Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 26 (Thursday, March 9, 2000)

[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 26 (Thursday, March 9, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H879-H902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 434, I call
up the bill (H.R. 3846) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
to increase the minimum wage, and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.

Unfunded Mandate Point of Order

Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 425(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I make a point of order against
consideration of H.R. 3846.
Section 425(a) states that a point of order lies against
consideration of a bill that would impose an intra-governmental
unfunded mandate in excess of $50 million.
The Congressional Budget Office has scored the language in H.R. 3846
as an $880 million unfunded mandate on America's State and local
governments over 5 years. Section 1 of H.R. 3846 increases the Federal
minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 an hour over 3 years. Therefore, I
make a point of order against consideration of this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent)
makes a point of order that the bill violates section 425(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of the Act, the gentleman has
met his threshold burden to identify the specific language in the bill
(section 1) on which he predicates the point of order.
Under section 426(b)(4) of the Act, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Largent) and a Member opposed will each control 10 minutes of debate on
the question of consideration.
Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the Act, after that debate the Chair
will put the question of consideration, to wit: ``Will the House now
consider the bill?''
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) will be recognized for 10
minutes, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) will be recognized
for 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, one of the real problems that I see we face in this body
is that we are consumed with so much business from day-to-day that the
institutional memory of the House of Representatives tends to be very
short. And so, I hope to enter into a discourse here of a little
history from 5 years ago about a bill that we passed overwhelmingly
called the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
In 1995, the House decided to change the way Washington works with
America's State houses and city halls. The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act
was passed to protect hard-working State and local officials from the
bullies in Washington, D.C.
Its sponsors stood on this floor and said, ``For too long, Congress
has imposed its own agenda on State and local governments without
taking responsibility for the costs.''
The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act passed this House by a vote of 394-
28.
Several Members who have introduced the bill that is currently before
us were, in fact, cosponsors of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. Today
we are scheduled to trample this law by passing a Federal minimum wage
increase.
Mr. Speaker, we need to keep our promise to America's State and local
officials. By voting against their own State and local officials, the
Members are telling them, ``I know more than you do.''
I want to be able to look my State and local officials square in the
eye and tell them that I trust them.
Many of our colleagues worked at the local level as mayors or city
councilmen. Others were State legislators. These Members know the
frustration of having Washington tell them how to spend their limited
resources.
One Member who used to work in a New York county government and who
has been instrumental in shaping this bill on the floor today and the
bill on the floor in 1995 said, ``Many Federal mandates involve
important programs that many of us might support in concept. But, if we
are going to ask others to pay for them, we should give them more of a
say in developing them, we should level with them about who is going to
pay for them, and we should be ready to defend the costs.''
Where was this principle when the minimum wage bill was drafted?
Unfunded mandates force State and local governments to reduce vital
services and/or increase taxes, revamp their budgets and order their
priorities. This is not the kind of Federal, State, and local
government partnership the Founders envisioned.
The vote on this point of order should not be confused with support
for or opposition to a minimum wage. That issue is irrelevant. Rather,
it is a vote for or against local control and limited government.
Who knows best, Washington or City Hall?
Many States, including the State of Oklahoma, have raised the minimum
wage above the Federal level. They did not need Washington to tell them
to do this. Because, believe it or not, they did it all by themselves.
The Unfunded Mandate point of order can be raised against any bill
that will cost State and local governments more than $50 million. CBO
estimates that this increase will cost America's State and local
governments $880 million. It costs the private sector $13.1 billion,
$4.1 billion in one year alone.
The Unfunded Mandate will affect 750,000 State and local government
employees. Twenty percent of these employees work for State colleges.
Twenty-seven percent work for State and local schools. And we all know
how much trouble school districts are having with the money as it is.
Why make it harder?
Two-thirds of these employees work for local governments, one-third
for State governments. Over 40 percent of the Mandate falls on States
in the Southeast. Twenty-eight percent falls on States in the Midwest.
Seventy-two percent of the burden falls on people in small towns and
rural areas.
The States that will be hardest hit by this Unfunded Mandate are
California, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, and Arizona.

[[Page H880]]

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this Unfunded Mandate hurts State and
local governments; it hurts schools and hospitals; it hurts nursing
homes; it hurts workers who lose their jobs; and it hurts the
businesses who have to lay them off. Perhaps the only people it does
not hurt are us here in Congress.
But, most importantly, it hurts the trust we have developed with
State houses and city halls. It is a reversion to an old way of doing
business.
In a moment, I will request a recorded vote on this issue. Those
wishing to steam roll the Unfunded Mandate law that we just voted on
and passed overwhelmingly on 5 years ago will vote ``aye.'' Those
wishing to defend States and local governments against Washington's
bullying ways will vote ``nay.'' A ``nay'' vote will force Congress to
be responsible for paying for its own laws.
This vote draws a line in the sand. Either Members are for local
control or they are against it. Either they believe city halls and
State houses know best or they believe Washington knows best. It is
just that simple.
Vote ``no'' to show support for local control.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) is suggesting
that we deny over 10 million American workers a modest increase in the
minimum wage based on a technical point of order.
The gentleman would deny 40 percent of minimum-wage workers who are
the sole bread earner in their families a wage increase based on a
technical point of order.
The gentleman would prevent an increase in the minimum wage that is
supported by 81 percent of Americans on a technical point of order.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman would condemn minimum-wage workers to an
annual income of only $10,700, which is $3,000 less than the poverty
level, on a technical point of order.
Mr. Speaker, the real Unfunded Mandate today is the majority's unpaid
for and reckless $120 billion tax cut for the wealthy. This point of
order is just another effort by the majority to deny a fair and just
increase in the minimum wage.
So I urge Members who support increasing the minimum wage to vote
``yes'' on continuing consideration of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on
each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent)
has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has
8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me,
and I thank him for bringing up this valid Unfunded Mandate point of
order.
Earlier today, we voted on a rule that waived the 1974 budget rule
saying that we should have a budget before we pass a tax cut. I voted
against that rule because I believe that we ought to live by the very
rules that we pass in this House.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) has correctly pointed out
what happened 5 years ago. It is important that we consider the costs
when we are imposing on local governments, as well as small business
men and women, it is important that we recognize that cost and that it
is an unfunded mandate when we vote a cost without providing the money
to pay for it.
I remember so well the speeches that were made on this legislation 5
years ago.

{time} 1845

This problem could have been addressed earlier today by the DeMint-
Stenholm State flexibility proposal. The approach in the DeMint-
Stenholm amendment would have given States flexibility to debate the
minimum wage as part of an overall policy to deal with poverty, low-
income families, and welfare reform. I would much rather do it that way
than the way in which we are proposing to do it today.
Some States may choose to have a lower minimum wage but offset this
with State assistance to low-income families for health care, child
care, job training, education or other programs. States may decide that
it may be better to target assistance to low-income families in need
through State programs instead of a minimum-wage increase. Some States
may decide that the lower cost of living in their State make a lower
minimum wage reasonable. Other States may decide that a higher cost of
living justifies a higher minimum wage.
States are in the best position to make these judgments. These
decisions should be made in a public debate in the State legislatures
where these trade-offs can be debated, not on the floor of the House
tonight.
I encourage all of my colleagues to vote to sustain this point of
order and let us live by those bills that we pass.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the gentleman from
Oklahoma's point of order. I rise as a former Pennsylvania State
legislator who knows a little bit about unfunded Federal mandates, as
we had some experience with balancing our budget. I was appropriations
chairman for 8 years in the State house. Every year as we went to work
on our State budget, by the way, which was always balanced, we could
not print money, we realized that the Federal Government had stuck us
with some unfunded Federal mandates.
I think the largest one we had to grapple with every year was special
ed. The law which Congress passed says that the Federal Government will
provide 40 percent of the special ed funds. I think when I came to
Congress 3 years ago, we were about 6 or 7 percent. I think today we
are up around 14, 15 percent of those funds. But we are nowhere near
the mandate in the law that Congress passed.
When this body tells States that they have to spend hundreds of
millions of dollars here and millions of dollars there, it creates a
hardship. Fiscal responsibility may be something that we have
discovered here in Washington in the last 5 years, but to States that
have been balancing their budgets all along, these mandates do cause
some complications. Most States have to cut back other programs in
order to meet these Federal demands. Mr. Speaker, I think when we
approach unfunded Federal mandates, we should approach them with our
eyes open. We should realize that the minimum wage, the Federal minimum
wage, is just another unfunded Federal mandate that we are placing on
local governments, on businesses, and it is sort of insulting to some
of these local governments and State legislatures that have a better
track record than Congress in keeping their fiscal houses in order when
we pass these.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and sustain this point of order.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this point of order,
and I want to oppose a few cliches. Number one, the State capital does
not always know best. Sometimes the Federal Government knows best. That
is why we have a Federal Government and a Federal structure of
government. If you leave it up to the States what the minimum wage will
be, you cannot enforce the minimum wage, because businesses will tend
to go to those States with a lower minimum wage and with less
environmental protection. That is why we have Federal minimum wage laws
and Federal environmental protection laws, so you do not have a race to
the bottom because of the business climate in each State, so you can
have a civilized minimum wage and environmental protection laws and
occupational safety and health laws to protect workers.
Number two, it is not an unfunded mandate. Nobody is telling the
States what they have to do, what programs they have to do. All we are
saying is if you hire workers to do whatever you want to do, you have
got to pay them a decent wage, not even a living wage, merely the
minimum wage. That is not an unfunded mandate.
Number three, if it is construed to be an unfunded mandate, it shows
one of

[[Page H881]]

the reasons that the unfunded mandate law was a foolish thing to pass
because if it deprives us of the power of insisting on a basic minimum
wage for people in States whether they work for State government or for
private enterprise, it is foolish if we are deprived of that power
because we are the tribunes of the people who must insist on minimum
standards so that people are protected.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
yielding me this time, and more importantly for raising the unfunded
mandate point of order. I would just say to my friend from New York
that it is not a foolish piece of legislation and yes, indeed there is
an unfunded mandate here. This is precisely what this legislation was
intended to do when we passed it 5 years ago.
One, to provide for information. We now have a Congressional Budget
Office impact statement which shows there is going to be an $880
million impact on State and local government because of the minimum
wage bill we are about to vote on. Second, it provides for
accountability.
The gentleman from Oklahoma says he is going to ask for a vote. I
think that is great. We are having a debate on this issue, we are
having the information provided to us which we would not have had 5
years ago, and now we are going to have a vote on whether we as a
Congress are going to impose an additional almost $1 billion unfunded
mandate on State and local government.
If we really believe that in Congress we ought not to be imposing
these costs on State and local government that have to take it out of
things like fire and police services or raise taxes on our citizens
back home, then we ought to take a very careful look at the unfunded
mandate impact. And in my case, I am going to vote no, because a ``no''
vote means you are upholding the point of order, a ``no'' vote means
you recognize that there will be an impact on State and local
government that is inappropriate. I encourage my colleagues to vote no.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question
is, Will the House now consider the bill?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CLAY. 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.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 274,
nays 141, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 42]

YEAS--274

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Buyer
Callahan
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--141

Archer
Armey
Bachus
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Biggert
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fowler
Gekas
Gibbons
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Isakson
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Wicker

NOT VOTING--19

Cooksey
Davis (VA)
Dooley
Gephardt
Granger
Istook
Johnson, E.B.
Linder
McCollum
Metcalf
Oxley
Scarborough
Schaffer
Shuster
Smith (WA)
Spence
Tauscher
Thurman
Vento

{time} 1918

Messrs. SMITH of Texas, TERRY, EVERETT, and KINGSTON changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. HUNTER, CROWLEY, MALONEY of Connecticut, and FOSSELLA changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to
House Resolution 434, the bill is considered read for amendment.
The text of H.R. 3846 is as follows:

H.R. 3846

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MINIMUM WAGE.

Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not
less than--
``(A) $5.15 an hour beginning September 1, 1997,
``(B) $5.48 an hour during the year beginning April 1,
2000,
``(C) $5.81 an hour during the year beginning April 1,
2001, and
``(D) $6.15 an hour beginning April 1, 2002;''.

[[Page H882]]

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS.

Section 13(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 213(a)) is amended by amending paragraph (17) to read
as follows:
``(17) any employee who is a computer systems, network, or
database analyst, designer, developer, programmer, software
engineer, or other similarly skilled worker--
``(A) whose primary duty is--
``(i) the application of systems or network or database
analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with
users, to determine hardware, software, systems, network, or
database specifications (including functional
specifications);
``(ii) the design, configuration, development, integration,
documentation, analysis, creation, testing, securing, or
modification of, or problem resolution for, computer systems,
networks, databases, or programs, including prototypes, based
on and related to user, system, network, or database
specifications, including design specifications and machine
operating systems;
``(iii) the management or training of employees performing
duties described in clause (i) or (ii); or
``(iv) a combination of duties described in clauses (i),
(ii), or (iii) the performance of which requires the same
level of skills; and
``(B) who, in the case of an employee who is compensated on
an hourly basis, is compensated at a rate of not less than
$27.63 an hour.
For purposes of paragraph (17), the term `network' includes
the Internet and intranet networks and the world wide web. An
employee who meets the exemption provided by paragraph (17)
shall be considered an employee in a professional capacity
pursuant to paragraph (1);''.

SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN SALES EMPLOYEES.

(a) Amendment.--Section 13(a) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 213(a)), as amended by section 2, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(18) any employee employed in a sales position if--
``(A) the employee has specialized or technical knowledge
related to products or services being sold;
``(B) the employee's--
``(i) sales are predominantly to persons or entities to
whom the employee's position has made previous sales; or
``(ii) position does not involve initiating sales contacts;
``(C) the employee has a detailed understanding of the
needs of those to whom the employee is selling;
``(D) the employee exercises discretion in offering a
variety of products and services;
``(E) the employee receives--
``(i) base compensation, determined without regard to the
number of hours worked by the employee, of not less than an
amount equal to one and one-half times the minimum wage in
effect under section 6(a)(1) multiplied by 2,080; and
``(ii) in addition to the employee's base compensation,
compensation based upon each sale attributable to the
employee;
``(F) the employee's aggregate compensation based upon
sales attributable to the employee is not less than 40
percent of one and one-half times the minimum wage multiplied
by 2,080;
``(G) the employee receives a rate of compensation based
upon each sale attributable to the employee which is beyond
sales required to reach the compensation required by
subparagraph (F) which rate is not less than the rate on
which the compensation required by subparagraph (F) is
determined; and
``(H) the rate of annual compensation or base compensation
for any employee who did not work for an employer for an
entire calendar year is prorated to reflect annual
compensation which would have been earned if the employee had
been compensated at the same rate for the entire calendar
year;''.
(b) Construction.--The amendment made by subsection (a) may
not be construed to apply to individuals who are employed as
route sales drivers.

SEC. 4. EXEMPTION FOR FUNERAL DIRECTORS.

Section 13(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 213(a)), as amended by section 3, is amended by adding
after paragraph (18) the following:
``(19) any employee employed as a licensed funeral director
or a licensed embalmer.''.

SEC. 5. STATE MINIMUM WAGE.

Section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 206) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h)(1) An employer in a State that adopts minimum wage
legislation that conforms to the requirement of paragraph (2)
shall not be required to pay its employees at the minimum
wage prescribed by subsection (a)(1).
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall apply in a State that adopts
minimum wage legislation that--
``(A) sets a rate that is not less than $5.15 an hour; and
``(B) applies that rate to not fewer than the employees
performing work within the State that would otherwise be
covered by the minimum wage rate prescribed by subsection
(a)(1).''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. An amendment striking section 5 is adopted.
The text of H.R. 3846, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 3846

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. MINIMUM WAGE.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS.

SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN SALES EMPLOYEES.

SEC. 4. EXEMPTION FOR FUNERAL DIRECTORS.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall
be in order to consider Amendment No. 2 printed in House report 106-
516, which may be offered only by the Member designated in the report,
shall be considered read, and shall be debatable for the time
specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent.

