[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 32 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1009-H1015]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             CONGRESSIONAL POLICYMAKING FOR WORKING PEOPLE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, the previous discussion, I think, is really a 
good prelude to what I have to say, it really dovetails neatly. We have 
a situation in America where we cannot take care of, or we refuse to 
take care of, a large part of the population of our children. We refuse 
to take care of it, even though the gross national product is quite 
healthy, the profits are booming on Wall Street, we have an 
unprecedented period of prosperity, no recessions for a long time, and 
yet we are refusing to take the necessary steps to take care of the 
health needs of the children of America.
  We have already dropped any discussion of a universal health plan. 
That is off the board completely. Beyond the children, there are 40 
million Americans who are not covered, and that number is increasing 
all the time. We are not even discussing it. This is an era where those 
who have the most are in charge. In the last election, unfortunately, 
large numbers of people did not bother to come out and exercise their 
democratic right and vote, so there is a great deal of contempt for 
people out there who have needs and did not bother to go vote to 
protect their rights or their needs.
  So as a Member of the House of Representatives' Education and the 
Workforce Committee, I would like to talk today about the state of 
affairs with respect to policymaking for working people in this 
Congress, what is ahead of us, what are the dangers, what does it mean 
to have the first bill introduced by the Republican majority, a bill 
known as H.R. 1, what does it mean to have that bill focus on the 
elimination of overtime cash payments.
  The Republicans are coming for your overtime, working people. The 
Republicans are coming for your overtime. They have made it their 
highest priority. It is the first bill introduced by the Republicans, a 
bill to change the Fair Labor Standards Act so that the Fair Labor 
Standards Act will no longer require that all employers pay overtime in 
cash. The Fair Labor Standards Act says you must receive time and a 
half for any hours worked over 40 hours per week. That is the present 
law. They want to change the law to say that the employers can pay you 
in comp time. They will give you an hour and a half off for every hour 
you work overtime instead of cash.
  That is what H.R. 1 is all about. I call it the Employer Cash 
Enhancement Act. It is an act which will put large amounts of money in 
the hands of employers that they did not have before, because really do 
you think there are many employers who will make the choice to pay an 
employee, an hourly worker or a salaried worker who is required to 
receive overtime in cash, how many employers would make the choice to 
pay them in cash if they can pay them with comp time, time that they 
can take off later? You cannot invest comp time on the stock market. 
You cannot invest it in new plant, new equipment. You can invest cash. 
And always the tendency will be to move toward the employee who chooses 
to take comp time instead of cash.
  The bill talks about choice and says it will be a violation of the 
labor law if any employer refuses to give the employee a choice, but it 
does not say how that can be monitored. It does not talk about the 
details in terms of here is the employer who holds a great deal of 
leverage over the employee, here is the employer who decides whether 
they stay on the job or not. He does not have to keep them.

  Here is the employer who does not have to say to them, ``I demand 
that you take your overtime in comp time instead of cash.'' The 
employer can just say, ``Who wants to take their overtime in comp time 
and who wants to take it in cash?'' We will suddenly find that all the 
people who choose to take their comp time in cash, refuse to take their 
overtime in comp time, are suddenly in a few weeks laid off, or 
dismissed.
  There is no reason why private employers have to keep people on, they 
have a lot of leeway, and they are replaced with other people. All the 
people who choose to take comp time, want an hour and a half for every 
hour they work, they are kept on. All the people who chose to take it 
in cash, they are gone. The message will get out there very rapidly.
  In fact, working people in situations without the protection of 
unions and even in many cases with unions, they know very well where 
they stand with respect to their employers. They will get the message 
very rapidly.
  So here is the Fair Labor Standards Act that was brought in by 
Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of the New Deal because you had 
exploitation and oppression of workers, workers were made to work 
endless hours without being compensated at a rate for the overtime 
greater than the regular rate. This Fair Labor Standards Act has many 
other provisions, and it came along at a time when we created a number 
of pieces of labor law which still exist. And suddenly we are going to 
reach in and take out this piece of the labor law which says an 
employee must be paid in cash, the rate plus 50 percent in overtime, 
they are going to suddenly take away that protection in the law and 
leave it to the employers to work it out with the employees.
  Many unions already bargain and they have bargained this situation 
where some employees take comp time instead of cash, et cetera. That is 
allowed. My problem is this. We have a steamroller rolling, we are 
going to have this on the floor next week. It is H.R. 1.

