a few minutes when we take up 
this previous question is five Members, five Republicans who will walk 
up and vote in favor of giving the people of America a raise.
  If they will do that, we will achieve an increase in the minimum wage 
and we will do it promptly. There is no reason to wait until tomorrow. 
There is no reason to wait until next Tuesday to consider this issue. 
We will get caught up in some other issue designed to ultimately kill 
it. Let us do it now.
  I know they think it is important to raise the wilderness in Utah, 
but I think the raise that the American people are interested in is in 
their basic living standards. Let us give it to them today.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], my colleague on the Committee 
on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
moving the previous question. It is interesting to listen to this 
debate. Obviously we have gotten demagoguery, people who were trying to 
claim that we Republicans are opposed to working Americans because we 
are not out there violating the House rules to bring up, under Utah 
bill, the minimum wage. I mean it is preposterous.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that if we were to 
defeat the previous question, we could not bring this up. We could not 
bring it up. We are working long and hard on a compromise that will 
deal with increasing the take-home pay of working Americans, to deal 
with reducing the tax and regulatory burden which has jeopardized job 
creation and economic growth. The Committee on Ways and Means is 
working on that.
  This is nothing but a ruse to have our friends on the other side of 
the aisle come forward and argue that somehow we are going to be able 
to increase the minimum wage by defeating the previous question. It 
ain't going to happen. It is a violation of House rules, and it is 
crazy to have them doing it.
  So we should support the previous question, support this rule and 
move ahead with the way in which we can encourage opportunity for the 
people in this country to gain jobs and to gain the kind of standard of 
living which we hope very much will happen.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
  (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose 
the previous question. Unlike my colleagues from California, we will 
have an increase in the minimum wage. And the closer we get, just like 
the chart we saw earlier, like my colleague from Texas, we need to keep 
working at it.
  My good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], from 
the Committee on Rules stated earlier if the previous question is 
defeated an amendment to the rule will be offered. Then the Committee 
on Rules will immediately report a resolution back to the floor with 
the minimum wage increase.
  They take care of the germane questions within the committee. They 
just need to do it, to provide for the consideration of a bill to 
increase the minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour beginning 
July 4.
  This is a fourth time in the last month we as Democrats and a few 
Republicans have stood here on the floor and tried to give hard-working 
Americans a raise. Four times we have tried to do this. I have been 
asked, why are we doing this four times in the last month? I say we are 
fighting for an increase in the minimum wage.
  I remember a quote from Martin Luther, 475 years ago, when he stood 
on the steps in Germany and said, Here I stand, I can do no other. God 
help me, Amen.
  That is why we are here. We are here 4 times and we will be here 
another 4 times and another 40 times until we see a clean vote on the 
minimum wage. Eighty-three percent of Americans favor an increase in 
the minimum wage. Yet this morning we have heard, and every time we 
hear that the majority party still argues that an increase is higher 
unemployment, increasing the number of welfare recipients. They claim 
that most minimum wage earners are teenagers. The facts point to the 
other direction. It is just not true.
  You need to come to reality and, thank goodness, we are seeing an 
increase in Members from the Republican majority voting for a minimum 
wage increase. I hope we see that five more today because we will have 
an increase in the minimum wage if we only have five more Republicans 
join us Democrats today.
  The facts agree with the need for an increase. I ask my colleagues to 
vote for it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that 
the way you increase the standard of living for low-income people is 
give them more take-home pay. The way you give them more take-home pay 
is to reduce the governmental burden and tax burden that they bear. 
Telling other people what they should pay their employees is simply not 
the way to run the Government.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Ward].
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Speaker, I want to point something out to my colleagues 
here and anyone who may be paying attention to this debate; that is, 
what we are having to do in order to discuss the issue of the minimum 
wage on the floor the this House.
  What we are having to do is to hold the discussion on a completely 
different item, H.R. 303, which has nothing to do, Mr. Speaker, with 
the minimum wage. But it has everything to do with the willingness of 
the majority to allow us to discuss and vote on the minimum wage.
  What we are calling for today is a no vote on the previous question. 
Anybody who hears that wonders, what kind of mumbo jumbo is that? Well, 
it is what we have to do in order to get the Members of this body on 
the Record for or against an increase in the minimum wage.
  Let us talk about who would get a raise if we increased the minimum 
wage in America. Remember, it is at a 40-year low next year, if we do 
not increase it, 40-year low in purchasing power. But who are these 
people?
  Well, to hear many talk about it, we would have to think that they 
were teenagers, that they were people who did not need an increase. But 
we know better than that. Sixty percent of the people who would receive 
an increase in the minimum wage are women; 14 percent of Kentucky 
workers, that is over 200,000 people in my State, would increase their 
income because of an increase in the minimum wage. Something that I 
have just learned from