[[Page H883]]

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the bill.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), our esteemed subcommittee chairman.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for
many of the provisions of H.R. 3846. The bill makes several changes in
the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is the primary Federal statute that
governs the hours of wages and work.
As a general rule, the law requires employers to pay employees time
and a half for overtime hours. However, there are a number of
exemptions from the minimum wage and overtime for specific groups of
employees.
For example, there is a provision that has been part of the law since
1938 which provides an exemption from the minimum wage and overtime for
an ``outside sales employee.'' The general requirement for meeting the
exemption is that the individual must regularly work outside the
employer's business establishment selling products or services. There
is no minimum salary requirement.
The bill would provide that a new exemption under the Fair Labor
Standards Act for the so-called ``inside sales'' employee, who works
primarily at the employer's facility using the computer and the fax and
the phone to communicate with customers. The bill has a three-part test
for an overtime exemption for inside sales personnel: a detailed ``jobs
duties'' test, a ``commission on sales'' test and a ``minimum
compensation'' test. This would remove some of the constraints within
the current law which frequently work against many highly trained,
highly skilled sales employees by restricting their ability to achieve
great earnings.
The bill would further clarify the current exemption for computer
professionals. In 1990, a bipartisan amendment to the act created an
exemption for the minimum wage and overtime for certain high-skilled,
well-compensated computer professionals. The exemption detailed a
``jobs duties'' test which clarified the treatment of these employees
under the Act. However, there are now many new types of positions in
the information technology industry that are not addressed by the
current exemption, so the bill would update the law to reflect the
recent changes in the technology industry.
I would also note that the language in H.R. 3846 is identical to a
bipartisan bill, H.R. 3038, introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Andrews) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
The bill would provide a new exemption under the Fair Labor Standards
Act for licensed funeral directors and licensed embalmers from minimum
wage and overtime. Licensed funeral directors and embalmers must
typically undergo mandatory education and training to acquire the
necessary skills to obtain their licenses and maintain their jobs.
These types of employees are not specifically referenced in the current
law, and this provision would provide some clarity as to their
classification for the purposes of overtime.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, while I support the three straightforward
reforms of the Fair Labor Standards Act, I am unable to support the
underlying purpose of this bill, which is to increase the minimum wage.
We have heard so much today from proponents of the increase about how
raising the minimum wage is an effective antipoverty program. We have
also heard that increasing the minimum wage imposes little social cost.
Unfortunately, the facts do not support either of these beliefs.
First, most low-wage workers are not in poor families. Therefore, an
increased earnings associated with a higher minimum wage would not
significantly impact low-income families. According to recent studies,
only one in four low-wage workers resides in the families in the bottom
20 percent of income distribution. Less than 1 dollar in 5 of the
additional earnings going to families who rely on low-wage compensation
as their primary source of compensation. When the additional earnings
reach low-income families, most of the increase is taxed away by the
Social Security contributions or the State and Federal income taxes.
Second, it is illogical to think that wages will rise without any
adverse result. Businesses may decide to increase their prices, reduce
their workforce, or to meet their operations, or cut back on customer
services. In other situations where the employer cannot reduce costs or
raise prices, they must absorb the new labor costs. The money comes out
of the expansion or investment. Either way, there are clearly costs,
and I would urge my colleagues to carefully consider these issues.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and
I rise in opposition to H.R. 3846.
Mr. Speaker, minimum wage workers deserve a raise. In this time of
unprecedented prosperity, fairness dictates that we act now. Since
1980, the average income of most workers has increased by 68 percent,
while the real value of the minimum wage has declined by 16 percent.
Unfortunately, this bill offers only 33 cents an hour next year to
minimum-wage workers. Why do we, Mr. Speaker, nickel and dime those
workers who need an increase the most?
Stretching the minimum wage increase over 3 years instead of 2, while
at the same time authorizing tax cuts for the most wealthy, is a
miscarriage of justice. This bill denies almost $1,000 in pay to
minimum-wage workers, and it would permit other workers to work in
excess of 40 hours a week for no additional pay.
Mr. Speaker, raising the minimum wage will not make workers rich; it
will simply enable them to have a chance at supporting themselves and
their families. A decent minimum wage encourages work and discourages
reliance on welfare. A decent minimum wage allows workers to meet their
own needs without dependence on others or welfare. A decent minimum
wage will allow workers an amount of dignity through the elevation of
their standard of living, and a strong minimum wage will allow workers
to share in our prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the author of the legislation.
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce H.R. 3846, a bill to
raise the minimum wage $1 over 3 years, which is a complementary bill
to the small business tax relief in H.R. 3832.
In 1996, I ran for this seat in Congress as an opponent of the
minimum wage. My Democratic opponent and I debated this issue 13 times
throughout the 20th district. In the last debate in Centralia,
Illinois, a portion of the debate was for questions from the audience.
A man raised his hand and went to the microphone wanting to address the
issue of the minimum wage. What he said there in that question
solidified my position on this issue. He said, because of the increase
in the last minimum wage, I lost my second job.
This story reflects the reality that our decisions here have a direct
impact, sometimes a negative impact, on the very people we are trying
to help.
Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), and the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Cramer) in crafting this bill, H.R. 3842, for two reasons. One, it
is a political reality that the minimum wage is going to be increased
during this Congress. While some may not like to hear it, it is true.
However, if we are going to raise the minimum wage, I want to take an
active role to ensure that no one loses their job as a result. These
bills merged together will do just that.
My second reason for joining in this effort was to show my
colleagues, my constituents, and even myself that we can work in a
bipartisan fashion to address the issues that face our Nation. I am
pleased that H.R. 3846 is truly a bipartisan product which encompasses
all interested parties in the debate over raising the minimum wage.
The bill includes an increase of $1 over 3 years which is a
compromise between the small business community who settled for $1 over
4 years and the labor community who fought for $1 over 2 years. H.R.
3846 also amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to clarify

[[Page H884]]

and update minimum wage and overtime exemptions for computer
professionals, inside sales and funeral directors. The bill originally
drafted included the State flex option, which I oppose, but allowed to
be placed in to move the process to the floor; and I want to thank the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint) for pulling that with a
unanimous consent earlier today.
We have heard and will continue to hear about how today's economy is
running at such a break-neck speed that a minimum wage can be easily
increased. Yet, the facts are that increasing the minimum wage has a
significant impact on the ability of our Nation to create and sustain
entry-level and second jobs. Multinational corporations and all of
those listed with the stock exchanges appear to be doing
extraordinarily well in terms of their profits. However, most minimum-
wage jobs and most new jobs in general are created by small business
owners. In fact, small businesses not only account for nearly 60
percent of the jobs in our Nation's workforce, small businesses created
two-thirds of all new jobs since the early 1970s.

{time} 1930

So let us keep in mind, it is not Bill Gates who is paying the
minimum wage and creating new jobs, it is our neighborhood pharmacist
creating new jobs. It is our local grocer. It is our favorite
restaurant.
These small business owners are struggling every day to exist and
expand in a market over which they have little control. Through their
own blood, sweat, tears, and self-determination, these men and women
are working to survive, expand, and provide jobs and a sense of
community for our neighbors and our families.
H.R. 3846 is a bipartisan solution which provides a $1 increase in
the minimum wage over the next 3 years. If we look back to the last
increase in 1996, this $1 increase that we are proposing actually gives
a greater increase to the recipients than if we tied their wage to the
CPI, the consumer price index.
The CPI estimates that if the wage were to increase from 1996 to 2005
using the CPI, minimum wage workers would actually receive less than
what our proposal provides.
This increase is a fair, phased-in proposal that allows us to protect
the jobs of those who earn a minimum wage while gradually increasing it
at the same time.
A key factor in helping to protect minimum wage jobs is that H.R.
3846 and H.R. 3832 do not gouge small businesses. In the Herald and
Review of Decatur, Illinois, the editorial headline on October 26,
1999, read ``Minimum Wage, Tax Break Link Sensible.''
The paper stated that, when the minimum wage increases, someone has
to pay for it, because business owners have to maintain a profit level.
``The result could be higher prices or fewer jobs at minimum wage. Just
as a worker will offer his work at an acceptable wage level, an
employer will pay workers a wage that permits his company to earn a
profit. That is why a minimum wage increase alone won't work and why a
bill to raise the rate linked to some tax breaks for small businesses
makes sense.''
Mr. Speaker, I learned a lesson in 1996 when that constituent told us
how he lost his job due to the increase in the minimum wage. I also
learned many lessons working with my colleagues from both sides of the
aisle in fashioning this bill: Our actions have consequences, some
intended, some unintentional; some thought out, some never considered.
We have worked for the last year to put together a package that has
arrows coming from all sides, but workers get a raise, small businesses
get much-needed tax relief, and this Congress will have shown that we
have addressed our Nation's issues in a bipartisan manner with a sense
of purpose and civility.
Mr. Speaker, I am just sorry that we cannot address an issue of
another group that is going to be severely impacted by increasing the
minimum wage. That is our nonprofit organizations, those who go and ask
for money to run the blood banks, to run the food pantries, to run the
clothing stores. They will also be mandated to pass an increase in the
minimum wage, and no real benefits to recover that, other than asking
donors for additional support.
I congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and my
colleagues on the Democratic side, particularly the gentleman from
California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer),
all of whom are owed a debate of graduate for putting aside partisan
and ideological differences for the purpose of doing the Nation's
business. They certainly have my deepest gratitude.
Once again, I strongly urge my colleagues in Congress to support this
sensible increase in the minimum wage.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
(Mr. BONIOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the other day I read that the co-founder of
a high-tech company was spending $25 million to build himself a castle
to live in. This castle had a moat around it. It had all the
improvements that we could imagine. In this economy it is not unusual
to hear stories like that, but there are other stories that are much
more common, Mr. Speaker.
This is the story of a woman named Cheryl Costas from Pennsylvania, a
37-year-old mother of four whose husband is disabled with a back
injury. That means her family depends on the check she brings home from
her job at the grocery store. What does she earn? She earns $5.50.
Cheryl and her husband are not thinking about building any castles.
They are lucky just to keep a roof over their heads.
She is not alone. Today more than 10 million hourly workers earn less
than $6.15 an hour. Almost 70 percent of them are adults. Three out of
every five are women. A lot of them are single moms who have to work
two, sometimes three jobs to make ends meet, and are never home to be
with their kids. They are seldom home. They are struggling to give
their kids, though, a better life.
Today we say that it is high time we do our part to help them. That
is why we Democrats propose raising the minimum wage $1 over 2 years.
That is $1,000 more than the Republicans have called for. That is
enough money to buy nearly 3\1/2\ months' worth of groceries, enough
money to buy their kids a new pair of jeans, and, God forbid, enough
money maybe to take them out for an ice cream cone once in a while, or
take them to a movie; enough money to help people live with a little
bit more hope and dignity than they are able to do right now on $5.15
an hour.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, our plan has gained the support of
religious leaders all across America. They understand that in this
economy, there is no excuse for minimum wage workers earning $3,200
less than it takes a family of three to stay out of poverty in this
country. They understand that when CEO salaries climb by 480 percent
over the last 10 years, there is no excuse that the minimum wage
purchases less than it did back in 1979.
Mr. Speaker, in short, they understand that while America is a
prosperous Nation, we will never truly be successful until poverty
wages become part of America's past and not our future. We can pass a
wage increase that can make a difference in the lives of the working
poor, $1 an hour over 2 years, or we can squander this opportunity and
instead pass a wage increase that is inadequate; and coupled with this
tax break, $122 billion over 10 years that we just passed, this tax
break for the rich; and then, in addition, an assault on working rights
that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) addressed.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that buried in this Republican plan are
provisions that would trash overtime protection for nearly 1 million
workers on the job today.
Just the other day I read where the Republican leader, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Armey), said he believes raising the minimum wage is
wrong. He topped what he said just a few years ago, that he would fight
with every fiber in his body to defeat it.
I would say to the gentleman from Texas that he should take a moment
and listen to the real America out there, not just those enjoying the
best

[[Page H885]]

of times, but the working families fighting to keep these from becoming
the worst of times.
Those Americans not only need a raise, they have earned a raise. They
have earned it by cleaning our offices, they have it by bagging our
groceries, they have earned it by cooking our meals, by helping care
for our children. They have earned it by taking care of our ailing
parents and grandparents. They have earned it by tending to the sick in
our hospitals.
Mr. Speaker, we owe it to people like Cheryl and all these others out
there, these 10 million, to listen to their voices. We owe it to them
to act. I urge Members to vote for the amendment that will be raised on
the floor of the House in about an hour to move the minimum wage up $1
over 2 years. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Clay) for his leadership on this.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record correspondence from religious
organizations which support increasing the minimum wage by $1 over 2
years.
The material referred to is as follows:

RELIGIOUS LEADERS ASK $1/HOUR INCREASE IN MINIMUM WAGE IN 2000-2001

March 7, 2000, Washington, DC.--Eighteen Jewish, Orthodox,
Roman Catholic and Protestant leaders of denominations and
national religious organizations today released a letter to
President Clinton and Members of Congress which calls for two
50-cent increases in the minimum wage beginning this year.
The letter witnesses to their common conviction that
poverty in the midst of abundance is unacceptable and that
the standard of equality of opportunity rings hollow when
minimum wage employees cannot provide an adequate economic
base for their families.
The full text of their letter follows.

March 7, 2000.
Dear President Clinton and Members of Congress, We
religious leaders urge you, during this session of Congress,
to pass legislation that will increase the minimum wage by
$1.00 over the next two years. So many of the working poor
are in deep pain because of lack of sufficient income to
provide for themselves and their families. We believe, as
does a high percentage of the American public, that
increasing the minimum wage by $1.00 over two years would be
one of the most compassionate and effective ways of
responding to that pain. We believe that justice and
compassion for ``the least of these'' demands that we act
now.
This $1.00 increase would mean an additional $2,000 per
year for those working people and their families who are most
in need of additional income; full-time workers who are paid
the minimum wage. This $1.00 increase would lift a family of
two out of poverty. The extra $2,000 per year would buy
approximately six months of groceries, or four months of
rent; or seventeen months of tuition and fees at a two-year
college. Surely in a time of enormous prosperity for so many,
in a time when some among us have so much and some so little,
we can do no less.
An estimated 18,500,000 workers would benefit from a $1.00
increase in the minimum wage. 10,100,000, about 7\1/2\
percent of the workforce, would benefit directly from a $1.00
increase. Of this group 69 percent are adults (age twenty and
older) and 60 percent are women. Spillover effects of the
increase would likely raise the wages of an additional
8,400,000 workers who currently earn up to $7.15 an hour.
We are aware that there are some who believe that
increasing the minimum wage will increase unemployment.
However, a number of recent studies, including one by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, do not support this belief.
Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that employment
increased and unemployment decreased, since the last
increases in the minimum wage took effect in 1996 and 1997.
Further, economists at the Economic Policy Institute studies
the 1996-1997 minimum wage increases and found overall there
was no statistically significant effect on job opportunities.
Other studies could be cited.
Please support an increase in the minimum wage by $1.00
over the next two years so that justice may be done and
compassion received.
Signatories
The Rev. Dr. Robert W. Edgar, General Secretary, National
Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.; The
Rt. Rev. McKinley Young, Ecumenical Officer, African
Methodist Episcopal Church; The Rev. Dr. Daniel E.
Weiss, General Secretary, American Baptist Churches;
The Rev. David Beckmann, President, Bread for the
World; Rabbi Paul Menitoff, Executive Vice President,
Central Conference of American Rabbis; The Rev. Dr.
Richard L. Hamm, General Minister and President,
Christian Church (Disciplies of Christ); Bishop
Nathaniel Linsey, Ecumenical Officer, Christian
Methodist Episcopal Church; Dr. Kathleen S. Hurty,
Executive Director, Church Women United; The Most Rev.
Frank T. Griswold, Presiding Bishop and Primate, The
Episcopal Church; The Rev. H. George Anderson,
Presiding Bishop, Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America; His Grace Bishop Dimitiros of Xanthos,
Ecumenical Officer, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of
America; The Rev. Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick, Stated
Clerk, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); Bishop Thomas
Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop, Roman Catholic Archdiocese
of Detroit; Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, Union of
American Hebrew Congregations, Center of Reformed
Judaism; The Rev. John H. Thomas, President, United
Church of Christ; The Rev. William Boyd Grove,
Ecumenical Officer, Council of Bishops, United
Methodist Church; The Rev. John Buehrens, President,
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations;
and Dr. Valora Washington, Executive Director,
Unitarian Universalist Service Committee.
____

National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA

statement on minimum wage

By Robert W. Edgar, General Secretary, National Council of the Churches
of Christ in the U.S.A.

