[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 5 (Wednesday, January 10, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H260-H288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 2007

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 508 of House Resolution 
6, I call up the bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage, and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                 H.R. 2

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE.

       (a) In General.--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) $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after the 
     date of enactment of the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007;
       ``(B) $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th 
     day; and
       ``(C) $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th 
     day;''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF MINIMUM WAGE TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF 
                   THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.

       (a) In General.--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.--Notwithstanding 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--
       (1) $3.55 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after the date 
     of enactment of this Act; and
       (2) increased by $0.50 an hour (or such lesser amount as 
     may be necessary to equal the minimum wage under section 
     6(a)(1) of such Act), beginning 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and every 6 months thereafter until the 
     minimum wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands under this subsection is equal to the minimum 
     wage set forth in such section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 508 of House Resolution 
6, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner) each will control 90 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman 
from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am extraordinarily happy to rise in support of this 
legislation. This legislation is very late in coming to this floor as a 
free-standing bill. It is, however, never too late to do the right 
thing.
  This legislation, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, is long overdue. 
I believe it will pass this House today with broad bipartisan support, 
as the 9/11 bill did yesterday, making our country safer.
  At long last, Mr. Speaker, this House is just hours away from finally 
passing a clean increase in the Federal minimum wage and sending this 
legislation to the Senate, where we devoutly hope the Members of the 
other body will do the same without delay.

[[Page H261]]

  H.R. 2 is the second key piece of legislation in the new Democratic 
majority's 100-hours agenda, and we are following through on our pledge 
to the American people to immediately address these critical issues.
  There is probably not a Member of this House who fails to appreciate 
that an American who works full time at today's minimum wage of $5.15 
per hour is essentially living in poverty. That is not right, Mr. 
Speaker. That worker, if he or she works 40 hours per week for 52 
weeks, makes roughly $10,700 per year. If that mom has a child or that 
father has a wife and a child, they are essentially living on $6,000 
less than we determine to be poverty in America.
  Passing this legislation today, which will raise the minimum wage by 
$2.10 per hour to $7.25 in three steps over the next 2 years, is simply 
a matter of doing what is right, what is just and what is fair.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if it were up to me, I would do $7.25 an hour 
now. But we are going to phase this in so that small businesses and 
others can accommodate this raise. But that will mean, Mr. Speaker, 
that those on the minimum wage will still have to wait.
  It has been 9 years and 4 months since the last increase in the 
Federal minimum wage took effect, and that was under President Clinton. 
This represents the longest period without an increase since Congress 
established the minimum wage in 1938, since Congress said we are going 
to have a minimum in the United States that we will pay people and 
respect people who work to make themselves, their families and their 
country better.
  At $5.15 today, the minimum wage level is at its lowest level, 
adjusted for inflation, in over 50 years, half a century. In fact, Mr. 
Speaker, if the minimum wage had been adjusted by a cost of living 
increase on an annual basis since 1968, a minimum wage worker would not 
be making $5.15, would not be making $7.25, but would be making $9.05. 
So, effectively, this raise will be $1.85 less than they would be 
making if it had been raised on a regular basis.
  Meanwhile, just since 2000, the cost of health insurance, gasoline, 
home heating, attending college, food and other related expenses have 
all increased, in fact, for an average family, about $5,000 a year in 
that period of time. Yet the minimum wage worker has not received any 
raise.
  This legislation will benefit literally millions of Americans. An 
estimated 5.6 million Americans who make less than $7.25 per hour will 
directly benefit from this increase. An estimated additional 7.3 
million Americans, including family members of those making less than 
$7.25, will indirectly benefit.

                              {time}  1045

  Now there are those who will claim this legislation will hurt small 
business and the economy. I reject that. I believe history shows that 
that is not the case. In fact, when we raised it in 1997, the economy 
was having one of its most successful periods of time, which continued 
long past the adoption of the minimum wage. In fact, according to one 
recent study, small business employment grew more in States with a 
higher minimum wage between 1997 and 2003 than in Federal minimum wage 
States. In other words, in those States that were paying above the 
$5.15 an hour, their economies grew more and they created more jobs 
than did those States which had frozen their minimum wage at the 
Federal minimum wage.
  In fact, Lee Scott, the chief executive officer of Wal-Mart, has 
stated that the current minimum wage ``is out of date with the times. 
We can see firsthand at Wal-Mart how many of our customers are 
struggling to get by. Our customers simply don't have the money to buy 
basic necessities between paychecks.''
  Now, what is Wal-Mart all about? Wal-Mart is about bringing prices 
down. It is very controversial how they do it, but the fact is they 
know their consumers cannot buy even discounted necessities of life on 
the minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, you and I know that in the richest Nation on the face of 
the Earth, that is wrong.
  In a bipartisan way, and I haven't counted the Republican votes, but 
we are going to get a lot of Republican votes from those who are saying 
to the American people, as we are, we agree with you. Because 89 
percent of the American people, when questioned, believe the minimum 
wage ought to be raised. Eighty-nine percent of the American people. 
And, Mr. Speaker, 83 percent of small businesses say this will not 
adversely affect them.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to pass this legislation. Sixty-four House 
Republicans joined all Democrats here last July in voting for a $7.25 
per hour wage under the vocational education bill.
  There is simply no reason, I suggest to you, not to support this 
legislation. In the United States of America, the richest country on 
the face of the Earth, you should not be relegated to poverty if you 
work hard and play by the rules.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
reasonable bipartisan legislation. The President of the United States 
has indicated that he will sign a minimum wage increase. There may be 
some changes that he wants, but he has recognized, as we will recognize 
today, that it is long past the time when we need to pay people and 
give them the dignity that their work demands and has earned.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller), who has been the leader on this issue in the House of 
Representatives and one of the leaders in the country and who chairs 
the Education and Labor Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California will be permitted to control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, as the minority leader's designee, I claim 
the time in opposition.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate represents a series of colossal missed 
opportunities. The new Democratic leadership of the House promised us 
and the voters a fair, open, honest, and, yes, democratic process in 
considering major pieces of legislation. Instead, today we are stuck 
with unfair, closed and heavy-handed terms for our debate, terms that 
were tucked into an unrelated rules package less than a week ago.
  Not only was that move unprecedented, but it also means that during 
today's debate on a minimum wage increase, what you see is what you 
get. No comprehensive alternative has been allowed. No amendments will 
be considered. In fact, I didn't even get a chance for those types of 
considerations before the Rules Committee because, well, the Rules 
Committee didn't meet on this issue. There was no hearing.
  That is unfortunate because, frankly, there are Members on both sides 
of the aisle who support a balanced minimum wage increase, and this 
bill, this early in the Congress, represented an opportunity to work 
together toward a true, bipartisan, bicameral consensus. But we won't, 
and that is a colossal missed opportunity.
  My colleagues will remember that last summer the Republican majority 
brought forward and passed legislation to increase the Federal minimum 
wage to $7.25 an hour with important considerations for small 
businesses and their workers. Many Democrats joined us in advancing the 
measure. In fact, had a few more on the other side of the Capitol 
supported this measure, today's debate would be unnecessary because the 
minimum wage increase would already have taken place.
  Nonetheless, I was hopeful that when we considered minimum wage 
legislation under the new Democratic majority we would again do so with 
our Nation's small businesses and their workers in mind, particularly 
since both the President and the Senate majority leader have indicated 
their willingness to forge such a consensus. But it is apparent that we 
are not here on this side of the Capitol, and that is a colossal missed 
opportunity. So later in this debate I will offer a motion to recommit 
that would provide them the very protections that the Democratic 
leadership's bill does not.
  Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, my friend, the ranking Republican member on 
the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McCrery from Louisiana, and I 
introduced minimum wage legislation that,

[[Page H262]]

quite frankly, puts the bill before us today to shame. It is a three-
pronged measure that includes the same, the same, minimum wage 
provisions that are in the Democratic leadership's bill.
  As you can see on the chart, here is the unbalanced Democratic plan. 
It does raise the minimum wage. Then the comprehensive Republican plan. 
It also raises the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour over the 2 
years, in precisely the same increments as the Democrat leadership's 
bill.
  Also identical to the Democrat leadership bill, the Working Families 
Wage and Access to Health Care Act that we offered yesterday would 
extend the Federal minimum wage to the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands. We don't stop there, however. But the Democrat 
leadership does, another colossal missed opportunity.
  As you can see, the Working Families Wage and Access to Health Care 
Act not only increases the minimum wage in the same exact manner as 
H.R. 2, but it also would expand access to affordable health care for 
working families, including many families that may benefit from the 
wage increase. The Democratic leadership's scaled-down proposal does 
not include this.
  For the last several Congresses, Republicans and Democrats alike have 
joined together behind legislation that would significantly expand 
access to health coverage for uninsured families across the country by 
creating Small Business Health Plans.
  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of Americans who have 
no health insurance is about 46.5 million. Estimates indicate 60 
percent or more of the working uninsured work for or depend upon small 
employers who lack the ability to provide health benefits for their 
workers. To ease the burden on small businesses and provide meaningful 
benefits to those who work for them, the Working Families Wage and 
Access to Health Care Act would allow small businesses to join together 
and purchase quality health care for workers and their families at a 
lower cost.
  Now, during today's debate, we are likely to hear from our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle about how a certain percentage of the 
American people support a minimum wage increase. By the same token, my 
colleagues also should be aware that a whopping 93 percent of Americans 
support creating small business health plans; and 36 members of their 
own Democratic caucus supported them in the 109th Congress. Doing so 
again during this debate would not only be logical but it would be 
welcome news for scores of uninsured working families. But the 
Democratic leadership's bill won't allow for it, and our bill simply 
isn't allowed at all. A colossal missed opportunity.
  Finally, as you can see, only the Working Families Wage and Access to 
Health Care Act includes a number of other important considerations for 
small businesses and their workers. Small businesses create two-thirds 
of the Nation's new jobs, and 98 percent of the new businesses in the 
U.S. are small businesses. Increasing the minimum wage increases costs 
for small employers, and often they may be forced to respond by 
reducing their number of workers, scaling back benefits or hiring fewer 
new employees.
  Given that small employers are responsible for most of the new jobs 
in our Nation, and practically every new business, why would we do 
anything to endanger their momentum? Well, you would have to ask the 
Democratic leadership, because that is exactly what their proposal 
would do. By offering small businesses and their workers important 
protections, the Working Families Wage and Access to Health Care Act 
would protect American jobs. The House Democratic leadership's scaled-
down minimum wage proposal will not. A colossal missed opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, only the Republican-led Working Families Wage and Access 
to Health Care Act will both raise the minimum wage and protect small 
businesses and their workers. And only the Republican-led Working 
Families Wage and Access to Health Care Act will both raise the minimum 
wage and expand access to affordable health care for working families.
  Unfortunately, due to unfair, closed, and heavy-handed tactics, only 
the scaled-down Democrat leadership plan is before us today. A colossal 
missed opportunity, not just for the House but for working families and 
small businesses as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, when Speaker Pelosi 
spoke about the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, one of the 
things she said she wanted to accomplish was to begin to make the 
economy fairer for all Americans. Today, with this legislation to 
increase the minimum wage, we begin that task.
  For 10 years, the lowest-paid workers in America have been frozen out 
of the economy of this country. They have ended up every year, after 
going to work every day, every week, every month, they have ended up 
poor, far below the poverty line of this country. They have been 
working at a Federal poverty wage, not a Federal minimum wage.
  I am very honored today to be here supporting this legislation as the 
chairman of the Education and Labor Committee. I am also very honored 
to be sharing this legislation with our new majority leader, Mr. Hoyer. 
Because of his activities in the last Congress, we were able to bring 
this issue to a head because of the amendment that he offered on the 
Health and Human Services bill, where the Republicans chose not to 
bring the bill to the floor of the Congress, not to bring it to a vote 
because they wanted to deny American workers access to the minimum 
wage.
  I consider this a new beginning and a new Congress, but I must say I 
cannot let the history that the gentleman from California laid out for 
us to suggest that that is the record. The gentleman has said numerous 
times in his opening statement that this is a colossal missed 
opportunity. Let me tell you what a colossal missed opportunity is. For 
the last 10 years, the Republican leadership in this House fought tooth 
and nail to avoid any, any opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on 
the minimum wage. The only time they thought the poorest workers in 
America were worth an increase in the minimum wage was if they could 
tie it to a tax cut for the wealthiest people in the United States.

                              {time}  1100

  So they never really were interested in it. They wanted to use the 
power of the sense of fairness that the American public had about the 
treatment of the poorest workers. They wanted to use that power, that 
sense of outrage, that sense of immorality that they had about what the 
Republicans were doing, to drive tax cuts for the wealthiest people in 
the country.
  They said they were going to pass the bill and send it to the 
President's desk. We said it was going to die in the Senate, and it 
died in the Senate. And here today we see the same proposal being made. 
They are going to suggest that later today they are going to couple 
minimum wage with the wonderful health care plan for workers.
  Their own CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, says that more than 
75 percent of the small business workers, over 20 million workers and 
their dependents, would see their health insurance premiums increase as 
a result of this proposal. So now they are going to give these workers 
an increase in the minimum wage, but then they are going to increase 
their premiums for health insurance. What a wonderful gift from the 
Republican Party.
  Can't you just give these workers an increase and be done with it? 
They have been working at a 10-year-old minimum wage, but they are 
paying 2007 bread prices and milk prices and energy prices and rentals. 
Where is the decency? Where is the decency to give these workers what 
they are entitled to, what everybody knows that they should have?
  Not only that, but then we find out with this wonderful health plan 
that some 8 million workers who are currently insured will probably 
lose their insurance. So now they are going to, if you get insurance, 
they are going to increase the premiums. If you have insurance, you may 
lose your insurance.
  This isn't what America thinks makes the economy fair. What they

[[Page H263]]

think makes the economy fair is an increase in the minimum wage.
  As you all know, this is the longest period in history of law without 
a wage increase. During that time, the minimum wage has dropped to its 
lowest buying power in 51 years. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 
would increase the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour over three 
steps over the next 2 years.
  Raising the minimum wage is critical to fighting the middle-class 
squeeze in this country. Fifty-nine percent of American workers state 
that they have to work harder to earn a decent living than they did 20 
or 30 years ago. Since 2001, the median household incomes have fallen 
by $1,300. Wages and salaries make up the lowest share of the economy 
in nearly six decades. Meanwhile, corporate profits, CEO buyouts, 
golden parachutes, golden handshakes and golden hellos take hundreds of 
millions, if not billions, of dollars out of the same corporations that 
say they can't give an increase to their workers.
  While the economy is growing and the wealth of its Nation is 
increasing, more Americans are struggling to pay their bills. Over the 
last 5 years, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased 
from 5.4 million to 37 million. One in six children now lives in 
poverty.
  Since 2000, prices of education, gasoline and health care have all 
greatly outpaced inflation. Raising the minimum wage is an important 
first step for the Congress in its efforts to stand up for middle class 
and to stem the middle-class squeeze. This raise will make a real, 
critical difference to millions of people's lives, and that is what 
America understands. You pass the minimum wage, and you dramatically 
change life for millions of people.
  Does it solve their economic problems? Does it solve the economic 
stress? No, it doesn't. But it changes their lives. For a family of 
three, increasing the minimum wage will mean an additional $4,400 a 
year, equaling 15 months of groceries or 2 years' worth of health care. 
That is a change in the standing of these people's lives.
  Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour in 2009, taking into 
account the increases in family earned income tax credit will take 
those people who are 11 percent below the poverty level line and move 
them to 5 percent above the poverty line. Still close to the poverty 
line but beginning to make this economy fair.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 10, 2007--On Page H263 the following appeared: line and 
move them to only 5 percent below the poverty line. Still below 
the
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: line and move 
them to 5 percent above the poverty line. Still close to the


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  It is important that we pass this legislation and we pass it free 
standing. It is important that we do that so we can address the needs 
of these families, not that we hijack their plight, not that we hijack 
their misery, not that we hijack the willingness of the American people 
to do something for them to then do something that works against them. 
This is very, very important, this piece of legislation, and it is 
important that we address the concerns of these individuals.
  I am proud to say that, on this legislation, H.R. 2, its over 200 
original cosponsors, and I am very proud to say we are joined by seven 
Republican Members who are original cosponsors of this legislation, and 
I want to thank so many of those Republicans who worked over the years 
to try to get us this vote on the minimum wage, but we weren't 
successful. Today is the opportunity to bring these two sides of the 
aisle together, to begin to make this economy fair and to help these 
people who struggle every day in very difficult jobs, to do the right 
thing, to participate in the American economy and to provide for their 
families. But they are not able to do it at a 10-year-old minimum wage, 
and we need to bring that kind of equity to it.
  We are joined in support of this legislation by over 500 national and 
local organizations, by over 1,000 Christian, Jewish and Muslim faith 
leaders who have spoken out on this legislation, by the U.S. Conference 
of Catholic Bishops who wrote: ``For us it is a matter of simple 
justice for a decent society.'' And that is what this is about today.
  This is more than just the dollars and cents per hour. This is about 
the morality of this country. This is about the ethics of this body on 
whether or not these people who have been stuck at this wage for 10 
years are entitled to have this modest, modest increase, and I would 
hope that the House would overwhelmingly support this clean vote on the 
minimum wage increase over the next 2 years to $7.25.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kline), a member of the committee.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, the tax relief and fiscal 
policies passed in recent years by, frankly, House Republicans, provide 
a track record of proactive and successful economic reform. As we take 
our first steps in the 110th Congress, we must build upon that record 
and ensure that any minimum wage increase includes meaningful 
considerations for America's small businesses, while protecting and 
expanding benefits for working families that depend upon them.
  Less than a week ago, the Labor Department announced the creation of 
167,000 new jobs in December. We have experienced more than 3 years of 
uninterrupted job growth that includes the creation of more than seven 
million new jobs since August, 2003. Worker wages have risen more than 
150 percent faster than in the early 1990s. Per capita disposable 
income has risen over 9 percent since 2001.
  Let's not stop the momentum we have built together. Let's not pass a 
minimum wage increase without keeping employers in mind. Let's not fall 
into the temptation of passing a bill that is nothing more than 
symbolism, lacking the necessary substance to help our economy continue 
to grow.
  As we consider an increase in the minimum wage, we must consider the 
impact it will have on businesses that create two-thirds of our 
Nation's new jobs. I was proud to support Mr. McKeon and Mr. McCrery's 
Working Families Wage and Access to Health Care legislation, which 
advances this discussion and also offers meaningful measures that will 
benefit those employers who bear the brunt of any minimum wage 
increase. If we don't support them, the cruel irony of any minimum wage 
increase will be a loss of jobs.
  Independent studies confirm that the proposal by the House Democrats 
to raise the minimum wage without including considerations for those 
who pay the minimum wage and their workers would halt the momentum of 
recent economic growth dead in its tracks. According to a Federal 
Reserve economist, as many as one million workers in the restaurant 
industry alone could lose their jobs under this current proposal.
  Recently, my office received a phone call from Mr. John Wiederholt, 
the owner of Wiederholt's Supper Club in Miesville, Minnesota, a 
wonderful little community of 135 people located in the heart of my 
district. Miesville is known for amateur baseball, a historic hamburger 
joint and Wiederholt's.
  The Democrats scaled-down proposal would cost Mr. Wiederholt's 
charming supper club nearly $2,000 a year. He says: ``I've been at this 
34 years. If this passes, because my waitresses get tips already, they 
just walked into my place and gave the highest-paid people in my place 
a raise.''
  Throughout the country, there are tens of thousands of stories just 
like Mr. Wiederholt's. Small businesses are the backbone of the 
American economy. It is absolutely essential that Congress keeps these 
creators of jobs in mind when we consider this legislation. We must 
make sure a minimum wage increase does not have harmful effects on 
businesses and their ability to foster job growth and provide benefits 
for working families.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).
  Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2, 
the Fair Minimum Wage Act, because it is long past due that we provide 
a pay raise to many of our country's hardest workers.
  Today is a good day for the House, and it is a good day for American 
workers. I thank Chairman Miller for introducing a bill whose time has 
come.
  Mr. Speaker, a decent job, with fair pay, is a cornerstone of the 
foundation upon which the American Dream is built. As our minimum wage, 
it serves as a yardstick by which to measure other workers' pay.
  Fair wages make it possible for working families to pay the rent, put 
food

[[Page H264]]

on the table and save for the future, a home and college. Yet, for our 
minimum wage workers facing the rising costs of gasoline, health care, 
child care, rent and heating their home, $5.15 is just not enough.
  Mr. Speaker, we haven't provided a pay raise for minimum wage workers 
in 10 years, the longest period without adjustment since enactment of 
the Fair Labor Standards Act. Adjusted for inflation, its buying power 
is the lowest it has been in 51 years.
  Adequate wages create a stronger, more efficient work force. And I 
know the great majority of small business owners pay their workers more 
than the minimum wage. In fact, in the 4 years following the last 
minimum wage increase, small business employment grew more in those 
States paying a higher minimum wage than in those States paying only 
the minimum wage. Paying good wages is good business sense.
  Mr. Speaker, increasing the minimum wage is good economic policy, it 
is good social policy, and, most importantly, the people in my district 
in Indiana think it is just fair. It is time that this body ensures 
that all American workers are compensated fairly and can share in the 
prosperity of the American economy.
  I urge my colleagues to support our workforce and pass H.R. 2.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the RSC committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, in America, we can either have maximum 
opportunity or we can have minimum wages. We cannot have both. In the 
land of the free, in a Nation as great as ours, how can we deny people 
their maximum opportunity, their opportunity to secure the American 
Dream?
  Well, apparently, our Democrat colleagues can, because, for 
thousands, they will now replace the American Dream of boundless career 
opportunities instead with the nightmare of welfare dependence.
  Columnist George Will recently wrote that increasing the minimum wage 
is ``a bad idea whose time has come.'' And, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, 
apparently that time has come.
  What is the purpose? Notwithstanding the rhetoric that we hear today, 
the purpose of this law is really to protect skilled labor from the 
competition of unskilled labor. We understand the elections are over. 
The American people have spoken. But, apparently, now labor union 
bosses are collecting their chits.
  Now, what is the effect of this law? Indeed, I admit, some will have 
a mandated pay raise in America. Those will be the lucky ones. Many 
more will have their hours cut, Mr. Speaker. Many will have their 
benefits cut due to this law, and many will lose their jobs. And again, 
thousands, thousands will be denied that opportunity to climb on that 
first rung of the economic ladder in America and, instead, be condemned 
to a life of poverty. This should not happen in America.
  Mr. Speaker, I recently spoke to a number of people who create jobs 
and hope and opportunity in America, good solid citizens from the Fifth 
Congressional District of Texas. I heard from David Hinds, the owner of 
Van Tone Created Flavors of Terrell, Texas. His company employs over 25 
people in this community in my district. But he says, if we pass this 
increase in the minimum wage, he is going to have to lay off three, 
maybe four of his employees and automate his plant to use less labor.
  I heard from Kevin and Jeaneane Lilly. Kevin was a guy who started 
out at McDonald's years ago frying up the french fries. He now owns 10 
McDonald's restaurants. He says, if the Democrats act today to increase 
the minimum wage, they will be forced to lay off all of their part-time 
workers and use only full-time workers.
  I spoke to Larry Peterson, who has a small business called EmbroidMe 
in Dallas, Texas. He says, instead of hiring three to four people at 
the current minimum wage, he is going to have to do with one to two 
higher paid, more highly skilled people, denying those other two people 
their rung on the economic ladder.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. Speaker, these are just a few stories from one congressional 
district in Texas, but these stories are going to be replicated all 
over America if we pass this law.
  Now, the proponents of this law say somehow it is necessary, because 
we have to force employers to pay fair wages. Yet I know, Mr. Speaker, 
that 99 percent of all Americans have their wages set by free people 
negotiating in a competitive marketplace.
  In other words, without any interference by Congress whatsoever 99 
percent of all people in the workforce were able to find work above the 
minimum wage. Do we not believe in the American free enterprise system 
anymore? The proponents also say we must raise the minimum wage to help 
the poor, but by and large the minimum wage workers aren't poor. Less 
than one in five lives below the poverty line. The average family 
income of a minimum wage worker is about $40,000 a year. Very few 
minimum wage workers, indeed, support a family. Instead, the majority 
are teenagers. They are college students, and many are part-time 
workers.
  In fact, the problem is that many poor people either cannot work or 
will not work. Over three-fifths of the individuals below the poverty 
line did not work in 2005. Only 11 percent work full time.
  An increase in the minimum wage is going to do very little to help 
poor people who either cannot work or will not work. The way to help 
poor people is not to cut off the bottom rung of the economic ladder in 
America. For those who feel that they want to help the poor over and 
above what we are already doing, I would remind them that, by and 
large, the working poor qualify for health care through Medicaid, 
through subsidies, through food stamps, housing subsidies through 
section 8 vouchers, energy assistance through LIHEAP, cash assistance 
through Earned Income Tax Credit, TANF, and the list goes on and on and 
on.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, there has been an explosion of anti-poverty 
spending at the Federal level under President Bush, up 39 percent 
between the years 2001 and 2005. So contrary to the protest of the 
other side of the aisle, there is a lot of direct government assistance 
here. We need to remind people again that any wage rate is better than 
no wage rate.
  The pool of minimum wage workers is constantly changing, and as they 
learn new skills, they prove themselves and they climb up the economic 
opportunity ladder. Why do we want to deny them this opportunity?
  Mr. Speaker, I have some personal experience here because I was in 
high school in May of 1974, when Congress promised me a pay raise. I 
was the bellman at the Holiday Inn in College Station, Texas, trying to 
put some money together to go to college. I worked my way through 
college.
  But when Congress gave me that pay raise, guess what? I got my pink 
slip. That Holiday Inn was struggling. They had to lay off the two 
newest employees they had to make ends meet. This causes unemployment. 
This should be voted down.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 
seconds.
  I say, it is an interesting discussion from the other side of the 
aisle. It just doesn't comport with the evidence that we have in States 
that have passed a higher minimum wage than the Federal minimum wage. 
They have experienced higher job growth than those States with the low 
minimum wage. Overall, retail job growth between 1998 and 2006 was 10.2 
percent in those States with a higher minimum wage and only 3.7 percent 
in the Federal minimum wage States.
  Overall across all sectors it was 30 percent greater. The fact of the 
matter is, an increase in the minimum wage is helping the economy grow.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield for 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee who has been battling this 
issue long and hard.
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, nearly 10 years ago, I sat on this floor and listened to 
speeches like the one my friend from Texas just gave, and we voted to 
raise the minimum wage. And what happened?