[[Page H5066]]

some statistics that are in the New York Times and in the USA Today, 
20,000 seniors, 20,000 people over the age of 65 in Kentucky would 
receive an increase in their wages.

                              {time}  1100

  That is almost as many as there are people under 25 who would receive 
an increase.
  Does that tell us something? Yes, it does. It tells us that we need 
to support an increase in the minimum wage.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis], the deputy Democratic whip.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this morning the Democrats in the 
House will once again attempt to bring a minimum wage bill to the floor 
for a vote. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to support 
bringing this bill to the floor.
  Raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do. It is more than 
just an economic issue, it is a moral issue. Hard-working people 
deserve the right to earn a livable wage. No one, but no one, can 
support a family on $4.25 an hour, $170 per week or less than $9,000 a 
year.
  I know some of my Republican colleagues say they support raising the 
minimum wage. Well, now is the time to walk the walk, not just talk the 
talk.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Support an increase in the 
minimum wage.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, this debate about the minimum wage is about 
honoring work. But this issue about procedural gimmickry is about 
honoring one's word. The new majority has insisted that they would not 
bottle up bills that had popular support by using procedural gimmicks. 
But here we have a situation where the majority does not represent the 
majority. That is, everyone knows and everyone has asserted that if 
there were a vote on the minimum wage, it would pass. So, since the 
majority of the Members of the Congress would vote to raise the minimum 
wage, the Republican majority, not showing much maturity in this 
matter, has decided to use procedural gimmicks to stand in the way of 
allowing the Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to have a 
clean, honest vote on raising the minimum wage.
  Now, the people of our country deserve better from the majority. That 
is, if my colleagues are against the minimum wage, then they should 
vote against it, speak to the Members of the Congress on their point of 
view. But they should not hide behind procedural gimmicks to avoid us 
having a vote. It does not speak well of the majority, and this notion 
that somehow we can wait until another day suggests a certain passivity 
about the plight of working people in this country that does not speak 
well of the intent of the majority Members on this side of the aisle.
  I would encourage all of us to vote ``no'' on the previous question 
so that we can vote ``yes'' on raising the minimum wage, and I would 
encourage my colleagues on the Republic side of the aisle to win or 
lose, but to stand up and have the courage of their convictions on the 
issue of the minimum wage rather than hide behind some procedural 
gimmick that disrespects and dishonors the suggestion that this is 
indeed the people's House.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
question why the minority, which was in the majority in both the House 
and the Senate and had the White House 2 years ago, had no concern 
whatever for the minimum wage.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from Montana.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Because, Mr. Speaker, we had an agreement with the 
Republican side that while health care reform was on the table and we 
may be burdening business with that cost, we would not raise the 
minimum wage.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, at least our colleague has admitted now that 
they are burdening business with the cost.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, the year before, I might point out, it was 
Democrats, without one vote from this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, 
that successfully gave a tax cut to people under $26,000 a year, 
working people, and that was in lieu of the minimum wage. No support 
from that side.
  But this is interesting that it is on the Utah Wilderness bill, this 
is the only way we can get it up. It is fitting, in a way. Moses 
wandered in the wilderness for 40 years. The minimum wage is at an all-
time 40-year buying low, and indeed five good Republicans--that is all 
it takes now--five members of the Republican party adding their votes 
to ours, will pass a minimum wage increase. That is all that is needed, 
Mr. Speaker, for coming out of the wilderness is five more Republicans.
  We have been gaining and gaining and gaining. Our colleagues cannot 
hide anymore behind ``We will get a vote next week or the week after 
that or whenever.''
  This thing has been wandering in the wilderness for too long. It is 
time to bring it out. Democrats have reduced the tax burden on working 
people progressively through the earned income tax credit. Ironically, 
the other side now wants to repeal part of that. But it is time to give 
working people a livable wage.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Schumer].
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is about time we pass the minimum 
wage. There have been all sorts of spurious arguments against it. Those 
arguments are launched by narrow ideological fuel or those who have 
some business interests.
  Here we are on the floor unable to bring the bill directly before us 
and trying to go through every parliamentary maneuver to achieve 
democracy, and we should not have to do this. The minimum wage is one 
of the most talked about issues in America. Most people, if the polls 
are right, are for it. A vote ought to come to the floor now, and let 
the arguments fall where they may. We ought to do it, we ought to do it 
cleanly, we ought to keep the American people working. We do not want 
to encourage people not to work because wages are so low, and this is a 
simple and easy way to do it.
  Again, the only people opposed to this either have an economic self-
interest or are extreme ideologues.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
point out one more time, at the risk of sounding remedial, this will 
not bring a vote on this floor on the minimum wage. This will bring 
this rule immediately to the floor with the amendment that the minimum 
wage will be on it, and it will be struck on a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley] for yielding this time to me.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of an increase in the minimum wage, 
and in doing so I want to call attention of our colleagues to this 
cartoon, which is neither funny nor fair. As I call my colleagues' 
attention to it, Mr. Speaker, I want them to think about it.
  ``How long does it take to earn $8,440,'' it says.
  On one side it says, ``If you are full-time minimum-wage worker, it 
takes 1 year. If you are an average CEO of a large U.S. corporation, it 
takes one-half a day.''
  Think about it. God bless everyone who can make that kind of money at 
the high end. But why, in a great country as decent as ours, should we 
not reward work and for us to have a disparity this great? It is a 
matter of conscience and decency and a sign of a great country that we 
reward work.
  This is an increase for necessities. Please honor American workers.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt].