``Speak out for those who cannot speak, for the rights of
all the destitute. Speak out, judge righteously, defend the
rights of the poor and needy.'' Proverbs 31:8-9 (NRSV)
Even as our nation continues to enjoy unprecedented
prosperity and record low unemployment, the religious
community is deeply dismayed by the increasing evidence that
many people are not participating in this widespread
affluence. As providers of a broad variety of services to
people in need, we know that hunger is increasing among low-
income working families, and that the lack of health care
coverage and soaring prices for housing are undermining their
well-being. The people who operate feeding programs in our
congregations tell us that more and more children are being
brought by their parents to church meal programs and food
distribution centers. We are greatly troubled by the depth
and extent of poverty among these vulnerable little ones.
Consequently we call on Congress to raise the minimum wage
by 50 cents now and 50 cents in one year. Even this small
increase would make a tremendous difference in the ability of
low-wage workers to support themselves and their families.
For a household with a full-time, full year worker, an
additional $1 an hour would provide $2,000 more each year to
meet the needs of the family, a significant improvement for
those affected.
With an additional $2,000 of income, many families who now
utilize soup kitchens and mass feeding programs would be able
to eat most of their meals at home, providing nourishing food
for their children in a familiar setting. Others would be
able to move away from inadequate or dangerous housing, thus
providing their children with safer places to live, study,
and play.
We know that the great majority of minimum wage workers are
adults and that close to half of them are the sole supporters
of their families. In a nation that honors as a core value
the right and responsibility of parents to attend to the
welfare of their children, how can we tolerate the conditions
that allow heads of households to work full time and still be
forced to try to support their families on incomes that are
substantially below the poverty level? How can we bear to
have the children of working parents be dependent on charity
for their clothes and food?
Our concept of justice holds that no person who works
should be impoverished, and that no family which seeks to
meet its own needs, however modestly it is able to do so,
should live in want. Thus, we call on Congress to give prompt
approval to the legislation now before it which would
increase the minimum wage by $1 over two years.
____

Friends Committee on

National Legislation,

Washington, DC, March 1, 2000.
Dear Representative: I am writing on behalf of the Friends
Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) regarding minimum
wage legislation.
Perhaps as early as next week, you will be called to vote
on alternative proposals to increase the minimum wage. H.R.
3081 has been introduced by Reps. Lazio and Skimkus; an
alternative bill has been introduced by Reps. Bonior, Rangel,
Phelps, and Sandlin. Although these two proposals appear
similar in their minimum wage provisions (they each propose
to increase the minimum wage by $1, spread over either three
or two years, respectively) we believe that only one of these
proposals (the Bonior-Rangel bill) will help to reduce the
growing economic disparity between the poorest and the
weathiest in the U.S.
Many economic indicators give evidence of the growing
disparity. For example, a report issued last fall by the
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that, since
1977, the after-tax income of the wealthiest 1% in the U.S.
has grown by 115%, the income of the wealthiest 20% has grown
by 43%, the income of the middle three-fifths has grown by
8%, while the income of the poorest 20% has actually dropped
by 9%. Current Census Bureau figures reveal that, for 1997,
the household income of the top 20% of all households by
income was 49.4%, nearly as much as the bottom 80% of all
households. FCNL believes that Congress should act to reduce
this enormous and growing economic gap.
H.R. 3081 includes a tax-cut package which, it is
estimated, will cost the U.S. about $120

[[Page H886]]

billion over ten years. Moreover, since these cuts would have
a major effect on estate taxes, they would primarily benefit
those at higher income levels. Under the guise of helping
minimum wage workers, H.R. 3081 would likely increase the
economic disparity in the U.S. and thus rachet up the
distress experienced by poor individuals and families as they
try to subsist on minimum wage jobs. We oppose this charade.
The Bonior-Rangel alternative minimum wage bill also
includes a tax-cut package, however it is substantially more
modest ($30 billion over 10 years) and is directed primarily
at small businesses, many of whom will bear the brunt of any
minimum wage increase. The tax-cut package in the Bonior-
Rangel alternative minimum wage bill is thus designed to
provide a more equitable response to the effects of the
minimum wage increase. This package would include, among
other elements, incentives to help employers hire
disadvantaged workers and 100% tax-deductibility of health
insurance for the self-employed in 2000, both measures that
would aid many low-income workers.
We recognize that in this period of unprecedented economic
growth and budget surpluses, tax cuts are very attractive.
However, FCNL holds that this is not the time to markedly
reduce government revenues (through tax breaks) but rather
the time to invest in programs that benefit society, such as
those that reduce the economic gap between the wealthiest and
poorest in the U.S. We believe that the Bonior-Rangel-Phelps-
Sandlin alternative minimum wage bill, with its combination
of a minimum wage increase spread over only two years and a
tax-cut package that includes elements designed to assist
lower-income workers, is an appropriate bill.
We urge you to support the Bonior-Rangel-Phelps-Sandlin
alternative minimum wage bill. We urge you to oppose H.R.
3081 and any substantially similar substitute bill.
Sincerely,
Florence C. Kimball,
Legislative Education Secretary.
____

Help Families Sustain Themselves: Raise the Minimum Wage $1 Over Two
Years

This week, Congress has an opportunity to take a powerful
step forward for the future of America's children and
families. Both parties in both houses agree that it is time
to raise the minimum wage. They should do it on the shortest
possible timetable.
The crafters of welfare reform legislation asserted that
their new policies would free people from dependency and
enable them to support their families in dignity through
work. Thus far, we have seen that this will not happen unless
the earnings from work are adequate to support a family.
Millions of women are struggling to support their families
through work outside the home. Yet even a full-time job at
minimum wage is insufficient to bring a family of two out of
poverty.
To raise the minimum wage by $1 an hour is a small but
vital step toward the goal of seeing that every family has a
livable income. In the long run, the minimum wage should be
indexed to inflation (as Rep. Bernie Sanders has proposed),
but not until its purchasing power is adequate to sustain a
family. To do it in two years is a reasonable and cautious
proposal; spreading the increase over three years would cost
each full-time minimum wage earner hundreds of dollars that
can never be made up.
To fulfill the great national purpose expressed in our
welfare reform laws, we need to see that everyone does their
part, including employers. As long as the minimum wage fails
to pay enough to sustain even a family of two, low-income
families will continue to subsidize employers who are not
ready or able to pay the full cost of doing business. The
sooner we can end corporate dependency on the poor, the
better.

Dr. Valora Washington,

Executive Director Unitarian Universalist
Service Committee.
____

March 8, 2000.
Dear President Clinton and Members of Congress: We at
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, urge you
to support passage of legislation designed to raise the
minimum wage by $1.00 over a two-year period and to reject
efforts to link this raise to tax cuts that primarily benefit
people who are wealthy.
NETWORK's more than 10,000 members include individuals and
organizations working directly with people who live in
poverty, including the more than 10 million workers who must
currently support themselves and their families in minimum
wage jobs. In an era of unparalleled economic prosperity, it
is unconscionable that millions of hard-working people are
forced to choose among feeding their children, finding
adequate housing, and buying health insurance for their
families. They simply cannot afford to do it all on the
poverty-level income from minimum wage jobs. Clearly, justice
demands that we do better. An immediate increase in the
minimum wage is a small but important step in the movement
toward a livable wage for all.
Even as we support this legislation, we understand that a
person working full time and supporting two children would
still be living below the poverty line after the $1.00
increase goes into effect. We are confident that your
leadership in this area will continue beyond the passage of
this bill toward securing a living wage for all workers.
NETWORK believes that a living wage is a fundamental right.
The U.S. Catholic Bishops explain:
The way power is distributed in a free-market economy
frequently gives employers greater bargaining power than
employees in the negotiation of labor contracts. Such unequal
power may press workers into a choice between an inadequate
wage and no wage at all. But justice, not charity, demands
certain minimum guarantees. The provision of wages and other
benefits sufficient to support a family in dignity is a basic
necessity to prevent this exploitation of workers. (Economic
Justice for All, 1986)
Thank you for understanding that anyone who works full-time
should not live in poverty. We look forward to your continued
support on this very important issue.
Sincerely,
Kathy Thornton,
RSM NETWORK National Coordinator.

Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), a member of the committee.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, we hear the plaintive cries about our need to help the
poor; our need, our desire to increase the minimum wage. The term
``our'' is used over and over again, ``us'', as if in fact we in this
body are actually the people that will be giving the money to the most
needy, the people who are going to be benefiting from the increase in
the minimum wage.
But, of course, it is none of us here who actually are providing this
money that we are so freely giving away. We are giving away other
people's money as we do so often here, we do so well and so often. To
pretend as though it is coming out of our hide, out of our wallets, no,
it is not. We are going to pass a law here to force somebody else to
pay somebody else the money.
Of course, who will actually benefit? Will the ``poor'' actually
benefit from an increase in the minimum wage? Economic analysis
consistently shows that most of the benefits of mandated higher entry-
level wages go to families who are already above the poverty level.
In 1997, nearly 60 percent of poor Americans over the age of 15 did
not work and would not be helped by such an increase. Fewer than 10
percent of poor Americans over the age of 15 who could benefit from
increasing the minimum wage worked an average of 16 hours a week.
The neediest families would receive a relatively small portion of the
increase wage bill. Most of the benefits would go to families who earn
more than twice the poverty threshold.
The idea that we are doing all of this for this category of worker,
that we will raise them up out of poverty as a result of forcing people
to pay an increase in the minimum wage, is absolutely false. The
economists that came in and talked to us in our committee could never
make that kind of allegation.
They tried to. They even tried to explain where they came up with an
idea of $1 over a 2-year or 3-year period of time. There is absolutely
no economic benefit or no economic model they could point to saying
this was the correct amount. Mr. Speaker, there was absolutely not one
shred of evidence to show any of us on the committee that $1 was right,
and even the economists said, no, we do not know that $1 is right. It
has no significance. It is what you will get away with politically. It
sounds good. It is a nice, round number, $1, but it has absolutely no
relevance to any economic theory. Nobody could ever show us that it was
important or that it mattered in the total scheme of things. It was
just a nice round number.
Do Members know what, that is what this whole idea of increasing the
minimum wage is, is just a nice-sounding thing that we can go home with
and explain that we have done something so good for the poor. In fact,
we have done absolutely nothing.
The idea that the government knows best how much money anybody should
make for any particular job is idiotic. I will fully admit that I do
not know what anyone should make in this economy. I do not know what
the smallest minimum wage should be, or the highest. I admit that,
because there is something that is in fact important and that does make
that decision. It is called the marketplace. I will trust the
marketplace.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Frost).

[[Page H887]]

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong support for
raising the minimum wage by $1 over a sensible 2-year period. For too
long now we have pleaded with the majority to simply allow us to vote
on a 2-year minimum wage increase. Apparently many Republican Members
still do not understand the importance of the minimum wage to millions
of America's working families.
Let us be clear about what we are talking about this evening: 11
million working Americans, 10 percent of our work force, toil for the
minimum wage. To these working families, a minimum wage increase means
a raise of $2,000 a year; that is, if we raise it $1 an hour.
Today a single mother with two children who works full-time for the
minimum wage does not earn enough to make ends meet. She makes just
$10,700 annually. That is $3,000 below the poverty line. Mr. Speaker,
this is inexcusable. We are in the midst of the longest economic
expansion in American history. Surely we can afford a modest increase
in salaries for working Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder.
I support the Democratic alternative because working families need a
raise over 2 years, not 3. Opponents of this real wage increase have
again trotted out their usual arguments: ``We cannot afford a minimum
wage increase. A minimum wage increase will result in massive job
losses for low-income workers.''
Economic evidence has again debunked these well-circulated myths. The
last minimum wage increase did not result in job loss. In reality,
overall employment grew among low-income workers after the minimum wage
increase, 9.9 million working Americans saw a direct increase in their
salaries, and nearly 20 million workers, 18 percent of the work force,
also got a boost in pay.
The time has come for those who pay lip service to the value of work
to put their money where their mouth is. It is time to make work pay
for working families.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
(Mr. ADERHOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of increasing the
minimum wage and in support of H.R. 3846. This legislation is the
result of hard work by both Democrats and Republicans. I commend my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working together to bring
forth this compromise.
Despite the harsh words about this issue from some in both parties,
this legislation is a good example of Congress at its best, Democrats
and Republicans working together and working to do what is best for
America's working families. This is what the American people expect,
and quite frankly, it is what they deserve.
This legislation will go a long way toward helping many working
families make ends meet. Far too many families in this Nation depend on
one or more family members making minimum wage in order to pay their
bills and all of their expenses.

{time} 1945

This legislation will give these hard-working Americans a leg up, and
I urge its adoption.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Owens).
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, common sense and logic dictate that we should
build into our economic policy a simple way to share in the great
prosperity that this Nation is presently experiencing. A minimum wage
increase is the way to share our great wealth with the people on the
bottom.
At this time of great prosperity, the gap is growing ever wider
between rich and poor. In New York where the rich are richest, the gap
between rich and poor is greatest.
The infant mortality rate in New York is greater than anywhere else
in the country. The Democratic substitute proposes a simple $1 increase
over a 2-year period, a simple $2,000 increase in the annual pay. The
best way to share the wealth and help the poor is to increase the
amount of money in their paychecks.
If my colleagues care about family values, common sense dictates that
they support this small increase in income. If the new compassionate
conservativism is not just phony public relations, then grant this
measly $1 increase over a 2-year period.
We need improvements in all of the social safety net programs: child
care, health care, more public housing, decent schools, and educational
opportunity. I support more funds and more programs to deal with these
very serious problems. But the best way, the most efficient way, and
the most effective way to help the poor is to put more money in their
paychecks.
Conservatives, step forward and show your compassion at a time when
millionaires and billionaires are having their income doubled in a
year, surely you can afford to give a $1 increase over a 2-year period
to the poorest people in the country.
Working families should not have to live in poverty. They go to work
every day, and still they are in poverty. Even with this increase to
$6.15 an hour over a 2-year period, we will not reach the $8 that is
necessary to get out of poverty. Working families need higher
paychecks. Compassionate conservatives, step forward and show your
compassion.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), my neighbor across the border.
(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I would like us for a few
moments to think about what raising the minimum wage means. What we are
doing is telling a business that certainly they are prosperous enough
to pay a dollar more an hour to their employees.
This is clearly, then, an attempt on our part to mandate something,
which clearly we cannot mandate; and that is prosperity. If we can
mandate prosperity, then there are some other things that I would like
us to mandate. How about happiness? It is just as reasonable that we
can mandate happiness as we can mandate prosperity. If we can mandate
prosperity and happiness, then I am particularly interested in
mandating longevity.
If we really can mandate prosperity, then why should we stop at a
small dollar an hour increase? Why do we not make the minimum wage $10
an hour or $20 an hour. See, if we really do have the power to mandate
prosperity, why should we be so miserly in the delegation of this
power. Let us make it $10 an hour or $20 an hour.
The minimum wage is not an issue in the district that I have the
honor of representing. I see signs out at sheet stores $7.25 an hour.
But I will tell my colleagues where it is important. It is important in
those areas where we are cutting off the bottom rung of the economic
ladder for those who need it most.
Who works for minimum wage? Young people living with their parents
count for 37.6 percent of those on minimum wage. 85.1 percent of all
those on minimum wage either live with their parents, are single and
live alone, have a working spouse, or extended family members and
nonrelatives living in the home. Only 5, let me repeat this, only 5.5
percent of minimum wage earners are single parents, and only 7.8
percent are in married single-earner families where the household may
or may not include children.
What I want to do is to give all the payroll taxes back to head of
family that is working on minimum wage. I want to give more than that.
I have no problem helping the working poor. But what we cannot do is
pretend that we can do something we cannot do, and that is to mandate
prosperity.
The marketplace determines, we cannot possibly determine the value of
a job. The marketplace determines the value of a job. But I will tell
my colleagues what we can do is come in after the marketplace has
determined the value of a job, and then we can help, we can help so
that person, that family can live a reasonable life.
I need also to say that this bill is clearly unconstitutional. I
carry a Constitution, and I will tell my colleagues, they can search
this from front to