[[Page H265]]

Unemployment went down. The economy grew. And America prospered. It 
will happen again if we pass this increase in the minimum wage. There 
have been many days since that day nearly 10 years ago. One of those 
days when the prescription drug bill was on the floor, the industry 
came, and it wanted special protection from lawsuits and special 
pricing. It was their day, and they got it.
  When the energy bill was on the floor, the energy companies came in 
and wanted massive subsidies, and no crackdown on pricing. It was their 
day, and they got it.
  When the tax bill was on the floor, the wealthiest people in the 
country, people making more than $300,000 a year wanted massive tax 
breaks. It was their day, and they got it.
  I am sorry to disappoint the opponents of the minimum wage, but this 
is not your day. This is the day for the people who empty the bed pans, 
change the bed linens, sweep the floors, and do the hardest work of 
America. After a 10-year wait, even though they don't have the 
lobbyists here, even though they don't have the political action 
committees here, this is their day.
  This is the day we are going to raise the minimum wage, change the 
direction of the country, and restore economic fairness for the 
American economy. Join with Republicans and Democrats and independents 
across this country. Vote ``yes'' on the increase in the minimum wage.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the ranking member on the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCRERY. Thank you, Mr. McKeon, for allowing the Ways and Means 
Committee to control 30 minutes of the time in this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.
  This debate today is important. It is obviously important to a lot of 
people around the country who are making minimum wage or who would seek 
an entry-level job in our country. It is also important, though, to 
many small businesses around our Nation who are struggling to stay in 
business, struggling to create jobs, and to face the competition often 
from much bigger establishments that have some advantages in the 
marketplace. It is those small businesses that the McKeon-McCrery 
alternative would address today. If we are given the chance today to 
modify the legislation before us to include some benefits for small 
businesses, in our view this would greatly improve the legislation 
before us regarding the minimum wage.
  Let me just briefly explain what that alternative would be if Members 
of this House were given the opportunity to vote on it.
  The minimum wage provisions would be the same as in the underlying 
legislation that is on the floor today. It would increase the minimum 
wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over 2 years in three increments. But it would 
add to that a provision from the Education and Labor Committee 
regarding association health plans that would make it easier for small 
businesses to get health insurance for their employees, and three tax 
provisions designed to help small businesses cope with the burden that 
would be placed on them by an increase in the minimum wage.
  Those three tax provisions are a 1-year extension of the higher small 
business expensing limits. As you will recall, we passed in the last 
few years legislation allowing small businesses to expense up to 
$100,000 of investment in their small business in the year of that 
investment. That provision currently is scheduled to expire at the end 
of 2009. This legislation, this alternative that we would like to 
present today, would extend that provision 1 year through 2010.
  The next tax provision that would help small businesses is a 15-year 
depreciation period for new restaurant construction.
  Now, that is important because current law allows a much shorter 
depreciation period, 15 years, for leasehold improvements, including 
restaurants, but it has to be improvements to an existing building. In 
the restaurant business, a lot of times to keep up with the competition 
and to keep market share, an owner will have to build a new facility. 
You can't just refurbish the old facility. You have got to build a new 
building to keep pace.
  Under the current law though, he would have to depreciate that 
investment over 39 years. This provision would put him on an equal 
standing with those who just recently built a restaurant and are 
upgrading it with improvements.
  So it would give a 15-year depreciation period, both to leasehold 
improvements for existing buildings, existing restaurants, but also a 
15-year depreciation period for the construction of new restaurants.
  Finally, the third tax provision that we would add to this 
legislation to help small businesses would be the FUTA surtax repeal, 
that is the unemployment payroll tax. Back in the 1970s, when we were 
having problems with our unemployment trust fund, and we were extending 
unemployment benefits across the Nation, we had to impose a surtax to 
bring money into the system to be able to pay the unemployment bills 
around the country. That debt though was paid off in the 1980s, and for 
whatever reason, Congress has decided to continually extend that 
unemployment surtax.
  This bill would accelerate the expiration of that .2 percent 
unemployment surtax that employers have to pay today. It would 
accelerate it from the end of this year 2007 to April 1 of 2007.
  As you know, that surtax, that .2 surtax is imposed only on the first 
$7,000 of wages, so it would most directly give relief to those 
employers who have those low-skilled, low-dollar employees, and would 
give them some immediate relief in that regard.
  Mr. Speaker, our proposal is to increase the minimum wage, but also 
give help to those businesses that will be most adversely affected by 
the imposition of these increased costs for their businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney), who has been a long-time 
champion of increasing the minimum wage.
  Mr. CARNEY. I would like to thank my colleague from California for 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote for bipartisan legislation 
aimed at increasing the minimum wage and making an important change for 
the families of nearly 13 million American workers.
  It is unconscionable, Mr. Speaker, that the minimum wage has remained 
unchanged for nearly 10 years. During the past decade, consumer costs 
have skyrocketed. Energy, health care and education costs have all 
risen, while my constituents have seen their real incomes drop.
  It is wrong that millions of Americans work full time and year around 
and still live in poverty. I am voting to give them a raise, a raise 
that is long overdue.
  This bill will increase the minimum wage by $2.10 an hour over 2 
years. This will mean an additional $4,400 for a family of three 
equaling 15 months' worth of groceries or 2 years' worth of health 
care. Helping them to keep up with the rising costs of these 
necessities is something that we have the moral obligation to do.
  As the father of five, I understand, I keenly understand the impact 
of rising costs on a tight family budget.
  Raising the minimum wage is the first step to a stronger economy for 
all Americans, not just for the privileged few. Our action today will 
make a real difference in the lives of America's working families and I 
am proud to vote for it, and I respectfully urge my colleagues to stand 
with our working families, as well.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Ways 
and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the minimum wage 
increase. Not only is this legislation detrimental to small business 
growth and job creation, but it has been brought to the floor outside 
the normal committee review process without the ability to consider an 
alternative.
  I have long stood against minimum wage hikes, which increase 
government

[[Page H266]]

interference in the labor market. Economists agree that when the cost 
of labor increases, it becomes more difficult for employers to hire new 
workers.

                              {time}  1130

  Unfortunately, the burden of wage increases falls on small businesses 
which produce an estimated two-thirds of all new jobs in the United 
States. Minimum wage job seekers, often first-time employees looking to 
get their foot in the door, are most harmed by such increases. It is 
troubling that this bill gives no thought to softening the financial 
impact of our engines of new job growth when we could easily combine a 
wage increase with tax relief to help small businesses stay competitive 
and keep our economy growing.
  One provision not included in the minimum wage bill would extend 
small businesses expensing. Over the last few years, Congress has 
increased the expensing limit which allows firms to write off equipment 
purchases immediately. This allows small businesses to expand faster 
and hire new workers. I continue to support a permanent extension of 
this provision. Without extension, expensing will soon revert from its 
current $100,000 back to $25,000.
  Other relief not permitted in this is the elimination of the 
unnecessary 2 percent unemployment surtax. I joined my friend Jim 
McCrery in the 109th Congress to end the surtax and stimulate job 
creation and higher wages for those same workers who might lose jobs 
due to a minimum wage hike.
  Finally, discounting relief from the 41 percent minimum wage 
increase, the bill ignores other side effects, such as impacts on the 
workfare participants. Current law determines how long welfare 
beneficiaries may participate in workfare, which helps recipients 
develop good work habits. As the minimum wage rises, recipients have 
access to less work, even if that is what they most need to prepare for 
a new job.
  Mr. Speaker, by dismissing alternatives, the majority has generated a 
bill whose benefits to the American workers will be negligible, side 
effects real, and impacts on job creation palpable. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this measure.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 
seconds to submit for insertion into the Record a statement of 650 
economists, including five Nobel laureates, that support this increase 
in the minimum wage and say that it will not be detrimental to the 
economy.

           Hundreds of Economists Say: Raise the Minimum Wage

       The minimum wage has been an important part of our nation's 
     economy for 68 years. It is based on the principle of valuing 
     work by establishing an hourly wage floor beneath which 
     employers cannot pay their workers. In so doing, the minimum 
     wage helps to equalize the imbalance in bargaining power that 
     low-wage workers face in the labor market. The minimum wage 
     is also an important tool in fighting poverty.
       The value of the 1997 increase in the federal minimum wage 
     has been fully eroded. The real value of today's federal 
     minimum wage is less than it has been since 1951. Moreover, 
     the ratio of the minimum wage to the average hourly wage of 
     non-supervisory workers is 31 percent, its lowest level since 
     World War II. This decline is causing hardship for low-wage 
     workers and their families.
       We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would 
     improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have 
     the adverse effects that critics have claimed. In particular, 
     we share the view the Council of Economic Advisors expressed 
     in the 1999 Economic Report of the President that ``the 
     weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the 
     minimum wage have had very little or no effect on 
     employment.'' While controversy about the precise employment 
     effects of the minimum wage continues, research has shown 
     that most of the beneficiaries are adults, most are female, 
     and the vast majority are members of low-income working 
     families.
       As economists who are concerned about the problems facing 
     low-wage workers, we believe the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 
     2005's proposed phased-in increase in the federal minimum 
     wage to $7.25 falls well within the range of options where 
     the benefits to the labor market, workers, and the overall 
     economy would be positive.
       Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have set 
     their minimum wages above the federal level. Arizona, 
     Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and Ohio, are considering 
     similar measures. As with a federal increase, modest 
     increases in state minimum wages in the range of $1.00 to 
     $2.50 and indexing to protect against inflation can 
     significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and 
     their families, without the adverse effects that critics have 
     claimed.


               leading economists endorse this statement

       Henry Aaron, The Brookings Institution; Kenneth Arrow+ 
     Stanford University; William Baumol+, Princeton University 
     and New York University; Rebecca Blank, University of 
     Michigan; Alan Blinder, Princeton University; Peter Diamond+, 
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Ronald Ehrenberg, 
     Cornell University; Clive Granger*, University of California, 
     San Diego; Lawrence Katz Harvard University (AEA Executive 
     Committee); Lawrence Klein*+, University of Pennsylvania; 
     Frank Levy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Lawrence 
     Mishel, Economic Policy Institute; Alice Rivlin+, The 
     Brookings Institution (former Vice Chair of the Federal 
     Reserve and Director of the Office of Management and Budget); 
     Robert Solow*+, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and 
     Joseph Stiglitz*, Columbia University.
       Six hundred and fifty of their fellow economists agree.


             economists supporting increase in minimum wage

       Katherine G. Abraham University of Maryland; Frank Ackerman 
     Tufts University; F. Gerard Adams Northeastern University; 
     Randy Albelda University of Massachusetts--Boston; James 
     Albrecht Georgetown University; Jennifer Alix-Garcia 
     University of Montana; Sylvia A. Allegretto Economic Policy 
     Institute; Beth Almeida International Association of 
     Machinists and Aerospace Workers; Abbas Alnasrawi University 
     of Vermont; Gar Alperovitz University of Maryland--College 
     Park; Joseph Altonji Yale University; Nurul Aman University 
     of Massachusetts--Boston; Teresa L. Amott Hobart and William 
     Smith Colleges; Alice Amsden Massachusetts Institute of 
     Technology; Bernard E; Anderson University of Pennsylvania; 
     Robert M. Anderson University of California--Berkeley; 
     Bahreinian Aniss California State University--Sacramento; 
     Kate Antonovics University of California--San Diego; Eileen 
     Appelbaum Rutgers University; David D. Arsen Michigan State 
     University; Michael Ash University of Massachusetts--Amherst; 
     Glen Atkinson University of Nevada--Reno; Rose-Marie Avin 
     University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire; M.V. Lee Badgett 
     University of Massachusetts--Amherst; Aniss Bahreinian 
     Sacramento City College; Ron Baiman Loyola University 
     Chicago; Asatar Bair City College of San Francisco; Katie 
     Baird University of Washington--Tacoma; Dean Baker Center for 
     Economic and Policy Research; Radhika Balakrishnan Marymount 
     Manhattan College; Stephen E. Baldwin KRA Corporation; Erol 
     Balkan Hamilton College; Jennifer Ball Washburn University; 
     Brad Barham University of Wisconsin--Madison; Drucilla K. 
     Barker Hollins College; David Barkin Universidad Autonoma 
     Metropolitana; James N. Baron Yale University; Chuck Barone 
     Dickinson College; Christopher B. Barrett Cornell University; 
     Richard Barrett University of Montana; Laurie J. Bassi 
     McBassi & Company; Francis M. Bator Harvard University; 
     Rosemary Batt Cornell University; Sandy Baum Skidmore 
     College; Amanda Bayer Swarthmore College; Sohrab Behdad 
     Denison University; Peter F. Bell State University of New 
     York--Purchase; Dale L. Belman Michigan State University; 
     Michael Belzer Wayne State University; Lourdes Beneria 
     Cornell University; Barbara R. Bergmann American University 
     and University of Maryland; Eli Berman University of 
     California--San Diego; Alexandra Bernasek Colorado State 
     University; Jared Bernstein Economic Policy Institute; 
     Michael Bernstein University of California--San Diego; 
     Charles L. Betsey Howard University; David M. Betson 
     University of Notre Dame; Carole Biewener Simmons College; 
     Sherrilyn Billger Illinois State University; Richard E. 
     Bilsborrow University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill; Cyrus 
     Bina University of Minnesota--Morris; Melissa Binder 
     University of New Mexico; L. Josh Bivens Economic Policy 
     Institute; Stanley Black University of North Carolina--Chapel 
     Hill; Ron Blackwell AFL-CIO; Margaret Blair Vanderbilt 
     University Law School; Gail Blattenberger University of Utah; 
     Robert A. Blecker American University; Barry Bluestone 
     Northeastern University; Peter Bohmer Evergreen State 
     College; David Boldt State University of West Georgia; Roger 
     E. Bolton Williams College; James F. Booker Siena College; 
     Jeff Bookwalter University of Montana; Barry Bosworth The 
     Brookings Institution; Heather Boushey Center for Economic 
     and Policy Research; Roger Even Bove West Chester University; 
     Samuel Bowles Santa Fe Institute; James K. Boyce University 
     of Massachusetts--Amherst; Ralph Bradburd Williams College; 
     Michael E. Bradley University of Maryland--Baltimore County; 
     Elissa Braunstein Colorado State University; David Breneman 
     University of Virginia; Mark Brenner Labor Notes Magazine; 
     Vernon M. Briggs Cornell University; Byron W. Brown Michigan 
     State University; Christopher Brown Arkansas State 
     University; Clair Brown University of California--Berkeley; 
     Philip H. Brown Colby College; Michael Brun Illinois State 
     University; Neil H. Buchanan Rutgers School of Law and New 
     York University School of Law; Robert Buchele Smith College; 
     Stephen Buckles Vanderbilt University; Stephen V. Burks 
     University of Minnesota--Morris; Joyce Burnette Wabash 
     College; Paul D. Bush California State University--Fresno; 
     Alison Butler Wilamette University; Antonio G. Callari 
     Franklin and Marshall College; Al Campbell University of 
     Utah; James Campen University of Massachusetts--Boston; Maria

[[Page H267]]

     Cancian University of Wisconsin--Madison; Paul Cantor Norwalk 
     Community College; Anthony Carnevale National Center on 
     Education and the Economy; Jeffrey P. Carpenter Middlebury 
     College; Francoise Carre University of Massachusetts--Boston; 
     Michael J. Carter University of Massachusetts--Lowell; Susan 
     B. Carter University of California--Riverside; Karl E. Case 
     Wellesley College; J. Dennis Chasse State University of New 
     York--Brockport; Howard Chernick Hunter College, City 
     University of New York; Robert Cherry Brooklyn College--City 
     University of New York; Graciela Chichilnisky Columbia 
     University; Lawrence Chimerine Radnor International 
     Consulting, Inc; Menzie D; Chinn University of Wisconsin--
     Madison; Charles R. Chittle Bowling Green State University; 
     Kimberly Christensen State University of New York--Purchase; 
     Richard D. Coe New College of Florida; Robert M. Coen 
     Northwestern University; Steve Cohn Knox College; Rachel 
     Connelly Bowdoin College; Karen Smith Conway University of 
     New Hampshire; Patrick Conway University of North Carolina--
     Chapel Hill; David R. Cormier West Virginia University; James 
     V. Cornehls University of Texas--Arlington; Richard R. 
     Cornwall Middlebury College; Paul N. Courant University of 
     Michigan--Ann Arbor; James R. Crotty University of 
     Massachusetts--Amherst; James M. Cypher California State 
     University--Fresno; Douglas Dalenberg University of Montana; 
     Herman E. Daly University of Maryland; Anita Dancs National 
     Priorities Project; Nasser Daneshvary University of Nevada--
     Las Vegas; David Danning University of Massachusetts--Boston; 
     Sheldon Danziger University of Michigan--Ann Arbor; Jane 
     D'Arista Financial Markets Center; Paul Davidson The New 
     School for Social Research; Jayne Dean Wagner College; 
     Gregory E. DeFreitas Hofstra University; Bradford Delong 
     University of California--Berkeley; James G. Devine Loyola 
     Marymount College; Ranjit S. Dighe State University of New 
     York--Oswego; John DiNardo University of Michigan--Ann Arbor; 
     Randall Dodd Financial Policy Forum; Peter B. Doeringer 
     Boston University; Peter Dorman Evergreen State College; 
     Robert Drago Pennsylvania State University; Laura Dresser 
     University of Wisconsin; Richard B. Du Boff Bryn Mawr 
     College; Arindrajit Dube University of California--Berkeley; 
     Marie Duggan Keene State College; Lloyd J. Dumas University 
     of Texas--Dallas; Christopher Dunn Earth and Its People 
     Foundation; Steven N. Durlauf University of Wisconsin--
     Madison; Amitava K. Dutt University of Notre Dame; Jan Dutta 
     Rutgers University; Gary A. Dymski University of California--
     Riverside; Peter J. Eaton University of Missouri--Kansas 
     City; Fritz Efaw University of Tennessee--Chattanooga; 
     Catherine S. Elliott New College of Florida; Richard W. 
     England University of New Hampshire; Ernie Englander George 
     Washington University; Gerald Epstein University of 
     Massachusetts--Amherst; Sharon J. Erenburg Eastern Michigan 
     University; Susan L. Ettner University of California--Los 
     Angeles; Linda Ewing United Auto Workers; Colleen A. Fahy 
     Assumption College; Loretta Fairchild Nebraska Wesleyan 
     University; David Fairris University of California--
     Riverside; Warren E. Farb International Capital Mobility 
     Domestic Investment; Martin Farnham University of Victoria; 
     Jeff Faux Economic Policy Institute; Susan Fayazmanesh 
     California State University--Fresno; Rashi Fein Harvard 
     Medical School; Robert M. Feinberg American University; Susan 
     F. Feiner University of Southern Maine; Marshall Feldman 
     University of Rhode Island; Marianne A. Ferber University of 
     Illinois--Urbana-Champaign; William D. Ferguson Grinnell 
     College; Rudy Fichtenbaum Wright State University; Deborah M. 
     Figart Richard Stockton College; Bart D. Fmzel University 
     of Minnesota--Morris; Lydia Fischer United Auto Workers, 
     retired; Peter Fisher University of Iowa; John Fitzgerald 
     Bowdoin College; Sean Flaherty Franklin and Marshall 
     College; Kenneth Flamm University of Texas--Austin; Maria 
     S. Floro American University; Nancy Folbre University of 
     Massachusetts--Amherst; Christina M. Fong Carnegie Mellon 
     University; Catherine Forman Quinnipiac University; Harold 
     A. Forman United Food and Commercial Workers; Mathew 
     Forstater University of Missouri--Kansas City; Liana Fox 
     Economic Policy Institute; Donald G. Freeman Sam Houston 
     State University; Gerald Friedman University of 
     Massachusetts--Amherst; Sheldon Friedman AFL-CIO; Alan 
     Frishman Hobart and William Smith Colleges; Scott T. 
     Fullwiler Wartburg College; Kevin Furey Chemeketa 
     Community College; Jason Furman New York University; David 
     Gabel Queens College; James K. Galbraith University of 
     Texas--Austin; Monica Galizzi University of 
     Massachusetts--Lowell; David E. Gallo California State 
     University--Chico; Byron Gangnes University of Hawaii--
     Manoa; Irwin Garfinkel Columbia University; Rob Garnett 
     Texas Christian University; Garance Genicot Georgetown 
     University; Christophre Georges Hamilton College; Malcolm 
     Getz Vanderbilt University; Teresa Ghilarducci University 
     of Notre Dame; Karen J. Gibson Portland State University; 
     Richard J. Gilbert University of California--Berkeley; 
     Helen Lachs Ginsburg Brooklyn College--City University of 
     New York; Herbert Gintis University of Massachusetts--
     Amherst; Neil Gladstein International Association of 
     Machinists and Aerospace Workers; Amy Glasmeier Penn State 
     University; Norman J. Glickman Rutgers University; Robert 
     Glover University of Texas--Austin; Arthur S. Goldberger 
     University of Wisconsin--Madison; Lonnie Golden Penn State 
     University--Abington College; Dan Goldhaber University of 
     Washington; Marshall I. Goldman Wellesley College; Steven 
     M. Goldman University of California--Berkeley; William W. 
     Goldsmith Cornell University; Donald Goldstein Allegheny 
     College; Nance Goldstein University of Southern Maine; 
     Nick Gomersall Luther College; Eban S. Goodstein Lewis and 
     Clark College; Neva Goodwin Tufts University; Roger Gordon 
     University of California--San Diego; Peter Gottschalk 
     Boston College; Elise Gould Economic Policy Institute; 
     Harvey Gram Queens College, City University of New York; 
     Jim Grant Lewis & Clark College; Ulla Grapard Colgate 
     University; Daphne Greenwood University of Colorado--
     Colorado Springs; Karl Gregory Oakland University; 
     Christopher Gunn Hobart and William Smith Colleges; Steven 
     C. Hackett Humboldt State University; Joseph E. Harrington 
     Johns Hopkins University; Douglas N. Harris Florida State 
     University; Jonathan M. Harris Tufts University; Martin 
     Hart; Landsberg Lewis & Clark College; Robert Haveman 
     University of Wisconsin--Madison; Sue Headlee American 
     University; Carol E. Heim University of Massachusetts--
     Amherst; James Heintz University of Massachusetts--
     Amherst; Paul A. Heise Lebanon Valley College; Susan 
     Helper Case Western Reserve University; John F. Henry 
     University of Missouri--Kansas City; Barry Herman The New 
     School; Edward S. Herman University of Pennsylvania; 
     Guillermo E. Herrera Bowdoin College; Joni Hersch 
     Vanderbilt University Law School; Thomas Hertel Purdue 
     University; Steven Herzenberg Keystone Research Center; 
     Donald D. Hester University of Wisconsin--Madison; Gillian 
     Hewitson Franklin and Marshall College; Bert G. Hickman 
     Stanford University; Marianne T. Hill Center for Policy 
     Research and Planning; Martha S. Hill University of 
     Michigan--Ann Arbor; Michael G. Hillard University of 
     Southern Maine; Rod Hissong University of Texas--
     Arlington; P. Sai-Wing Ho University of Denver; Emily P. 
     Hoffman Western Michigan University; Harry J. Holzer 
     Georgetown University and Urban Institute; Marjorie Honig 
     Hunter College, City University of New York; Barbara E. 
     Hopkins Wright State University; Mark R. Hopkins 
     Gettysburg College; Ann Horowitz University of Florida; 
     Ismael Hossein; Zadeh Drake University; Charles W. Howe 
     University of Colorado--Boulder; Candace Howes Connecticut 
     College; Frank M. Howland Wabash College; David C. Huffman 
     Bridgewater College; Saul H. Hymans University of 
     Michigan--Ann Arbor; Frederick S. Inaba Washington State 
     University; Alan G. Isaac American University; Doreen 
     Isenberg University of Redlands; Jonathan Isham Middlebury 
     College; Sanford M. Jacoby University of California--Los 
     Angeles; Robert G. James California State University--
     Chico; Kenneth P. Jameson University of Utah; Russell A. 
     Janis University of Massachusetts--Amherst; Elizabeth J. 
     Jensen Hamilton College; Pascale Joassart University of 
     Massachusetts--Boston; Jerome Joffe St. John's University; 
     Laurie Johnson University of Denver; William Johnson 
     Arizona State University; Lawrence D. Jones University of 
     British Columbia; Alexander J. Julius New York University; 
     Bernard Jump Syracuse University; Fadhel Kaboub Drew 
     University; Shulamit Kahn Boston University; Linda Kamas 
     Santa Clara University; Sheila B. Kamerman Columbia 
     University; John Kane State University of New York--
     Oswego; Billie Kanter California State University--Chico; 
     J.K. Kapler University of Massachusetts--Boston; Roger T. 
     Kaufman Smith College; David E. Kaun University of 
     California--Santa Cruz; Thomas A. Kemp University of 
     Wisconsin--Eau Claire; Peter B. Kenen Princeton 
     University; Farida C. Khan University of Wisconsin--Parks 
     ide; Kwan S. Kim University of Notre Dame; Marlene Kim 
     University of Massachusetts--Boston; Christopher T. King 
     University of Texas--Austin; Mary C. King Portland State 
     University; Lori G. Kletzer University of California--
     Santa Cruz; Janet T. Knoedler Bucknell University; Tim 
     Koechlin Vassar College; Andrew I. Kohen James Madison 
     University; Denise Eby Konan University of Hawaii--Manoa; 
     Ebru Kongar Dickinson College; James Konow Loyola 
     Marymount University; Krishna Kool University of Rio 
     Grande; Douglas Koritz Buffalo State College; Daniel J. 
     Kovenock Purdue University; Kate Krause University of New 
     Mexico; Vadaken N. Krishnan Bowling Green State 
     University; Douglas Kruse Rutgers University; David 
     Laibman Brooklyn College--City University of New York; 
     Robert M. La; Jeunesse University of Newcastle; Kevin Lang 
     Boston University; Catherine Langlois Georgetown 
     University; Mehrene Larudee DePaul University; Gary A. 
     Latanich Arkansas State University; Robert Z. Lawrence 
     Harvard University--Kennedy School of Government; Daniel 
     Lawson Drew University; William Lazonick University of 
     Massachusetts--Lowell; Joelle J. Leclaire Buffalo State 
     College; Frederic S. Lee University of Missouri Kansas 
     City; Marvin Lee San Jose State University; Sang-Hyop Lee 
     University of Hawaii--Manoa; Woojin Lee University of 
     Massachusetts--Amherst; Thomas D. Legg University of 
     Minnesota; J. Paul Leigh University of California--Davis; 
     Charles Levenstein University of Massachusetts--Lowell; 
     Margaret C. Levenstein University of Michigan--Ann Arbor I 
     Henry M. Levin Columbia University; Herbert S. Levine 
     University of Pennsylvania; Mark Levinson Economic Policy 
     Institute; Oren M. Levin-