[[Page H1010]]

  We have done a lot of playing around on the floor so far. The House 
has not conducted any serious business of any great magnitude in 
affecting the lives of the American people. This act will affect the 
lives of millions of Americans, and it will be on the floor next week 
to be voted on.
  In our committee deliberations we have already lost the vote. It was 
a foregone conclusion that the majority had enough votes to pass H.R. 
1, so despite the fact that we tried to improve H.R. 1, it has passed, 
it has passed the committee. It is now headed to the floor and next 
week it will be on the floor.
  What we have on the floor is a situation where there are those who 
say we want to vote for H.R. 1, which takes away this right and does 
not provide any protections for the workers, and then there are those 
who say we are going to vote against it, we are going to vote no. The 
White House has said clearly to us, we will veto the bill if it comes 
to us in the present form.
  So it looks as if we have a united Democratic position versus the 
majority Republican position in the House, and probably the other body 
will have the same position as the Republicans in this House. So they 
have the majority. It is going to pass. Despite the fact the Democrats 
will loyally, vehemently, maybe emotionally say no, it is going to pass 
in this House. The Senate will pass their bill, which may be different 
in some respects, more moderate, maybe provide a few more protections, 
but basically what the Senate will pass will be pretty much the same as 
what the House has.
  So we are going to have a bill which has removed the protections of 
the Fair Labor Standards Act and a bill that is in many quarters 
popular in America. There are many families, there are many segments of 
the population who would like to have comp time instead of cash. They 
would like to have that flexibility. They do not want to be under a law 
which says they must take their overtime in cash. There are families 
that are comfortable, with enough cash, a reasonable amount of cash, 
many families with two people working, making $70,000, $80,000. The 
time they spend with the family, their quality of life is what means 
the most to them, and they would like to have a situation where they 
have maximum opportunity to make that choice. I am all in favor of 
having those families make those choices.
  My problem is that there are other families whose quality of life 
depends on the amount of work, the amount of cash that the wage earners 
can bring home each week, each month and put on the table. You cannot 
put food on the table with comp time. There are many workers whose 
lifestyle, whose quality of life, whose survival will be affected by 
dropping their wages because they are working and depending on the 
overtime pay to be added to their regular wages.
  In fact, what we did was look at the statistics, and two-thirds of 
the work force in America are earning $10 an hour or less, two-thirds 
of the people who are working. We are not talking about people on 
welfare, we are not talking about workfare, interns, we are talking 
about working people. Two-thirds of the workforce are earning $10 or 
less. That is $20,000, approximately, a year. Eighty percent of the 
women working, 80 percent of the women in the workforce are earning $10 
an hour or less.
  Now, can they afford to really give up any opportunities to bring 
home some cash in overtime? Has anybody asked them? No. We do not have 
any polls, we do not have any surveys of working people making $10 an 
hour or less and what they think. What we have is a general sentiment 
in the population of opinionmakers.
  The opinionmakers are higher income people, the opinionmakers are 
more educated people, they are a little more comfortable in terms of 
the dollars they bring home, and they are opting for more opportunities 
for comp time. I think they can be accommodated. The problem is, 
whenever we talk about accommodating them and separating out the folks 
who are making $10 an hour or less, nobody wants to hear it. None of 
the proposals that are going to be on the floor at this point deal with 
the fact that we can protect or we should act to protect those who are 
making $10 an hour or less by keeping them under the Fair Labor 
Standards Act.

                              {time}  1915

  In fact the way we word it, and I introduced an amendment; the 
amendment is that those who make 2.5 times, no more than 2.5 times, the 
minimum wage so that in years to come, as the salaries rise, wages 
rise, you will have that ratio and not be fixed into a solid figure 
like $10 an hour. It is 2.5 times the minimum wage is the way the 
amendment is worded.
  That amendment was defeated, and the problem is that there is nothing 
else now being offered after we passed the committee and that amendment 
was offered. The only things on the floor now are: vote no, just say 
no, to the Republicans, or vote for the Republican majority bill 
because what happens is that if the Democrats are introducing a 
substitute, the only substitute being prepared at this point does not 
deal with the protection of the people who make $10 an hour less.
  There is a Committee on Rules meeting coming. Those of you who know a 
little bit about the process before we go to the floor, we will have an 
opportunity to go to the Rules Committee and beg to offer the 
amendments that we want to offer to change the bill. That is a process 
that is still honored, you know, in a fragmentary way in the way the 
Republicans have run the House in the last 2 years and for this year. 
They have not been very gracious about offering amendments that run 
counter to what they want to do on the floor, but occasionally they do. 
So we can have a substitute bill, and maybe we can have an amendment, 
but so far that is not in the program. It is highly improbable that my 
amendment will be allowed on the floor, and of course there are enough 
votes to vote it down.
  So why am I here? Why do I think it important to make this 
presentation and appeal to the common sense of Americans to go to work?
  Voters, Americans out there, your common sense showed the people in 
this capital that education was important over the last 2 years when 
terrible things were being proposed with respect to the Federal role in 
education. We appealed from this podium, we appeal over and over again 
to the people in America, to let the legislators at every level, let 
the legislators here in the House and the Senate know, let the White 
House know, that common sense says you ought to do it this way, you 
know.
  This protection that I am talking about, a simple matter of exempting 
all workers who make $10 or less, is so simple it is beyond the reach 
of the imagination of most folks here. They just cannot comprehend this 
is a simple answer to the problem.
  We are talking a lot about bipartisan cooperation or bipartisan 
compromise. They do not want any deadlock. We just, Democrats and 
Republicans, went away, and they had a conference, unprecedented 
retreat, bipartisan retreat, Democrats and Republicans face to face, 
talking with each other, and from all reports that I hear--I was not 
able to go, but from all reports I hear it was a very positive weekend.
  So you know some people have looked upon this as being dangerous. I 
think Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition says that there is a great 
danger in all this muddle minded moderation, and they worried about 
this. But I am all in favor of it. Why can we not have some bipartisan 
cooperation and say that no matter what goes forward, we are going to 
build in this protection for the workers who need it most? The people 
who are making $10 an hour or less will not be impacted. Let us go 
ahead if we have to.
  I am not in favor of changing the Fair Labor Standards Act at all. I 
am one of those people who just wants to say no because in the bill 
which proposes to change it, that changes Fair Labor Standards Act, 
they are not willing to give the protections that are necessary. In 
fact, at this point I will just read my opening statement, which covers 
more than just the matter of $10 per hour workers being protected. It 
talks about some other aspects of the bill.
  My first position is just say no, and I have letters here from 
various unions, Department of Labor, the President, that all say just 
say no. The problem with just saying no and letting it go is that it 
will pass the House, it will pass