[[Page H888]]

back, article 1 section 8 has in it all of the powers of the Congress.
There is not even a hint in the Constitution that this is something
that we can do. Doing this makes a mockery of the 10th Amendment, which
says that if one cannot find it in article 1, section 8 the Congress
cannot do it.
Minimum wage eliminates jobs. That is why my colleagues have not made
it $10 an hour or $20 an hour because they know that eliminates jobs.
This small increase will also eliminate jobs. If one makes eating in
McDonald's too expensive, those jobs simply disappear. If one makes the
product that is produced by a manufacturer too expensive, those jobs go
to the Pacific Rim.
We do not need to hurt those that we are pretending to help by trying
to do something that we clearly cannot do. Let us let the marketplace
determine the value of the jobs and let us help in a lot of ways after
the marketplace determines the value of the job.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Payne).
(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, the reason the minimum wage must be increased
over 2 years instead of 3 years is simple, because the increase is long
overdue. The tiptoe approach that many Members of the other side of the
aisle advocate is not fair for hard working men and women that find
themselves at the lower spectrum of the income wage.
Just a little while ago, I received a letter from a constituent of
mine that worked full time all year-round and was still significantly
below the poverty line for his family of three. If my colleagues are
wondering how a full-time worker in this day and age could still be
below the poverty line, the answer lies in the inadequate minimum wage
of $5.15 an hour. Even a modest $1 increase that we are debating today
is not enough to lift him and his family above the poverty line. Why
then should he, and the other 11.8 million minimum wage workers, have
to wait 3 years for a dollar increase to take place?
The opponents of raising the minimum wage over 2 years claim that it
will have a negative impact on jobs. Since the last increase in the
minimum wage in 1996, 1997, the unemployment rate has dropped to its
lowest level in 30 years, and an estimated 8.7 million new jobs are
being created. These are not Internet jobs. By contrast, 1.2 million
new retail jobs have been added, 415,000 new restaurant jobs have been
added and over 4.4 million service jobs have sprung up.
How does that have a negative impact on employment? Let me leave my
colleagues with this thought: Between 1980 and 1998, the average worker
increased their pay by 68 percent, while at the same time, the pay for
the average CEO has increased by 757 percent. If the minimum wage had
been indexed to CEO pay, it would be worth $23 an hour. We need to cut
this disparity.
We need to have a minimum wage, we should have a livable wage which
is even $8.30 an hour if we are going to take people out of poverty. We
cannot continually tell people to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a
year, a family of three, and still be in poverty. It is hypocrisy.
We have grown to the lowest unemployment rate in the history, and we
had an increase in the minimum wage. Please reject the 3-year, add the
2-year, which should be a 1-year.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support raising the
minimum wage. This is long overdue. The last increase took effect in
1996, 1997.
A family of three, a mother and two children, making the minimum
wage, earns only slightly over $10,000 a year, $3,000 below the poverty
level. A dollar increase of the minimum wage still keeps this family in
poverty.
The majority of minimum-wage earners today are women. Almost a
million women earn the minimum wage, and an additional 5.8 million are
paid wages between $5.15 and $6.15.
Currently, nine States, including Hawaii, boast a higher minimum wage
than mandated by the Federal law. America must follow the call of the
States and update our wage standards. Eleven million people today work
for the minimum wage.
Arguments that a minimum wage increase would contribute to a loss of
jobs are spurious at best, considering that the U.S. jobs grew by
another 8.7 million at the pace of 240,000 jobs a month since the last
increase.
Economic reports have shown that there has been no negative impact to
business because of the 1996 minimum wage increase. The Economic Policy
Institute documents several clear facts about the last increase. It
raised the wages for 4 million workers. Seventy percent of these were
adults, and 59 percent were women. Forty percent of the increase went
to families at the bottom 20 percent of the income scale.
The Republican bill raises the minimum wage by spanning the dollar
increase over a period of 3 years, sacrificing $1,200 to a family
desperately in need of this money. Around here, it does not sound like
much, but to a family trying to scrape by on a minimum wage, this is
$400 less for the family per year than the Democratic substitute.
I urge this House to adopt the amendment that will put this wage
increase effective in 2 years.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Clay) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, among the people who work the hardest in our country are
those who make the least. Tonight we are about to vote for a long
overdue increase in the minimum wage.
I appreciate the cooperation of the majority in including in this
underlying legislation, legislation that I have co-authored involving
the treatment of inside and outside sales employees on parity,
involving the clarification of the computer professionals exemption,
and involving the definition of funeral professionals.
I will vote with my Democratic colleagues who would wish to
reconsider those matters in committee so that they may have a fair look
at them, but I support them because I think they are the right thing to
do.
I am going to strongly support the Democratic amendment to make the
minimum wage increase 2 years. The people who will be most affected by
that, Mr. Speaker, are not watching us tonight. They are cleaning
offices. They are taking care of the elderly and the sick in nursing
homes. They are involved in stores and retail. They are doing very
difficult jobs for very long hours, or they are home resting after a
long and weary day.
At a time of booming prosperity, lowered unemployment, and greater
opportunity, it is unconscionable that we have waited this long to
raise the minimum wage for our lowest paid people. To make them wait
for 3 years would be even more unconscionable.
It is imperative that we pass the Democratic amendment to make the
minimum wage 2 years instead of 3 and pass the underlying bill as well.
It is a long overdue and a deserved raise for the hard-working people
of America.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I certainly was
shocked and surprised to hear that the last speaker would support
something in order to get rid of three things that he is either the
lead sponsor or the cosponsor. He is a cosponsor of inside sales, the
lead sponsor of computer professionals, and a cosponsor of funeral
directors. So that was kind of a shock.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2000

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the endorsement of my efforts
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
I would simply say that my colleagues, who wished that there had been
regular order to consider these in committee, I believe, should have
been given that opportunity, where I know the gentleman would have
given them a fair and complete hearing.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).

[[Page H889]]

(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The House is considering a minimum-wage bill that is contingent on
tax breaks. Under the guise of tax breaks for small businesses to
offset the minimum wage increase, Republicans give $122 billion in tax
breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers, increasing the Federal minimum over
an extended period of 3 years. Mr. Speaker, this debate should be about
minimum wage. Tax relief is a separate issue.
My colleague from New York has crafted a small business tax relief
bill that actually provides tax breaks to small businesses and is fully
offset. However, I truly believe that today this debate should be first
and foremost about giving a raise to America's lowest paid workers with
tax relief for the small businesses that would be most affected.
Believe me when I say that no one can support a family, especially in
my district in New York City, on $5.15 an hour. A full-time, year-round
minimum-wage worker earns only $10.72. That is almost $3,000 less than
the $13,290 needed to raise a family of three out of poverty, and much
less than what it takes to provide any sort of comfortable existence
for a working family.
Every year we do not increase the minimum wage, its current value
decreases. In fact, if we do not increase the minimum wage today, its
value will fall to $4.67 by the year 2003 in inflation-adjusted
dollars; $4.67 an hour for a week's work that will only bring in
$186.80, and that is before taxes. We should think about budgeting for
our own families and ask the question, could I support them on less
than $187 per week?
Furthermore, I do not believe the arguments on the other side of the
aisle that any minimum-wage increase will adversely impact low-wage
earners. A study by the Economic Policy Institute showed that minimum-
wage increases in 1996 and 1997 did not result in job loss. Our hard-
working Americans deserve better. They do not deserve to work two and
three jobs to pay rent. Our economy is booming and salaries of business
workers have increased tremendously.
Let us help those who are at the lowest end of the salary spectrum,
those who work just as hard, if not harder than us, to support their
families and make ends meet.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to this
debate, it reminds me of Victor Hugo, who once said that there is
always more misery among the lower classes than there is humanity in
the higher. It seems to me that the Republican approach to this issue
further promotes the misery and suffering of the lower class and
illuminates the inhumanity of the higher: huge tax breaks for the
wealthy, while stringing along and stringing out those at the bottom.
Today, a working mother, full time, under the current minimum-wage
law, earns a meager $10,000 a year. Combined with recent cuts in
welfare, food stamps and affordable housing, it is impossible to live
on that kind of salary.
Now, I know it is difficult to understand the significance of a
dollar raise when one has never had to function at that level. It is
hard to know what it is like to be broke when one has always had more
than what one needed. But I know full well how important a dollar raise
is. In my district there are 54,000 households with incomes below
$10,000 a year and 165,000 people living at or below the poverty level.
These are solid Americans, struggling to live a good and decent life.
It is time for us to listen to those who have the need. It is time to
give help to the young, to the poor, to those who are disinherited, to
those that life has been less than the American Dream.
I urge that we vote ``yes'' in support of the Traficant amendment and
that we move towards a livable wage so that every person in this
country can live with dignity, with pride, and the ability to pay their
bills.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in a free society one is generally paid according to
their qualifications to do the job, the demand for their skills, and
their dedication to doing a good job. However, H.R. 3846 has some much-
needed reforms to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Let me repeat,
1938. This is the 21st century, and we are still dealing with rules and
regulations and laws of 1938. These three reforms are important
regulatory relief for small businesses.
Section 2 amends the Fair Labor Standards Act and updates the current
computer professionals exemption from the overtime provisions of the
act. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Owens) supported this legislation.
With the explosion of new jobs in the Internet industry, many
positions that did not exist a decade ago are causing confusion as to
the appropriate classification of these workers. This provision
clarifies the existing exemption in the law. There was a lot of
discussion in committee on this. The bill would specify additional
duties performed by workers who have similar skills to those already
exempted.
This bipartisan reform is identical to H.R. 3038, introduced by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) from
the other side of the aisle.
Section 3 amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide increased
opportunity and flexibility for sales professionals. The House passed
an identical bipartisan bill in 1998 with considerable Democrat
support. Sales employees who work outside of the office, traveling from
customer to customer, have always been exempt from overtime
requirements, but technology has left the Fair Labor Standards Act
behind. Today, sales professionals can better serve their customers and
be more productive using modern communications and computers to keep in
touch with their customers.
There is no reason to penalize these innovative workers because they
do not get in their cars to visit their customers. With the ever-
increasing use of technology, the law must be updated to accommodate
the changes that have occurred in the job duties and functions of an
inside sales force. This exemption would only be extended to sales
employees who meet strict criteria regarding job duties, compensation,
structure, and minimum salary.
This section is identical to H.R. 1302, introduced by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews). It is amazing. Every one of these pieces of legislation has
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) right in the forefront. All
three are bipartisan pieces of legislation. This provision is also
identical to H.R. 2888, which passed the House by a vote of 261 to 165
last Congress with bipartisan support.
Section 4 exempts licensed funeral directors and licensed embalmers
from minimum wage and overtime requirements. The act does not
specifically address the treatment of these employees. This provision
will offer some clarity in this area of the law.
H.R. 793 was introduced by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Graham) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). It is
identical to section 4 of this bill. What they offered is identical to
section 4 of this bill.
I support these reforms that provide needed regulatory relief for
employees and small businesses.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the
Traficant/Martinez Amendment to increase the minimum wage over a two-
year period, rather than the three-year period currently in this bill.
I am in strong favor of increasing the minimum wage for all hardworking
Americans; however, I cannot support the Republican sponsored bill--
Minimum Wage Increase (HR 3846). This bill seeks to give large tax
breaks to the wealthy, on the backs of working families and this I will
not accept.
HR 3846 will provide a $1 an hour increase in the federal minimum
wage over three years, reaching $6.15 by the year 2002. However, this
bill will not keep pace with the inflation rate, presently 21% below
the 1979 level. This

[[Page H890]]

is because this measure delays and stretches out the much-needed
minimum wage increase over the next three years.
Economists at the Economic Policy Institute analyzed the effects of
the real value of minimum wage inequality in the overall wage
structure. They concluded that for workers with less than a college
education (representing approximately 75% of the total labor force)
maintaining the minimum wage at its 1979 purchasing power results in a
significant decline in the real hourly wage rate of those earning above
the minimum.
As a consequence, women with just high school diplomas have
experienced a decline in their average real hourly rate. This is just
an example of the widening equality in our nation's wage structure. We
must support sensible minimum wage increases.
This bill also seeks to eliminate the overtime protections that
benefit many of hard working families throughout the nation. For
example, this bill will exclude hi-technology employees, salespersons,
and funeral directors from inclusion in the overtime calculation.
Terminating overtime will encourage workers to work longer hours for
less money with less time for quality family time.
In addition, the bill also permits states to ``opt out'' of any
increase in the minimum wage above the current level of $5.15. Thus,
states could freeze the minimum wage at its current level, or provide a
smaller increase than set by the bill. This measure is unacceptable,
and the President rightfully will veto this bill.
Minimum wage increases are not just about dollars and cents. It is
about the majority of those who live either in poor families or
families in which the primary earner has low wages. We must give those
who have not prospered in this age of economic prosperity a chance to
provide for their families. An honest wage, for an honest day's work.
Higher wages will increase greater employee loyalty and effort at the
workplace. Though an employer's payroll cost may go up, employers will
gain productivity and reduced turnover, training, and recruitment
costs.
The last time we increased the minimum wage was back in 1996. How can
we not come together and resolve our difference? With 72% of minimum
wage workers making $15,000 a year in annual income, we must seek
responsible legislation to increase the minimum wage.
I cannot support a bill that couples an inadequate minimum wage
increase with large tax cuts for those who have benefited most in this
economic boom. Let us not forget those who need assistance. American
workers need wage increases now, and we cannot stand idly by while our
citizens fall deeper into economic despair. However, I will not support
irresponsible tax cuts at the expense of those who truly need a wage
increase.
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, the New York Times has editoralized against any
minimum wage at all. Their editorial was headlined: The Right Minimum
Wage: $0.00
Let me quote from that editorial:
Raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity of the
least skilled workers and fewer will be hired.
If a higher minimum means fewer jobs, why does it remain on the
agenda of some liberals? A higher minimum would undoubtedly raise the
living standard of the majority of low-wage workers who could keep
their jobs. That gain, it is argued, would justify the sacrifice of the
minority who became unemployable. The argument isn't convincing. Those
at greatest risk from a higher minimum would be young, poor workers,
who already face formidable barriers to getting and keeping jobs.
Perhaps the mistake here is to accept the limited terms of the
debate. The working poor obviously deserve a better shake. But it
should not surpass our ingenuity or generosity to help some of them
without hurting others.
* * * The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old,
honorable--and fundamentally flawed. It's time to put this hoary debate
behind us, and find a better way to improve the lives of people who
work very hard for very little.
Tonight's debate is just as hoary as when that editorial was
written--in 1987.
Indeed, this debate is so hoary that I need only to reproduce here
the remarks I made in 1996 and 1989 when Congress debated this same
subject.