[[Page H268]]

     Waldman Metropolitan College of New York; Mark K. Levitan 
     Community Service Society of New York; Stephen Levy Center 
     for Continuing Study of California Economy; Arthur Lewbel 
     Boston College; Lynne Y. Lewis Bates College; David L. 
     Lindauer Wellesley College; Victor D. Lippit University of 
     California--Riverside; Pamela J. Loprest Urban Institute; 
     Richard Lotspeich Indiana State University; Michael C. 
     Lovell Wesleyan University; Milton Lower Retired Senior 
     Economist, U.S. House of Representatives; Stephanie Luce 
     University of Massachusetts--Amherst; Robert Lucore United 
     American Nurses; Jens Otto Ludwig Georgetown University; 
     Dan Luria Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center; Devon 
     Lynch University of Denver; Lisa M. Lynch Tufts 
     University; Robert G. Lynch Washington College; Catherine 
     Lynde University of Massachusetts--Boston; Arthur MacEwan 
     University of Massachusetts--Boston; Hasan MacNeil 
     California State University--Chico; Allan MacNeill Webster 
     University; Craig R. MacPhee University of Nebraska--
     Lincoln; Diane J. Macunovich University of Redlands; 
     Janice F. Madden University of Pennsylvania; Mark H. Maier 
     Glendale Community College; Thomas N. Maloney University 
     of Utah; Jay R. Mandie Colgate University; Andrea Maneschi 
     Vanderbilt University; Garth Mangum University of Utah; 
     Catherine L. Mann Brandeis University; Don Mar 
     San Francisco State University; Dave E. Marcotte 
     University of Maryland--Baltimore County; Robert A. Margo 
     Boston University; Ann R. Markusen University of 
     Minnesota--Twin Cities; Ray Marshall University of Texas 
     LBJ School of Public Affairs; Stephen Martin Purdue 
     University; Patrick L Mason Florida State University; 
     Thomas Masterson Westfield State College; Julie A. 
     Matthaei Wellesley College; Peter Hans Matthews Middlebury 
     College; Anne Mayhew University of Tennessee--Knoxville; 
     Alan K. McAdams Cornell University; Timothy D. McBride St. 
     Louis University School of Public Health; Elaine McCrate 
     University of Vermont; Kate McGovern Springfield College; 
     Richard D. McGrath Armstrong Atlantic State University; 
     Richard McIntyre University of Rhode Island; Hannah 
     McKinney Kalamazoo College; Judith Record McKinney Hobart 
     and William Smith Colleges; Andrew McLennan University of 
     Sydney; Charles W. McMillion MBG Information Services; 
     Ellen Meara Harvard Medical School; Martin Melkonian 
     Hofstra University; Jo Beth Mertens Hobart and William 
     Smith Colleges; Peter B. Meyer University of Louisville 
     and Northern Kentucky University; Thomas R. Michl Colgate 
     University; Edward Miguel University of California--
     Berkeley; William Milberg The New School; John A. Miller 
     Wheaton College; S.M. Miller Cambridge Institute and 
     Boston University; Jerry Miner Syracuse University; Daniel 
     J.B. Mitchel University of California--Los Angeles; Edward 
     B. Montgomery University of Maryland; Sarah Montgomery 
     Mount Holyoke College; Robert E. Moore Georgia State 
     University; Barbara A. Morgan Johns Hopkins University; 
     John R. Morris University of Colorado--Denver; Monique 
     Morrissey Economic Policy Institute; Lawrence B. Morse 
     North Carolina A&T State University; Saeed Mortazavi 
     Humboldt State University; Fred Moseley Mount Holyoke 
     College; Philip I. Moss University of Massachusetts--
     Lowell; Tracy Mott University of Denver; Steven D. Mullins 
     Drury University; Alicia H. Munnell Boston College; 
     Richard J. Murnane Harvard University; Matthew D. Murphy 
     Gainesville State College; Michael Murray Bates College; 
     Peggy B. Musgrave University of California--Santa Cruz; 
     Richard A. Musgrave Harvard University; Ellen Mutari 
     Richard Stockton College; Sirisha Naidu Wright State 
     University; Michele Naples The College of New Jersey; Tara 
     Natarajan St. Michael's College; Julie A. Nelson Tufts 
     University; Reynold F. Nesiba Augustana College; Donald A. 
     Nichols University of Wisconsin--Madison; Eric Nilsson 
     California State University--San Bernardino; Laurie 
     Nisonoff Hampshire College; Emily Northrop Southwestern 
     University; Bruce Norton San Antonio College; Stephen A. 
     O'Connell Swarthmore College; Mehmet Odekon Skidmore 
     College; Paulette Olson Wright State University; Paul Ong 
     University of California--Los Angeles; Van Doorn Ooms 
     Committee for Economic Development; Jonathan M. Orszag 
     Competition Policy Associates, Inc.; Paul Osterman 
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Shaianne T. 
     Osterreich Ithaca College; Rudolph A. Oswald George Meany 
     Labor Studies Center; Spencer J. Pack Connecticut College; 
     Arnold Packer Johns Hopkins University; Dimitri B. 
     Papadimitriou The Levy Economic Institute of Bard College; 
     James A. Parrott Fiscal Policy Institute; Manuel Pastor 
     University of California--Santa Cruz; Eva A. Paus Mount 
     Holyoke College; Jim Peach New Mexico State University; M. 
     Stephen Pendleton Buffalo State College; Michael Perelman 
     California State University--Chico; Kenneth Peres 
     Communications Workers of America; George L. Perry The 
     Brookings Institution; Joseph Persky University of 
     Illinois--Chicago; Karen A. Pfeifer Smith College; Bruce 
     Pietrykowski University of Michigan--Dearborn; Michael J. 
     Piore Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Karen R. 
     Polenske Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Robert 
     Pollin University of Massachusetts--Amherst; Marshall 
     Pomer Macroeconomic Policy Institute; Tod Porter 
     Youngstown State University; Shirley L. Porterfield 
     University of Missouri--St. Louis; Michael J. Potepan San 
     Francisco State University; Marilyn Power Sarah Lawrence 
     College; Thomas Power University of Montana; Robert E. 
     Prasch Middlebury College; Mark A. Price Keystone Research 
     Center; Jean L. Pyle University of Massachusetts--Lowell; 
     Paddy Quick St. Francis College; John M. Quigley 
     University of California--Berkeley; Willard W. Radell, Jr. 
     Indiana University of Pennsylvania; Fredric Raines 
     Washington University in St. Louis; Steven Raphael 
     University of California--Berkeley; Salim Rashid 
     University of Illinois--Urbana--Champaign; Wendy L. Rayack 
     Wesleyan University; Randall Reback Barnard College, 
     Columbia University; Robert Rebelein Vassar College; James 
     B. Rebitzer Case Western Reserve University; Daniel I. 
     Rees University of Colorado--Denver; Michael Reich 
     University of California--Berkeley; Robert B. Reich 
     University of California--Berkeley; Cordelia Reimers 
     Hunter College and The Graduate Center--City University of 
     New York; Donald Renner Minnesota State University--
     Mankato; Trudi Renwick Fiscal Policy Institute; Andrew 
     Reschovsky University of Wisconsin--Madison. Lee A. Reynis 
     University of New Mexico; Daniel Richards Tufts 
     University; Bruce Roberts University of Southern Maine; 
     Barbara J. Robles Arizona State University; John Roche St. 
     John Fisher College; Charles P. Rock Rollins College; 
     William M. Rodgers III Rutgers University; Dani Rodrik 
     Harvard University; John E. Roemer Yale University; 
     William O. Rohlf Drury University; Gerard Roland 
     University of California--Berkeley; Frank Roosevelt Sarah 
     Lawrence College; Jaime Ros University of Notre Dame; 
     Nancy E. Rose California State University--San Bernardino; 
     Howard F. Rosen Trade Adjustment Assistance Coalition; 
     Joshua L. Rosenbloom University of Kansas; William W. Ross 
     Fu Associates, Ltd.; Roy J. Rothelm Skidmore College; 
     Jesse Rothstein Princeton University; Geoffrey Rothwell 
     Stanford University; Joydeep Roy Economic Policy 
     Institute; David Runsten Community Alliance with Family 
     Farmers; Lynda Rush California State Polytechnic 
     University--Pomona; Gregory M. Saltzman Albion College and 
     the University of Michigan; Sydney Saltzman Cornell 
     University; Dominick Salvatore Fordham University; Blair 
     Sandler San Francisco, California; Daniel E. Saros 
     Valparaiso University; Michael Sattinger University at 
     Albany; Dawn Saunders Castleton State College; Larry 
     Sawers American University; Max Sawicky Economic Policy 
     Institute; Peter V. Schaeffer West Virginia University; 
     William C. Schauiel University of West Georgia; A. Allan 
     Schmid Michigan State University; Stephen J. Schmidt Union 
     College; John Schmitt Center for Economic and Policy 
     Research; Juliet B. Schor Boston College; C. Heike 
     Schotten University of Massachusetts--Boston; Eric A. 
     Schutz Rollins College; Elliot Sclar Columbia University; 
     Allen J. Scott University of California--Los Angeles; 
     Bruce R. Scott Harvard Business School; Robert Scott 
     Economic Policy Institute; Stephauie Seguino University of 
     Vermont; Laurence Seidman University of Delaware; Janet 
     Seiz Grinnell College; Willi Semmler The New School; Mina 
     Zeynep Senses Johns Hopkins University; Jean Shackelford 
     Bucknell University; Harry G. Shaffer University of 
     Kansas; Sumitra Shah St. John's University; Robert J. 
     Shapiro Sonecon LLC; Mohammed Sharif University of Rhode 
     Island; Lois B. Shaw Institute for Women's Policy 
     Research; Heidi Shierholz University of Toronto; Deep 
     Shikha College of St. Catherine; Richard L. Shirey Siena 
     College; Steven Shulman Colorado State University; 
     Laurence Shute California State Polytechnic University--
     Pomona; Stephen J. Silvia American University; Michael E. 
     Simmons North Carolina A&T State University; Margaret C. 
     Simms Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies; 
     Chris Skelley Rollins College; Max J. Skidmore University 
     of Missouri--Kansas City; Peter Skott University of 
     Massachusetts--Amherst; Courtenay M. Slater Arlington, 
     Virginia; Timothy M. Smeeding Syracuse University; Janet 
     Spitz College of Saint Rose; William Spriggs Howard 
     University; James L. Starkey University of Rhode Island; 
     Martha A. Starr American University; Howard Stein 
     University of Michigan--Ann Arbor; Mary Huff Stevenson 
     University of Massachusetts--Boston; James B. Stewart 
     Pennsylvania State University; Jeffrey Stewart Northern 
     Kentucky University. Robert J. Stonebraker Winthrop 
     University; Michael Storper University of California--Los 
     Angeles; Diana Strassmann Rice University; Cornelia J. 
     Strawser Consultant; Frederick R. Strobel New College of 
     Florida; James I. Sturgeon University of Missouri--Kansas 
     City; David M. Sturges Colgate University; William A. 
     Sundstrom Santa Clara University; Jonathan Sunshine 
     Reston, Virginia; Paul Swaim Organisation for Economic Co-
     operation and Development; Craig Swan University of 
     Minnesota--Twin Cities; Paul A. Swanson William Paterson 
     University; William K. Tabb Queens College; Peter Temin 
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Judith Tendler 
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology; David Terkla 
     University of Massachusetts--Boston; Kenneth Thomas 
     University of Missouri--St. Louis; Frank Thompson 
     University of Michigan--Ann Arbor; Ross D. Thomson 
     University of Vermont; Emanuel D. Thorne Brooklyn 
     College--City University of New York; Jill Tiefenthaler 
     Colgate University; Thomas H. Tietenberg Colby College; 
     Chris Tilly University of Massachusetts--Lowell; Renee 
     Toback Empire State College; Mayo C. Toruno California 
     State University--San Bernardino; W. Scott Trees Siena 
     College; A.

[[Page H269]]

     Dale Tussing Syracuse University; James Tybout Penn State 
     University; Christopher Udry Yale University; Daniel A. 
     Underwood Peninsula College; Lynn Unruh University of 
     Central Florida; Leanne Ussher Queens College, City 
     University of New York; David Vail Bowdoin College; Vivian 
     Grace Valdmanis University of the Sciences in 
     Philadelphia; William Van Lear Belmont Abbey College; Lane 
     Vanderslice Hunger Notes; Lise Vesterlund University of 
     Pittsburgh; Michael G. Vogt Eastern Michigan University; 
     Paula B. Voos Rutgers University; Mark Votruba Case 
     Western Reserve University; Susan Vroman Georgetown 
     University; Howard M. Wachtel American University; Jeffrey 
     Waddoups University of Nevada--Las Vegas; Norman Waitzman 
     University of Utah; Lawrence A. Waldman University of New 
     Mexico; John F. Walker Portland State University; William 
     Waller Hobart and William Smith Colleges; Jennifer Warlick 
     University of Notre Dame; Matthew Warning University of 
     Puget Sound; Bernard Wasow The Century Foundation; Robert 
     W. Wassmer California State University--Sacramento; Sidney 
     Weintraub Center for Strategic and International Studies; 
     Mark Weisbrot Center for Economic and Policy Research; 
     Charles L. Weise Gettysburg College; Thomas E. Weisskopf 
     University of Michigan--Ann Arbor; Christian E. Weller 
     Center for American Progress; Fred M. Westfield Vanderbilt 
     University; Charles J. Whalen Perspectives on Work; 
     Cathleen L. Whiting Williamette University; Howard Wial 
     The Brookings Institution; Linda Wilcox Young Southern 
     Oregon University; Arthur R. Williams Rochester--
     Minnesota; Robert G. Williams Guilford College; John 
     Willoughby American University; Valerie Rawlston Wilson 
     National Urban League; Jon D. Wisman American University; 
     Barbara L. Wolfe University of Wisconsin--Madison; Edward 
     Wolff New York University; Martin Wolfson University of 
     Notre Dame; Brenda Wyss Wheaton College; Yavuz Yasar 
     University of Denver; Anne Yeagle University of Utah; 
     Erinc Yelden University of Massachusetts--Amherst; Ben E. 
     Young University of Missouri--Kansas City; Edward G. Young 
     University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire; June Zaccone National 
     Jobs for All Coalition and Hofstra University; Ajit 
     Zacharias Levy Economics Institute of Bard College; David 
     A. Zalewski Providence College; Henry W. Zaretsky Henry W. 
     Zaretsky & Associates, Inc.; Jim Zelenski Regis 
     University; Andrew Zimbalist Smith College; and John 
     Zysman University of California--Berkeley.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey), a member of the committee and a long-time proponent of 
increasing the minimum wage and making our economy fairer.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago, I was a single mother with 
three small children; and although I was employed, I was forced to go 
on welfare. I know what it is like to try to get by on a paycheck that 
is not enough to meet ends.
  Like my experience, today there are many, many Americans who are 
working so hard who are earning the minimum wage who are still coming 
up short. And, Mr. Speaker, the majority of these Americans are women 
and most of them have children. They put in a full 40-hour work week. 
They still live below the poverty line.
  This is absolutely unacceptable, because in a prosperous Nation like 
ours it should be a violation of a person's civil rights not to provide 
adequate compensation for their work.
  Mr. Speaker, we must ensure that working people earn enough to care 
for themselves and their families.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2 and support the millions of 
working Americans who so desperately need a raise in the minimum wage.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Linder.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this political effort to fix prices. 
Dr. Milton Friedman spoke on this issue 31 years ago. He noted that the 
proponents of increasing the minimum wage are well-meaning do-gooders, 
but they are playing politics with people's futures.
  These ideas always have two groups of sponsors, the well-meaning do-
gooders and the special interests who are using the do-gooders as front 
men.
  Since there is absolutely no positive objective achieved by a minimum 
wage other than costing beginning workers their jobs, the real purpose 
is to reduce competition for unions so that it is easier to maintain 
the wages of their privileged members higher than the others.
  The minimum wage says that employers must discriminate against those 
with low skills. If you have a job that is worth $5 an hour, you may 
not employ that person. It is illegal.
  So who pays? The 1981 Minimum Wage Study Commission concluded that a 
10 percent increase in the minimum wage reduced teenage employment by 1 
to 3 percent. From 1981 to 1990, the minimum wage did not rise, and 
teen unemployment fell from 25 percent to 15 percent. After the 1990 
increase, teen unemployment rose to more than 20 percent. The 46 
percent rise between 1977 and 1981 cost 644,000 jobs among teens alone.
  Who else pays? Small business. A small business with five minimum 
wage positions would face more than $21,000 in additional wage costs. 
That does not include increases in payroll and unemployment taxes nor 
wage demands from other employees looking to stay ahead of the minimum 
wage. For many businesses, small businesses, a higher minimum wage 
simply equates to a major tax hike. That is what this is.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires).
  Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Members, I rise in support of H.R. 2. I am proud to be a Member of 
Congress at a time when I can help the nearly 13 million American 
workers that will benefit from an increase in the minimum wage, 
including the almost 2.8 million Hispanic workers whose quality of life 
will be greatly improved by this legislation.
  For the past 9 years, America's working families have not received a 
pay raise. Today, minimum wage employees working 40 hours a week, 52 
weeks a year, earn $5,000 below the poverty level for a family of 
three. How can we allow so many hardworking families to live in 
poverty?
  Increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour will give our working 
families an additional $4,400 a year. This will help them meet critical 
needs such as rent, health care, child care, and food. I urge all 
Members to please support this legislation.
  In this 110th Congress, we must reaffirm the American Dream that 
rewards hard work with good pay and the opportunity to support strong 
and healthy families. An increase in the minimum wage will help us 
achieve this goal. I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the 
Congressional Budget Office as to the cost to State, local, and tribal 
governments and to the private sector of the provisions of the 
legislation before us; simply about $1 billion to governments and about 
$16 billion to the private sector, mostly small businesses.
                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                Washington, DC, December 29, 2006.
     Hon. William ``Bill'' M. Thomas,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to respond, in the 
     attachment to this letter, to your questions about the 
     potential effects on government revenues and outlays that 
     could result from enactment of an increase in the federal 
     minimum wage rate from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
       In addition, at the request of Congressman McKeon, CBO has 
     prepared a cost estimate (dated December 29, 2006) for H.R. 
     2429, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005, which would raise 
     the minimum wage to $7.25 in three steps over a two-year 
     period. A copy of that estimate is also attached.
       If you require additional information about the effects of 
     increases in the minimum wage, CBO will be pleased to provide 
     it. The staff contacts are Paul Cullinan, Ralph Smith, and 
     Mark Booth.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Donald B. Marron,
                                                  Acting Director.
       Attachments.