[[Page H1011]]

the Senate. In conference the House and Senate will agree. It goes to 
the President or the President will be called to negotiate with the 
House and Senate, and we are all out of it. All the other legislators, 
all the Members of the House, we are out of the process. The public is 
out of the process.
  I want to get the public in the process right now. You need to let 
your Congressman know now, you need to let the President know now, that 
you want protection no matter what is done. If you must go forward with 
this change of the Fair Labor Standards Act, you want protection for 
the people who make $10 an hour or less.
  But let us talk about why we want to say no to the whole bill as it 
is now. I speak as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on 
Workforce Protections. Subcommittee on Workforce Protections is charged 
with dealing with all of these various labor laws, including the Fair 
Labor Standards Act. This is my third year in that role.
  H.R. 1; I am quoting the statement that I made as an opening 
statement at the--I submitted as an opening statement at the markup. 
The markup is where we decide on changing the bill and putting it into 
final form and then passing it. That has taken place, and the bill 
passed with a straight party line vote. All Democrats voted against it; 
all Republicans voted for it.
  H.R. 1 is bad public policy because it will reduce the income of that 
large segment of the work force which has benefitted the least from the 
current national prosperity. Instead of leaving more cash in the hands 
of prosperous employers, we need legislative initiatives which will 
improve the lot of those whose incomes have stagnated or declined over 
the last 10 years. I oppose this kind of mutilation of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act because it is bad economics and a cruel injustice for 
working Americans. In addition to being negative in substance and 
policy, H.R. 1 is a badly drafted bill, and this loose construction 
makes it impossible to move toward a bipartisan compromise with 
integrity. You cannot use the bill that exists now as a basis for 
making a compromise because it is such a bad bill. The sweeping 
language and the excessive amount of general assumptions in this bill 
placed the workers at great risk and offers the employers many 
temptations and opportunities for deregulated exploitation.
  As written, it is the enhancement of the employers' accumulation of 
cash that is achieved. I want to repeat. As the bill is presently 
written, it is the enhancement of the employers' accumulation of cash 
that is achieved. Any movement toward a bipartisan compromise will have 
to first reshape the language of the bill to make it consistent with 
the stated intent of the bill. On the surface the bill proposes to give 
employees a choice. In numerous ways the language of the bill fails to 
support and enforce this proposition. The drafters of the bill have 
studiously avoided making the employers accountable. In negotiating the 
decision to choose compensatory time instead of cash, there is no 
balance of power between employer and employee. All factors weigh down 
on the side of the employer.