Washington, May 23, 1996

The Minimum Wage

Mr. COX of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share
with my colleagues some words that come from a 67-year-old
woman who works at the minimum wage in Santa Ana, CA: Dear
Congressman--she wrote me recently--I strongly advise you not
to raise the minimum wage. In my working career, I have had a
lot of under, slightly over and straight minimum wage jobs.
As a single parent, I managed to raise my son without any
handout from the government. Although raising the minimum
wage may sound like a great humanitarian idea, it really
isn't.
In the past every time minimum wages were raised, the
entire national work force, plus welfare recipients, also
demanded and received raises. The cost of goods and services
rose to meet the higher cost of labor, and you forced me to
work a lot of overtime to maintain the same buying power I
had before my `generous' raise.
I am now 67 years old and consider myself extremely lucky
to have an employer willing to hire elderly people like
myself. My employer is a small businessman. Recently because
of the economy he was forced to raise his prices and cut his
overhead just to stay in business. I took a Small Business
Administration class in college, and I know that he has to
match my Social Security payments, pay higher State
disability and workers compensation. He and others like him
will have no alternative but to close their doors and I will
be unemployed.
When I lose my job, because my employer can no longer
afford to stay in business, what is the government going to
do about me, someone who is willing to work? How is the
government going to help support me? Who is going to pay for
this?
Very truly yours, Joanna B. Menser, Santa Ana, CA.
That is a personal story, but how about the big picture?
How about macroeconomics, and how about the views of such
institutional stalwarts of the liberal point of view as the
New York Times? Some time ago the New York Times ran an
editorial on the minimum wage. The headline was, the right
minimum wage, zero. By that the New York Times did not mean
that people should actually work for nothing. Rather, what
they meant is that wages, the cost and the price of labor
should be determined in a free market and in fact no one
should be held to a so-called minimum wage but, rather,
everyone should have the opportunity to make an increasing
wage in return for higher skills and higher productivity.
Let me read from that editorial in the New York Times which
was titled, `The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00.' `Anyone working
in America,' the New York Times says, `surely deserves a
better standard than can be managed on the minimum wage.'
I think we can all agree with that.
But there is a virtual consensus among economists that the
minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the
minimum wage by a substantial amount would price poor working
people out of the job market, people like Joanna Menser,
whose remarks we just heard.
`An increase in the minimum wage,' the New York Times wrote
in their editorial, `would increase unemployment.' Let me
repeat this line from the New York Times editorial: `An
increase in the minimum wage would increase unemployment.
Raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity
of the least skilled worker, and fewer will be hired.'
If a higher minimum wage means fewer jobs, why does it
remain on the agenda of some liberals,' the New York Times
asked.
`Those at greatest risk from a higher minimum wage would be
young poor workers who already face formidable barriers to
getting and keeping jobs.'
They conclude their editorial in the New York Times as
follows: `The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome
poverty is old, honorable, and fundamentally flawed.' This is
the New York Times now. This is not Congressman Chris Cox
from California.
`The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is
old, honorable, and fundamentally flawed. It's time to put
this hoary debate behind us and find a better way to improve
the lives of people who work very hard for very little.'
Finally, the New York Times of Friday, April 19, just last
Friday, is worth noticing here on the floor in this debate
among our colleagues. Three factoids from the New York Times,
Friday April 19, 1996, I commend to all of my colleagues:
Number of times in 1993 and 1994, when Democrats controlled
Congress, that President Clinton mentioned in public his
advocacy of a minimum wage increase: zero. Number of times he
has done so in 1995 and 1996, when Republicans have
controlled Congress, 47. Number of congressional hearings
Democrats held on the minimum wage in 1993 and 1994: zero.
____

WASHINGTON, MARCH 22, 1989

Debating Government-Mandated Wage Controls

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2 and
in support of the Goodling-Penny-Stenholm bipartisan
substitute which is endorsed by President Bush.
No less a liberal bastion than the New York Times has
supported President Bush's arguments that the substantial
increase in the minimum wage being urged here today is a bad
idea. In an editorial today, the New York Times said, ``An
increased minimum wage is no answer to poverty.''
On January 14, 1987, the New York Times--in an editorial
titled, ``The Right Minimum Wage: Zero,'' set out in great
detail the arguments in favor of expanded opportunity for the
working poor--and against the minimum wage. I'd like to share
a portion of the Times editorial with you now, because it is
right on target in this current debate.
The Federal minimum wage has been frozen at $3.35 an hour
for . . . years. . . . It's no wonder, then, that Edward
Kennedy, the . . . chairman of the Senate Labor Committee, is
being pressed by organized labor to battle for an increase.
No wonder, but still a mistake. . . . [T]here's a virtual
consensus among

[[Page H891]]

economists that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has
passed.
Raising the minimum [wage] by a substantial amount would
price working poor people out of the job market. . . . It
would increase employers' incentives to evade the law,
expanding the underground economy. More important, it would
increase unemployment. . . . If a higher minimum [wage] means
fewer jobs, why does it remain on the agenda of some
liberals? . . . Perhaps the mistake here is to accept the
limited terms of the debate. The working poor obviously
deserve a better shake. But it should not surpass our
ingenuity or generosity to help some of them without hurting
others. . . . The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome
poverty is old, honorable--and fundamentally flawed. It's
time to put this hoary debate behind us, and find a better
way to improve the lives of people who work very hard for
very little.
That is what the New York Times has said. Frankly, Mr.
Chairman, I could not have put it better myself.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I direct the attention of our colleagues to
this policy statement on wage and price controls issued by the House
Policy Committee on May 21, 1996.

House Republicans are committed to higher take-home pay and
better job opportunities for low-income Americans. We
strongly support policies to give low-income Americans
increased wages and improved chances to find work. But we are
against government-mandated wage and price controls that
destroy jobs and hurt the economy.
President Nixon concluded, after leaving the Presidency,
that the wage and price controls initiated during his
Administration were a serious mistake. During much of the
1970s, the President and Congress imposed harsh wage and
price controls on most sectors of the economy. These policies
were disastrous for the long-term economy and failed to meet
even short-term goals, instead contributing to the
``stagflation''--economic stagnation coupled with runaway
inflation--for which the Carter era is known. By destroying
economic opportunity, these policies dimmed the American
Dream for millions.
All this changed in 1981, when, as one of his first actions
as President, Ronald Reagan ended the remaining Carter price
controls. His action became the first element of a
coordinated economic program of deregulation, the end of
price and wage controls, elimination of trade barriers, an
inflation-fighting monetary policy, and tax cuts to encourage
economic growth and increase the take-home pay of all
Americans. Ronald Reagan's economic policy ushered in the
longest peacetime economic expansion in American history.
Echoing Ronald Reagan, Candidate Bill Clinton promised in
1992 to balance the budget, cut taxes for the middle class,
and ``grow'' the economy. But once in office, he signed into
law the largest tax increase in American history, stifling
economic growth. In 1995, the economy grew at a sickly 1.5%.
Clinton's vetoes of spending cuts insure continued deficits
well into the 21st century. Then, having succeeded in
implementing this tax-and-spend agenda--without a single
Republican vote in the House or Senate--he sought to
nationalize our health care system by placing a bureaucrat in
nearly every health care decision, levying taxes on
``excessive'' health care benefits, and imposing price
controls to ration health care for every American.
Republicans strongly opposed to Clinton's effort to impose
price controls on one-seventh of our national economy. That
principled opposition to government controls on the health
care system contributed measurably to the 1994 election of
the first Republican Congress in 40 years.
Government should not--indeed, cannot--rationally determine
the prices of labor, goods, or services for health care,
energy, or any other industry in a free market economy. In
the 1970s, when the federal government imposed price controls
on gasoline, the result was shortages and long lines. By
attempting artificially to fix the price of gasoline,
government ensured we got less of it. Wage controls have
precisely the same effect. ``Raise the legal minimum price of
labor above the productivity of the least skilled workers,``
the New York Times editorialized when the Democrats
controlled Congress, ``and fewer will be hired.'' Their
editorial was headlined, ``The Right Minimum wage: $0.00.''
The politically liberal editorial policy of the New York
Times caused them to ask: ``If a higher minimum means fewer
jobs, why does it remain on the agenda of some liberals?''
Their answer: the liberal arguments aren't convincing--
particularly since ``those at greatest risk from a higher
minimum would be young, poor workers, who already face
formidable barriers to getting and keeping jobs.''
Because in so many cases the minimum wage jobs that will be
lost are the all-important first jobs--the jobs that give
young Americans the experience, the discipline, and the
references they need to move to better, higher-paying jobs in
the future--an imprudent increase in the minimum wage would
contribute to cycles of poverty and dependence.
Such government focus on starting wages is especially
misguided since low paying, entry-level jobs usually yield
rapid pay increases. According to data compiled by the Labor
Department, 40% of those who start work at the minimum wage
will receive a raise within only four months. Almost two-
thirds will receive a raise within a year. After 12 months'
work at the minimum wage, the average pay these workers earn
jumps to more than $5.50 an hour--a 31 percent increase.
In a very real sense, the minimum wage is really a starting
wage--the pay an unskilled, inexperienced worker can expect
on first entering the work force. Once these workers have a
foot on the employment ladder, their hard work and abilities
are quickly rewarded. But these rewards can only be earned if
workers can find that all-important first job. Consider who
earns the minimum wage. According to the Labor Department,
half are under 25 years of age, often high school or college
students. Sixty-three percent work part time. Sixty-two
percent are second income earners. And fully 80 percent live
in households with incomes above the poverty level. Even
Labor Secretary Robert Reich, in a 1993 memorandum to now-
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, admitted that ``most minimum
wage earners are not poor.'' But while undue increases in
the minimum wage do little to help the poor, curtailing
unskilled employment opportunities will exacerbate
poverty.
Bill Clinton himself has argued against raising the minimum
wage. In 1993, he called it ``the wrong way to raise the
incomes of low-income workers.'' He was right: according to
Labor Department statistics, half a million jobs were lost in
the two years following the last increase in the minimum
wage. In the year after the minimum wage was increased, 15.6
percent fewer young men (aged 15-19), and 13 percent fewer
women, had jobs. Over three-fourths of the 22,000 members of
the American Economics Association believe a minimum wage
increase would lead to a loss in jobs. Many estimates of the
cost of raising the minimum wage exceed one half of a million
jobs lost. One such study, by Michigan State University
Professor David Neumark and Federal Reserve Economist William
Wascher, estimates a loss between 500,000 and 680,000 jobs.
``The primary consequence of the minimum wage law is not an
increase in the incomes of the least skilled workers,''
liberal economists William Bumble and Clinton Federal Reserve
appointee Alan Blinder recently wrote, ``but a restriction of
their employment opportunities.'' An increase would also be
an unfunded mandate on every State locality in America.
According to the Congressional Budget office, the minimum
wage increase will cost state and local governments (that is
taxpayers) $1.4 billion over five years.
President Clinton did not raise the issue of minimum wage
publicly during 1993 or 1994, when the Democrats controlled
the Congress. Congressional Democrats, likewise, failed to
hold even a single hearing on the minimum wage during that
same period. The Democrat devotion to this issue in 1996 is
entirely political--and, as the New York Times editorialized,
inexplicable for liberals who care about the working poor.
The snare and delusion of wage and price controls must not
distract us from the fundamental economic and fiscal policy
reforms necessary to expand our economy and create good job
opportunities for all Americans. A balanced budget, tax
relief for workers and small business, and regulatory relief
from unnecessary government red tape offer the surest means
of steering our economy toward lasting growth. Comprehensive
welfare reform that promotes work and breaks the cycle of
dependency can go far toward restoring the natural incentives
for individual responsibility and personal growth. And
redoubled efforts to focus our educational resources in the
classroom--where educators, parents, and students exercise
control over learning rather than taking dictation from
federal and state governments--can pave the way for a better
trained and more employable workforce for the future.
These solid Republican policies will lead us to a better,
stronger America. Wage and price controls, in contrast, are
premised on the notion that government fiat can raise wages
without cost--a notion that fails both in theory and in fact.
It is individual initiative rather than government
beneficiaries that creates wealth, jobs, and a higher
standard of living for all Americans.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I
oppose the H.R. 3846, a bill to raise the federally-mandated minimum
wage. Raising living standards for all Americans is an admirable goal,
however, to believe that Congress can raise the standard of living for
working Americans by simply forcing employers to pay their employees a
higher wage is equivalent to claiming that Congress can repeal gravity
by passing a law saying humans shall have the ability to fly.
Economic principles dictate that when government imposes a minimum
wage rate above the market wage rate, it creates a surplus ``wedge''
between the supply of labor and the demand for labor, leading to an
increase in unemployment. Employers cannot simply begin paying more to
workers whose marginal productivity does not meet or exceed the law-
imposed wage. The only course of action available to the employer is to
mechanize operations or employ a higher-skilled worker whose output
meets or exceeds the ``minimum wage.'' This, of course, has the
advantage of giving the skilled worker an additional (and government-
enforced) advantage over the unskilled worker. For example, where
formerly

[[Page H892]]

an employer had the option of hiring three unskilled workers at $5 per
hour or one skilled worker at $16 per hour, a minimum wage of $6
suddenly leaves the employer only the choice of the skilled worker at
an additional cost of $1 per hour. I would ask my colleagues, if the
minimum wage is the means to prosperity, why stop at $6.65--why not
$50, $75, or $100 per hour?
Those who are denied employment opportunities as a result of the
minimum wage are often young people at the lower end of the income
scale who are seeking entry-level employment. Their inability to find
an entry-level job will limit their employment prospects for years to
come. Thus, raising the minimum wage actually lowers the employment and
standard of living of the very people proponents of the minimum wage
claim will benefit from government intervention in the economy!
Furthermore, interfering in the voluntary transactions of employers
and employees in the name of making things better for low wage earners
violates citizens' rights of association and freedom of contract as if
to say to citizens ``you are incapable of making employment decisions
for yourself in the marketplace.''
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish my opposition to this bill to be
misconstrued as counseling inaction. Quite the contrary, Congress must
enact ambitious program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to remove
government-created obstacles to job growth. For example, I would have
supported the reforms of the Fair Labor Standards Act contained in this
bill had those provisions been brought before the House as separate
pieces of legislation. Congress should also move to stop the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from implementing
its misguided and unscientific ``ergonomics'' regulation. Congress
should also pass my H.J. Res. 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act,
which repeals Post Office regulations on the uses of Commercial Mail
Receiving Agencies (CMRAs). Many entrepreneurs have found CMRAs a
useful tool to help them grow their businesses. Unless Congress repeals
the Post Office's CMRA regulations, these businesses will be forced to
divert millions of dollars away from creating new jobs into complying
with postal regulations!
Because one of the most important factors in getting a good job is a
good education, Congress should also strengthen the education system by
returning control over the education dollar to the American people. A
good place to start is with the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R.
935), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for K-
12 education expenses. I have also introduced the Education Improvement
Tax Cut (H.R. 936), which provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for
donations to private school scholarships or for cash or in-kind
contributions to public schools.
I am also cosponsoring the Make College Affordable Act (H.R. 2750),
which makes college tuition tax deductible for middle-and-working class
Americans, as well as several pieces of legislation to provide
increased tax deductions and credits for education savings accounts for
both higher education and K-12. In addition, I am cosponsoring several
pieces of legislation, such as H.R. 1824 and H.R. 838, to provide tax
credits for employers who provide training for their employees.
My education agenda will once again make America's education system
the envy of the world by putting the American people back in control of
education and letting them use more of their own resources for
education at all levels. Combining education tax cuts, for K-12, higher
education and job training, with regulatory reform and small business
tax cuts such as those Congress passed earlier today is the best way to
help all Americans, including those currently on the lowest rung of the
economic ladder, prosper.
However, Mr. Speaker, Congress should not fool itself into believing
that the package of small business tax cuts will totally compensate for
the damage inflicted on small businesses and their employees by the
minimum wage increase. This assumes that Congress is omnipotent and
thus can strike a perfect balance between tax cuts and regulations so
that no firm, or worker, in the country is adversely effected by
federal policies. If the 20th Century taught us anything it was that
any and all attempts to centrally plan an economy, especially one as
large and diverse as America's, are doomed to fail.
In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that while it may make
them feel good to raise the federal minimum wage, the real life
consequences of this bill will be vested upon those who can least
afford to be deprived of work opportunities. Therefore, rather than
pretend that Congress can repeal the economic principles, I urge my
colleagues to reject this legislation and instead embrace a program of
tax cuts and regulatory reform to strengthen the greatest producer of
jobs and prosperity in human history: the free market.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I would like take the time to
express to you my significant concern over the current debate which is
occurring in Washington regarding increasing the minimum wage. The
impact of a $1.00 per hour increase in the minimum wage on rural
hospitals would be devastating. The impact on direct payroll alone
could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. What is impossible to
estimate is the impact that it will have on other hospital costs, for
example, food costs, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, and utilities.
Where is it anticipated these funds will come from?
At many rural hospitals, over 80% of the patients they treat are
beneficiaries of either the Medicare or Medicaid program. Certainly,
unless reimbursement levels are increased under these programs, there
is no source for providing the funds that a minimum wage increase would
require. The remaining 20% of patients that rural hospitals serve are
largely charity patients, for whom there is no reimbursement, or
private sector patients whose reimbursement is fixed under managed care
agreements.
The minimum wage issue is a glaring example of the concerns which are
frequently expressed about unfunded mandates--Congress cannot continue
to impose higher levels of cost on rural hospitals without increasing
reimbursements under the Medicare and Medicaid programs by a like
amount. Continuing to proceed with unfunded mandates will simply bring
about the demise of rural health care, unless some method of relief is
instituted.
Our rural hospitals have suffered enough. Before casting your vote on
the minimum wage bill, I urge my colleagues to contact your rural
hospitals to hear first hand the devastating impact an increase in the
minimum wage would have upon them.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, raising the minimum wage is touted
as a way to help many blue-collar workers. And there are millions of
others who earn more than the proposed minimum wage increase but who
still struggle to make ends meet.
Reform of our immigration policies would help all these workers.
Each year, almost a million legal immigrants enter the United States.
Of these, about 300,000 lack a high school education. This policy
destroys the opportunities of American workers with a similar education
level.
Our immigration policy should create opportunities for those in the
workforce. But it does the opposite.
The National Academy of Sciences concluded in a study that
competition from immigration was responsible for ``about 44 percent of
the total decline in relative wage[s] of high school drop outs.''
The Center for Immigration Studies calculated that ``immigration may
reduce the wages of the average native in a low-skilled occupation by .
. . $1,915 a year.'' It concluded that: ``Reducing the flow of less-
skilled immigrants who enter each year would . . . have the desirable
effect of reducing job competition between more established immigrants
and new arrivals for low-wage jobs.''
The RAND Corporation reported that in California, ``the widening gap
between the number of jobs available for non-college-educated workers
and the increasing number of new non-college-educated immigrants
signals growing competition for jobs and, hence, a further decline in
relative earnings at the low end of the labor market.''
The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by former
Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, found that ``immigration of unskilled
immigrants comes at a cost to unskilled U.S. workers . . .''
The Brookings Institution published a paper concluding that
``immigration has had a marked adverse impact on the economic status of
the least skilled U.S. workers . . .''
Think of a single mother barely surviving in a minimum wage job who
sees her annual wages depressed by $,2000 because she must compete with
more and more unskilled immigrants. She might even be a recent
immigrant seeking a better life for herself and her children. Or think
of the recent welfare recipient struggling to keep his first job.
Think what they could do for themselves and their children with that
lost money--buy a used car, put a down payment on a modest home, fix
the furnace before winter comes. Or think what will happen if they
actually lose their jobs because of the never-ending competition from
new arrivals.
The $1,915 reduction in wages that competition with immigrants costs
low-skilled workers equals a $1 increase in the minimum wage.
To be certain, it is not the immigrants themselves who are to blame
and who understandably want to come to America. But who knows how many
people have been hurt by the unintended consequences of our outdated
immigration policy?
No one should complain about the plight of the working poor or the
persistence of minority unemployment or the levels of income inequality
without acknowledging the unintended consequences of our present
immigration policy and the need to reform it.