Congressional Budget Office Responses to Questions Posed by Congressman 
    Thomas About the Effects of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage

       Question. How many workers currently earning under or just 
     above $7.25 an hour would be affected? Does CBO believe that 
     a higher minimum wage will result in increased unemployment 
     among this group?
       Answer. According to data from the Current Population 
     Survey, in October 2006, there were approximately 8.4 million 
     workers usually paid on an hourly wage basis whose wage rate 
     was between $5.15, the current federal minimum wage rate, and 
     $7.25; two-thirds of them were paid more than $6.00 per hour.
       The number of workers at or just above the federal minimum 
     wage rate has been declining and is expected to continue to 
     decline because of market forces and actions taken by many 
     states. As of October 2006, 20 states and the District of 
     Columbia had laws that required employers covered by their 
     legislation to pay wage rates above $5.15 per hour.

[[Page H270]]

     In 2007, eight more states will fall in that category. Some 
     states, including California and Massachusetts, will have 
     minimum wage rates above $7.25. Thus, the number of people 
     that would be directly affected by an increase in the federal 
     minimum wage rate and the magnitude of the wage adjustments 
     that would be required of employers are expected to diminish 
     over time.
       The potential employment and unemployment impacts of 
     raising the federal minimum wage rate to $7.25 per hour are 
     difficult to predict, but are likely to be small. Economists 
     have devoted considerable energy to the task of estimating 
     how employers would respond to such a mandate. Although most 
     economists would agree that an increase in the minimum wage 
     rate would cause firms to employ fewer low-wage workers, 
     there is considerable disagreement about the magnitude of the 
     reduction. The main reason for that disagreement is the 
     difficulty in distinguishing the effects on employment that 
     were attributable to past changes in the minimum wage from 
     those that were attributable to other changes in the labor 
     market.
       Moreover, the results of such analyses are difficult to 
     apply to future changes because labor market conditions will 
     be different. Many of the attempts to estimate the employment 
     impacts of increases in the minimum wage were based on data 
     from periods in which the federal minimum wage was much 
     higher, as a percentage of average wages, than it is now or 
     will be when any proposed increases would take effect. 
     Likewise, the number of people paid at the federal minimum 
     wage rate is much smaller now than it was prior to previous 
     increases even though the labor force has grown 
     significantly.
       Employers could respond to an increase in the federal 
     minimum wage in many different ways. Some would reduce the 
     number of workers they employed or cut back on the number of 
     hours worked by some of their employees. Because many of 
     the workers in the affected wage range are on part-time 
     schedules, reducing the hours of employment might be 
     easier to do than it would be if all workers were employed 
     on fixed eight-hour schedules.
       Other ways that employers might respond to an increase in 
     the federal minimum wage would not involve adjustments in 
     employment levels or hours. Employers might screen job 
     applicants more closely to select employees from whom they 
     would expect higher productivity. Some employers might reduce 
     fringe benefits for their employees. Some employers might 
     attempt to pass along at least a portion of the additional 
     payroll costs to their customers by raising prices. They 
     might be successful in doing so if their competitors were 
     also faced with higher labor costs because of the increase in 
     the minimum wage.
       Any reductions in the growth in employment resulting from 
     such an increase in the minimum wage rate would not 
     necessarily result in a corresponding increase in 
     unemployment--that is, the number of people actively seeking 
     work. The impact on the level of unemployment would also 
     depend on how the changes in work opportunities resulting 
     from an increase in the minimum wage rate affected people's 
     decisions about participating in the labor force.
       Question. Does CBO expect there to be any increased or 
     decreased spending on work support programs such as the 
     Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, or Food Stamps? Is there 
     an expected increase or decrease in the number of people 
     participating in these antipoverty programs as a result of 
     higher wages resulting from the minimum wage?
       Answer. The increases in the minimum wage on the order of 
     magnitude suggested in your letter could affect federal 
     spending, but the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) judges 
     that those effects would be small. Moreover, whether those 
     impacts would be an increase or decrease in spending is 
     uncertain because the result would depend on the income and 
     family characteristics of the affected individuals. Some 
     workers would see their incomes increased, but others might 
     see their work hours and earnings decline (or sometimes 
     eliminated completely) as employers responded to the increase 
     in the minimum wage. CBO expects that, in many cases, those 
     groups of workers would have similar characteristics and 
     therefore similar tendencies to participate in public 
     programs. For those workers newly unemployed, increased 
     participation in assistance programs would generate 
     significant additional costs on a per-case basis, but 
     decreased costs for workers with increased earnings would 
     offset most or all of that effect.
       The majority of minimum-wage workers do not receive any 
     benefits under the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Food 
     Stamp program, or Medicaid. Those eligible for EITC payments 
     could receive either higher or lower payments depending on 
     whether or not they were in the ``phase-in'' or the ``phase-
     out'' income ranges. Workers would lose EITC payments if they 
     were in the phase-out range and received higher earnings, and 
     they would gain EITC payments if they were in the phase-in 
     range and received higher earnings, within limits. CBO's 
     analysis suggests that more affected workers are in the 
     phase-out range than in the phase-in range. However, the 
     implicit tax rate for EITC recipients in the phase-out range 
     is generally much lower than the rate of benefit accrual for 
     recipients in the phase-in range. As a result, CBO's 
     preliminary analysis suggests that the phase-in and phase-out 
     effects would virtually offset each other and total EITC 
     payments would be little changed.
       Food Stamp benefits would fall for some workers, but could 
     rise for others if they were among those in the labor force 
     who saw their work hours decline. Similarly, some Medicaid 
     recipients would reach income levels that would make them 
     ineligible for that coverage, while others whose work hours 
     were diminished might become eligible.
       Question. Will there be significant increases in the amount 
     of payroll or income taxes collected as a result of the 
     increased income from affected workers?
       Answer. CBO's estimate of the potential effects of an 
     increase in the minimum wage on federal revenues is similar 
     to that for spending--the impact would be small and of 
     indeterminate direction. The effective tax rates for workers 
     whose income would rise are not likely to be very different 
     from those who might see their hours and earnings decreased. 
     Those effective tax rates reflect payroll taxes (for Social 
     Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance) and income 
     taxes.
       Question. What effect will the increased minimum wage have 
     on the unemployment insurance program? Does CBO expect that 
     state unemployment payroll taxes will need to be increased or 
     that unemployment benefit payments will increase as a result 
     of any unemployment resulting from the increase in the 
     minimum wage?
       Answer. CBO estimates that increases in the minimum wage 
     would have a negligible effect on the unemployment insurance 
     (UI) program. Unemployment benefits might rise slightly from 
     any increase in unemployment that might ensue, but only a 
     very small share of minimum-wage workers end up qualifying 
     for benefits. Initially, taxes under the program could rise 
     or fall depending on what happened to earnings under the 
     annual cap on taxable wages. Moreover, to the extent that the 
     balances in the state UI accounts deviated from a state's 
     desired position, the state would adjust its tax rates and 
     benefit provisions to offset those deviations, CBO assumes. 
     Thus, CBO expects the net effect on the UI program to be 
     neutral over time.


               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

     H.R. 2429--Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005
       Summary: H.R. 2429 would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     (FLSA) to increase the federal minimum wage in three steps 
     from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour. The bill also would 
     apply the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA to the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). The 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that enactment of 
     an identical bill in the next Congress would have no 
     significant effect on the direct spending and revenues of the 
     federal government. Because a very small number of federal 
     employees are paid the federal minimum wage, the bill would 
     have a minor effect on the budgets of federal agencies that 
     are controlled through annual appropriations.
       The bill would impose mandates, as defined by the Unfunded 
     Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), on some state and local 
     governments, Indian tribes, and private-sector employers 
     because it would require them to pay higher wages than they 
     are required to pay under current law. The bill also would 
     preempt the minimum wage laws of the CNMI. CBO estimates that 
     the costs to state, local, and tribal governments and to the 
     private sector would exceed the thresholds established by 
     UMRA. (The thresholds in 2007 are $66 million for 
     intergovernmental mandates and $131 million for private-
     sector mandates, both adjusted annually for inflation.)
       For the purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes the 
     legislation will be enacted by March 1, 2007. If so, the 
     minimum wage would rise from $5.15 to $5.85 on May 1, 2007, 
     to $6.55 on May 1, 2008, and to $7.25 on May 1, 2009.
       Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO estimates 
     that enacting H.R. 2429 would have no significant effects on 
     the federal budget.
       Affected workers and their families could experience 
     changes to their incomes that would affect the benefits they 
     receive from federal programs such as the Earned Income Tax 
     Credit (EITC), Food Stamps, and Medicaid. However, CBO judges 
     that in aggregate any such impacts would be small, and could 
     result in either higher or lower spending in those programs. 
     Most workers in the affected wage range do not currently 
     participate in those programs. CBO's analysis of the EITC 
     indicates that those workers who are in the earnings range 
     where the EITC is phased out would receive reduced payments 
     that would virtually offset the additional benefits received 
     by those in the phase-in range. Similarly, those Food Stamp 
     participants whose earnings rose would receive fewer 
     benefits, but workers who could not find work at the higher 
     wages or whose hours were cut back would likely claim higher 
     benefits.
       The potential revenue effects are similar--small and of 
     indeterminate direction. CBO expects that the workers with 
     increased earnings would have characteristics similar to 
     those whose incomes fall as a result of unemployment or 
     reduced hours. Consequently, the marginal tax rates for the 
     two groups would be comparable, and the changes in the 
     minimum wage would result in little change in aggregate tax 
     revenues.
       Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: The amendment 
     would impose both intergovernmental and private-sector 
     mandates, as defined in UMRA, because it would require 
     employers to pay higher wages than

[[Page H271]]

     they are required to pay under current law. In addition, it 
     would preempt the minimum wage laws of the CNMI. That 
     preemption also is considered a mandate.
       To estimate the direct cost to employers of raising the 
     minimum wage (that is, the cost of the new requirement absent 
     any change in their behavior), CBO used information on the 
     number of workers whose wages would be affected in May 2007 
     and subsequent months, the wage rates these workers would 
     receive in the absence of the bill, and the number of hours 
     for which they would be compensated. The estimate was made in 
     two steps. First, CBO used data from the Current Population 
     Survey to estimate how much it would have cost employers to 
     comply with the mandate had they been required to do so in 
     late 2006. Second, that estimate was used to project the 
     costs to employers beginning in May 2007, taking into account 
     the expected decline over time in the number of workers in 
     the relevant wage range. Those estimates take into account 
     the fact that some states already have, or will have, minimum 
     wages higher than the current federal minimum wage.
       CBO estimates that the costs to state, local, and tribal 
     governments would exceed the threshold established by UMRA 
     for intergovernmental mandates ($66 million in 2007, adjusted 
     annually for inflation) in each year beginning in fiscal year 
     2008. We also estimate that the costs to the private sector 
     would exceed the annual threshold established in the law 
     for private-sector mandates ($131 million in 2007, 
     adjusted annually for inflation) in each year beginning in 
     fiscal year 2007. The following table summarizes the 
     estimated costs of those mandates.

                ESTIMATED COSTS OF MANDATES IN H.R. 2429
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      By fiscal year, in billions of
                                                 dollars--
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                   2007    2008    2009    2010    2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              COSTS TO STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
 
Increase the federal minimum           *     0.1     0.2     0.3     0.3
 wage...........................
 
                    DIRECT COST TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR
 
Increase the federal minimum         0.3     1.5     4.0     5.7     5.0
 wage...........................
Apply the minimum wage to the          *     0.1     0.1     0.2     0.2
 CNMI...........................
Note: * = Less than $50 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Christina Hawley 
     Anthony; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: 
     Theresa Gullo; Impact on the Private Sector: Ralph Smith.
       Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis and Bruce Vavrichek, Assistant 
     Director for Health and Human Resources.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a longtime 
advocate of raising the minimum wage, as someone who supports the 
McKeon-McCrery alternative because it is balanced and provides 
incentives for investment and small business and job creation. As 
someone who worked 10 years ago for the last increase for the minimum 
wage, working very closely with my then colleague Mr. Quinn of Buffalo, 
we were able to achieve that.
  Today, we have an opportunity to raise the minimum wage, but because 
of the procedural restrictions we face on the floor some are going to 
be left behind and that is particularly disappointing.
  While H.R. 2 will provide a $2.10 raise for American workers, sadly, 
it fails to take into account many Americans with disabilities who are 
in our workforce. These are disabled Americans who receive SSI 
disability benefits who are active participants in the workforce and 
maintaining jobs that give them great satisfaction. Unfortunately, they 
are left behind because, currently, SSI beneficiaries are limited to 
$900 per month in order to remain eligible to receive benefits. If the 
wage hike under consideration today goes into law without raising an 
earnings limit for people on SSI, Americans with disabilities engaged 
in full-time employment would either potentially lose their benefits or 
have to cut back on their hours. That is a decision they shouldn't have 
to make.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not only a disincentive to work, it is a 
woefully shortsighted policy, which hopefully we will be able to 
correct before this law goes into effect.
  I introduced H.R. 290 which would ensure that workers with 
disabilities would not lose their payments through raising the earnings 
limitation on SSI. I wasn't able to offer that provision today because 
no amendments are being allowed. The result, unfortunately, is, having 
barred Republicans from having offered this change as an amendment, the 
majority has created as real victims not House Republicans but 
Americans with disabilities. And that is a shame.
  Although an increase in the minimum wage is critical, and I strongly 
support this bill, I sincerely hope that the new majority will move 
ultimately to rectify this inequity in this Congress.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, we finally are going to raise the minimum wage. No 
gimmicks, no combination with extraneous legislation, just a straight 
up or down vote to raise the minimum wage from what has become the 
lowest purchasing power in half a century.
  New Jersey instituted a fair living wage a year or so ago; and, guess 
what, the increase did not result in layoffs. That indeed has been the 
experience of every previous increase around the country. With a 
minimum wage salary of a little over $10,000 a year, health premiums 
are that much, how do you expect a family to get along? This will 
benefit 13 million people, millions of children, millions with children 
to support, millions as head of household.
  Now, you have heard about the fairness and the compassion arguments 
for this increase. We really must emphasize the solid economic 
arguments that this increase, like all previous increases, will benefit 
the entire economy. Workers will benefit. Businesses will benefit. Far 
from lopping off the lowest rung of the ladder, as our colleagues have 
argued, this will raise the entire ladder. The economics are clear. We 
have seen it again and again.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from New Jersey talked about the experience in New 
Jersey of increasing the minimum wage, and he stated that no jobs were 
lost. He didn't cite any study to that effect. He just stated it. There 
are studies, though, that show that after the increase in minimum wage 
in the 1990s, there were, in fact, job losses. 146,000 jobs were cut 
from restaurant payrolls, and operators of restaurants signaled plans 
to postpone hiring an additional 106,000 new employees because of the 
raise of the minimum wage. And, also, the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
data shows that following the increase in minimum wage, net increase in 
jobs were significantly reduced around the country. And whether that is 
a coincidence or not, we don't know, but certainly the evidence is 
fairly clear that there was an impact.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member 
of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think we are missing a historic 
opportunity to change the paradigm to really help workers get into a 
living wage for the long term. The fact is, an increase to $7.25 an 
hour will still leave a single mom with a child at or near poverty. And 
there is no doubt that a video store owner in Texas or anywhere else 
with five workers, when faced with a $25,000 increase in payroll and no 
chance they are going to rent that many more videos, are going to look 
at whether they can afford all those workers.
  Remembering well the minimum wage jobs I held when younger and also 
having worked hard to make a small business payroll, I think we need 
new thinking. America's goals should not be to raise the minimum wage; 
our goals should be to get workers off it and into good-paying jobs 
that you can raise a family on.
  So rather than recycle the same 60-year-old arguments, why don't we 
help workers break out of the minimum wage trap? Rather than raise the 
minimum wage, let employers create education debit cards where workers 
can take those debit cards to the local community college or the trade 
schools so they can get a real job. Let business and professions, whole 
industries contribute to those debit cards so we can train workers for 
the jobs of today which are crying for many American workers. And since 
Congress is eager to do this pay raise on someone else's dime, let 
small businesses deduct and receive credit those dollars, receive a tax 
credit for their education contributions above the current state of 
minimum wage.

[[Page H272]]

                              {time}  1145

  In effect, rather than a jobs bank, create a skills bank for workers 
in the 21st century. Give workers an opportunity to get out of a 
struggling job that leads nowhere and give businesses the skilled 
workers they need to compete and win against international competition. 
We have done it before with welfare. The Republican Congress and 
Democrat President worked together. We sent a strong signal we would no 
longer give up on workers, relegating them to a subsistence living 
generation after generation. We ought to do it again.
  I oppose this bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) on behalf of raising the minimum 
wage.
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise for the 
first time in this body in support of American working families.
  Teddy Roosevelt first suggested that all hardworking Americans should 
earn what he called a living wage. Today, a century later, millions of 
Americans have been denied his great vision due to baseless fear 
tactics involving unemployment and a slowed economy. But America's 
minimum wage was raised regularly for 60 years, and the economy grew, 
in no small part due to those actions.
  Raising the minimum wage never led to unemployment. It always forced 
higher wages across the board, and it helped to forge a healthy and 
vibrant economy.
  In my district, 30,000 men and women go to work every day working for 
minimum wage and come home to a life of poverty. It is our 
responsibility, our moral obligation, indeed, our great opportunity to 
ensure that all hardworking Americans have the opportunity to provide 
for themselves and their families. We have the unique opportunity to 
approach Teddy Roosevelt's vision that, for an American who works hard, 
a living wage is the absolute minimum.
  I urge my colleagues to supports the measure.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the 
Working Families Wage and Access to Health Care Act. This vital 
legislation will benefit employees by increasing the Federal minimum 
wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour, while also helping 
employers provide affordable, quality health insurance through small 
business health plans.
  During my 6 years serving the people of Central Florida, I have met 
with literally hundreds of small business owners. Their number one 
concern has consistently been the skyrocketing cost of health 
insurance. Of the 45 million Americans without health insurance, 60 
percent are small business employees and their families. By allowing 
small businesses to join together and purchase health insurance through 
national associations at group rates, it will lower insurance premiums 
by up to 30 percent.
  Small business health plans, or association health plans, as they are 
also known, are not a new idea. Since first being introduced in the 
104th Congress, a variation of small business health plan legislation 
has passed the full House on six different occasions, including during 
the 109th Congress when 36 Democrats voted for it.
  An increase to the minimum wage does not come without a cost, and 
that cost is going to be borne by our Nation's small businesses. 
Therefore, it makes perfect sense to me that Congress should offset the 
cost of the wage increase with a decrease in the cost of providing 
health insurance.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote ``yes'' on increasing the minimum 
wage no matter what. But I am also going to vote ``yes'' to increase 
workers' job security by lowering the health insurance costs for small 
businesses through AHPs, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise today in support of this 
increase in the minimum wage. We should all be a bit ashamed of the 
fact that it has been 10 years since we have had the last increase. 
Every year low-wage workers are left behind while CEOs get more and 
more money. This is not some valid exercise of a well-oiled free 
enterprise system. This is a disgrace, and most Americans are repulsed 
by that fact.
  Some people here are trying to make the case today that there is some 
benefit of a full-time worker making $10,700 a year, leaving a family 
of three $6,000 below the poverty level. There can be no benefit, Mr. 
Speaker, in that condition.
  Let us be clear. Raising the minimum wage is going to dramatically 
improve the lives of millions of Americans, whether Milton Friedman 
agrees or not. When you make $4,400 more a year than you made in the 
past year, full-time year-round workers with a family of three can 
afford a year's worth of groceries. They can afford 1\1/2\ years of 
heat and electricity. They can afford 9 months of rent, and they can 
afford the full 2-year tuition for a community college degree for a 
parent or a child. That is how we get Americans on the prosperity 
ladder. That is how we give them opportunity.
  There are those that argue that the increase in the minimum wage is 
going to hurt the economy. I suggest that that is not true at all and 
that rhetoric doesn't comport with reality. 650 economists say 
otherwise; reality says otherwise. The fact of the matter is that the 
Fiscal Policy Institute reports that States with a higher minimum wage 
than that have added jobs to the retail industry.
  We have to move in the right direction with this bill.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this harmful 
legislation and to oppose the Democrats' plan to interfere with and 
interject themselves in individuals' personal decisions as to where 
they are going to work.
  I also stand here, actually, in awe of the omniscient view the other 
side of the aisle has of themselves, this all-knowing, all-seeing view 
that they know better than families do as to where they are going to 
work and micromanage their lives. Regardless of whether it is a kid in 
Iowa after school working on a farm throwing hay or it is a woman in 
Chicago working at a high-tech plant on an assembly line or it is a man 
in New York going back as a second career trying to get a job in the 
finance industry, the other side of the aisle would tell us that each 
one of those individuals should be paid exactly the same, regardless of 
their age, regardless of the work, regardless of their experience, 
regardless of demographics, and regardless of the cost of living in 
those areas. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is unfair.
  And, finally, Mr. Speaker, this body, which has been unable to get 
its finances and house in order for the last 40 years, is in no 
position to be telling the American public and the families of this 
country how they should be getting their finances in order.
  This is an unfair bill, Mr. Speaker, and I oppose this legislation.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with tremendous pride that I rise today to deliver 
my first formal remarks on the floor of this fine institution on such 
an important issue. That, of course, is providing a fair and decent 
wage to our Nation's most economically disadvantaged.
  Nine years is far too long for anyone to wait for a wage increase, 
especially a single mother who works 40 hours a week but still has to 
face the decision of whether to buy food or medicine for her children. 
I find it unconscionable that, in a country as rich as ours, anyone 
working full time should have to make such a decision.
  Opponents argue that raising the minimum wage will only stifle 
economic growth and force employers to lay off workers. I couldn't 
disagree