  We have already proposed obvious remedies for many of these 
shortcomings; however, there has been no movement from its hardened 
position by the Republican majority. If we are in an era of compromise, 
bipartisan compromise of cooperation, then why do we have a bill, H.R. 
1, before us now which is very much the same as the bill that was 
introduced in the last Congress? In the 104th Congress, where the 
majority clearly adopted a position of extremism on many other issues, 
and they moderated those extreme positions, why are they coming now 
with the same bill that they had in that Congress? Is it a statement 
that on labor issues the extremism is still here? The majority, 
Republican majority, has the same extremist positions as it had before 
on labor issues. We are going to compromise, we are going to work 
together, and I applaud that on education.
  Everybody seems to be falling into a basic groove that says we have 
neglected our duty, we have been derelict in our duty, on education; 
the Federal Government is not responsible primarily for education, but 
it needs to do more to help the States to help the localities. I am 
quite overjoyed, I am quite pleased, happy. I smile all the time when I 
think of where we have come on matters related to education and how we 
can look forward to a very productive Congress, 105th Congress, with 
respect to education. But on labor, on issues effecting working people, 
we are in trouble. The extremist position of the majority is still 
there.
  It means that while we work hard to try to improve conditions for 
children and schools, the poor children of America will be going home 
to less food, less money for clothing, less money for shelter, because 
we are going to take away their overtime. The Republicans are still 
coming for your cash payments of overtime.
  To return to my opening statement, among the simpler improvements 
that could easily be achieved is the requirement for the establishment 
of an escrow account or some other kind of assurance device to 
eliminate the risk of employees losing rightfully accumulated income 
when businesses go bankrupt or illegally disappear.
  I am trying to highlight some of the problems with the bill other 
than the basic problem that I want to deal with tonight, and that is 
the vulnerability, the lack of protection, for the workers who need the 
income the most.
  There are problems for other workers. Businesses could go bankrupt or 
illegally disappear in some way, and the comp time people have 
accumulated is gone. You know, you go find it.
  There is a statement always that we get from the Republican majority 
when we make this statement: Well, if there is a bankruptcy, people's 
wages are first in line for payment. Anybody who has ever been involved 
with a bankruptcy case, you know how ironic, how ridiculous, that can 
become. You are first in line, but you cannot find the line in many 
cases.
  At any rate, the protection could be built in there with an escrow 
account. You could require the employers pay into an escrow account the 
comp time money, the money that people received that took their 
overtime in cash. So everybody with comp time would be protected. If 
the business goes out of existence, they can collect the cash that was 
due them. They will not do that.
  A study by the Economic Policy Foundation--this is a business group, 
an employers group-- a study by the Economic Policy Foundation shows 
that there is approximately $19 billion, $19 billion--listen--in unpaid 
overtime lost each year. A study by the Economic Policy Foundation 
shows that there is approximately $19 billion in unpaid overtime lost 
each year.
  I could not believe the figure. I said this is a cumulative figure 
over many years? No, this is lost each year, various tricks, 
machinations, maneuvers, various things done by employers to swindle 
employees out of overtime, and $19 billion per year is the estimate. 
This is a business group, a business group saying $19 billion.
  Reasonable penalties for employers who violate the code of negotiated 
choice should be written into the act, given with the fact that we know 
from experience, we have studies to show, we have statistics to prove 
that there is a problem with employers swindling employees out of 
overtime pay. Why do we not write into the act penalties which would 
threaten the employer and make them be less likely to try to swindle 
any of the employees?
  Clear language to guarantee the crediting of time worked to the 
pension, Social Security, and other records also must be provided. At 
this point there is fuzziness about if you are working and your pay is 
geared to your pension and geared to the amount of money you are going 
to get in your Social Security, there are a number of things that your 
actual pay in dollars drives. Those things can be corrected. The bill 
can take steps to make certain that there is no question about this. 
But they refuse to do it.
  You know, we have a situation where the bully is standing in front of 
the babies and saying to the babies, you know we going to do it my way 
because I have the power to rule this hour, I am going to do what I 
want to do. I am not going to do anything to make obvious improvements 
in this bill, and that is the situation we are up against.
  These are a few of the modifications that a good-faith negotiating 
process should accept. You know, the danger is that if you just say no 
to what they are proposing, many of these things are

[[Page H1012]]

going to be left in there, and somewhere down the road an agreement is 
going to be reached behind closed doors in the conference between the 
Senate and the House, with the White House representatives there, and 
all these protections that we have requested will not be put into the 
bill. A few compromises will be made here and there on the surface, and 
we are going to end up with the work force of America, including the 
people who want the comp time, being in a far worse position than after 
the passage of the legislation than they are now.
  But let me get to the heart of the matter again. Beyond deceptive 
drafting, beyond deceptive drafting, however, there are some greater 
problems of substance. While public opinion polls show that families 
with 2 wage earners and comfortable incomes are in favor of more 
compensatory time, the available evidence also shows that workers 
earning less than $10 an hour, or its equivalent, prefer and need more 
take-home pay.

