[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.
____________________