[[Page H273]]

more. For starters, the logic just doesn't add up. Take, for instance, 
a small family-owned mom and pop grocery store in Upstate New York, 
which I represent. Some argue that the owners of that store would have 
to hang up a going out of business sign on their window because of the 
costs associated with the wage increase. But that thinking only looks 
at half the issue. The additional business that they will get as a 
result of the more disposable income that people have to spend in their 
store would clearly make up for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be part of a Congress that will not 
maintain the status quo, and I urge my colleagues to support this long-
overdue wage increase, not because it is the easy thing to do but 
because it is the right thing to do.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for 
yielding.
  I find today a lot of questions, a lot of unanswered questions, and a 
lot of half decent debate going on.
  I wonder, first of all, why we didn't bring this bill through 
committee. Certainly if it is a good idea, it would have been something 
worth debating and perhaps some amendments. But under the new ``open 
rule'' Democrat Party, I understand we can bypass the committee and not 
have any hearings or amendments.
  The next question is, why are so many people who were opposed to the 
Bush tax cut for the lower income going from 15 percent to 10 percent 
tax bracket, why are they now so compassionate to the poor?
  And I have to ask, also, why are you stopping at $7 an hour? If it is 
good for the economy and good for the workers, as we keep hearing over 
and over again, why do we stop at $7 an hour, this arbitrary number? 
Nobody can make a living at $14,000 a year. Why not go to $8 an hour, 
$9 an hour, $10, $20 an hour? Heck, if it is good for the economy, let 
us go to $50 an hour. And if we had a committee hearing, maybe we could 
have some answers on that.
  Question: If it is so good for the economy, why does the 
Congressional Budget Office rate it as a $5 to $7 billion unfunded 
mandate on our small businesses, which are the economic engines of the 
economy? How come the Hoover Institute estimates that it will actually 
get 20 percent of the minimum wage workers out of work because people 
will say you are not worth that much money? Those are questions that we 
don't have answers to.
  Another question that I have is we keep hearing that the minimum wage 
hasn't been increased in 9 years, when, in fact, since 1997, 29 States 
have increased their minimum wages. We do not hear about that because I 
guess we are against States' rights in any form around here. That seems 
to be a taboo kind of thing.
  But what is also interesting is that 85 percent of the people who 
make minimum wage are well above the poverty level. Why? Because 52 
percent of the people on minimum wage are teenagers, 30 percent are 
part time, and 40 percent have never had a job before. In fact, if we 
want to take a real serious look at poverty, we need to look at the 
correlation between poverty and hours worked a week. The reality is so 
many people are working less than 40 hours a week.
  The second point, very important, is marriage. If you want to get a 
lot of the children who are in poverty out of poverty right now, get 
the mom and dad to marry each other.
  Now, that wasn't in the first 100-hour agenda. I understand. We are 
rolling out the moldy, oldie golden hits of Democrat thought. But let's 
get into poverty and let's have some real hearings.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 
seconds.
  Essentially, the case that the gentleman from Georgia makes, it just 
doesn't reflect the reality on the ground. As those States have 
increased the minimum wage far above the Federal minimum wage, their 
economies have expanded, job hiring has expanded, business growth has 
expanded far faster than in those States that thought it was in their 
interest to keep a lower minimum wage.
  And I also find it interesting that in my own State of California the 
business organizations support an increase in minimum wage to $8 an 
hour and our economy continues to grow and continues to add those jobs. 
So the real-world experience is different than data from 20 years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hinojosa), a member of the committee.
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2.
  I am proud that 110th Congress has made giving America's lowest-paid 
workers a raise one of its first legislative actions. It is long 
overdue.
  Many families work hard but struggle with low wages. It is 
unconscionable that in America we have millions of people working full 
time and year round and still living in poverty. At $5.15 an hour, a 
full-time minimum wage worker brings home $10,700 a year, nearly $6,000 
below the poverty level for a family of three. An average Fortune 500 
CEO earns more before lunchtime than a minimum wage worker makes all 
year.
  American families have seen the real income drop by almost $1,300 
since 2000, while the costs of gasoline, heating fuel, and health care 
have soared. For families living on minimum wage, this means a greater 
struggle to put food on the table and pay the rent. Minimum wage 
families struggle with the cost of daycare and health care. They 
struggle to provide a sound education for their children, and for many 
college is a dream beyond their reach. Today, we are doing something to 
ease that struggle.
  Raising the minimum wage is a first step and a clear signal that we 
in Congress will do something. Raising the Federal minimum wage from 
$5.15 to $7.25 an hour will add $4,400 to the income of full-time year-
round workers, enough for a low-income family of three to afford a year 
of groceries.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been 10 years since our lowest-paid workers got a 
raise. In intervening years we in this body have seen many pay raises. 
Americans in the top income brackets have seen their earnings soar. On 
top of that, they have been the biggest beneficiaries of generous tax 
cuts.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, while I am not sold on the 
effectiveness of a minimum wage increase, I rise in support of 
increasing the number of Americans with health insurance.
  Too many working Americans have a job but aren't insured because 
their employers cannot afford to purchase quality health care plans. 
This is particularly true of small businesses where it is difficult to 
pool risk, and the regulatory environment is overwhelmingly 
complicated. Currently, small businesses are denied the ability to 
purchase health coverage with the benefits large companies and unions 
have enjoyed for decades.
  So today, as part of a comprehensive motion to recommit, the 
Republicans will offer a proposal to address health care for many small 
businesses: association health plans. AHPs would increase small 
businesses' bargaining power with health care providers, give them 
much-needed freedom from a costly State-mandated benefit package and 
lower their overhead costs by as much as 30 percent.
  By pooling their resources and increasing their bargaining power, 
AHPs will help small businesses reduce their health insurance coverage 
costs. As you have heard me say before, if it is good enough for Wall 
Street, it is good enough for Main Street.
  By making health care more affordable, AHPs will expand access to 
quality health care for people for whom it is currently out of reach: 
uninsured working families. That is something my friends on both sides 
of the aisle can agree on.
  It is no wonder my AHP bill has had unwavering bipartisan support in 
the House for nearly a decade now. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to make AHPs law this year. Small businesses need help now. 
Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes 
to the

[[Page H274]]

gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), a member of the committee.
  (Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I have a statement which I will submit for the 
Record, but I want to speak for a moment from my personal experience.
  I have owned a business. I have met a payroll. But I have also worked 
for relatively low wages. I have worked in decommissioned ships that 
were both extremely hot in the hold and also filled with asbestos. I 
have worked in a dog food factory. But my real minimum wage job was as 
an assistant dishwasher in a Chinese restaurant owned by friends of my 
parents. I saw how hard those full-time workers worked.
  I was an assistant dishwasher, and I saw how the full-time dishwasher 
got his fingers burned, how the cooks got their hands cut. And they 
worked for minimum wage just like me, but I was a teenager. And I came 
home to my parents' home. I said to my parents, Those people work 
awfully hard, and they deserve more. We ought to have a union. I never 
got to go back to work at my parents' friends' restaurant.
  There are times when there is unequal bargaining power, when there 
are market failures, and there is a very legitimate role for the public 
sector and for joint action.
  I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle whether they would 
roll back the 40-hour work week. I ask my friends if they would roll 
back worker safety provisions and roll back child labor laws. Your time 
has passed a century ago. It is long due to pass an increase in the 
minimum wage.
  I rise in strong support of raising the minimum wage.
  We tend to assume that employment is the solution to poverty. And in 
the past we have enacted legislation that reflects our commitment to 
training and placing individuals into jobs. While I strongly support 
efforts to increase employment, a job is not the complete answer to 
poverty. Far too many families who work full time still live below the 
poverty line. In fact, since the late 1970s, the number of full-time 
workers who live in poverty has doubled.
  The reason for this is our low minimum wage. In 1996, after a 5-year 
freeze, Congress enacted legislation to raise the minimum wage from 
$4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour--still well below the value of the 
minimum wage at its in peak in 1968 at $8.49 in 2005 dollars. Now, 10 
years have passed without an increase in the minimum wage. Meanwhile, 
the number of Americans who live in poverty has increased by 5.4 
million during the Bush administration.
  Today, a minimum wage worker working full time earns only half the 
poverty level for a family of four. A single parent working full time 
at the current minimum wage cannot support one child above the poverty 
threshold.
  More than one-quarter, 26 percent, of the 13 million workers who 
would benefit from a minimum wage increase are parents. Sixty percent 
of these workers are women.
  History has shown that a minimum wage increase does not decrease 
employment or increase inflation. In fact, in the four years after the 
last minimum wage increase passed, the economy experienced its 
strongest growth in over three decades. Yet a minimum wage increase 
does raise the wages of low-income workers in general, even those who 
earn more than the minimum wage, the ``lifting all boats'' effect of an 
increase in the minimum wage. It moves working families out of poverty.
  Unfortunately, the Republicans leadership has resisted all efforts to 
increase the minimum wage.
  The Fair Minimum Wage Act, of which I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor, will raise the minimum wage to $7.25 over a 2-year period.
  It is time to raise the minimum wage. No one should work full time 
jobs, or even work multiple jobs, and still live in poverty.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, just in response to the gentleman from 
Oregon, no one here is suggesting that government does not have a 
legitimate role to play in protecting workers' rights. That is not the 
point of the alternative that we are trying to offer here today.
  Our point is that the businesses that will be most directly impacted 
by the increased mandated burden of costs need to be helped so that we 
minimize the job loss that we know will come as a result of that.
  So I agree with the gentleman: There is a legitimate role, and we are 
not arguing that. In fact, our alternative does increase the minimum 
wage and gives help to those businesses that will most directly be 
impacted.
  I don't have time to yield, but I will talk to the gentleman off the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds), another distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 2 
minutes.
  Today's debate is really about missed opportunities. We all know that 
small businesses are the engines of our Nation's economic growth and 
that they provide the vast majority of jobs in so many of our local 
communities across the country.
  But today, the new Democratic majority misses an opportunity, an 
opportunity not only to raise the minimum wage but to provide urgently 
needed help to those small businesses and to address health care needs 
of their employees.
  Mr. Speaker, our Republican alternative, the Working Families Wage 
and Access to Health Care Act, addresses these needs. In addition to 
providing an increase to minimum wage, our approach would be: extending 
small business expensing through 2010; it would shorten the 
depreciation period for new restaurant construction through 2007; and 
it would end an unnecessary surtax that is an extra burden on low-
income workers.
  Our approach also would be to expand workers' access to affordable 
health care through small business health plans, an important priority 
that has long enjoyed broad, bipartisan support.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
particularly the newly elected Members of the new majority, should be 
asking themselves a question this morning: Why is their Democratic 
leadership forcing them to vote against a commonsense, bipartisan 
approach that the Democratic leader in the other body has already 
embraced? In addition to being a missed opportunity to address the real 
needs of small business, this is just bad politics by this untested 
majority.
  Mr. Speaker, this could have been a much better bill if Democrats had 
fulfilled their promises to go through the regular committee process. 
If the new majority had allowed the Ways and Means Committee an 
opportunity to fully debate the issue, I am confident we could have put 
together a balanced and bipartisan package and met the needs of workers 
in small businesses.
  I voted for the minimum wage increase some 5 months ago when 158 of 
my Democratic colleagues voted against it. They missed an opportunity 
then. They are missing one now. I urge support of the Republican 
alternative.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 
seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the Congressional Daily that the Republican 
ranking member on this committee says he does not expect the health 
care package to be part of minimum wage. So, once again, we have a 
mismatch here of hijacking this bill to improve minimum wage for the 
lowest-wage working people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Sutton).
  (Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the kind gentleman from California 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of raising the minimum wage to 
help our working families. In November, many Americans cast their votes 
for change because they were tired of the economic injustices working 
families have suffered over the last decade. Those who went to the 
polls want action on a clean bill from a Congress that has failed to 
raise the Federal minimum wage for nearly 10 years.
  Voters in Ohio and five other States who believed in our democracy 
passed minimum wage increases. This is not only about increasing wages, 
it is about changing the way we treat our working men and women. And it 
is about traditional American values of fairness and opportunity. It is 
about paying rent, putting food on the table and paying for our 
children to go to college.
  Mr. Speaker, the voters have given us a mandate. This is part of 
America's agenda. Today we act mindful of that mandate to help working 
families across this Nation by raising the minimum wage.

[[Page H275]]

  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be allowed to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I now call upon the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Pete Sessions, for 2 minutes.
  (Mr. SESSIONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a press release 
by the Employment Policies Institute and an op-ed by George Will that 
was in the Dallas Morning News on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today opposed to this bill, this bill that did 
not go through regular order nor through the Rules Committee, not even 
to be a secret vote in the Rules Committee. And I argue against this 
bill for the reasons we have not had a chance to vet the bill, to tell 
the truth that there will be over 1.6 million people that will lose 
their job directly related to this action by Washington, D.C., The 
Federalist Society, the Democratic Party in Washington, D.C., who will 
control not only their jobs but take away from small businesses the 
opportunity to be competitive in a competitive world.
  Mr. Speaker, we are going to cause these 1.6 million people to lose 
their jobs as a result of their inability to be able to compete in 
marketplaces and to raise their own wages.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that these 1.6 million jobs were 
important to families and people. It may not be much of a job. It may 
be in a small rural community, but they were jobs that were important 
to those people. They are jobs, even if not high-paying jobs, that 
would provide them the opportunity to get up and find self-worth and go 
and do their very best, perhaps not just with limited resources but 
with the very best that community may offer.
  These are the types of stories that would be told if we had followed 
regular order, if the committees had been able to vet this, if we had 
known more about the ability to hear experts testify about what is 
actually going to happen.
  We hear the words about food on the table. We hear about having 
people earn more money. That is great. But 1.6 million jobs will be 
lost from our economy as a result of what the Democrat Party does. I 
say, shame on us. I will oppose this. I will be for the Republican 
alternative that encourages better jobs.

Employment Policies Institute: Minimum Wage Hike Threatens Healthy U.S. 
                                Economy

       Washington, DC.--Despite the flourishing U.S. economy and 
     record low unemployment level, low-skilled jobs--such as the 
     retail and leisure and hospitality industries--are in 
     decline. These jobs will be further threatened by the 
     prospect of a federal minimum wage hike, warns the Employment 
     Policies Institute (EPI).
       Decades of economic research prove that raising the minimum 
     wage reduces job opportunities, particularly for people with 
     few skills. When faced with the increase in labor costs that 
     attend minimum wage hikes, employers often respond by hiring 
     more skilled applicants, automating jobs, or cutting back on 
     customer service.
       Contrary to the opinion of proponents of minimum wage 
     hikes, a rising tide doesn't necessarily lift all boats, and 
     an extremely healthy skilled job market often masks an ailing 
     low-skilled job market.
       ``The unintended consequences of a minimum wage hike will 
     disproportionately affect low-skilled jobs while skilled 
     labor may continue to flourish,'' said Jill Jenkins, EPI's 
     chief economist. ``In other words, if two computer programmer 
     jobs are created and one less grocery store checker is hired, 
     the net job creation is positive, but you're still seeing a 
     decline in entry-level job opportunities.''
       A study by economists at the Federal Reserve found that 
     every 10% increase in the minimum wage leads to a 2%-3% 
     decrease in employment overall. When you focus on the job 
     loss suffered by low-skilled individuals such as high school 
     drop-outs or minority teens, the increase in unemployment is 
     as high as 8.5% for every 10% increase in the minimum wage, 
     according to research from Cornell and the University of 
     Connecticut.
       ``Instead of pushing for a minimum wage increase, lawmakers 
     could affect real change by promoting expansion of the Earned 
     Income Tax Credit (EITC),'' added Jenkins. ``The EITC 
     effectively targets benefits to families in need without 
     jeopardizing jobs.''
                                  ____


       George Will: Here's a Better Proposal for the Minimum Wage

       A federal minimum wage is an idea whose time came in 1938, 
     when public confidence in markets was at a nadir and the 
     federal government's confidence in itself was at an apogee. 
     Today, raising the federal minimum wage is a bad idea whose 
     time has come for two reasons:
       The first is that some Democrats have a chronic and 
     evidently incurable disease--New Deal Nostalgia. Second, the 
     president has endorsed raising the hourly minimum from $5.15 
     to $7.25 by the spring of 2009.
       Democrats consider the minimum wage increase a signature 
     issue. Yet consider these statistics:
       Most of the working poor earn more than the minimum wage, 
     and most of the 0.6 percent (479,000 in 2005) of America's 
     wage workers earning the minimum are not poor.
       Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum lives 
     in a family with a household earning below the poverty line.
       Sixty percent work part-time, and their average household 
     income is well over $40,000. (The average and median 
     household incomes are $63,344 and $46,326 respectively.)
       The federal minimum wage has not been raised since 1997, so 
     29 states with 70 percent of the nation's workforce have 
     raised their own minimum wages. The problem is that demand 
     for almost everything is elastic: When the price of something 
     goes up, demand for it goes down.
       But suppose those scholars are correct who say that when 
     the minimum wage increased slowly, the impact on employment 
     is negligible.
       Still, because of large differences among states' costs of 
     living and the nature of their economies, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-
     S.C., sensibly suggests that each state should be allowed to 
     set a lower minimum.
       It should be the same everywhere: $0. Labor is a commodity; 
     governments make messes when they decree commodities' prices. 
     Washington, which has its hands full delivering the mail and 
     defending the shores, should let the market do well what 
     Washington does poorly. But that is a good idea whose time 
     will never come again.

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a member of the committee.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2 to give the 
American people who have to work the hardest for the very least a long 
overdue raise and increase the minimum wage.
  The current minimum wage has effectively knocked off the lowest rungs 
of the economic ladder of this country and kept millions of our 
Nation's working families in a paycheck-to-paycheck life of insecurity 
and struggle.
  Today's economy is keeping millions of our fellow Americans from 
owning homes, achieving stability and prosperity. Low wages are slowly 
suffocating the American Dream. Today we take a deep breath.
  The day has finally come when Congress has a chance to reward work 
and support families by putting a fair value on the work of our people. 
Today we can say clearly that family values should not be code for 
spiteful and divisive politics but a real policy of valuing families 
and the work of mothers and fathers.
  Today is a historic day. I am proud to join with my colleagues in 
support of H.R. 2 in raising the minimum wage for American workers.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage has not increased in 9 
years. Yet over the past decade, we have experienced vast economic 
growth, record low unemployment and, in the last 3 years, the creation 
of 7 million new jobs. Without a doubt, at 4.5 percent, our 
unemployment rate is so low that some employers seek out illegal 
foreign workers to fill the jobs that they say a lot of Americans won't 
take.
  If we raise the minimum wage, businesses will have to find a way to 
offset added labor costs by one of two things, raising prices on goods 
and services or laying off workers. This is simple economics that many 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot seem to accept 
or understand. When prices go up, demands go down. In other words, as 
the minimum wage grows, so does the unemployment rate.
  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, unlike the debate in the Senate, H.R. 2 
comes to the floor with no committee hearings, no committee votes, no 
opportunities for amendment. While our colleagues in the other body 
work on a compromise with President Bush,

[[Page H276]]

Members of the House of Representatives are shut out of any 
constructive debate.
  As a former member of the Rules Committee, I am extremely 
disappointed in the majority's failure to live up to its promises and 
allow an open and fair process on such a crucial issue.

                              {time}  1215

  For the benefit of the workforce, I ask my colleagues, vote against 
the minimum wage increase. Protect our small businesses. Let's sustain 
this economic growth.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, on November 7, the voice of the American 
people rang out clearly across this land: Our country is out of 
balance. The few have prospered while many have languished.
  America has become a land of the haves and the have-nots. The 
disparity of wealth among the richest and poorest in this country is 
the greatest it has been in nearly 100 years. We have laws which 
provide every sort of tax break for those who are thriving, while the 
people who are struggling daily to put food on the table and pay their 
utility bills have not seen a raise in the minimum wage in nearly 10 
years.
  Seven dollars and twenty-five cents. Seven dollars and twenty-five 
cents. Many haves in this country spend that much each day on their 
Starbucks with a dollop or a twist. Those of us who don't struggle to 
make ends meet, this is truly the time to walk in our brother's and our 
sister's shoes, shoes that need soling, not polishing.
  This is not just an economic issue, it is a moral issue. Prosperity 
is not the property of the few, it should also be available to the 
least of us.
  As I left the Memphis airport, a hardworking man for Northwest 
Airlines said to me, Congressman, will you pass the minimum wage? To 
him and many others, the thousands in District Nine, I say, yes, we 
will do that.
  This is an opportunity for us to help people who need help. And I say 
to my fellow so-called ``do-gooders'' of the world, let us make America 
more fair, more humane and more just.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), for his first floor speech as a new Member of 
the House of Representatives.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today in support of House Resolution 2, the Fair Minimum Wage 
Act, to increase our Nation's minimum wage. It has been nearly a decade 
since this standard has been updated. I am pleased that we are here 
today to give many hardworking men and women a much-needed raise.
  I am concerned, however, that the bill in its current form may 
adversely impact our Nation's small businesses, which are the backbone 
of our robust economy. I am also disappointed that my Republican 
colleagues and I will not have an opportunity to strengthen this bill 
by including provisions to help reduce any potential unintended 
consequences that raising the minimum wage may have on our employers. 
For that reason, I intend to support the Republican motion to recommit 
so that we can put more money in the pockets of hardworking Americans 
while protecting our small businesses.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of the passage of 
H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, which would help nearly 13 
million American workers and their families by increasing the Federal 
minimum wage by $2.10 an hour. Let me thank the chairman, George 
Miller, for bringing this very important legislation to the floor.
  The intent of the bill is to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to 
$7.25 an hour, but let me just say this: When I hear naysayers say that 
this will eliminate jobs, back in 1994, when New Jersey had the highest 
minimum wage in the country, we compared the job growth of low-income 
jobs in New Jersey to those in Pennsylvania. Not only was there no 
negative impact on low-income jobs in New Jersey, but actually during 
that period of time, in the middle nineties, the minimum wage jobs in 
New Jersey grew at a higher rate than they did in Pennsylvania, which 
proved that the increase in the minimum wage did not run jobs out of 
the area. That was done by the American Economic Review.
  Just recently, a survey was taken that showed that 83 percent of 
Americans support an increase of $2 or more in the minimum wage, and a 
survey this week from the Associated Press found that 80 percent of 
Americans support an increase in the rate. So there has been consistent 
support from the public in the United States of America. That is why we 
going in a new direction.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlelady from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin), a new Member of this Congress, 
for her maiden speech on the House floor.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be here today.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past 12 years, I have had the opportunity to 
serve as Oklahoma's Lieutenant Governor and, more importantly, 
Oklahoma's official small business advocate. I spent years traveling 
throughout our State visiting with our small business owners and their 
employees, and they are truly the economic engine of many of our 
communities in our State.
  In our State, 97 percent of Oklahoma's businesses have 100 or fewer 
employees and are small businesses, and employers in our State employ 
over 600,000 workers that are small business workers, which means that 
50 percent of our jobs are related to small business.
  Mr. Speaker, my concern is that a 41 percent increase in the minimum 
wage places a real burden on our small businesses. It is a burden that 
could mean layoffs. It is a burden that could mean bankruptcy for 
others.
  The Federal Government cannot force small businesses to shoulder that 
burden alone. If the government is to raise our current minimum wage, 
it must pursue a balanced plan that will provide serious tax relief and 
regulatory relief to those who will be hit hardest by a minimum wage 
increase.
  A plan without balance will not lift up the American workers. It will 
actually drag down small business. The Congressional Budget Office has 
estimated that increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour will cost 
small businesses somewhere between $5 billion to $7 billion nationwide. 
And when small businesses fail, minimum wage earners will suffer. The 
Hoover Institute estimates that fully 1.5 million small business 
workers nationwide may lose their jobs if an unbalanced minimum wage 
hike is passed.
  So it is clear to me that a minimum wage increase plan without a plan 
to offset the burden placed upon small business will be harmful to our 
economy, and this Congress must not sabotage the machine which powers 
our economy and gives life to so many of our communities, which is 
small business. We must help our Nation's workers in a responsible 
fashion and avoid a plan which I believe is well-intentioned but could 
be devastating to employers and employees alike.
  It is for this reason that I strongly encourage my colleagues to 
reject anything short of a balanced plan to raise the minimum wage 
unless one has a plan that offsets the burden placed upon small 
business and has serious and appropriate tax and regulatory relief.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been 10 long years since Congress has raised the 
minimum wage. This is the longest period between raises in the minimum 
wage since it was enacted in 1938. The American people have spoken very 
clearly. It is time to raise the wages of our lowest-paid workers.
  Our families have been squeezed: an increase at the gas pump, an 
increase at the grocery store, an increase in