                              {time}  1930

  The prevailing evidence clearly shows that workers earning less than 
$10 an hour or its equivalent prefer and need more take-home pay. Is it 
hard for us to understand? Why should that be beyond the reach of the 
imagination of the Members of Congress. If you are making such a little 
amount of money, cash in your check each week means a great deal.
  Nearly two-thirds of the work force is stuck in this low wage 
category. You are talking about two-thirds of the people out there 
going to work every day, and they are making $10 an hour or less.
  A constructive compromise would be enhanced by exempting these 
members of the work force, a constructive compromise. If you really 
want a bipartisan agreement, then exempt these people.
  I offered an amendment which would accomplish this by leaving all 
workers who earn less than 2.5 times the minimum wage under the Fair 
Labor Standards Act, leave them under it. Do not touch them. They 
should be protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Leave them there.
  I have had inquiries saying, ``Congressman Owens, we have heard that 
you are ready to sell us out by cooperating with these people and 
proposing a compromise. You wanted to have a bipartisan agreement.'' 
No. I say just say no, vote no, as a first starting position.
  On the other hand, let me invite you laymen, working people, ordinary 
citizens, let me invite you into the political process. Let me invite 
you into the political management of this issue.
  The political management of this issue requires that your voice be 
heard now. Public opinion needs to come in right now. Voters need to 
talk right now to their legislators and tell them that you wanted some 
people protected.
  If you are going to have this, again, there is a steam roller coming. 
I will talk more about that in a few minutes, why it is a steam roller. 
And I am saying protect the most vulnerable.
  The following are some other reasonable compromises that should be 
considered. You could consider a 2-year sunset experiment with workers 
at the top of the earning scale only, an experiment which is almost 
what I said before. Deal with the people at the top of the earnings 
scale. They are the ones that want to have the choice.
  This could be a win-win situation for everybody. It could be a win-
win situation instead of a win-lose situation at this point, a phase-in 
process that first includes workers at the top of the wage scale and 
requires Congress to revisit the issue every 2 years. That could be 
another compromise.
  It would also provide for surveys and studies which objectively 
measure the impact on workers and on the overall economy. A 2-year 
waiver of the Fair Labor Standards Act in certain segments of the job 
markets where objective surveys and polls show strong worker support 
for the choice of compensatory time over cash.
  There are a number of ways you can do this. There has been much said 
since the opening of the 105th Congress about a spirit of bipartisan 
cooperation. Since H.R. 1 is the first piece of legislation being 
offered this year, it represents the first opportunity to exhibit a 
true bipartisan effort. Democratic bipartisanship means that all 
segments of the American population must be represented in the 
negotiating process. No self-appointed oligarchy operating from a 
command and control mode behind closed doors in a conference will be 
able to produce an experiment in this critical area which is practical 
and also has integrity and justice for the workers preserved.
  I have voiced clearly what my position is, what my fear is. Let me 
make it perfectly clear that this is not the position of the Democratic 
Party. The Democratic Caucus did not take a position. There is a 
statement that most of the Democratic Party people will vote no. That 
is not a position beyond voting no. Beyond voting no, there are no 
positions on this, except a substitute will be offered, may be offered. 
We do not know whether that is going to be accepted by the Committee on 
Rules or not, and then they would vote yes or no for the substitute.
  At first I was in favor of voting yes for the substitute. What I am 
saying now is the substitute is poisoned too. If you vote yes for the 
substitute, you are leaving out two-thirds of the work force. As I know 
the substitute at this point, and I do not have a copy in my hand, the 
proposed substitute does not deal with exempting those people who make 
$10 an hour or less. It deals with a lot of other things, but it 
chooses not to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know why exempting people who make $10 an hour 
or less is beyond the reach of the imagination of Democratic Party 
legislators. I do not know why. At this point I have not heard why.
  I do know that the employers, the people who want this bill, the 
people who have given it the highest priority, they want the cash. They 
do not want fairness. They do not want a win-win situation for every 
level of working Americans, all the levels. They do not want that. They 
want cash. And they cannot tolerate a solution or compromise which says 
two-thirds of the work force should be exempted. That cash is what they 
are after, and that cash they will not be able to get.
  Mr. Speaker, the question is, why can you not accept an amendment, a 
compromise, which will allow the most needy Americans, the hard-working 
Americans making $10 or less an hour, to be protected from 
exploitation? Why can you not allow those Americans working and making 
$10 or less an hour to be in a situation where they do not have to give 
up involuntarily the cash that they take home in their paycheck?
  Why can we not have a paycheck protection act instead of this 
paycheck reduction act? Why can Democrats not take the initiative? Why 
can somebody out there not let them know? Why can the work force not 
let them know that we have to go beyond just saying no.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a set of letters here from various unions. United 
Auto Workers says no, no, no, even though they are one of the best 
organized segments of the work force. They do not want to start eroding 
employee income. They say just say no.
  The Teamsters say no. No, no, no. Unite says no. But they do not talk 
about the political management of the issue. After we say no and the 
majority in the House votes yes and the majority of the Senate votes 
yes, and it goes to a conference and the White House sends down its 
representatives to negotiate what the President will or will not veto, 
where are we?
  We are in a position where on the table the only thing they have to 
talk about has ruled out protection for the most vulnerable workers in 
America.
  Mr. Speaker, I could become very unpopular with people who say the 
virile thing to do, the manly thing to do is just say no. Do not talk 
about a compromise at this point. Do not propose to cooperate with 
these folks at all.
  Well, I have been around a long time. I have been here 14 years. I am 
not going to walk into this ambush without my eyes open and warning all 
of the other workers of America. An ambush is coming. An ambush is 
coming.
  I applaud the fact that the White House is saying just say no, they 
will not sign the bill as it is. They will not sign it as it is. But I 
have heard that language before. If they said I will under no 
conditions sign a bill that does this, this and this to workers, then I 
would be here with a different story. The White House is not saying