[[Page H5067]]

  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, this is not about CEO's, but it is about 
senior citizens. One of the things that happens when we raise the 
minimum wage, it is a historical fact, inflation follows, and when 
inflation follows, that hurts the people, people who are seniors, the 
worst because they have fixed incomes, they are unable to make their 
payments.
  The second thing it does is it does cost jobs. Now, we have heard 
this example about New Jersey, the restaurant jobs. But that is an 
isolated instance.
  As my colleagues know, my grandfather died when he was 94 years old, 
and he smoked. Does that mean that smoking is not hazardous to your 
health? Of course it is. That was an isolated instance.
  It does cost jobs, and it does hit the minority communities the 
worst. So we are costing jobs, we are hurting the elderly, and yet we 
are pushing for a minimum-wage increase.
  But the real thing, the hidden benefit to the President and to the 
liberals here in Congress, is that it is a tax increase. We will 
realize inflation. We will realize more higher taxes, more revenue. 
That is what happened in the early 1980's. My colleagues remember when 
we had the windfall tax? It was because of inflation. We had 14 percent 
inflation.

  Mr. Speaker, we can drive inflation, we can hurt the elderly, we can 
hurt minorities, and we can increase taxes at their expense. But I 
think it is bad policy. We can, however, put more money in the pockets 
of the poor through earned-income tax credits, through $500-per-child 
tax relief, through the McIntosh-Klug-Tiahrt tax plan, which actually 
has more takehome pay for people who are heads of households than if we 
did increase the minimum wage. That is the type of policy this country 
needs.
  Seventy-five percent of the people on minimum wage are students. They 
come from average household incomes of $50,000. Do they need it? No, 
this is bad policy. I am against the rule, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote against it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding me the time.
  My colleagues, minimum wage first came into law in 1938, and 
congressional Republicans were against it back then, those almost 60 
years ago. Since that time, under the insistence of the American 
people, the Congress of the United States has raised the minimum wage 
18 times, only 18 times in those 60 years, and every single time the 
Republicans in the Congress, not necessarily Republicans in America, 
please understand, but the Republican majority in the Congress, has 
been against the minimum wage. Why, Republican Presidents have even 
vetoed the minimum wage, the last being former President Bush, who 
vetoed a minimum wage that passed after 3 years of struggle that passed 
the Congress during his Presidency.
  What is it about these Republicans, so frozen in the ice of their own 
indifference to the working poor, that they cannot support a proven 
benefit fiscally to those people?
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, it is not lost on me and my colleagues on 
this side of the aisle that when our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle had an opportunity to increase the minimum wage when they 
controlled both the House and the Senate they choose not to bring it 
up. It is simply not lost on us us that much of this debate is about 
politics.
  The fact is this side of the aisle will have a vote on the minimum 
wage. But when we have a vote on the minimum wage, it will not just 
include the minimum wage. It will also include a tax credit for 
employers who hire the most disadvantaged workers, those who have been 
on welfare, those who have never had a job before. We will have a tax 
credit tied to increasing the minimum wage to help the most 
disadvantaged.
  We will also have provisions to help small businesses most impacted 
by a minimum wage income. We are going to have a job creation program 
along with increasing the minimum wage.
  I would encourage my colleagues, particularly on this side of the 
aisle, to vote for the previous question, and not be lured into this 
procedural vote that will ultimately be declared out of order.
  Passage of the minimum wage should be done in a way that creates not 
only an increase in the wage base for those who are most disadvantaged, 
but also has a job creation element to help all Americans.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman 
from Massachusetts has more speakers.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. The only speaker I have is myself.
  Mr. LINDER. Then I will close after the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley].

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley] is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I shall offer an 