[[Page H277]]

health care and an increase in childcare. It is time that we give back. 
As a part of Congress, we should be an example. We shouldn't always be 
following our States, as my great State of North Carolina has increased 
the minimum wage. We should be leading by example.
  That is why it gives me great privilege to support this bill. It is 
our moral commitment to the families of this country, and that is why I 
strongly support this measure.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the committee.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2 and in favor of the 
alternative. Circumventing market forces to mandate an arbitrary 
Federal minimum wage increase is bad economic policy. If it is done, 
however, we must offer protection for America's small businesses. 
Refusing to do so will ultimately hurt the very workers it intends to 
help.
  We all want employees to make more than the minimum wage; and, 
through tax cuts, 7.3 million jobs have been created in the past 40 
months by workers keeping their own money.
  When the minimum wage is increased, unfunded mandated costs on small 
businesses increase. As a result, business owners must be forced to cut 
jobs or reduce entry level workers to avoid incurring additional 
expenses.
  Republicans are seeking to provide relief for these businesses by 
offering alternative health care plans and tax incentives. 
Unfortunately, House Democratic leadership has shunned the proposal 
supported by Senate majority leader Harry Reid, President Bush and 
House Republicans.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the 
Republican alternative, which will ensure businesses receive the 
protections they need and our economy continues to thrive.
  In conclusion, God bless our troops. We will never forget September 
11.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman of 
education for bringing this important matter to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I know Congress isn't used to having straight, clean 
bills. We can do this. Ten years I have been in Congress, and 10 years 
we have been trying to get the minimum wage raised. We talk about small 
business. There is not one person on the Democratic side that doesn't 
support small businesses, but we also support those people that are 
trying to make a living wage.
  By estimates, there are 623,000 single women raising families trying 
to make a living. I go to the grocery store. I fill up my gas tank. We 
are very privileged here to make a very nice salary. Yet we are denying 
those that need our help the most to give them some sort of life. 
$7.25. Who the heck can live on that, even if you work 60 hours a week? 
And, by the way, these people that are working these jobs on minimum 
wage usually have two jobs, sometimes three.
  It is time that we do this. It is the moral and right thing.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for 
yielding this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there is a critical point that is being 
overlooked in this debate on the minimum wage. We need to talk about 
the people that this minimum wage increase will be a barrier to their 
employment, for example, the physically, emotionally and mentally 
handicapped in this country.
  I have in my district, in Cleveland County, Cleveland Vocational 
Industries, a community-based organization. What they do is they train 
workers with disabilities to fulfill certain assembly line packing and 
labeling projects, what some of us would call menial labor or very 
simple tasks. But it is a very positive thing. It is a great way to 
train and employ people that otherwise cannot be trained and employed.
  What is going to happen is these are about 8 percent of the total 
minimum wage earners in this country, those with disabilities. What 
that is going to do is harm them in their ability to get contracts with 
businesses.
  This is a very nice idea, to raise people's wages, but the impact it 
is going to have among the least among us will be that they will simply 
not have a job. I think that is being lost in this debate, and I think 
that is what we need to be concerned about.
  Let's talk about the facts about the minimum wage. That is what is 
lost here. This is high-minded rhetoric. What the Democrat majority 
wants to do, Mr. Speaker, is use other people's money to pay other 
people. Well, that is a very nice thing to do, a nice offer, a very 
nice thing, to write a check for somebody else.
  All right. Let them pay somebody else. That is a nice obligation that 
we are passing on, this unfunded mandate.
  Eighty-five percent of minimum wage earners in this country are teens 
or adults who live alone or second earners; a married couple, one goes 
and works part-time. Eighty-five percent of them fall in those 
categories. So they are talking about making a minimum wage on this and 
providing for a family of 10, or whatever. It is just empty rhetoric 
and crazy talk.
  So let's talk about affecting and helping people through training and 
access to health care and support the Republican alternative.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a long-time battler for economic 
and social justice.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for his bold and 
consistent leadership to raise the minimum wage. This is an important 
ethical and moral issue that speaks directly to our values as 
Americans. It is a shame and disgrace that in the wealthiest and most 
powerful country in the world, 37 million people live in poverty. 
Raising the minimum wage is one major step to reduce poverty, and we 
must do this.
  As a former small business owner, I can tell you that small 
businesses are more profitable when workers are treated fairly. 
Thirteen million Americans, many of whom are women and people of color, 
will benefit from this increase.
  Let us live up to our moral responsibility and help the least of 
these who struggle each and every day just to make ends meet. They 
deserve this increase, and they have earned it. Let us do the right 
thing and pass H.R. 2 in the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 
whose birthday we celebrate on Monday, who died, who gave his life 
seeking justice for sanitation workers.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 2 minutes to our new 
colleague, my neighbor from California (Mr. McCarthy).
  Mr. McCARTHY of California. I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe Congress is a marketplace of ideas, and at the 
end of the day, the best ideas should win. Unfortunately, with the 
process today, that will not happen.
  Allowing a vote on an alternative minimum wage approach is in 
America's best interest. Republicans offer a balanced approach to 
increase the minimum wage and provide offset tax relief for small 
businesses to take on the increased labor cost for the minimum wage 
hike.
  The unbalanced approach of the Democratic bill, H.R. 2, to solely 
increase the minimum wage is irresponsible. Never mind that the basic 
economic statement setting an artificial price floor like the minimum 
wage could actually raise unemployment.
  The Federal Reserve study states that if H.R. 2 is enacted, a million 
restaurant workers could lose their jobs.
  I can tell you, as a former small business owner, personally, this is 
a tough decision. I came to Congress to work to increase opportunities 
for all Americans, not to harm workers and small businesses. I listened 
to the debate today, and I listened to the other side, as a freshman. 
If you look at the Republican bill, it is a compromise. It is a common 
solution. The minimum wage will be increased, but what else will 
happen? There will be greater healthcare for the workers. There will

[[Page H278]]

be tax relief where you can expense off when you are buying business 
equipment. What happens? The workers of America are more competitive in 
a global economy for the 21st century.
  And I ask my colleagues on the other side; last week on this floor I 
listened closely to what our Speaker said. Speaker Pelosi said, ``Let's 
work in a spirit of partnership, not partisanship.'' Well, I will tell 
you, the Republican bill is just that, it is a partnership that lets 
the power of the idea win at the end of the day.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2 and thank the 
gentleman from California for being bold enough to carry this important 
legislation to help the American people.
  I rise today to call for a vote to raise the minimum wage. This 
increase must happen for humanitarian justice. Americans are suffering.
  Let's get back to basics. The minimum wage has not increased. The 
minimum wage was passed 10 years ago, and during the 10 years, people 
have struggled to put food on the table, gas prices have increased, the 
cost of public transportation has increased, the cost of clothes has 
increased, the cost of housing has increased, the cost of buying food 
has increased, not to mention every other cost of living in America has 
increased.
  This bill is not about continued greed or about outsourcing, but it 
is about American families and improving their quality of life.
  Let's get back to basics: $5.15 an hour is poverty. We need this bill 
because 40 percent of minimum wage workers are the sole bread winners 
in their families. Nineteen percent of minimum wage earners are 
Hispanic Americans, and 15 percent are African Americans.
  It is time. It is time to care for working families of America and to 
give them a wage that is just, a wage that is fair.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. FORTUNO. I thank the gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in strong support of a Federal 
minimum wage increase that is applicable under the same terms and 
conditions to all 50 States and Puerto Rico. I support a Federal 
minimum wage increase because it would strengthen the economy as well 
as provide long overdue benefits to our working, middle-class families 
who are the backbone of our Nation's economy.
  However, I am concerned that the bill under consideration, while 
seeking a long-awaited increase in the Federal minimum wage, does 
nothing to offset the impact on small businesses and their workers. 
This is particularly important for Hispanics in the United States who, 
according to a recent report released by the U.S. Census Bureau, are 
opening businesses at a rate that is three times as fast as the 
national average.
  Only one bill, the Working Families Wage and Access to Health Care 
Act, offers a balanced approach that would provide for a minimum wage 
increase without threatening the backbone of our economy or penalizing 
small businesses. Our bill increases the minimum wage in exactly the 
same increments as the bill before us today but also expands affordable 
health care to many of the working families benefiting from the 
increase and includes some important tax protection alternatives for 
small businesses and their workers. The Working Families and Access to 
Health Care Act should be carefully considered and, at the very least, 
deserves to be discussed.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
extremely important legislation for America's workers. The last 10 
years we have seen these tired old Republican arguments against 
increasing the minimum wage while the huge wealth of the highest paid 
in our country increases. We have not raised the minimum wage since 
1997. When adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is the lowest it 
has been in 50 years. That is 10 years of wasted opportunity on this 
floor that is being corrected today.
  A minimum wage worker full-time makes $10,700 a year. That is well 
below the poverty level. We need to provide a lift for these 
hardworking Americans. I agree with the late U.S. Senator from Texas, 
Ralph Yarborough, when he said, ``Let's put the jam on the lower shelf 
for the people.''
  This increase will provide much needed help to the lowest wage 
earners in our country. Their needs and dreams are no different from 
anyone else's. These wage earners want to earn a decent wage to be able 
to put dinner on the table for their families. It is not too much to 
ask that we raise the minimum wage after a decade of taking no action 
on this important part of the American economy.
  Passing this bill today is the right step, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  I rise today to support his extremely important legislation for 
America's workers. The last ten years we have seen these tired old 
Republican arguments against increasing the minimum wage while the huge 
wealth increases of the highest paid in our country.
  We have not raised the minimum wage since 1997. When adjusted for 
inflation, the minimum wage is the lowest it's been in 50 years. That's 
10 years of wasted opportunity.
  A minimum wage earner working full-time makes only $10,700 a year. 
This is well below the poverty threshold for a family of three.
  We need to provide a lift for these hard working Americans. I agree 
with our late U.S. Senator from Texas Ralph Yarbrough when he said 
``Let's put the jam on the lower shelf for the people.''
  This increase will provide much needed help to the lowest wage 
earners of our country. Their needs and dreams are not different than 
anyone else's.
  These wage-earners want to earn a decent wage and be able to put 
dinner on the table and provide for their families.
  It is not too much to ask that we raise the minimum wage after a 
decade of taking no action on this important part of the American 
economy.
  Passing this bill today is a step in the right direction and I urge 
my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution and put the jam on 
the lower shelf.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the remaining time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 33 
minutes, and the gentleman from northern California has 47 minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield to the gentleman 
from California, a good friend and colleague, Mr. Rohrabacher, 4 
minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this proposal 
to increase the minimum wage by $2.10 an hour over the next 2 years.
  What we are witnessing today, of course, is the quintessential 
example of political figures offering something for nothing. We can 
just bestow upon the American people $2.10 an hour, and there is no 
cost to it. Well, if that is really the case, and there is no downside, 
why are we such pikers? Why are we not offering a minimum wage hike of 
$5 an hour? Or $10? Or maybe even $20 an hour more? We know that that 
is not realistic because there is a downside that can be calculated. In 
fact, by mandating the pay raises that we are talking about today, 
economists have estimated that about 1.6 million people, the people at 
the very bottom rung of our economic ladder, will be put through great 
hardship. They won't be hired, or they will be fired because their 
salary now must be allocated in these small businesses which, of 
course, is where most of the employment takes place, their salaries 
will now have to be allocated to the other employees. Yes, there is a 
cost to pay when you mandate someone in their operation gets paid more 
money, and the burden will be borne by the very lowest level of 
employees. That is what this proposal is all about.
  Now, there is a way to actually help people have higher salaries. I 
happen to believe in high wages. I am not a pro-management guy. I 
believe in higher wages for the American people, and there is a way 
that we can achieve higher wages for the American people, especially 
those at the lowest income. But those who are advocating that we raise 
the minimum wage wouldn't think about advocating this solution. And 
that solution is very easy for the American people to understand: We 
have an out-of-control flow of illegal immigrants into our country. If 
we

[[Page H279]]

would commit ourselves to solving that problem, to get control of this 
massive flow of illegals into our country, we would have more than a 
doubling of this minimum wage. We would have wage earners all up and 
down the scale, even at the very bottom of the scale, help.
  But, no. Why aren't we doing this? Because, yes, there is a price to 
pay for that as well. Getting control of illegal immigration, making 
sure that our employers are not hiring illegals, who would pay that 
price? People who come to this country illegally would pay that price. 
Their lives would be harder. It would be tougher on them. But we are 
supposed to be representing the interests of the American people. Yes, 
we sympathize with people who come here illegally. We sympathize with 
those people overseas, but if we raise the minimum wage this way, there 
will be more illegals who will come to this country to get that higher 
minimum wage, and our own people at the bottom rung of the economic 
ladder will be put out of a job.
  Let's watch out for the interests of the American people. Let's 
commit ourselves to getting control of the massive flow of illegals 
into our country, and then we can raise the wages of everyone. Let's 
not offer people stunts and schemes like this of the minimum wage, of 
offering them something for nothing. Let's really help them out.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Education and Labor Committee and thank him for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a biblical story about the children of Israel 
in the desert seeking the promised land for 40 years. I would like to 
tell my good friend that there are American workers who are deserving 
and in need of an increase in the minimum wage, and we know that for 51 
years we have had the lowest valued minimum wage in America. It is 
clear that the minimum wage increase would help reverse the trend of 
declining real wages for low-wage workers, American workers, and that, 
between 1979 and 1989, the minimum wage lost 31 percent of its real 
value, American workers.
  What about the waitress who stopped me in a restaurant and said, When 
are you going to raise the minimum wage? A woman raising children who, 
with the minimum wage, will be able to have an opportunity to get a car 
loan to get a car to get her children to school or to the doctor or to 
be able to do the things that we in America enjoy doing, being with our 
family, providing them an opportunity?
  This is a moral issue. I ask my colleagues to support the increase in 
the minimum wage for Americans across America.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 2, the ``Fair Minimum Wage Act.'' With the adoption of 
this bill, the House of Representatives will take the first step in 
making good on its commitment to working-class Americans that one of 
the first concerns of the Congress is the well-being of ordinary 
Americans who work hard, play by the rules, and are struggling to get 
by through no fault of their own. We Democrats promised to chart a new 
direction for America if the voters entrusted us with the majority. 
They did and with our votes today in support of H.R. 2, we are making 
good on our promise.
  Mr. Speaker, before I discuss the importance of this bill in detail, 
I wish to commend Chairman Miller, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader 
Hoyer, Majority Whip Clyburn, and the rest of the Democratic 
leadership, as well as my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, 
which was led so ably last Congress by Congressman Watt and is now led 
Congresswoman Kilpatrick. Because of their resolve and visionary 
leadership, more than 13 million workers will soon receive a long 
overdue raise. What difference an election makes!


                       AMERICANS DESERVE A RAISE

  H.R. 2 helps the most deserving American families by raising the 
minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over three years. Mr. Speaker, did you 
know that the value of the current minimum wage represents a 51-year 
low? Today's minimum wage of $5.15 today is the equivalent of only 
$4.23 in 1995, which is even lower than the $4.25 minimum wage level 
before the 1996-97 increase. It is scandalous, Mr. Speaker, that a 
person can work full-time, 40 hours per week, for 52 weeks, earning the 
minimum wage and would gross just $10,700, which is $5,888 below the 
$16,000 needed to lift a family of three out of poverty. In 2005, the 
average CEO was paid 821 times the amount earned yearly by a minimum 
wage worker.
  Mr. Speaker, since 2000 the cost of college tuition has risen 57 
percent, which is only slightly less than the increase in the cost of 
gasoline. Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed by 73 percent and 
inflation is up 13.4 percent. But during that time, the minimum wage 
has not increased one cent. That is unconscionable and downright un-
American. Happily, the Fair Minimum Wage Act, H.R. 2, will change this 
sorry state of affairs.
  Mr. Speaker, today more than ever America's hard-working families are 
feeling squeezed, living paycheck to paycheck. I can tell you Mr. 
Speaker that record prices at the pump, skyrocketing health care costs 
and the rising cost of college in the face of falling or flat wages, 
are squeezing hard-working Texans in my Houston-based Congressional 
District as they struggle to make ends meet.
  That is why I support increasing the minimum wage. For Texas workers 
the basic cost of living is rising; it is only fair that the pay for 
hard-working Texans does too. Nearly 890,000 hard-working Texans would 
directly benefit from raising the federal minimum wage to $7.25 an 
hour, and 1,774,000 more Texans would likely benefit from the raise.
  Raising the minimum wage is vital for Texas families. At $5.15 an 
hour, a full-time minimum wage worker in Texas brings home $10,712 a 
year--nearly $6,000 below the poverty level for a family of three. An 
increase of $2.10 an hour would give these families a much needed 
additional $4,400 a year to meet critical needs such as rent, health 
care, food and child care. The increase in the minimum wage before us 
today will not allow workers to live as large as the typical CEO, who 
now earns 821 times more than a minimum wage worker, but at least it 
will allow these low-wage workers to make a little better life for 
themselves and their families.
  A minimum wage increase would raise the wages of millions of workers 
across America:
  An estimated 6.6 million workers (5.8 percent of the workforce) would 
receive an increase in their hourly wage rate if the minimum wage were 
raised from $5.15 to $7.25 by June 2007.
  Due to ``spillover effects,'' the 8.2 million workers (6.5 percent of 
the workforce) earning up to a dollar above the minimum would also be 
likely to benefit from an increase.
  Raising the minimum wage will benefit working families:
  The earnings of minimum wage workers are crucial to their families' 
well-being. Evidence from the 1996-97 minimum wage increase shows that 
the average minimum wage worker brings home more than half (54 percent) 
of his or her family's weekly earnings.
  An estimated 760,000 single mothers with children under 18 would 
benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by June 2007.
  Single mothers would benefit disproportionately from an increase--
single mothers are 10.4 percent of workers affected by an increase, but 
they make up only 5.3 percent of the overall workforce. Approximately 
1.8 million parents with children under 18 would benefit.
  Contrary to popular myths and urban legends, adults make up the 
largest share of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage 
increase:
  Eighty percent of workers whose wages would be raised by a minimum 
wage increase to $7.25 by June 2007 are adults (age 20 or older).
  More than half (54 percent) of workers who would benefit from a 
minimum wage increase work full time and another third (34.5 percent) 
work between 20 and 34 hours per week.
  Minimum wage increases benefit disadvantaged workers and women are 
the largest group of beneficiaries from a minimum wage increase: 60.6 
percent of workers who would benefit from an increase to $7.25 by 2007 
are women.
  An estimated 7.3 percent of working women would benefit directly from 
that increase in the minimum wage.
  A disproportionate share of minorities would benefit from a minimum 
wage Increase:
  African Americans represent 11.1 percent of the total workforce, but 
are 15.3 percent of workers affected by an increase.
  Similarly, 13.4 percent of the total workforce is Hispanic, but 
Hispanics are 19.7 percent of workers affected by an increase.
  The benefits of the increase disproportionately help those working 
households at the bottom of the income scale:
  Although households in the bottom 20 percent received only 5.1 
percent of national income, 38.1 percent of the benefits of a minimum 
wage increase to $7.25 would go to these workers.
  The majority of the benefits (58.5 percent) of an increase would go 
to families with working, prime-aged adults in the bottom 40 percent of 
the income distribution.

[[Page H280]]

  Among families with children and a low-wage worker affected by a 
minimum wage increase to $7.25, the affected worker contributes, on 
average, half of the family's earnings. Thirty-six percent of such 
workers actually contribute 100 percent of their family's earnings.
  A minimum wage increase would help reverse the trend of declining 
real wages for low-wage workers. Between 1979 and 1989, the minimum 
wage lost 31 percent of its real value. By contrast, between 1989 and 
1997 (the year of the most recent increase), the minimum wage was 
raised four times and recovered about one-third of the value it lost in 
the 1980s.
  Income inequality has been increasing, in part, because of the 
declining real value of the minimum wage. Today, the minimum wage is 33 
percent of the average hourly wage of American workers, the lowest 
level since 1949. A minimum wage increase is part of a broad strategy 
to end poverty. As welfare reform forces more poor families to rely on 
their earnings from low-paying jobs, a minimum wage increase is likely 
to have a greater impact on reducing poverty.
  Mr. Speaker, the opponents of the minimum wage often claim that 
increasing the wage will cost jobs and harm the economy. Of course, Mr. 
Speaker, there is no credible support to such claims. In fact, a 1998 
EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss 
associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. The truth is that 
following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the 
low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades. And 
after the minimum wage was increased, the country went on to enjoy the 
most sustained period of economic prosperity in history. The economy 
created more than 11 million new jobs and experienced historic low 
unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family 
income, and decreased poverty rates.
  Mr. Speaker, studies have shown that the best performing small 
businesses are located in States with the highest minimum wages. 
Between 1998 and 2004, the job growth for small businesses in States 
with a minimum wage higher than the Federal level was 9.4 percent 
compared to a 6.6 percent growth in States where the Federal level 
prevailed.
  So much for the discredited notion that raising the minimum wage 
harms the economy. It does not. But raising the minimum wage increases 
the purchasing power of those who most need the money, which is far 
more than can be said of the Republicans' devotion to cutting taxes for 
multimillionaires.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans overwhelmingly side with progressive 
principles of rewarding hard work with a living wage. A post-election 
Newsweek poll found that 89 percent of Americans favored raising the 
minimum wage. Last November, voters passed all six State ballot 
initiatives increasing the statewide minimum wage. The case for raising 
the minimum wage is so compelling that in the 2004 election, even 
voters in Florida and Nevada, two States won by President Bush, 
overwhelmingly approved ballot measures to raise the minimum wage. In 
Nevada's richest county, Douglas, where President Bush received 63.5 
percent of the vote, 61.5 percent of voters supported raising the 
minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, in October 2006 the Economic Policy Institute released a 
statement in support of the minimum wage increase signed by 665 
economists, including 5 Nobel Laureates. According to these eminent 
economists, ``a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the 
well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effects 
that critics have claimed.''
  Members of Congress have legislated a minimum salary for themselves 
and have seen fit to raise it nine times since they last raised the 
minimum wage. It is time we gave the Americans we represent a long 
overdue pay raise by increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 over 3 years. 
Even this amount does not keep pace with the cost of living. The 
minimum wage would have to be increased to $9.05 to equal the 
purchasing power it had in 1968. And if the minimum wage had increased 
at the same rate as the salary increase corporate CEOs have received, 
it would now be $23.03 per hour.
  The American people demand that the minimum wage be increased. Low-
wage workers, many of whom live in your district and mine, badly need 
the money. They have waited much too long. I urge all Members to 
support this necessary and timely legislation. Vote ``aye'' on H.R. 2, 
the Fair Minimum Wage Act.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. I want to thank the ranking member for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation to raise the 
Federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour. It has been 10 years since 
Congress passed legislation to increase the minimum wage, and I am 
pleased that we are going to pass such an increase today.
  I have supported an increase in the minimum wage since coming to 
Congress, and I have voted for it both as part of a package including a 
permanent solution to the death tax. And I will vote for it as a stand-
alone bill. The minimum wage in my home State of West Virginia is $5.85 
an hour, with recent increases already scheduled to be $6.55 this June 
and then $7.25 in June 2008. Twenty-eight other States have enacted 
minimum wages that are higher than the Federal minimum wage, and I am 
pleased today that we will vote to increase the minimum wage for 
workers across the country.
  I will vote for H.R. 2 because it will improve the quality of life 
for low-wage workers in my congressional district and across the 
Nation. This legislation would be much better, however, if it included 
the elements of the Republican alternative offered by Ranking Member 
McKeon and Ranking Member McCrery.