[[Page H1013]]

what their conditions are. They have their own bill and said they 
prefer their own bill, but it does not deal with this problem.
  We want the administration to change its bill, because its bill does 
not say that people making $10 an hour or less should be exempted, 
should be exempted from any attempt to remove the protection of the 
Fair Labor Standards Act, or more particularly what my amendment says, 
people earning less than 2.5 times the minimum wage should not be 
involved in this process. We want the White House and Democratic caucus 
to take that position. American workers wake up, an ambush is coming. 
If you took this position now, then you would have something to 
negotiate.
  Public opinion still is in this process. But as the days go by, as 
next week arrives and we have it on the floor here and people feel good 
about voting no and what you are left with is only two, at best, you 
would be left with two propositions. One is the majority bill, which 
they are insisting that they wanted, and the other is the substitute 
offered by the Democrats.
  Even if everybody voted, if the majority were to allow the substitute 
to pass, the workers who earn $10 or less would be in trouble, because 
the substitute at this point is not dealing with their problem. So this 
is the message I am sending.
  You might say, why are we in this position? Why do we not have a 
strong voice in favor of protecting the most vulnerable workers in any 
piece of legislation? Is this setting a precedent for the coming year?
  As I said before, there is going to be a lot of bipartisan agreement 
and cooperation on education. There may be bipartisan agreement and 
cooperation on the environment. There are a number of areas where the 
signal has been given, and we are going to try to work together to come 
up with meaningful legislation. I applaud that. I applaud where we are 
going on education. I have never felt better about education and public 
policymaking with respect to education. I learned today my own State of 
New York, the legislature is proposing as much as a 50-percent increase 
in State aid to education. This is what President Clinton has done. 
This is what the bully pulpit, even though the Federal Government is 
not responsible for education and their expenditures only represent 
about 7 percent of the total expenditures for education, when the 
President speaks, when the bully pulpit is in operation, it stimulates 
what happens at the State level. It stimulates generosity. People's 
eyes come open. The vision of the White House, it is infectious. It 
contaminates people. The wonderful thing about leadership in America is 
when you have strong leadership they pick it up in the capitals of the 
States and city councils, and that is what has been lacking on the 
issue of education before President Clinton decided to take his 
initiatives.
  Over and over again he emphasized the fact he is making education the 
No. 1 priority. In his budget he made education a No. 1 priority. As I 
said before on this floor, I am proud of the fact that the 
Congressional Black Caucus budget last year proposed a 25-percent 
increase in Federal aid to education. People said that is absurd, you 
will never get that. That is pie in the sky.
  Well, the President is proposing a 20-percent increase this year, 20 
percent. That is pretty good. An example set by the Congressional Black 
Caucus budget is being followed.
  But why now are we moving on education at such a progressive, 
productive way? We are going to take care of the kids, maybe, because 
this could all degenerate into headlines and a Potemkin village 
approach where it looks like they are doing something but the 
commitment never comes. You do not know, until the appropriation 
committees act, what is going to happen.
  Let us assume this is going to be real, we are not going to 
perpetuate a fraud on the American people in terms of the position of 
both parties here in Washington on education. Let us assume it is real.
  We are taking care of the children of the workers, giving them some 
better opportunities, safer school buildings, adequate equipment in the 
lab. We are going to move to really try to provide decent educational 
opportunities. But the same child has to go home, if their parents, as 
you can see, two-thirds of the work force is in this condition, and 
have their parents putting less food on the table because they do not 
have the cash.
  The same children will have problems with their clothing because the 
cash is not there to buy the clothing. The cash is not there to pay for 
higher rent. Cash is very important for people who are in certain 
income brackets. They do not have the luxury of saying I want to 
improve my quality of life by taking more time off to spend with my 
kids. They have to rush out and try to get another job and another job 
and another job. You are placing them in greater jeopardy.
  One of the things that study after study shows is that low income 
parents spend less time than anybody else with their children. They are 
often in situations where the pressure is so much greater that you 
generate a number of problems that would not be generated if parents 
had more time to spend with their children. But they have to work.
  They have no choice. If you take away the overtime pay that many of 
them depend on, then you are only complicating matters more. If a 
person instead of making cash on his job for overtime has to go to 
another job, he has the travel time. You have a whole set of problems 
generated by having a second job. And on the second job of course he is 
making regular pay, there is no overtime. There is no advantage in his 
skills and experience, and the labor that he puts in above 40 hours in 
a given week, it is not the same to have to go get another job, if the 
jobs are available.
  Mr. Speaker, I will not get into all that. But why are we doing this? 
Why are we changing the laws in ways that oppress and make life more 
difficult for the poorest people?