amendment to the rule which would make in order a new section in the 
rule. This amendment will provide for the immediate consideration of a 
bill to increase the minimum wage. That bill will be introduced by my 
very good friend, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.  Bonior].
  This provides for a separate and immediate up or down vote on the 
minimum wage. Let me make it clear to my colleagues, both Democrats and 
Republicans, that defeating the previous question will in fact allow 
the House to vote on the minimum wage increase. That is what the 
American people want us to do. We should not delay any longer. Vote 
``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the text of the amendment and accompanying 
documents for the Record.
  The text of the amendment and information on the previous question is 
as follows:

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Sec. ______. That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the House shall proceed without intervention of 
     any point of order to consider in the House a bill introduced 
     by Representative Bonior of Michigan on May 15, 1996 to 
     increase the minimum wage. The bill shall be debatable for 
     one hour equally divided and controlled by the Chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Economic and 
     Educational Opportunities. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.''
                                                                    ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual:
       Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule 
     because the majority Member controlling the time will not 
     yield for

[[Page H5068]]

     the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be 
     achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . 
     . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, 
     control of the time passes to the Member who led the 
     opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, 
     because he then controls the time, man offer an amendment to 
     the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
       Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is 
recognized for 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude my remarks by reminding my 
colleagues that defeating the previous question is an exercise in 
futility because the minority wants to offer an amendment that will be 
ruled out of order as nongermane to this rule. So the vote is without 
substance.
  The previous question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to 
close debate on this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The 
vote has no substantive or policy implications whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an explanation of the previous 
question.
  The material referred to is as follows:

               The Previous Question Vote: What it Means

       House Rule XVII (``Previous Question'') provides in part 
     that:
       There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, 
     being ordered by a majority of the Members voting, if a 
     quorum is present, shall have the effect to cut off all 
     debate and bring the House to a direct vote upon the 
     immediate question or questions on which it has been asked or 
     ordered.
       In the case of special rule or order of business resolution 
     reported from the House Rules Committee, providing for the 
     consideration of a specified legislative measure, the 
     previous question is moved following the one hour of debate 
     allowed for under House Rules.
       The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural 
     vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting 
     the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and 
     amendment on the legislation it would make in order. 
     Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question on agreeing to the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 197, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 169]

                               YEAS--221

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greene (UT)
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bono
     Brewster
     Clement
     Flake
     Fowler
     Holden
     Largent
     Lincoln
     McHugh
     Meehan
     Molinari
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Roth
     Spratt

                              {time}  1137

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Paxon for, with Mr. Holden against.


[[Page H5069]]


  Mr. WILLIAMS and Mr. OWENS changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kolbe). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________