                              {time}  1245

  Millions of small business employees across the country lack health 
insurance. It is probably the largest segment of working Americans who 
are unable to afford and cannot find health insurance, a vitally 
important part of leading a good-quality life here in the United 
States.
  We should authorize association health plans, allowing small 
companies to bind together through trade associations to create the 
economies of scales necessary to reduce the cost of health care. This 
is essential. It makes certain that we should act to offer affordable 
health care coverage for workers at the same time we are increasing the 
minimum wage.
  The Republican substitute, by offering tax relief that would lead to 
new job creation and by offering affordable health care in addition to 
increasing the minimum wage, would help millions more Americans than 
the bill we are considering today, and I regret we are not taking the 
more comprehensive approach.
  Nonetheless, this legislation will help many women and men across the 
country, and I intend to support it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the minimum wage and 
indicate to you that it is time that we take this measure and make it 
happen.
  Let me thank Chairman Miller on his efforts and just indicate to you 
that the State of Texas is the one that has the most to gain. We have 
over 900,000 such workers that would be impacted by this piece of 
legislation. And, for those, let me also indicate that in Texas nearly 
70 percent of low-wage employees work full time. I will repeat that. 
Seventy percent of low-wage employees work full time. And, among those, 
almost 40 percent of the low-wage workers are sole breadwinners. Forty 
percent are sole breadwinners. So this is something that is critical. 
This is something that is important, something that needs to happen.
  The minimum wage increase improves the economic well-being of our 
families. It provides for better living conditions and improving the 
quality of life. And I cannot comprehend why Members of Congress that 
have been here over 10 years, who have voted on their own increase each 
time, and yet not allow an opportunity for individuals that are in the 
lowest part of the wages in this country be able to get a pay increase.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in respectful opposition to H.R. 2, 
the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. And I do so understanding that what 
I do may well be misunderstood by some of my constituents at home and 
even by some looking on in this debate. But let me say emphatically 
that a 41 percent increase in the minimum wage that is brought to the 
well of Congress without providing any relief to small business owners 
and family farmers is irresponsible and unwise, and it will harm both 
the wage payer and the wage earner.

[[Page H281]]

  An excessive increase in the minimum wage will hurt the working poor, 
Mr. Speaker, and especially those who are trying to begin the American 
Dream by entering the workforce at entry level jobs. Minimum wage 
increases, the unbroken record of our economic history attests, raise 
unemployment among the young, minorities and part-time workers, the 
very people that a minimum wage is thought to help. And sadly, for 
reasons I don't entirely understand, for every increase in the Federal 
minimum wage, African Americans have been hit the hardest with the 
advent of jobs that are lost with an increase in the minimum wage.
  It would be the late economist Milton Friedman, a Nobel laureate, who 
said, ``The high rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially 
black teenagers, is both a scandal and a serious source of social 
unrest.'' And then he went on to say, ``It is largely a result of 
minimum wage laws.''
  I believe the minimum wage and this increase is one of the most anti-
minority, anti-poor laws that we could bring into this Congress. It 
violates fundamental free market economics, and it will cost jobs.
  The Heritage Foundation recently reported that for every 10 percent 
increase in the minimum wage there is a loss of 2 percent of entry 
level minimum wage jobs. This means, for what we consider today, we 
literally could see evaporate overnight 8 percent of the entry level 
jobs in this country.
  I recently received an e-mail from a small sub sandwich restaurant 
owner in Anderson, Indiana, who told me of his frustration about what 
Congress would consider today, Mr. Speaker; and he begged me to ask for 
balance and justice for the wage payer as well as the wage earner. He 
said he had 200 applications on file, but he knew that if Congress 
passed this irresponsible 41 percent increase in the minimum wage, not 
only would he not be able to extend opportunity to some, he would have 
to cancel jobs for others.
  Let us serve the wage earner and the wage payer. Let us reject this 
irresponsible increase in the minimum wage.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, the Fair Minimum Wage Act is an important step 
toward strengthening America's middle class by providing hardworking 
Americans with the wages they have earned. I rise in strong support of 
this legislation.
  As the son of a union machinist and a former employee of a clothing 
factory, I understand the struggles many Americans face in trying to 
meet basic needs at minimum wages. Increasing the minimum wage from 
$5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour provides a necessary raise to 13 
million of America's lowest paid workers.
  For too long we have ignored the plight of American working families. 
Providing a more reasonable wage is not only a commonsense issue but a 
moral one as well, and I am proud that one of my first few votes in the 
Congress of the United States will be to extend economic fairness and 
justice to deserving workers.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire again the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 24\1/2\ 
minutes, and the gentleman from northern California has 44 minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, we will reserve and let them take some time 
to kind of even that out.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes 
to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, a minimum wage increase is crucial for 
all Americans, more so for women and minorities.
  Es de maxima importancia que este Congreso eleve el salario minimo, 
especialmente para las mujeres y menorias.
  Ten years of neglect, plus inflation, have left workers living below 
poverty.
  Diez anos de olvido, mas la inflacion, han dejado a nuestros 
trabajadores en pobreza.
  1.4 million working women will be main beneficiaries for an increase 
from $5.15 to eventually $7.25 per hour in 2 years, of which 33 percent 
are African American and Hispanic female workers.
  Mas de uno punto quarto millon de mujeres trabajan -seran las 
beneficiaries el cual son Hispanas y AfroAmericanas del salario de 5.15 
a 7.25 pro hora.
  It helps economic social conditions, reduces pay gaps. It helps the 
economy. More money spent will create more career opportunities through 
affordability of education.
  Ayuda a la economia nacional ya que se gastara mas dinero.
  Mujeres encabezadas de su familia podran tener mas dinero para 
mantener su familia.
  Women breadwinners can increase economic and financial independence.
  Enough talk. Take action. Have a conscience. Help America. Vote for 
the minimum wage increase.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair requests that the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Napolitano) provide a translation, of her remarks.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a member of the committee.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Fair 
Minimum Wage Act of 2007.
  Over the past 9 years, as the price of food has increased and the 
cost of housing swelled beyond the reach of many workers, the 
purchasing power of the minimum wage has fallen to its lowest level in 
51 years.
  Since 1997, the Federal minimum wage has been stalled at $5.15 an 
hour without an increase or adjustment. This stagnation of the minimum 
wage has left families with no guarantee that a full-time job will 
enable their most basic needs to be met.
  At the current minimum wage, a worker spending 40 hours a week, 52 
weeks a year on the job, earns less than $11,000 a year, leaving them 
more than $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. That is 
shameful.
  The passage of the bill today will directly help those families.
  It is estimated that 5.6 million workers will receive an increase in 
their hourly wage if the minimum wage were raised to just $7.25 an 
hour. An additional 7.4 million workers earning up to a dollar above 
the new minimum wage would also benefit. In total, 13 million workers 
will be aided by this necessary legislation.
  The passage of this bill is a first step towards the greater goal of 
a living wage for every American worker because, even as it goes to 
$7.25 an hour, there are many families who are still going to find 
themselves within the circumference of poverty. There are people who 
are looking forward to the action of this Congress.
  But let it be said that the long-term objective, to ensure that 
workers are able to afford adequate housing and support their families, 
cannot be forgotten by this Congress.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to throw a lifeline to 
the hardworking men and women in America by voting to increase the 
minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. It is no secret that health care 
costs are rising, along with property insurance, and it takes a lot to 
pay the rent these days. So, in a country where the average CEO earns 
more before lunchtime than the average minimum wage worker earns all 
year, this Congress must take action.
  The increase in the minimum wage will help women, in particular, who 
comprise nearly two-thirds of all minimum wage workers. Many serve in 
the lowest-paying jobs back in our home towns, backbone jobs like child 
care, food service and cashiers. Many are women of color struggling to 
make ends meet for $5.15 an hour.
  In my district, according to the United Way of Tampa Bay, over 40 
percent of the residents live in poverty. Well, we are going to lift 
them up. We are going to lift up millions of children by raising the 
minimum wage. American workers are long overdue for a raise because 
past Congresses have not increased the minimum wage in 10 years. But we 
are headed in a new direction now to improve the economic security for 
hardworking Americans. Step number one, raising the minimum wage.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes 
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

[[Page H282]]

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 
the Fair Minimum Wage Act. This bill will help nearly 13 million 
workers and their families by raising the minimum wage.
  The value of the minimum wage is lower than it has been in half a 
century. Instead of providing a living wage to hard-working American 
families, the minimum wage is a poverty wage. It is nearly $6,000 short 
of the Federal poverty line for a family of three if a minimum wage 
worker works full time.
  Shouldn't having a job raise you out of poverty, instead of trapping 
you in it?
  The minimum wage has stagnated since 1997, but wages have soared for 
those highest on the income scale.
  The average CEO of a Standard & Poors 500 company made $13.5 million 
in 2005.
  The average CEO makes 821 times as much as a minimum wage worker.
  With salaries like these it is clear why an average CEO earns more 
before lunchtime than a minimum wage worker earns all year.

                              {time}  1300

  The average CEO is doing just fine looking out for himself. But 
America's most vulnerable families need somebody who is looking out for 
them.
  This bill is a good bill, it is an important bill, and it is the 
right thing to do. I hope all my colleagues will join me in voting 
``yes'' on H.R. 2.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I 
rise in opposition to this legislation as it is being offered to us 
today because it does not offer our Nation's small businesses the help 
that they need to pay for what amounts to a tax increase. Small 
businesses are the backbone of our Nation's economy.
  Over the last decade, small businesses have annually created 60 to 80 
percent of America's new jobs; 99 percent of all businesses in the U.S. 
have 500 employees or fewer, and that is what constitutes a small 
business by definition in this country, 99 percent. We are a Nation of 
small businesses. Yet, we are debating a bill today that fails to take 
into consideration the impact such legislation could have on the bottom 
line of those small businesses, the most prolific job creators in our 
economy.
  Mr. Speaker, the simple fact of the matter is that this bill 
increases costs for mom-and-pop businesses, the Congressional Budget 
Office, CBO, estimates it to be $5 to $7 billion, without providing 
them the opportunity to grow their business and thus create more jobs. 
This bill does nothing to help small businesses lower their health care 
costs through association health plans. It does nothing to eliminate 
the egregious death tax that forces the sale of so many family 
businesses and small farms around the country, and it does not provide 
incentives for small business owners to invest in and grow their 
businesses and thus create the jobs or the futures for the teenagers 
and many other people who are coming up in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation's small businesses deserve better, and this 
House should do better. So vote ``no'' on H.R. 2.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2. As cochair of the 
Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, I am so proud to stand with 
many of my colleagues, as we repeat over and over today how vital this 
legislation is for women across this country. Women lag far behind men 
in terms of earnings. Nearly two-thirds of all minimum wage workers are 
women, many raising children.
  This bill translates into over 9 million women who will benefit from 
a long overdue increase in their take-home pay. It is abominable that 
for the past 10 years we have sat by and watched the cost of everything 
skyrocket. Health care, child care, food, rent, anything you could 
think of, except for wages.
  Minimum wage earners often are single moms and have been forced into 
longer hours, more jobs, more time away from their families, which, too 
often, has its own set of unfortunate consequences.
  It is time that we all vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2. Take a great step 
forward towards achieving economic equality for women. Indeed, the 
benefits will be there for all Americans.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know, this is such an interesting 
debate that we come here to have on the minimum wage issues. All of our 
economic issues debates end up being such interesting debates, and I 
always love it when I hear the statements made that this is wrong and 
that is wrong, and our focus becomes, let us go to the government and 
expect the government to fix it.
  Mr. Speaker, you know, we know that just is not so. I have found it 
so interesting that you would hear from people that it appears that the 
Republicans never raise the minimum wage. What about 1994? What about 
1997?
  Then we hear all of this about explosive costs. But what we are not 
hearing is that per capita disposable income has risen 9.2 percent in 
real dollars since 2001.
  All the millions of jobs that have been created, nearly 7 million 
since 2003 alone. The reason this happens is because of good economic 
policy, because of good tax policy, because in leaving more money with 
the individuals that earn it and not doing things that are going to 
harm small business, as the gentleman from Ohio said, most of our 
Nation's jobs are created through small businesses.
  We know from the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, they estimate 
that a minimum wage increase without considerations for small 
businesses and their workers would impose a 5 to $7 billion unfunded 
mandate on small businesses.
  Now, I ask my colleagues from across the aisle, are they willing to 
stand up today and pass an unfunded mandate, a 5 to $7 billion unfunded 
mandate on our Nation's small businesses? We know, raising the minimum 
wage will reduce employment, and I encourage my colleagues to oppose 
the Democratic bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the chairman of the committee for bringing this 
important bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage is a women's working issue, and it is 
an issue for our children with over 1.4 million working mothers across 
this country who earn the minimum wage.
  I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what is 
it worth to you to have someone lift and bathe your elderly sick 
relative in a nursing home and empty their bed pans? Is it worth more 
than $5.15 an hour?
  How about cleaning the bathrooms of the Democratic and Republican 
Conventions? People tend to not pay attention to those workers. How 
about washing dishes in restaurants across this country? How about 
caring for dozens and dozens of 3-year-olds in daycare centers across 
this Nation? How about those women that lift all those heavy trays at 
those restaurants that you all eat in, bringing food to the people 
across this Nation? Surely it is worth more than $5.15 an hour.
  Even when it is raised to $7.25 an hour, if a woman has children, she 
is going to live in poverty anyway, so she has to work two jobs, most 
of them without health insurance. Preserve the value of work in this 
country. Vote for the increase in the minimum wage. It is the right 
thing to do.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate today. We 
have heard on the other side: Today is the day I am going to vote to 
give the American worker a raise. Would that we all had that kind of 
power. Unfortunately, with this, we can dictate that. Unfortunately, 
somebody else has to pay that wage.
  It is simply not right to inject ourselves into the free market in 
that way. Yes, it would be nice if everyone could make a larger wage.
  The problem is, the price of everything is elastic. When the price 
goes

[[Page H283]]

up, the demand goes down. Those are the irrefutable laws of the free 
market. To think that we can simply go in and dictate and change things 
that way is wrong.
  Less than a month ago I was in Cuba. Now, in Cuba, a janitor makes 
the same as a doctor. Some might say that is a good thing until you 
realize that they both make about $20 a month. It is not good when 
government controls the price and wage and controls the economy.
  I am not suggesting that we are anywhere close to that, but supposing 
that we can inject ourselves and have this week wage controls, a little 
later this week, price controls in the form of negotiating with 
companies what drugs are going to cost, is simply the wrong direction 
to go.
  I would urge everyone here to reject the notion that we as Members of 
Congress should inject ourselves into the free market in that manner.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Fair Minimum 
Wage Act, H.R. 2. As you know, women and minorities make up a 
disproportionate number of those earning minimum wage. In fact, they 
haven't seen a wage increase in 10 years. Too many single head-of-
household women struggle to make ends meet, some working two and three 
jobs every single day to make sure that their children are cared for 
and the rent is paid for; 61 percent of those are sole bread earners. 
One-third of those, as you know, are women raising their children. Most 
don't even have an opportunity to have health care coverage. African 
American women and Latinas only make up 23 percent of the workforce, 
but they represent 33 percent of the women only receiving minimum wage.
  This fair minimum wage package will allow for 1.4 million working 
moms to get an increase in pay. Let us not forget those women who are 
working in the garment industry in the Northern Mariana Islands who 
only earn $3.05. These women also work up to 20 hours a day in squalor 
with no health care and no reform in labor.
  I stand up for those working women and men, and urge the support of 
H.R. 2.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Akin).
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, there is a cynic that once said that one of 
the things that we learn from history is that we learn nothing from 
history. I don't accept that entirely, but it certainly appears to be 
that way on the floor of the U.S. Congress today.
  You don't have to look in the recent past; you go back to 1640 in 
England. And they had wage and price controls. They thought it was a 
compassionate thing to set a price on a loaf of bread, a day's labor 
and a ton of coal. Then the Black Death came along and killed a whole 
lot of their workforce, and the price for a day's labor remained the 
same. England and their economy languished until a guy came along that 
the Brits don't even like by the name of Oliver Cromwell, and he 
abolished all of the government wage and price controls, and the 
economy surged.
  The effect of an increase of 40 percent on minimum wage is going to 
be several things. The first thing it is going to do is: any job 
between the current minimum wage and the $7 is going to do one of 
several things. First, it will be exported overseas. If it is not 
exported, it will be taken on the black market by, perhaps, some 
illegal immigrant who is willing to work for less than the minimum 
wage. Or it will just be passed on to everybody as an increase in cost 
of living.
  Those are the alternatives. It would be very nice if we could, by 
mandate from this floor, say that everybody is going to make a lot more 
than that. Why not $20 an hour? The reason is because what happens is 
we become less competitive, and we ship the jobs overseas.
  We are proposing that if we are going to do this, particularly to all 
of these jobs in small businesses, that we at least give the small 
businesses some kind of a break to compensate and to try to provide 
some health care for some of those people. That is the reason why we 
are opposing just a straight 40 percent increase, because the effect is 
going to be, yes, some people are going to get more money, but a lot of 
jobs, it is just like taking the old chain saw out and chopping off 
another low rung in the ladder.
  There are people who will end up in welfare accordingly. Vote ``no'' 
on House Resolution 2.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. For purposes of the managers being guided, 
Mr. Miller of California has 35\3/4\ minutes. Mr. McKeon of California 
has 17 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 
minute.
  Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting that speaker after speaker gets 
up on the other side of the floor and in spite of the economic evidence 
of how well those States that have raised their minimum wages are doing 
compared in terms of job creation and economic growth to those States 
that kept the minimum wage low; it is rather compelling and 
overwhelming evidence in terms of higher job growth and higher economic 
growth, significantly higher even in the retail professions in those 
States that increased the minimum wage.
  It is also rather interesting in light of the fact that the Gallup 
Poll of small business owners in March of last year said the 
overwhelming majority of small business owners, 86 percent, say the 
minimum wage had no impact on them. Nearly half the small business 
owners, 46 percent, supported the increase in the minimum wage.
  It is an interesting dynamic you are talking about, but it is almost 
20 years out of date in terms of the economics, what is taking place, 
as States have continued to raise the minimum wage, and the economic 
growth that has followed the wage increases that have followed, the 
growth and retail, which is very difficult in a competitive area, and 
the job growth that was created in those areas because people had money 
to put into the economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Michaud).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the gentleman for yielding 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to this floor as a proud union member after 
working 28 years at a paper mill in Maine. I come here as cochair of 
the Labor and Working Families Caucus. I come on behalf of the 
hardworking men and women of the State of Maine, and I am here to say 
we need to pass this legislation. The salaries of Members of Congress 
have increased by $31,600 since 1997, while the minimum wage continues 
to earn just $10,700 a year. Today, the average CEO earns more before 
lunchtime the very first day he goes to work than the minimum wage 
earner earns all year long. What kind of priorities are these?
  We sometimes forget the face of the minimum wage worker. They aren't 
the corporate giants. They aren't the special interests. They are the 
hardworking men and women of this country, and they deserve a raise.
  There is still more that we can do to help our people in this country 
work their way out of poverty and achieve prosperity, but increasing 
the minimum wage is a necessary first step.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia, a member of the committee, Mr. Price.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding 
me the 2 minutes' time.
  I stand in support of more jobs and in support of all workers, 
understanding that there are consequences to what we do here and some 
of those consequences are unintended. When we increase the minimum 
wage, unless employers receive some sort of benefit, they hire fewer 
workers. Fewer workers. It discourages businesses from hiring the 
least-skilled workers who need the most assistance. Losing access to 
entry level positions deprives many unskilled workers of the 
opportunity to learn the skills that they need to advance up the career 
ladder.
  Did you know that businesses actually cut the number of unskilled and 
disadvantaged workers on their payrolls after an increase in the 
minimum wage and that raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour would 
cost at least 8 percent of affected workers their jobs? Minimum wage 
jobs are entry level positions that teach career skills that make 
workers more productive and enable them to earn a raise.

[[Page H284]]

Two-thirds of minimum wage earners earn a raise within a year.
  And, finally, why are there conflicting reports? How can each side 
produce numbers in their support? Well, it is because it is difficult 
if not impossible to count the results. Why? Because regardless of what 
we do here, regardless of what we make the minimum wage, it is really 
zero. What we can't count are jobs that are never offered. If we pass 
this, small businesses don't miraculously get more money to pay 
workers, so they hold off on hiring, and those jobs that are never 
offered are never counted.
  I urge my colleagues to support a commonsense plan that will increase 
the minimum wage and increase business resources to provide that wage 
and save and increase the number of jobs.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
allowing me to speak.
  My colleagues, I cannot believe some of the rhetoric I am hearing 
from the Republican side of the aisle. The Republican ploy of combining 
tax cuts for the rich with the minimum wage increase is just simply 
mean-spirited and wrong. This bill should be passed cleanly and on its 
own. It has been close to 9 years since the last increase in the 
minimum wage, the second longest period without a pay raise since the 
Federal minimum wage law was first enacted in 1938.
  While wages have remained stagnant, basic costs of living have 
skyrocketed. America's current minimum wage is simply not a liveable 
wage, and families are struggling to make ends meet as their living 
standards decline. An increase in the minimum wage is desperately 
needed if we are to lift those who are falling further and further 
behind. Raising the minimum wage is an issue of fairness, and it is 
time that we treat all working Americans with the fairness and equality 
they deserve.
  I commend the Democratic leadership for including this in the first 
100 hours of the 110th Congress. Some 7.3 million people will benefit 
from a raise in the minimum wage, and we need to do this forthwith. 
Please vote for the bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  My colleague, the chairman of the committee, earlier read a statement 
from a Member of the other body. I would like to read a couple of them.
  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, ``If it takes adding small 
business tax cuts to get a minimum wage increase, we are going to do 
it.''
  Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said, ``This Congress 
promised to raise the minimum wage, and we will. We also need to pass 
meaningful small business incentives along with the minimum wage 
increase. We can do both, and we will.''
  I commend them. I applaud them, and I am hopeful that when we leave 
this body, we will join together in a bipartisan, bicameral way.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. 
Sali).
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, a number of my colleagues have pointed out the 
problems with raising the minimum wage; that it is an unfunded mandate 
on small business, will likely result in the loss of over 1 million 
jobs for low wage earners, that it will eliminate entry level jobs and 
actually hurt the poor more than it helps them.
  The negative impacts will result naturally from the rules and 
principles of the free market. In my college courses, I learned that 
the rules and principles of free markets are the rules and principles 
that every business and worker are subject to in every transaction, 
every negotiation and every new idea. That is, those negative effects 
of this bill are unavoidable with its passage. In spite of the negative 
effects, this bill does seem destined to pass.
  As a freshman Congressman, the likely passage of this measure has 
taught me a new principle: The force of Congress can be brought to bear 
and justified to suspend those natural laws which would otherwise 
control important matters. The well-intentioned desire of Congress to 
help the poor apparently will not be restrained by the rules and 
principles of the free market that otherwise do restrain American 
businesses and workers. Apparently, Congress can change the rules that 
would otherwise affect the affairs of mankind.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I have asked my staff to draft a measure I call the 
Obesity Reduction and Health Promotion Act. Since Congress will 
apparently not be restrained by the laws and principles that naturally 
exist, I propose that the force of gravity by the force of Congress be 
reduced by 10 percent. Mr. Speaker, that will result in immediate 
weight loss for every American. It will immediately help reduce obesity 
problems in America. Weight loss will also help to promote the overall 
health of Americans as we have been vigilantly advised by our health 
care.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank this body for the education I have received from 
the passage of this bill. Since the basis for the use of Congress's 
power is the same with both measures, I would also ask that everyone 
who is supporting the measure before us consider becoming an original 
cosponsor of the Obesity Reduction and Health Promotion Act, and I have 
a copy.
  Mr. Speaker, I close by noting that, with the new principles I have 
learned, it appears to me that with Congress the sky is the limit.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, it has been 10 years since this Congress 
last approved an increase in the minimum wage. In that time, increasing 
numbers of families have fallen out of the middle class, victims of 
economic pressures from rising health care and college tuition costs to 
gas prices, and an economic policy from an administration that has 
always seemed to push working families aside.
  Raising the Federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour is so 
important so the fundamentals of our economy remain strong. But that 
barely masks the troubles that families face. Household incomes are 
down nearly $1,300 from 2000, employee compensation at its lowest level 
in 40 years. This economy is not producing rising living standards for 
most families. Today we can expect to have the first sustained period 
of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a comparable 
increase in wages for workers.
  Raising the minimum wage is not about handouts or making political 
statements but rather raising the earnings floor for workers in this 
country. Indeed, today a full-time minimum wage worker still earns only 
$10,700 a year. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we make 
almost $163,000 a year, and we are opposed to $2 in a raise for working 
families? My friends, walk in the shoes of people who work every single 
day for a living. This Congress in the last session barely worked 2 
days a week here for $163,000 a year. Take heed. Raising the minimum 
wage has big consequences.
  You know, 4 years after the last minimum wage increase, the American 
economy experienced its strongest growth in over three decades. Between 
1997 and 2003, small business employment grew in States that had a 
higher minimum wage than those with a Federal minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, it comes down to priorities. It is long past time here 
that this Congress recognize that we have an obligation to work to 
raise the standard of living in America for every single family, not 
just for the few at the top of the heap. That is what this legislation 
is about, and I am proud to support it.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member.
  For 12 years I have come to the floor defending our free enterprise 
system and standing up for market forces in setting prices, costs, and 
wages. But I have to tell you, 9 years without a minimum wage increase 
is a problem, especially since, over those 9 years, corporate 
leadership has let us down in this country time and time again not 
honoring the traditions of responsibility to their workers and their 
stockholders. So, last year, I was one of the leaders asking us to 
increase the minimum wage but putting a very reasonable death tax 
exemption of $5 million on to the legislation, and it passed this House 
with a strong support and almost passed the Senate, missing by