                              {time}  1945

  The plain, blunt answer: in America, in a democracy, the voters 
determine what happens; the people who vote are always respected.
  The people who vote eventually will influence public policy. In the 
last election, we had a great disappointment. Only 49 percent of the 
people eligible to vote came out to vote. And of the people not voting, 
the largest number were in these working class categories. The people 
who make $10 or less an hour were the ones who did not vote.
  We have study after study confirming the fact that the people who 
vote regularly and the most are the people who have the highest 
incomes. The richest people in America go out to vote all the time. As 
you go down the income level, there is a clear correlation.
  The rich understand. People who are rich and have power understand 
that their vote is important. They think they have other ways to impact 
on the government. They make contributions. The same people who make 
those contributions never hesitate to go out and vote, because they 
know for them it is just symbolism. Their dollars and their 
contributions have a great impact on their single vote, but they 
understand what a democracy is all about.
  The people in Poland understand what a democracy is all about. Poland 
has a problem with its economy. Poland's budget for the government is a 
very meager government under a lot of pressure. But the pensioners in 
Poland, the people who are on social security and pensions, they are 
getting a far bigger bite of the budget than anywhere else in the 
world, almost, because they vote. They have the power of their vote 
over the government and their needs are being met because that 
government knows that they will come down. Forty percent of the 
electorate of Poland is involved with pensions and so forth, so they 
know that they can bring the government down.
  Americans have the same option. The 51 percent who did not go out to 
vote can have an impact on policy. They do not have to have the Fair 
Labor Standards Act gutted to their disadvantage. They do not have to 
have people ignoring their interests if they go out to vote. It is 
simple. You do not have to be a genius to figure out why there is a 
steamroller going to take away from the workers who need the pay most 
and give it to the employers, more cash to them, in the name of helping 
the upper income and the middle income voters who want that 
flexibility.
  People who are really in those categories, the upper income and the 
middle income categories, there are other

[[Page H1014]]