[[Page H893]]

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I support a raise in the minimum wage. The
fact of the matter is that this is an issue on which we can no longer
drag our feet. Each month that passes without a minimum wage increase
means another paycheck that falls short of keeping hard working people
out of poverty.
However, there are some provisions in the Republican bill which
concern me greatly. Therefore, I support both of the Democratic
amendments being offered to this legislation which would rectify
language I find troublesome. The first amendment would strike the
provision of the bill that permits states to opt-out of any increase in
the federal minimum wage above the current level of $5.15 per hour. The
opt-out language included in the bill is simply an underhanded method
of undermining an increase in the minimum wage. Hard working people
can't ``opt-out'' of living in poverty; states should not be able to
effectively ignore this initiative by opting out of paying a decent
wage.
The second amendment would mandate that the $1 increase would take
effect over two years rather than three. Let's be frank, raising the
minimum wage by $1 is helpful, but still only restores the purchasing
power of this wage to what it was in 1982. Making workers wait for
three years rather than two to actually reap the benefits of this raise
is almost adding insult to injury, working people need--and deserve--to
see a prompt implementation of this legislation.
Unlike many other legislative initiatives, raising the platform for
workers' wages would actually benefit those who need it most. Fifty-
seven percent of the gains from the last minimum wage increase assisted
families at the bottom 40 percent of the income scale.
Many of the arguments that we have heard repeatedly from those who
are against raising the minimum wage simply do not hold water.
Opponents of this legislation maintain that teenage workers are the
only people to benefit from a raise in the minimum wage. However, 70
percent of minimum wage workers are over the age of 20, and 40 percent
are the sole breadwinners in their families. Therefore, this myth
should be put to rest so that we can finally focus on helping working
families.
Beyond the purely financial hardships faced by minimum wage earners,
we can not forget the cultural and family ramifications as well. The
work schedules maintained by parents in many households erode time and
attention they could be spending on their children. Despite working
longer hours and sending more family members into the workforce,
minimum wage workers are increasingly less able to hold onto what were
once considered the essential elements of a middle class life. I'm not
talking about extravagant living, but rather comfortable economic
survival--a roof over your head, some food on the table, and the
ability to spend quality time with family.
Simply stated, the disturbing trend of the wealthiest Americans
grabbing the lion's share of income gains must be put to an end.
Raising minimum wage is a much needed, positive step toward closing the
income gap. It is time that the workers who are largely responsible for
the day to day operations to finally get fair compensation for their
hard work.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 3846, the
GOP's feeble attempt to raise the minimum wage and H.R. 3081, the Wage
and Employment Growth Act. I cannot support this half-hearted gesture
that gives our lowest-paid workers a mere $1 per hour increase over
three years when the Democratic alternative would have offered these
workers $1 per hour increase over a two-year period and would have
eliminated the top-heavy Republican tax cuts. Unfortunately, the
leadership did not allow for debate and a vote on the Democratic
alternative. The Wage Growth and Opportunity Act is a misleading title.
This bill actually gives tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans but is
disguised as offsetting the effects of a minimum wage increase on small
businesses. I will not support this misleading and reckless bill.
Studies have shown that increasing the minimum wage does not have a
discernable impact on small businesses as some would have you believe.
But given that the sponsors of the tax proposal want the American
taxpayers to believe that a minimum wage increase can hurt small
businesses, then we must scrutinize the bill on the floor of the House
today.
H.R. 3081 does little for small businesses but does much for the
wealthiest one percent of Americans. While the GOP intends to prolong a
minimum wage increase, and thus lower the benefit from an increase, it
also wants to provide $123 billion in tax breaks to the wealthy. It
does this through estate tax relief for the wealthy and pension changes
that benefit those who contribute $10,000 per year to their 401(k)
plans.
Nearly 65 percent of H.R. 3081 is dedicated to reducing the estate
tax for all estates. Only a small fraction of estate taxes are paid on
small businesses included in estates. This bill has little bearing on
small businesses and has nothing to do with the minimum wage. The
estate tax provisions in this bill are targeted to wealthy individuals
who don't even own small family businesses. I'd hardly consider
Microsoft a small business, yet Bill Gates will reap a $6 billion tax
break from H.R. 3081.
We still don't have a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors,
yet our legislative leadership is asking Congress to squander billions
of dollars on those who don't need it. We also don't have a plan in
place to shore-up Social Security for future retirees. I suggest to my
colleagues that we take a close look at our legislative priorities
prior to enacting such irresponsible tax cuts.
The tax cuts proposed today grow over time and are permanent. The
minimum wage bill is not permanent and does not grow with the rate of
inflation. The Republican tax bill over ten years is nearly eleven
times greater than their proposed minimum wage increase. Clearly, the
tax bill before us today is a gift to the wealthy at the expense of our
minimum wage workers and seniors.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the GOP minimum wage and tax bill and
give minimum wage workers $1 per hour increase over two year, not
three.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to stand
up for America's working families.
Today we will vote on a measure that will affect millions of people
across America. Unfortunately, the Republicans want to use this
opportunity to instantly give another tax break to the wealthy and make
working families wait three years for a complete increase in the
minimum wage.
The Republicans will do anything they can to avoid raising the
minimum wage. Last year, even while they raised their own pay, they
refused to allow a vote on a measure to raise it. This year, the
Republicans say they will raise the minimum wage one dollar over three
years, but only if they can hand out $122 billion in tax breaks skewed
to the most affluent in our society.
Instead of letting Democrats introduce a tax substitute which
provides more relief to family farms and small businesses, the
Republicans are standing behind a bill which would give the top one
percent of all taxpayers almost three-quarters of the tax reduction. As
a cosponsor of the Small Business Tax Relief Act, I am proud to say
that, under our bill, family farms and small businesses worth up to $4
million would pay no estate tax at all.
I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic Small Business Tax
Relief Act and to enact a minimum wage increase over two years. It is
time to take care of America's working men and women.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
increasing the minimum wage. A real increase in the minimum wage is
long-overdue. In a period of unprecedented economic expansion, every
worker should reap the benefits of the booming economy. The real issue
here is a much-deserved minimum wage hike, and Congress must ensure
that every minimum wage worker receives the increase our economy can
surely afford.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets the current minimum wage at
$5.15 per hour. This is unacceptably low. At $5.15 per hour, a minimum
wage worker who is employed 40 hours per week for 52 weeks will earn a
mere $10,712 a year. This is approximately $1,000 below the poverty
level for a family of two. We cannot continue to sit idly by while
working families struggle in a growing economy. Increasing the minimum
wage to $6.15 per hour will help fulfill our moral obligation to
working people--the obligation to pay a living wage.
Mr. Speaker, the global strength of the United States and the
strength of our economy is due to the strength of our labor force.
Full-time, working families should not be allowed to fall below the
poverty level. It is time that we give the workers who help run this
nation and fuel our economy just compensation for their work.
Beyond this, the need to pay a fair minimum wage to the average
American worker is crucial to the overall success of our country's
economy. Since the last minimum wage increase in 1996, the economy has
created new jobs at a pace of over 250,000 per month; the inflation
rate has been cut nearly in half; and the unemployment rate has fallen
to 4.4 percent. By raising the minimum wage, we will give monetary
merit to the workers who are responsible for this unprecedented growth
and increase their purchasing power.
The impact from the last minimum wage increase is clear: 10 million
workers got a raise, and there is no evidence that jobs were lost.
Furthermore, economic studies find no negative effect of the minimum
wage on employment. In fact, recent research has even suggested that
higher wages can increase employment because they improve employers'
ability to attract, retain, and motivate workers. Finally, recent
increases in the minimum wage have helped reduce the welfare caseload
by increasing the incentive to work.
While I do not believe that an increase in the minimum wage should
have to be tied to

[[Page H894]]

a tax cut, I do support the provisions of this particular small
business tax package. Specifically, this bill contains important estate
tax relief for small business and family farms. I have fought for
repeal of this egregious tax since I came to Congress, and I am happy
today to finally see some meaningful relief.
In addition to estate tax relief, this bill would increase
contribution and benefit limits for retirement plans, enabling more
Americans to save for their future. It also increases business meal
deductions to 60% and accelerates the 100% deduction for health
insurance for the self-employed and increases the deduction for the
purchase of business equipment. Perhaps one of the most important
provisions of the tax portion with regard to small businesses is the
repeal of a current law prohibiting businesses that use accrual
accounting methods from selling assets in installments and spreading
out their tax liability. Unfortunately, this provision was part of a
larger tax relief bill passed last year and has proven to be
detrimental to small businesses. As a cosponsor of H.R. 3594, the
Installment Tax Correction Act, legislation which would repeal this
penalty, I am happy to lend my support to this important provision.
Finally, the tax portion of today's bill would also authorize the
creation of fifteen new ``renewal communities'' that would be eligible
for various tax breaks and would increase the low-income housing tax
credit.
Mr. Speaker, the critical issue at stake today is a much-needed
increase in the minimum wage. The minimum wage plays an important role
in ensuring that all workers share in the growing economy, and there
are numerous reasons for an increase. I call on my colleagues today to
support this much-needed legislation and help ensure that no working
American will have to live in poverty.
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a minimum wage
increase over two years and in opposition to an unjustifiable tax
break.
Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage has significantly improved the quality
of life for American Working families. And yet, the majority of
Republicans in Congress have consistently opposed or worked to
eviscerate the minimum wage.
Today we see Congressional Republicans bowing to significant pressure
to raise the minimum wage--but offering a minimum wage bill that as
their leadership recently acknowledged, raises the minimum wage as
little as possible over the longest possible period of time. It would
also provide numerous exemptions for certain categories of workers and
allow states to opt out of the minimum wage increase. I find such an
attack on America's working families to be indefensible.
That is bad enough, but the Republican House Leadership will also
attempt to either kill or take advantage of a minimum wage bill by
linking it to a tax package, provides that $122 billion in tax breaks
to some of the wealthiest families in the country. Three quarters of
the tax breaks in this bill would go to the one percent of the American
people with incomes of more than $300,000. If that is not class
warfare, I don't know what is.
The bill's supporters argue that the tax breaks are necessary to
offset the cost to small businesses of increasing the minimum wage.
Since the Republican proposal provides eleven dollars in tax cuts for
every one dollar in increased wages, that argument rings false.
Moreover, the Republican tax package is back-loaded, which means that
the bill's impact on the federal budget will not be fully felt for many
years to come. It puts another massive dent in the projected budget
surplus before Congress has adopted a plan to save Social Security, a
plan to preserve Medicare, a play to provide a Medicare prescription
drug benefit, a plan for paying down the national debt, or even a
budget plan for the coming fiscal year. While the substance of the tax
bill is unacceptable, the timing of this tax cut is inexplicable.
I urge my colleague to reject this unwise approach. Let's pass a
clean minimum wage increase--or barring that, let's pass a tax break
package that helps the struggling ``Mom and Pop'' businesses on Main
Street, not the folks already living on Easy Street. I urge my
colleagues to vote against the bill and in favor of a motion to
recommit with instructions.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support
for giving the American people a raise. I share the belief of millions
of Americans who strongly believe anyone who works hard should be
rewarded by receiving wages that not only allow them to subsist and
survive, but to feed, clothe, house and support their families. Working
Americans should not have to live in poverty or turn to federal
assistance to subsist. The simple idea that hard work should be
rewarded is a fundamental American value. I would note a recent ABC
news poll shows 83 percent of Americans support a higher minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage must keep pace with the changing value
of the dollar. The value of today's minimum wage is 21 percent less
than it was in 1979. At a minimum, it is time to raise the minimum wage
by $1.00 over two years. In my opinion, it should be raised higher
still. Raising the minimum wage to $6.15 over two years simply restores
the value of the minimum wage to 1982's level.
Currently, a full-time minimum wage worker earns $10,700 per year
$3,200 below the poverty level. Forty percent of minimum wage workers
are sole breadwinners for their families. The Traficant-Martinez
amendment would directly benefit nearly 10 million workers nationwide,
400,000 in Michigan alone.
The Republican leadership has worked hard to prevent a real minimum
wage increase, tying the minimum wage to a fiscally irresponsible tax
cut the President has promised to veto. In place of a helpful wage
package, they also have offered a watered down minimum wage increase
that provides little immediate assistance to workers and, for some
ludicrous reason, allows states to opt out. These deceptive attempts to
dupe the American public only shortchange those Americans at the bottom
of the pay scale and help corporate businesses and special interest
groups. Mr. Speaker, let's not play politics with hard working
Americans' salaries. Let's give workers a real raise.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time for
general debate has expired.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House
Report 106-516.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Traficant

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Amend section 1 to read as follows:

SECTION 1. MINIMUM WAGE.

Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not
less than--
``(A) $5.15 an hour beginning September 1, 1997,
``(B) $5.65 an hour during the year beginning April 1,
2000, and
``(C) $6.15 an hour beginning April 1, 2001;''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 434, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed each will
control 15 minutes.
Does the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) seek time in
opposition?
Mr. BALLENGER. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will have the time in
opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), the coauthor of this
amendment, and as he walks down the aisle, I want to thank him for
coming to my district some 15 years ago and helping to save many family
homes in my valley. I consider the gentleman to be one of the great
Democrats in the House, and I am proud to have him as a coauthor.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant) for his kind remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague in Ohio in offering an
amendment that will raise the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years.
The last time Congress raised the minimum wage was back in 1996. This
amendment raises the minimum wage in two steps, the first is to $5.65
an hour beginning April 1, 2000 and the second is to $6.15 an hour
beginning April 1, 2001.
Let me put it in simple terms, Mr. Speaker. A $1 increase in the
minimum wage is enough for a family of four to buy groceries for 7
months or pay rent for 5 months. Now, one of my colleagues said we are
trying to promote prosperity and happiness. I can tell my colleagues
that we are not trying to promote prosperity; but for sure, coming from
a poor family, I can say that when there is a little more on the table,
or the landlord is not knocking at the door for the rent, yes, it
brings a lot of happiness.
Now, I would have preferred that we were debating a clean minimum-
wage bill, one free of special-interest exemptions, but reality
dictates otherwise. American men and women cannot and should not have
to wait any longer for

[[Page H895]]

Congress to provide them with a living wage. This increase is long
overdue. It is unacceptable to delay the American worker this pay raise
even one additional year. A 3-year increase, as proposed by the bill,
would cost a full-time, year-round worker more than $900 over 2 years.
Now, $900 may not sound like a lot of money to Members of Congress, but
to millions of Americans who make a minimum wage, it can sometimes make
the difference in raising them above the poverty level.
America has achieved the longest period of economic growth in our
entire history, Mr. Speaker. It is time, with the lowest unemployment
rates in 30 years, with the lowest poverty rates in 20 years, that we
provide a decent wage to working men and women, the very people who
made this economic growth possible. Why must these people, these men
and women, wait for even 1 more year?
There are nearly 12 million American workers who depend on us today
to do the right thing. Will we do the right thing and provide them with
a step up to a better future for their families and their children?
Will we provide these families a chance to pursue the American Dream?
Mr. Speaker, it is embarrassing for the richest Nation in the world,
the most powerful Nation in the world, the most advanced Nation in the
world to have a minimum wage that falls below the level needed to keep
a family out of poverty.
I urge every Member, and I especially urge Members on the other side
of the aisle, to show that compassion that I know they can show and
take a stand for working families in this country.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friends,
and I would like to apologize to them ahead of time.
We have heard so much discussion today from the proponents of the
increase about a higher minimum wage lifting the working poor out of
poverty. But the proposed increase will have little impact on low-
income families because few workers actually support families under the
minimum wage. The minimum wage is typically paid to individuals who are
just entering the workforce, the overwhelming majority of whom are
young, single, and childless.
According to the statistics, or the data that we get from the U.S.
Census Bureau, 37 percent of those who benefited from the last-minimum
wage increase were young people living with their parents.

{time} 2015

Some 85 percent either live with their parents, or are single and
childless, or living alone, or have a working spouse. Only one in ten
minimum wage earners is trying to support a family. In reality, the
minimum wage is a poorly targeted issue for anti-poverty as a tool.
The proponents of a higher minimum wage increase seem to suggest that
entry-level employees work for years without a wage increase. But
according to recent research, the vast majority of those who start at
the minimum wage do not remain there long. Nearly two-thirds of minimum
wage workers move above the minimum wage within one year of working.
The majority of minimum wage workers use entry level positions to gain
experience and acquire the skills necessary to move ahead in better
paying jobs.
Those employees who do not quickly advance beyond the minimum wage
tend to be the least skilled, the least educated, and the least
experienced workers. Typically, those are the most vulnerable in terms
of losing their jobs or having their hours of work reduced. Research
has shown that the minimum wage increases shift many jobs from low-
skilled adults to teenagers and students.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Increasing the minimum wage is an ineffective way of helping those in
need. It is not well targeted at poor families. And while it benefits
some individuals, it will clearly harm others by lessening employment
opportunities.
For the 25 percent of low-wage workers whose families are poor,
hiking the minimum wage too quickly may do more harm than good. Minimum
wage increases cause price increases that disproportionately affect the
poor.
We also heard testimony regarding the disemployment effects of the
higher minimum wage. Witnesses concluded that the net effect of the
minimum wage is to increase the proportion of families that are poor.
In addition, Chairman Greenspan has testified before Congress that
the wage inflation that we may have could derail the booming economy.
The hallmark of the economic good times we enjoy today has been low
inflation. Raising the minimum wage will contribute to raise inflation
at the same time as the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates to
contain the deleterious effects of wage inflation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time is
remaining on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) has 12 minutes remaining.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the dynamic
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, now I know why we are here trying to
convince some of the Members on the other side of the aisle that we
should allow a $1 raise over a 2-year period of time. They really do
not understand.
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) just told us that
there are no real people out there who are working for a minimum wage
that are taking care of families. He said they are teenagers and they
are people just starting in the workplace.
Well, I do not know what he knows about home health care workers,
people who do some of the toughest work who make minimum wages. I do
not know if he knows that many of the people who serve food in our
restaurants, waiters and waitresses, make minimum wage. I do not know
if he knows what is happening in the nursing homes, where they are
taking care of the sick and the elderly, that many of them are on
minimum wage. I do not know if he knows that the airport safety workers
who check us when we go through the metal detectors are making minimum
wage. He does not know that they are elevator operators.
Well, now I know why we must tell this story over and over and over
again. They are ignorant of the facts.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many people here have ever worked at
the minimum wage. I did when it was 65 cents an hour.
I would like to mention, in fact, that in every one of the cases that
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) mentioned, all of these
are going to result in cost increases.
Take day-care. I checked this out at home. The day-care workers that
we have started on the CEDA program and they are now up to $7.50 an
hour, $8 an hour. If we raise the minimum wage, do not tell me that
they are still able to charge the same price for day-care.
So anybody that uses day-care, anybody that uses those services for
the elderly, they are going to all suffer from the increased costs.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Ballenger) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the dynamic
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 2-year increase
in the minimum wage.
Working men and women deserve an immediate increase in the minimum
wage from a meager $5.15 to $6.15 an hour. During these times of
unprecedented economic prosperity, we should do nothing less.
What we really should be talking about, though, is a livable wage, a
living wage, which in Northern California, for example, is $14 an hour.
I also oppose the Republicans' proposal for the tax cut because $123
billion will go to the wealthiest of Americans. This is wrong. Why
should the rich get a tax break while America's lowest wage workers
continue to struggle each and every day to make ends

[[Page H896]]

meet? We should be supporting our lowest wage individuals.
The Republican plan ignores these hard-working men and women. When in
the world are we going to begin to close these huge income disparities
in our country? Income inequality should not exist in a country such as
America.
Let us be fair to working men and women. Let us raise the minimum
wage as soon as possible. At least we should raise it within 2 years.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, since I have more speakers, will the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) yield some of his time to
me as a courtesy?
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished friend
from North Carolina for that gesture. He has always been fair. Even
though we disagree on this, we agree more often than not; and I thank
him.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
New York (Mr. Boehlert).
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this amendment
to raise the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years.
In this era of unprecedented prosperity, we should be both willing
and able to ensure that workers are not left behind.
Now, I have no doubt that we are able to provide this increase. We
live in a wealthy Nation that is in its economic prime, 110 consecutive
months of growth in our economy. We live in a Nation in which
enterprises are starting all the time, in which top executives are
compensated with almost unimaginable sums of money. Sixty-three new
millionaires a day are being created in the Silicon Valley alone. Study
after study has shown that the minimum wage does not cost jobs.
So there is no question that we are able to provide this increase.
The only question is whether we are willing to do so. And the answer
ought to be a resounding ``yes.''
For more than 60 years, the minimum wage has protected the Nation's
workers and, in doing so, has helped the Nation's economy and society
as a whole. But the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation and, in
relative terms, is more minimal than ever.
We should not be abandoning hard-working people, people who often
work long hours in dangerous jobs, at a time when most Americans are
doing so well.
The people at the top of the economic ladder are enjoying this record
prosperity. What about those at the bottom end? Can we not lift them
up? I think the answer should be clearly ``yes.''
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is moderate, it
is affordable, and it is the right thing to do.
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, what we are contemplating here in changing the minimum
wage is in one sense I think unacceptable. I have already expressed my
concerns about doing this audacious thing to believe for just a moment,
even a second, that we in this body know what is the right amount of
money to pay anybody for anything for any job that they do, but now we
are contemplating doing even more damage by reducing the number of
years in which this would occur.
Increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 to $5.65 or $6.15 an hour over
2 years, as has been proposed, would be unparalleled. It would amount
to a 44.7 percent increase in the minimum wage, or $1.90 per hour since
1996, when the minimum wage was $4.25.
Congress has never raised the minimum wage by more than $1.05 per
hour over a 5-year period, and that $1.05 an hour hike occurred between
1978 and 1982, when inflation was increasing by an average of 9.8
percent per year, far more than the 2.5 percent average rate over the
last 5 years.
Now, these are facts. These are economic facts. But I do not expect
them to carry today. Because, of course, this entire debate is not over
economic facts. It is over emotion and what feels good to many of our
colleagues here, their ability to say again that we, this royal ``we''
have somehow increased the minimum wage, when, of course, we are not
doing anything but forcing somebody else to pay an increase in the
minimum wage, not us, not the Congress, are forcing employers to do
that.
And so, it is in a way senseless, I suppose, to try and argue
statistics and facts. The fact is, as has been pointed out more than
once, that most of the people who will actually benefit from such an
increase are not those people most in need, not the ``working poor.''
They will not be the beneficiaries of this move.
But it does not matter. It would not matter I think frankly if not a
single person in America who was accurately classified as the ``working
poor'' were the beneficiary of this particular piece of legislation. If
not a single one of them benefitted, we would still do this. And the
reason, of course, is because it sounds good, it plays well. We know
that.
We know exactly what happens when you take polls on this issue and
you say to the general public, How do you feel about raising the
minimum wage? Do you not think it is only right that somebody should be
making x number of dollars an hour? And the response is always, oh, of
course, sure, absolutely. Because, of course, there is no real
understanding of the economic impact of something like this.
Does anybody really think that this does not have them in the
slightest inflationary tendency or impact? I mean the big ``I'' word,
the thing that scares everybody to death that sends the stock market
into tailspins every time Mr. Greenspan even mentions it,
``inflation.'' ``Inflation.'' But we are doing something here, of
course, that is, in fact, inflationary. It does not matter. It will not
matter because those kinds of arguments will not hold the day.
I know that. I know where this bill is heading. I know where the
votes are. But I have to plead with my colleagues to think carefully
about the steps they take. Because now we are not just talking about
making a huge mistake in, quote, increasing the starting wage, as if we
knew that a dollar an hour over any period of time, a year, 2 years, 3
years, 5 years, as if we knew that that was right. That is what is
amazing about this. We argue it as if we have some understanding of
what this meant, of some internal mechanism in our own minds that says,
yes, of course we know that there is some economic reason for us to do
this, that the economy will prosper, that everybody will be better off
as a result of this. But this is absolutely false, my colleagues,
totally false.
As mentioned before, even when we asked the most prestigious members
of the academy, economists from all over the country who came to
testify, in favor of increasing the minimum wage, by the way, they were
not hostile witnesses in the committee, but when we asked them, on what
basis did you arrive at the conclusion that a dollar was right, they
said, there is no basis.

{time} 2030

There is absolutely nothing. It is just a good, round number. There
is no economic reason for this. There is not even a moral justification
for it. Because, as I say, we will not be improving the lives of the
people that we have heard so much about on the floor of the House
today. In fact, we may be doing damage to them. But we do not know that
because, of course, we are trying to be the unseen hand in the market.
We have made this assumption about the fact that we know exactly how to
adjust the marketplace between an employer and employee.
I do not doubt for a moment that there are people out there working
for perhaps less than they are worth, and I certainly do not doubt for
a moment that there are people out there working for more than they are
worth. We have heard all about these people, heads of companies making
these outrageous sums of money as if this has any relevance whatsoever
to this particular piece of legislation. It of course does not.
But just as we can concede that we do not know what is right for the
highest wage earners to make, it is appropriate for us to concede that
we do not know what is right for the lowest wage earners to make. We
simply do not know that. Let us confess it. Let us tell the people the
truth. We do not know if

[[Page H897]]

a dollar is right over a year, over 2 years, over 3, over 4, we have no
idea. It sounds good, so, therefore, we are going to propose it.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Martinez), my coauthor, to respond to the previous
speaker.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I do not challenge the gentleman from
Colorado's figures. They are probably accurate. But his logic is a
little skewed. Every year the cost of living goes on and almost every
other wage earner is guaranteed at least that cost of living increase,
whether he works for an organized shop or not. But the fact is, that if
the cost of living keeps going on, and you do not raise the minimum
wage, that minimum wage is going to buy less than what it bought last
year and the year before and the year before and so that eventually
they are going to be living in poverty, worse than they are now.
The fact is, that we need to understand the premise of a minimum wage
is to make sure people do not starve to death. That is what it is. All
we are doing is trying to provide them with somewhat of a livable wage.
If what you are saying is allow the marketplace to determine, that does
not even determine, because an employer himself determines.
Every employer, and I was in business, there are other costs that go
up, cost of materials to produce your product, cost of operations in
your facility if it is a service facility that make the price of your
service go up; and you have to increase that to keep up with that. It
is no different with the wage.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a dynamic young Member from the Cleveland area,
doing a great job replacing Lou Stokes, one of our greatest.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant)
for that warm introduction.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment. At a time when our
economy is at its best, why not give those at the bottom of the
economic ladder an opportunity to eat a piece of the bountiful pie?
Currently, a full-time minimum-wage worker makes $10,920, out of which
they must pay all of their expenses. One dollar over 2 years is not all
we would like to have, but it is better than having it over 3 years.
I guess very few Republicans make minimum wage. Otherwise, they would
be screaming on the floor like we are protesting like the Democrats. We
are telling these families, buy your children food. No, wait, wait 3
years, you can buy food in 3 years. No, wait, buy your children shoes
in 3 years. No, wait, get the medicine you need over 3 years. Do not
even try and drive a car because gasoline has increased over the last 6
months more than we are offering an increase in the minimum wage. Bread
costs the same for minimum wage workers. How do they buy it? Eggs cost
the same for minimum wage workers. How do they buy it? Meat costs the
same for minimum wage workers. How will they buy it?
The economic fact is that people are underpaid at minimum wage. The
economic fact is they need more to buy clothing, to buy shoes; and let
us not even think about health care, which they do not get on minimum
wage. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
Mr. SHERWOOD. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment to increase the
Federal minimum wage by $1 over 2 years. Our Nation's economic
expansion came a little late to the 10th Congressional District of
Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, we have too many working Americans in my
district for whom the struggle to afford housing and other basic
necessities is a formidable challenge. That is why I made a commitment
to support a minimum-wage increase.
Since last fall, I have been working with my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to bring about an increase in the minimum wage. The Bureau
of Labor Statistics found that 4 million workers in America earn $5.15
an hour. I have too many of those workers in my district, and their
families are working three jobs to support the family.
Just yesterday, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a report on our
Nation's workers' productivity. In the fourth quarter of 1999, both the
business sector and the nonfarm sector saw productivity rises which
were the largest since the fourth quarter of 1992. Manufacturing
productivity rose at a 10.3 percent annual rate. Our economy has
enjoyed 20 consecutive years of labor productivity. I believe now is
the time for a Federal minimum-wage increase. It has been more than 2
years since we did this.
I am aware that businesses, and I was a businessman for 30 years,
particularly those in the restaurant and the retail industries, will
face higher labor costs. For that reason, I supported the Small
Business Tax Fairness Act of 2000. That includes several key provisions
to provide the needed tax relief to keep these small businesses going,
which have been the engines of our economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to let a little of our unprecedented
prosperity down to the people that work the hardest for their wages.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), a good friend and a powerful fighter for
the military second to none.
Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, there is a line from a very
popular song, ``Harvest for the World.'' It keeps asking the question
rhetorically, why do those who pay the price come home with the least?
When it came time to balance the budget this year, it was done at the
expense of the men and women in uniform. They delayed their pay by 2
days. Again, for a Congressman, no big deal. For a young E-4, a young
E-5 trying to take care of his wife and his kid, that is probably a
weekend when baby formula does not get bought, or the Pampers do not
get bought, and they try to make do as best they can.
I listen to Members of this body say we have to give the senior
citizens a COLA, and everybody votes for it. We have to give the
retirees a COLA. Everybody votes for it. So if we are willing to reward
people for what they have done, why are we not willing to reward people
for what they are doing in some of the crummiest jobs in America? What
this whole amendment is about is 17 cents an hour, the difference
between the Republican proposal and the Democratic proposal. We are
willing to give them that 17 cents a year sooner. If we want people to
value work, then work must have value.
I encourage my colleagues to vote for the Traficant amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the dynamic
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, let us raise the minimum wage. Let us do it
from $5.15 to $6.15 an hour. Let us do it in 2 years, 50 cents this
year and 50 cents next year. My God, imagine. Let us try to string it
out, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would do, 33
cents a year. I wonder if that is what they would do with their raises,
to let it just drift out at 33 cents a year. It is unconscionable. We
have a unique opportunity to do something for hard-working Americans in
this country. This alternative provides that opportunity.
Seventy percent of minimum-wage workers are adults. Sixty percent are
women. Nearly half are full-time workers. There are more than 60,000
people in my own State of Connecticut who rely on a minimum-wage job.
You cannot raise a family on $5.15 an hour even when you work full
time. The minimum wage is the best measure of our willingness to defend
the ideal that if you work hard, if you play by the rules, then you
should be able to support your family and create a better life for your
family. This is about our values, who we are as Americans. Let us pass
a minimum wage; let us do it in 2 years and give these folks a break.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I proudly stand in support of a
minimum-wage increase. The original bill, H.R. 3846, falls short of
meeting the