[[Page H285]]

two votes. That is the best way to raise minimum wage.
  The second best way is to add associated health plans, to give 
benefits for small businesses increasing the minimum wage.
  I am going to continue to argue that that is the best way, but let me 
surprise you and tell you that even if that doesn't pass today on final 
passage, I am going to vote to raise the minimum wage, because you 
can't defend not raising it for 9 years if we are going to have a 
minimum wage. That debate is for another day, whether you should set 
wages or not. But with a minimum wage, you can't defend not raising it. 
The President needs to sign and increase the minimum wage.
  Let's do it the right way though. But if that fails, we will vote for 
this and send it to the President, and I will bet he signs it because 
it is time for workers to have an increase. But we need to recognize 
the free enterprise system is what everybody values about this country 
most of all. They are moving towards free markets. Let's not trample on 
the markets, but let's recognize that 9 years is long enough, and at 
the end of the day, we will increase the minimum wage and send it to 
the President.
  Now, how is that for bipartisan, Mr. Miller?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  We listened to our friends on the other side of the aisle cite 
averages, but those averages include the incomes of people like Bill 
Gates. They ignore the realities of 100 million lower-income Americans 
who are struggling to even approach middle income and who have been 
suffering a decline in recent years. These are people who pay more for 
food, for housing, for transportation. They are discriminated against 
by payday loans and subprime lending. Some are too poor to qualify for 
the child tax credit because of the perverted tax priorities that the 
Republicans have had in the last 12 years.
  The dire results that have been cited by my friends on the other side 
of the aisle are simply hogwash. I come from one of the 28 States that 
increased its minimum wage and has indexed it automatically for 
inflation. Since we have done that, our economy is stronger, and our 
business leadership will tell you that what we have done is fair; it is 
good for all of us, not just the poor.
  I hope this is a first step that is followed by increased awareness 
and sensitivity to 100 million lower-income Americans. Helping 13 
million today with their first pay raise in 10 years is a good start.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the amount of time 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from southern California has 
10\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from northern California has 28 minutes.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Everybody gets a pay raise, Mr. Speaker, except those who need it 
most, those who work for thousands of dollars below the poverty level. 
Small business has gotten the benefit of tax cuts and incentives for 
years, but the least-paid workers have gotten zero increase. The middle 
class is screaming about health care costs. Most of these workers don't 
have any health care. Don't get sick on the minimum wage. And not only 
the 10 percent of the workforce on the minimum wage will benefit. Other 
low-wage workers will also get a bump-up as a result.
  This should be a matter of conscience. How could we look past these 
workers for almost 10 years? They serve us at the worst jobs with the 
lowest pay.
  Let me remind us welfare is term limited. These mothers go straight 
on to minimum wage jobs. Do the family values people really want single 
mothers to continue to work two jobs just to get food on the table? 
Believe me, these mothers won't hit the jackpot with this small 
increase.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a new day, a new Congress, and a new direction for 
America.
  The previous Congress could have increased the minimum wage, but it 
didn't. The Congress before that could have, but it didn't.
  Every day, over 6 million Americans choose work at $5.15 an hour over 
welfare. For 10 years, the old Congress chose to do nothing to reward 
the labor and dedication of those Americans who do some of the hardest 
work for the lowest pay.
  $5.15 an hour, that is less than $900 each month. How much do you pay 
every month just on your mortgage or your rent, your car payment?
  Today, compared to 1997, we pay 25 percent more for a loaf of bread, 
77 percent more for college, 97 percent more for health insurance, and 
130 percent more for a gallon of gas. But, for those 10 years, the 
minimum wage has not changed.
  Mr. Speaker, every American worker who works hard full time all year 
should escape the grasp of poverty. The time for excuses expired 10 
years ago. It is time to increase the minimum wage for hardworking 
Americans. This new Congress will deliver for America's workers.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman. He has put together 
legislation that should be commended. It is the right thing, the fair 
thing to do to vote for this legislation today. The Congress will 
finally take care of our working class brothers and sisters.
  I must say, though, that the gentlewoman from Tennessee and the 
gentleman from Idaho had better get their economics straight. In their 
logic, we should reduce the minimum wage so we will produce more jobs. 
If that makes any sense, you are really off the reservation.
  My friends, this is an opportunity for us to put aside politics and 
get to the heart of the issue. At $5.15 an hour, a full-time minimum 
wage worker brings home $10,712. How could anyone live on that sum in 
this day and age? We all know that, since 2000, the costs of health 
insurance and gasoline and home heating and attending college have 
skyrocketed to the tune of almost $5,000 annually. Clearly an untenable 
situation for American workers. And just this week Northeastern 
University put out this report, an increase of productivity for the 
American worker of 17 percent and an increase in wages of 1 percent.
  The little guy is going to get help from this Congress, and you had 
better get that straight, to all of the folks on both sides of the 
aisle. The little guy is not going to be forgotten any longer.
  This is an important piece of legislation. Raising the minimum wage 
today will provide an additional $4,400 a year for a family of three, 
equaling 15 months of groceries. That is good enough for me.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman said that this Congress will remember the little guy. 
The small businessmen that we are trying to help, for the most part, 
are little guys.
  I remember when I first started in business. It was a small family 
business. We had two stores. My dad ran one, and I ran one. I couldn't 
afford any employees. I had to wait until a friend came in and I could 
ask him to watch the store for a minute so I could use the restroom or 
maybe grab a sandwich, or I would just eat standing behind the counter 
if I didn't have any customers in. So I understand the problems that we 
are facing.
  And if we could all focus back on the debate today, the substitute 
bill that the Republicans wanted to put into play that Mr. McCrery and 
introduced yesterday does exactly the same thing as the Democratic bill 
on increasing the minimum wage. But it also goes further, to help small 
businesses to provide health care to the workers, which I think is very 
important. And

[[Page H286]]

we are missing a wonderful opportunity to join together in a bipartisan 
way to work to help more people.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and thank the 
colleagues across the aisle for this important debate.
  I think one of the things that should be brought to our attention is 
that the debate is not subject to amendment. We are not able to really 
consider and take action based on our considerations.
  We received a communication from Rebecca Dow, who is the founder and 
executive director of Apple Tree Educational Center, a nonprofit 
institution serving low-income/at-risk children in Truth or 
Consequences, New Mexico. She stated that if a Federal or State minimum 
wage passes, the reimbursement for child care assistance is going to be 
so low that providers cannot continue providing service for low-income 
families. For programs like Apple Tree, it will mean closing. There are 
going to be unintended consequences.
  As a small business owner myself, I will tell you that we are not 
talking about the middle class working for minimum wage. I will tell 
you that we are not talking about people who are right in the midstream 
of the employment force. I will tell you that we are talking about 
giving jobs to people who are not and have not in the past been 
hirable.
  We brought one man in who was 40 years old, tattoos from one end to 
the other. He told me after working 6 months he had never had a job, a 
full-time job, in his whole life. Because we could bring him in at a 
lower level, we did not have to have productivity, he was allowed to 
learn on-the-job training. That gentleman is still employed at the 
company which my wife and I sold after we came here because we were 
able to give him an entry level wage at an entry level job without much 
demand for performance.
  In the last session, the last Congress, I voted to increase the 
minimum wage when the protections were there for small businesses. It 
is the small business people who get caught in the middle.
  We heard from our colleagues on the other side that many small 
businesses support minimum wage. If that is so, they have got the 
instrument to do something about it. They simply increase wages. But it 
is those small businesses, family owned businesses, where the decisions 
are made, on the living room sofa and the dining room table. Those are 
the people that you are going to put up against very hard economic 
circumstances, people like Rebecca Dow, who is going to have to close 
her institution that provides child care assistance for low-income 
families in an area that has no other provider for this sort of 
service. I think these are the things that we should be talking about 
and should be making allowances for, rather than rushing this bill to 
the floor in the manner that it is today.
  I appreciate your concern for the working families and for the 
businesses of the country. There are changes that we need to make.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of raising the minimum wage 
for America's neediest workers, and I am proud that our Speaker, 
Speaker Pelosi, and Chairman Miller have chosen this in the first 100 
hours to help America's workers who have not been helped for a long, 
long time. It has been 10 long years, and America's workers need a 
raise.
  I think this debate really does crystallize the differences between 
our side of the aisle and our Republican colleagues.
  I have heard some arguments here this morning that government should 
not intervene in the market. But I want to remind my Republican 
colleagues that these workers are completely powerless to improve their 
situation.
  The age of globalization has made these workers less powerful than 
they were 10 years ago. According to the Economic Policy Institute, of 
the nearly 7 million workers directly affected by the minimum wage, 80 
percent are adults, 54 percent work full time, and 59 percent are 
women. The reality is that working families are struggling every day to 
try to make ends meet.
  Look at it this way: In 1997, these workers made $206 a week for 
working 40 hours. In 2007, they are making the same $206. The problem 
is that while in 1997 it may have got that worker close to the poverty 
line at the end of the year, now they are $5,000 below the poverty line 
because the cost of living has gone up 26 percent.
  That is why I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting the 
Fair Minimum Wage Act.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the last time the real value of the minimum 
wage was this low, Elvis was singing ``Heartbreak Hotel.'' But these 
days it is poor working folks, who have the heartbreak when the minimum 
wage is not even close to being a living wage.
  We need to take the minimum for wages and raise it, because there is 
no maximum for prescription drugs, for tuition, for a visit to the 
doctor, for filling up a tank of gas. Meanwhile, if the gap between the 
rich and the poor in this country continues to widen the way it has 
under the Bush Administration, we will soon have the economic features 
of a third world country. A CEO earns in two hours what hardworking 
people earn on the minimum wage in an entire year.
  As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., told workers in 1968, ``It is a crime 
to live in this rich Nation and receive starvation wages.'' And it is a 
great wrong to deny the nearly one in five workers in Texas who will 
get a raise as a result of this bill.
  A rising tide does not raise all boats if some of them are anchored 
to the floor by Republican ideology. The kind of objections we have 
heard today is why it has taken so long to do so little.
  After ten years of doing nothing for the hardest workers, let's 
approve at least this modest increase.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the Fair 
Minimum Wage Act of 2007.
  I first want to commend Speaker Pelosi, the Democratic leadership, 
and Mr. George Miller for their leadership in making this issue a 
priority in the first 100 hours of legislation.
  As Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, I stand 
here with my friends from the Tri-Caucus in support of increasing the 
minimum wage to $7.25 and urge Congress to support a clean vote to this 
bill.
  It has been 10 years since the last increase in the minimum wage; 
and, adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is now at its lowest 
level since 1955.
  Over the past 5 years, the number of Asian and Pacific Islander 
Americans living in poverty has grown by 243,000. In 2005, more than 
1.5 million Asian Pacific Islander Americans, nearly 9 percent of all 
APIA families in the U.S., were living below the poverty line. Certain 
ethnic communities, such as Hmong Americans and Cambodian Americans, 
experience poverty at up to three times that rate. The median household 
income for APIA families is down $2,157 since 2000.
  Now is the time for us to take a step in a new direction and help to 
improve the quality of life for the estimated 14.9 million workers in 
this country.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Miller 
for yielding, and I want to thank him for bringing this piece of 
legislation before us.
  Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable that we have waited 10 years to 
address this problem. Unacceptable. We have waited far too long. 
Millions of our American citizens, our brothers and sisters, mothers 
and fathers, are working long hours to receive a minimum wage and are 
still living in poverty. In 2007, we should be ashamed of ourselves. We 
can do better. We can do much better as a Nation and as a people.

                              {time}  1345

  American workers are suffering. They are struggling to fill their 
cars

[[Page H287]]

with gas, to put good food on the table. They are working hard, and 
they are still living in poverty. That is not right. It is not fair, 
and it is not just. All American workers deserve good pay for hard 
work. This is a matter of fairness. This is a matter of human decency. 
This is a matter of human dignity.
  Nearly 20 States have increased their minimum wage above the Federal 
level. It is time for us in Congress to do the same.
  In my district, the basic cost of living for a family of three is 
$27,000. Even with the increase we are considering today, it is still 
$12,000 short.
  This is just the first step today, and we must do more for working 
families in the fight against poverty. President Roosevelt said it best 
when he said that the test of our progress is not whether we add more 
to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide 
enough for those who have too little.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we must pass the minimum wage. It is time that 
Congress's actions reflect the will of the American people.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the committee, 
Mr. Miller, for his outstanding work on our behalf.
  Mr. Speaker, today is the day that the Lord has made. Let us rejoice 
and be glad about it.
  Today we are here to honor our promise to the American people. They 
have asked us and we have promised to increase the minimum wage, and we 
are here to deliver on that promise. I wholeheartedly rise in support 
of H.R. 2, to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. 
The American people deserve better.
  Mr. Speaker, raising the national minimum wage is a first step in 
reducing the poverty rate in America. America's families have seen 
their real income drop by almost $1,300 since the year 2000 while the 
cost of health insurance, gasoline, home heating and attending college 
have increased by almost $5,000 a year.
  As you know, the minimum wage has not been raised since 1997, and 
that is inexcusable and unconscionable. Mr. Speaker, the Bible tells us 
that our servant is worthy of his hire. Well, the American people are 
certainly worth more than the current $5.15 minimum wage that they are 
receiving.
  Again, I rise in support of this outstanding legislation, and I thank 
the committee and thank this chairman for being a stellar, outstanding 
leader in bringing more income to the American household.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, 
Chairman Miller, and I rise in support of H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage 
Act of 2007.
  I am pleased that the Democratic leadership has taken a 
straightforward, no-holds-barred approach to expediting consideration 
of this legislation. And frankly, I am ashamed that it has taken so 
long to increase the minimum wage by so little.
  What we do here today is a clear indication of the philosophical 
difference between Democrats and Republicans. My party, the Democratic 
Party, has tried to raise the minimum wage for nearly 10 years because 
we believe in live and let live. We believe that families should be 
fairly paid for their labor. We believe that wage earners, the true 
backbone of this Nation, should be able to put food on the table, roofs 
over their families' heads, clothes on their families' back and to have 
basic health care.
  Mr. Speaker, $5.15 is totally unacceptable. No family can live on 
$5.15 an hour. Many wage earners are working two and three jobs, both 
husbands and wives and even their children, trying to make ends meet. 
Americans deserve better, and Americans expect their representatives to 
assist them in their quest for a decent quality of life.
  Today the story will be written about the difference between those 
who stood up for the least of these and the those who came to this 
floor and continued to bring unconscionable arguments to deny low-
income wage earners a mere $2.10 increase over their income in a 2-year 
period.
  Many States could not wait for Congress to act, and they have 
undertaken to increase their wages. In my own State of California, the 
minimum wage effective January 1 of this year has increased to $7.25.
  Mr. Speaker, 6.6 million people will benefit from raising the minimum 
wage. The economic gap between the rich and poor is growing. Too many 
people are living at or below the poverty line. When we pass this bill, 
we will all feel better about ourselves.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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, I rise in strong support of 
increasing the minimum wage. I want to thank Speaker Pelosi and the 
Democratic Caucus for deciding that this would be a priority for this 
Congress.
  I come from the State of Illinois where, 2 weeks ago, the Governor 
signed into law a new bill raising the minimum wage to $7.50 an hour, 
moving toward a livable wage. So I am so pleased that we are on track 
to follow the great State of Illinois, and I look forward to the day 
when we will be talking about a livable wage for every American who 
works so he and she can earn enough money to take care of the basic 
needs of their family.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Fair 
Minimum Wage Act of 2007 because Americans desperately need a raise.
  Currently, millions of Americans go to work every day but still 
cannot afford to make ends meet. Sadly, children are at the losing end 
of this equation. Seven million families cannot afford to adequately 
provide for their children because they are working for poverty wages. 
With this bill, we can begin to turn that trend around.
  Working families are the true beneficiaries of this legislation. 
Nearly 80 percent of affected workers are adults, and 46 percent of 
affected families rely solely on the earnings of minimum wage workers.
  Mr. Speaker, nearly 15 million Americans will likely benefit from 
this bill, millions of them children whose parents are losing quite a 
bit of money as we speak.
  I want to thank Speaker Pelosi, Representative Miller, and my friend, 
Steny Hoyer, for their tireless work on this issue.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, and 
I want to say this legislation gets an ``A'' in politics and a ``D-
minus'' in economics; an ``A'' is politics most people aren't going to 
notice that the very people who are pushing it are the ones who voted 
against the Bush tax cuts for the low-income bracket, reducing it from 
15 percent to 10 percent.
  It is going to be good politics because most people will overlook the 
fact that the majority of the Democrat Party are going to vote against 
affordable health care for the working poor.
  It is good politics because most people won't notice that the 
Democrats didn't have a committee meeting which would have given them 
an opportunity to parade out all of these workers who they have been 
saying over and over again depend on Congress for their salary and 
wages because apparently they cannot earn more on their own, only 
Congress themselves can increase this.
  It is going to be good politics for them because most people won't 
realize that, since 1997, in the last 9 years, that 29 States have 
increased the minimum wage, and that is a fact that keeps getting 
overlooked.
  And it is going to be good politics because most folks know that 
union wages are going to be linked into this, and it is going to 
increase the wage salary for the union workers who support them so 
dearly.
  But it is going to be bad economically. As I said, an ``A'' in 
politics and a ``D'' in economics because the reality is that most 
minimum-wage earners are part-time, and most are well above

[[Page H288]]

the poverty level. Most are teenage workers: 52 percent under 25; 40 
percent have never had a job before. It is an entry level job.
  If the Democrat Party truly wanted to take on poverty, they would 
have to say, what is the relationship between marriage and the poverty 
level, and between hours worked and the poverty level. Because the 
truth of the matter is if people in poverty, if many of them would 
marry and many of them would work 40 hours a week, they would be out of 
poverty. It is not anything I claim to have the franchise on, the 
knowledge of, all of the information on, but it is an economic fact. I 
hope that we can have committee hearings on that and discuss that, 
because if we want to attack poverty, that is where we need to go.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have waited a long time 
for this day. This is a great day. It is a day that the American people 
have been waiting for a very long time.
  Helping the poor is a theme that is stressed throughout the Bible, 
but it is our responsibility as Members of Congress to help raise the 
standard.
  I am so pleased today that we are going to have an opportunity to 
have a clean vote on raising the minimum wage for the first time in 10 
years.
  You know, the sad thing is that a CEO before 12:00 earns more money 
than a person on minimum wage will earn all year long. In talking to 
some of the CEOs about it, they mention, maybe we are trying to help 
students or part-time workers. The truth of the fact is, we are raising 
the minimum wage. We are providing an additional $4,400 per year for a 
struggling family to make ends meet and keep up with the rising cost of 
living.
  This bill is not about students and part-time workers. No, it is 
about the nearly 13 million full-time workers, many with families to 
care for, who earn the minimum wage. In my State of Florida, the 
increase would directly benefit over 200,000 workers and have a 
positive effect on over a half million people.
  Today is a great day for America and for the American worker. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill. I hope the Senate passes 
this version as soon as possible so that we can provide immediate 
relief to our Nation's workers.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) who has been a long-time advocate 
of the increase in the minimum wage, both in this Congress and before 
he came to this Congress.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it has been said, but it bears 
repeating, that a person working full time, full time at $5.15 an hour, 
will make $10,700 per year. If that person happens to have a child, 
that person is living below the poverty line of $13,461.
  No one in this, the richest country in the world, should work full 
time and live below the poverty line. In this country, we want people 
to work their way out of poverty. What better way to have them do this 
than have a minimum wage that gives people a job and money that takes 
them above the poverty line.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. Speaker, it is sinful for us to continue this debate without 
adding that in this country one out of every 110 persons is a 
millionaire. People don't want welfare. People want self-care. We want 
to give people the means by which they can say farewell to welfare. 
Raising the minimum wage will do this.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the staff of the 
Education and Labor Committee, Jody Calemine and Michele Varnhagen, for 
all of their work on this legislation. They have diligently worked for 
years to get this day to come before the House of Representatives, and 
I know they have the appreciation of all of the members of our 
committee.
  I also want to thank our newer staff members, Megan O'Reilly, Brian 
Kennedy and Michael Gaffin, for their good work today and all of their 
efforts on behalf of this legislation, preparing it for the floor.
  I also want to thank my colleagues on this side of the aisle who 
argued on behalf of this bill to increase the minimum wage, and I want 
to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who said that 
they were going to support this measure. They may not fully agree with 
it, but they said they would support it.
  And I want to thank the cosponsors of this legislation, including I 
believe seven Republicans who were original cosponsors of this 
legislation and over 193 Democrats on this side of the aisle.
  I was especially taken with the remarks of my colleagues on this side 
of the aisle who understand that this debate is about more than dollars 
and cents per hour. This is about the values of this Nation. It is 
about the value we place on work. It is about the statement that we 
make to people who go to work every day and work terribly hard in very 
difficult jobs that most people in this country would prefer not to 
have. But they go to work every day to do that, to provide for 
themselves, to provide for their children or to provide for their 
families.
  When you talk to minimum wage workers, whether they are providing for 
themselves or themselves and a child or a child and a spouse, it is 
tough. It is tough. As the gentleman said on the front page of The 
Washington Post today, ``When I get all done, I have nothing left for 
me,'' because he is also taking care of his parents as he is earning 
the minimum wage.
  So this is a big day. This is a big day because this is the first 
time in 10 years that the Congress signals that in fact we are going to 
raise the minimum wage.
  It is what our leader, Speaker Pelosi, said she wanted to do in this 
first 100 hours. In this first 100 hours she wanted to address urgent 
parts of the national agenda that are of deep concern to the American 
people. And to over 80 percent of the American people in this country, 
they understand that the increase in the Federal minimum wage is a 
matter of morality, it is a matter of their values, it is a matter of 
the reflection of our Nation. They understand that these people, 
minimum wage workers in this country, have been working at a wage that 
is 10 years old. Ten years old. And they understand the unfairness of 
that, and they understand the difficulty of that.
  That is why we brought this bill as a clean bill, because we wanted 
to highlight and to speak to the Nation about this group of workers who 
are toiling in spite of the fact that in 28 States they have raised the 
minimum wage at or above the levels we are talking about. In spite of 
that fact there are still some 13 million people who are directly 
impacted by the actions we take here today and the actions we take 
later on to send this bill to the President of the United States.
  There are 13 million people whose economic viability is dependent 
upon this bill to increase the minimum wage. That is why we have to do 
this, and that is why I am so terribly proud of the Members who stood 
up today and argued for this increase in the minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, I will reserve 5 minutes of my time, yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) so he may have a similar 
amount of time, and yield back the balance of my time over the 5 
minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 508 of House Resolution 
6, further proceedings on the bill will be postponed.

                          ____________________