ways that they can get the flexibility without this law. A few may be 
stuck in the situation where the employees of large corporations do not 
have the flexibility and they need a change in the law, but we can 
accommodate them.
  What we are going to have is a situation where pressure is being 
applied to every lawmaker by the people who did go out to vote and by 
the employers with the cash who want more cash, and they will push the 
steamroller, unless the working people out there wake up right now and 
get to your legislators and remind them that you might not have gone 
out to vote last time, but you have the right to vote still, and you 
are going to wake up and come to your senses.
  I despise, I have great contempt for people who do not vote. People 
who do not participate in the voter process, I really have no use for 
them, but I represent a lot of them and I am sworn to represent 
everybody, so I will protect your interests despite the fact that you 
did not vote. But that is the problem. Understand the problem.
  You do not have to talk in diplomatic language about this. The 
problem is that there is a perception in the power circles, whether it 
is the House of Representatives or the Senate or the White House, that 
they must please the people who vote, and we clearly have a situation 
where those who are jeopardized by this H.R. 1 did not vote in large 
numbers.
  I was once the commissioner of a community development agency, the 
antipoverty program for New York City, and we used to have workshops. 
At one point we had workshops on voting, the importance of voting. Poor 
people must vote. Part of poverty can be resolved, and you could have 
some chance of changing public policies to create better opportunities 
if you vote.
  In the workshop we had a proposal that people who do not vote should 
be put in jail. There was a great outcry, a great outcry about how 
unjust that was. I put that in there, in the trading package, because 
there were some countries at that time, I do not know whether Italy 
still does it or not, but there are a few countries in the world where 
it is against the law not to vote. They consider it is that important, 
everybody's duty and, of course, most of the democracies in the world, 
especially those in Europe, have a much higher voter turnout than we 
do. In the South African region you have an unprecedented 90 percent 
turnout. The disenfranchised people, in their first election we had a 
more than 90 percent turnout. We had a 49 percent turnout in our last 
election for President and other offices.
  So if you take voting seriously, then you will not have a great 
outcry about putting people in jail if they do not vote. What it 
demonstrated to me was, you are not serious about voting, you are 
worried about going to jail. The injustice of going to jail is not the 
question. The question is, why do you not vote?
  In New York City we have huge housing projects in my district where 
the voting booth is right there in the middle of the housing project. 
It takes a person no more than 30 minutes to get out of their house, go 
down, walk over, vote, especially since the lines are not very long. So 
as a result of folks year after year not doing this, you have a set of 
attitudes and approaches that have developed, a way of operating 
politically that is now based on contempt for the poor, contempt for 
the low-wage earners.
  It is not hard to figure out what is happening. The steamroller will 
roll right over us, so leaders of organized labor and various people 
who do represent these workers, those who did not vote, must join with 
me and understand we represent everybody, not just those who vote. 
Somebody must protect those who are not protected. What is happening 
here in the floor, or what is happening here in this process of H.R. 1 
rolling past us, is that nobody is stepping forward to protect those 
workers.
  We can take care of the needs of those who are middle class, middle 
income, one more time for their children, we can lift the Fair Labor 
Standards Act for you. At the same time we can keep the Fair Labor 
Standards Act to protect the others. What is wrong with that kind of 
compromise? What is the matter? Why must we insist on beating those who 
are weakest? And those who do not vote are weak.
  The same people who do not vote certainly do not contribute to 
political campaigns. If they are not interested enough to go out and 
take 30 minutes to vote, they certainly are not going to put a dime 
into a political campaign.
  They are weak, they are misguided, they are un-American in the 
greatest sense of the word. Not to participate in the process, not to 
vote makes you un-American, but they still have to be protected. We 
hope to have a redeposition. Our democracy will not survive if these 
people continue to be alienated, outside of the system, so they must be 
protected.
  There is a pattern in other ways. I have talked about the CPI, the 
consumer price index, and all of the discussion in Washington: Let us 
tamper with the consumer price index, because the consumer price index 
decides what the cost-of-living increase is going to be for people on 
Social Security or people in a number of other jobs. The COLA's, we 
call them.
  Your COLA was in danger this time last week, grave danger. There was 
a lot of talk. The President said he would have to take a look at it, 
Senator Moynihan of New York, NY, liberal New York, Moynihan, the great 
defender of the poor said yes, we ought to take a look at it. There are 
a lot of people who want to take a look at the CPI, the consumer price 
index, so that we can perhaps tamper with it, revamp it and bring down 
the cost of living which gives people on Social Security a few more 
dollars every year. As the cost of living goes up, they get a few more 
dollars. We almost lost those few dollars or we almost had a situation 
where they were compromised.
  I am here to announce good news tonight. The badgering of the poor, 
the harassment of the poor will not take place through this medium. The 
President announced he will have nothing to do with it. He is not going 
to go forward with a CPI panel. They are not going to have a commission 
or a panel to look at the consumer price index. Thank you, Mr. 
President.
  We are going forward this year, at least, without a panel to tamper 
with and sabotage the consumer price index. It may happen in the 
future, but the pressure has been so great. Again, the steamroller was 
rolling. Everybody this time last week was on board, everybody this 
time last week empowered. The oligarchy was moving. They had made a 
decision that they were going to deal with the consumer price index.
  This week it is different, because there was a big outcry. The 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], House Democratic leader, 
refused to embrace the idea, and labor stood with him. There was an 
outcry, even by some Republicans and conservative Democrats. They met 
fierce resistance in meetings with organized labor, in meetings with 
the American Association of Retired Persons [AARP], conservative 
Democrats, and even some Republicans who did not want to go forward 
with punishing the poor by taking away the extra pennies they get when 
they get a COLA as a result of the cost of living going up and being 
measured by the consumer price index.
  So we can celebrate, and I end on that note, because it is important 
to celebrate and understand how it happened. It did not happen by 
magic; there was no decree that came down from heaven. It is the public 
opinion process operating, despite the fact that you are not protected 
by the fact that it is well-known you did not go out to vote. The 
people who are the most vulnerable have advocates. The people who are 
most vulnerable have representatives who are committed to represent 
them, despite the fact that they did not vote.
  This process, we hope, will protect you for a little while longer, 
but the great appeal is for everybody to understand the steamroller in 
Washington this year will be moving again and again against the work 
force.
  Last year we had extremist proposals about eliminating certain parts 
of OSHA to protect workers; we had a big cut in the apparatus for 
negotiating agreements, labor agreements. Everywhere that labor existed 
they were under attack, and even now, those attacks are being readied 
again. Davis-Bacon is under attack again. We will talk more about that 
later.

[[Page H1015]]

  But as the ranking member of the committee on work force protections, 
I hope that all of the Members will hear my message that the people who 
are the working people in America, certainly those who are making $10 
or less an hour, need protection. Do not let H.R. 1 pass. Do not let 
the paycheck ripoff act go through. We want a paycheck protection act 
instead.

                          ____________________