[[Page H898]]

needs of the American family and that is why the Traficant-Martinez
amendment is needed. A full-time, year-round minimum-wage worker with a
family of three earns about $2,000 less than what is needed to live
above the Federal poverty line. Our economy is the strongest it has
been in years and these American workers deserve to share in our
prosperity.
That is why I support the Democratic substitute by my California and
Ohio colleagues which increases the minimum wage instead of from 3
years to 2 years over the period of time. More than 11.8 million
workers will benefit from this increase. In my home State of Texas,
13.3 percent of the workforce stands to benefit from such an increase,
and that is over 1 million workers. That is why an increase will give
not only my constituents but also hard-working Americans the chance to
earn a livable wage.
We had a great Senator from Texas named Ralph Yarborough. When he
debated the minimum wage, he said, it is time we put the jam on the
lower shelf for the little people.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the fiery gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who tells it like it is.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. Let me be very honest and say that I think a $1-an-hour increase
over a 2-year period is not enough. In my view, we should raise the
minimum wage today to at least $6.50 an hour. The idea, however, of
doing it over a 3-year period is an absolute insult to millions and
millions of low-income workers who are struggling to keep their heads
above water. Let us defeat the Republican proposal. Let us pass the
Traficant amendment.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Ohio is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Speaker, the
Republican leadership and the Republican Party for giving us an
opportunity to bring this amendment. I want to thank the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina for being so fair, which he always is.
Ironically as we bash around here, in the last 4 years there have been
two minimum wage increases and the Republicans were in the majority.

{time} 2045

Quite frankly, I do not like the spin that it is mean spirited by the
Republicans to oppose the minimum wage. I believe they make a valid
argument that inflation could hurt every one of our workers.
Now having made that statement, I think it is time to tell it like it
is. We have people out there that are struggling to make a go of it. We
have gasoline prices now approaching $2.00. We have families that build
the economy, not kill it.
The last minimum wage increase spurred an economic boom for the
following simple reason: Poor people do not have enough money to save.
Poor people spend their money, put their money on the streets and they
grow the economy. This is a growth bill, not a wage increase bill.
Now, I voted earlier today to reduce taxes for a tax break. The
gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and I were the only two
Democrats. Yes, I want to give the boss a break. He deserves it so he
can give a raise to my people who desperately need it. Without an
investor, there is no company. Without a company, there is no worker.
Mr. Speaker, without an entrepreneur, there is no job.
There is reasonableness here, but what I am trying to do today is to
ensure that if this vehicle is vetoed and we revisit it, we will be
revisiting $1.00 over two years. Let me say this: That 17 cents is not
going to kill anybody.
Now I come from a very poor family, and that is not making a
political statement here. Many of my colleagues have. My father finally
got into that middle class maybe when I was about 10, 11 years old. We
had a lot of love, but my dad never worked for a poor man.
We cannot continue to pit rich against poor, old against young, black
against white. This partisanship must end.
I want to commend the Republican Party for reaching out and including
in their bill a minimum wage increase that we thank them for, but we
think it is a little too modest, quite frankly, and we are asking the
Republican Party Members to join with us and pass this amendment.
There is one last statement here. When someone waters the tree, the
big tree, do they water the leaves or do they water the roots?
We cut back on welfare. We must incentivize work and incentivize work
by making work more attractive, making work one that people will aspire
to; moving from dependence to independence, self-actualized lifestyles.
This is more than a minimum wage increase.
I want to commend the Republican Party here. I want to commend their
Speaker. I want to commend each and every one of them for allowing the
gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and I to bring this amendment
and I am asking for the votes from the Republican side of the aisle.
I would say to the gentlemen from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), I want them to consider voting for
this. I am asking them for their vote.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of raising the national
minimum wage by $1.00 over two years. The Traficant amendment to H.R.
3846 accomplishes this goal.
American workers need relief and three years is simply not soon
enough. The Democratic measure increases the minimum wage to $6.15 by
September 1, 2000. Some context is needed for considering this
amendment. In 1998, approximately 4.4 million wage and salary workers,
paid on an hourly basis, earned at or below $5.15 per hour. Today's
minimum wage has 21% less purchasing power that it had in 1979.
According to a recent study by the Economic Policy Institute, some 10.3
million American workers stand to benefit from a new increase in the
minimum wage. Forty percent of minimum wage earners are the sole
breadwinners in their families. The Democratic proposal is patently
more responsive than H.R. 3846 to the needs of America's workers and
should be passed by this body.
I support raising the minimum wage because I believe it will help
ensure work pays more than welfare and assists lower-income families
struggling to make ends meet. Mr. Chairman, lets really think about
what this really means for American families. Minimum wage workers play
a pivotal role in today's economy--caring for our parents and
grandparents in their homes, and for our children in daycare. Under
current law, a single mother of two, employed full-time, 40 hours per
week for 52 weeks, earns $10,712, $3,200 below the poverty line. Work
should be a bridge out of poverty but, unfortunately, there were nearly
3.4 million full-time workers in 1997 who still lived below the poverty
line. We all know that we cannot truly reform our welfare system unless
we ensure that work pays more than welfare and truly allows families to
become self-sufficient. Raising the minimum wage is a critical part of
this equation.
Opponents of this legislation argue that raising the minimum wage
over two years will endanger the longest economic expansion in our
nation's history. If history is an indicator, this is simply not a
reasonable concern. Since the minimum wage increase in 1996, statistics
indicate that employment has actually increased in every sector, even
among those regarded as the most difficult to employ. Further, over the
past two years the minimum wage has increased 90 cents, while the
unemployment and inflation rates have decreased to record lows.
The Traficant amendment is responsive to this labor trend and
provides American workers with much needed relief. Again, the
Department measure is more responsive to the needs of America's workers
than the Republican alternative and should be adopted.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Traficant/
Martinez amendment to H.R. 3846, the ``Minimum Wage Increase'' bill.
This amendment would provide for a real minimum wage increase of $1
over two years, which is so necessary for American workers. By
combining the minimum wage bill with H.R. 3081, a bill that gives $122
billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers, instead of allowing
a clean vote on real minimum wage reform, the Republican leadership has
shown that they only want to pay lip service to this vital pay raise
for America's low-wage workers.
Even though the minimum wage was raised to $5.15/hour in 1996, you
certainly can't raise a family on that salary. At present, a single
person, male or female, working full time, earning the minimum wage and
supporting a family of three, takes in $10,700 a year, placing them
well below the poverty line. In Detroit, an astounding 43% of the
population lives below that poverty line.

[[Page H899]]

Raising the minimum wage is extremely important because we have to
continue to redress the damage inflicted during the 1980's, when
American workers lost 25% of their purchasing power. From 1990 to 1995,
this trend continued and they lost a further 12%. If we really wanted
to match the purchasing power of the minimum wage in 1968, when it
reached its peak, the minimum wage today would be $7.40/hour across the
board.
I joined Representative David Bonior earlier this year in introducing
a bill to raise the minimum wage to $6.15/hour. The increase would
occur in fifty cent increments over two years. This would be an
important first step towards addressing the fundamental economic
injustice resulting from the stagnant wages during the Reagan-Bush era.
The amendment before the House today would provide this real pay
increase which has been delayed so long to working Americans for far
too long.
An increase in the minimum wage would benefit 300,000 people in my
state of Michigan alone. Most of those who earn the minimum wage are
women, and 40% of them are the sole breadwinners of the family.
The 12 million people who earn the minimum wage across the country
are the people who prepare our food, care for our elderly and our
children. Remember an increase in the minimum wage will not only help
close the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, but will
benefit all Americans. Extra buying power will be injected into small
businesses, family stores, and restaurants, stimulating the economy at
the local level and the state level. Through increasing the earnings of
so many families American children will learn the value of hard work--
that it really pays to work hard.
Many of my colleagues from across the aisle have suggested that an
increase in the minimum wage will cost jobs. However numerous studies
have proven that increasing the minimum wage will not cost jobs and the
buoyancy of the American economy ensures this fact. Since the last
minimum wage hike in 1996, unemployment has fallen to its lowest
(official) rate in 25 years, inflation has dropped from 2.5 to 1.7% and
the American economy continues to grow, creating jobs at a historic
high of 250,000 per month.
Americans appreciate the raise too: three polls taken during 1998 by
the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times all showed that 76% to
78% approve the wage increase.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the Trafficant/
Martinez amendment for a real minimum wage increase. The American
people deserve a living wage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246,
noes 179, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 43]

AYES--246

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hyde
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--179

Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehrlich
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Gallegly
Gekas
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf

NOT VOTING--9

Cooksey
Granger
Johnson, E. B.
McCollum
Scarborough
Schaffer
Smith (WA)
Spence
Vento

{time} 2110

Mr. PACKARD, Mr. WHITFIELD, and Mrs. ROUKEMA changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN and Mr. GREENWOOD changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to
House Resolution 434, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as
amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Clay

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CLAY. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Clay moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3846 to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce with instructions to
report the same back to the House with the following
amendments:
Strike sections 2, 3, and 4 of the bill.
At the end of the bill, insert the following section:

[[Page H900]]

SEC. MINIMUM WAGE IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN
MARIANA ISLANDS.

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the provisions
of section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29
U.S.C. 206) shall apply to the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands.
(b) Transition.--
(1) In general.--Nothwithstanding subsection (a), the
minimum wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) shall be $3.55 an
hour beginning on the date that is 30 days after the date of
enactment of this section.
(2) Increases in minimum wage.--
(A) In general.--On the date that is 6 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter,
the minimum wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) shall be
increased by $0.50 per hour (or such a lesser amount as may
be necessary to equal the minimum wage under such section)
until such time as the minimum wage applicable to the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands under this
subsection is equal to the minimum wage set forth in section
6(a)(1) of such Act for the date involved.
(B) Further increases.--With respect to dates beginning
after the minimum wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands is equal to the minimum wage set
forth in section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)), as provided in subparagraph (A),
such applicable minimum wage shall be immediately increased
so as to remain equal to the minimum wage set forth in
section 6(a)(1) of such Act for the date involved.

Mr. CLAY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Clay) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of the
motion to recommit.
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, this motion is to recommit with instructions.
H.R. 3864 repeals overtime pay for millions of employees working in
the computer sales and funeral services industry. These antiworking
provisions, Mr. Speaker, have never been considered by the Committee on
Education and the Workforce in this Congress or evaluated by expert
witnesses to determine what impact they will have on the workforce.
Eliminating overtime means workers will work longer hours for less pay.
In effect, this bill steals time and money from workers.
My motion strikes the provisions of the bill that repeal overtime
pay. It also closes the legal loophole that permits sweat shops to
operate in the Northern Mariana Islands by phasing in the Federal
minimum wage. I urge Members to support this motion to preserve
overtime pay for workers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) in opposition to the motion to instruct.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, first, let me say that I have
jurisdiction over the Marianas. We have reviewed this. We requested a
GAO report and most of the accusations made, in fact all of the
accusations made, by the Interior Department have been proven false. In
fact, the Marianas improved the well-being of their people. I have been
there. It has worked well, and we have made an independent nation out
of the Marianas.

{time} 2115

To have this motion to recommit and enforce this I say undue burden
upon the Marianas would be wrong to those people there. This Congress
said they shall be independent. This would take their independence away
from them. I rise in strong opposition to the motion to recommit.
Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have debated today a very difficult issue. There are
those who are convinced that the wage hike is necessary. There are
those who are convinced that the wage hike is unnecessary. But one
thing that both sides of the aisle agree on, however, is that certain
forward-looking reforms need to be made to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, written in 1938, for the 21st century.
Taking out the three FLSA reforms is not only a purely political act
ignoring the needs of the American workplace, it is also a purely
political act that ignores the bipartisan foundation these three
sensible reforms rest upon.
The bipartisan reform measure that updates the FLSA with respect to
computer professionals is identical to H.R. 3038, a bill introduced by
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).
The bipartisan reform measure reflects the computer professionals'
problem that they are faced with today. The current computer exemptions
which remain require that they be paid $57,000 a year. That does not
sound like a minimum wage problem to me. The reform measure recognizes
the real world and our changing economy by simply updating the current
computer professionals' exemption from the overtime provisions of the
FLSA. The measure simply clarifies existing law.
The second reform measure, dealing with sales employees, is
identical, is identical to the bipartisan Sales Incentives Compensation
Act, H.R. 1302, introduced by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). This measure simply
reflects the changes in the workplace that enable sales employees to be
more productive with modern communications technology. In the 105th
Congress it passed overwhelmingly, with bipartisan support.
The third reform measure is a bipartisan effort. It is identical to
H.R. 793, introduced by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham)
and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). The form simply
exempts licensed funeral directors and embalmers from minimum wage and
overtime, which codifies what the courts have said over and over again,
they are professionals.
The last-minute attempt to strip these minor but important measures
from the bill is a last-minute attempt to score political votes and
points. This 11th hour attempt marginalizes the good-faith efforts of
the Members to deal with difficult issues in a serious way, and I ask
Members to reject the motion to recommit and support the bipartisan
efforts that are in this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without
objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181,
noes 243, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 44]

AYES--181

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan

[[Page H901]]

Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--243

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (IN)
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Burton
Cooksey
Granger
Johnson, E. B.
McCollum
Scarborough
Schaffer
Smith (WA)
Spence
Vento

{time} 2137

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is
on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 282,
noes 143, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 45]

AYES--282

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Buyer
Camp
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill (IN)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--143

Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Biggert
Bliley
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Callahan
Calvert
Campbell
Cannon
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehrlich
Ewing
Fossella
Fowler
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hutchinson
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
Largent
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Nethercutt
Northup
Norwood
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reynolds
Rogan
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Vitter
Walden
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield

NOT VOTING--9

Cooksey
Granger
Johnson, E.B.
McCollum
Scarborough
Schaffer
Smith (WA)
Spence
Vento

{time} 2150

Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page H902]]

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to
section 3 of House Resolution 434, the text of H.R. 3846 will be
appended to the engrossment of H.R. 3081; and H.R. 3846 will be laid on
the table.

____________________