[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 15 (Monday, January 27, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1263-H1269]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS: INCOME INEQUALITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holding). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege to once 
again have this opportunity to come to the floor of the House of 
Representatives and to anchor--along with my good friend and colleague, 
the distinguished gentleman from Nevada, Representative Steven 
Horsford--the Congressional Black Caucus Special Order, where for the 
next 60 minutes we have an opportunity to speak directly to the 
American people about an issue of great significance for the 
communities that we represent as well as for the entire country.
  Income inequality is an issue that is of increasing concern to 
working families, to low-income Americans, to middle class folks, to 
those who aspire to be part of the middle class. We know that at this 
moment in time in 2014 income inequality is the worst that it has been 
in America since the Great Depression.
  Now, we live in the wealthiest country in the world. Yet we know that 
all across America there are people who are struggling to put food on 
their tables, clothing on their backs or to provide shelter for their 
families. That is an unacceptable situation, and we know that things 
have gotten worse over the last 5 years since the collapse of the 
economy. The recovery, while progress has been made, has been uneven, 
inconsistent and schizophrenic in many ways. Some have benefited, 
particularly those amongst the wealthiest 5 to 10 percent of Americans, 
but others have fallen behind.
  So, today, the Congressional Black Caucus will speak to the issue of 
income inequality, but it will also propose why it is something that 
needs to be addressed and what some of the things are that Congress can 
do, in working with the President, to deal with this pressing issue in 
America.
  We have been joined by several distinguished members of the 
Congressional Black Caucus. It is now my honor and privilege to yield 
some time to the dean of New York's congressional delegation, a 
legendary Member of the House of Representatives, the Lion of Lenox 
Avenue, the distinguished gentleman from New York, Representative 
Charles B. Rangel.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Let me thank my friend and my colleague from New York for 
bringing this important issue to the attention of our Congress and the 
Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a strange thing about those Americans who have 
been raised in poor communities. That is, as they grow older, it seems 
that God has blessed them to remember just the good things that they 
have enjoyed, and the misery and the pain somehow fades away; but I 
think that the most important thing that comes out of this is the hope 
for the future. Very few Americans have not witnessed in their families 
devastating economic impacts, but that was more than compensated for 
because they knew, if they had to be in any country in the world in 
which some of these problems could be resolved through opportunity, 
they would be in the United States of America.
  The tragic thing that we have today is that this dream appears to be 
fading for the poor as well as for the middle class. When that happens, 
I think what makes America different from so many other countries is 
that it is possible to have classes that are locked in frigid concrete, 
as used to be the case in Europe--that is dramatically changing to be 
more fluid as it relates to upward mobility--while it appears to us 
that today, if you were born in poverty, you are almost destined to 
remain in poverty. What a sinful, historic condition that would make. 
What a tragic example it would set for the rest of the world that has 
used us as an example as to what human beings can do.
  What is it that the economists don't see? Poverty is not only 
painful; it destroys the very fiber of our economic productivity. Sick 
people, poor people are not productive people. There are inclinations 
for them to cost more in terms of dollars and cents than if we provided 
them with the tools for them to acquire decent jobs with decent living 
wages. People are talking about equality in wages, but I am not 
comfortable with that expression because I don't want some of my 
friends on the other side of the aisle thinking that I think everyone 
should have the same income in terms of equality; but when it comes to 
the equality of opportunity--when it comes to making certain that you 
can tell your kids that you are doing pretty good but that you know 
that they can do better--and then when it comes to those dreams being 
hurt because of examples that we find in this country, then it hurts 
the whole idea of manufacturers wanting to have their workers be in a 
position to buy the things that they are manufacturing or the services 
they are providing.
  So I am glad that we have this time tonight to go beyond the pain of 
poverty and to talk about the hopes and the dreams that people have in 
coming to this country. They come here not to remain poor. They don't 
come here to get rich. They come here because of the opportunity we 
have--and poverty is a poison that can get into any economy and make it 
impossible for poor folks to get out of it.
  Thank you so much for constantly reminding this great country that we 
can't afford to lose that greatness, because a lot of it was in God we 
trust. I do hope, as a result of our voices, that we hear from some of 
the people who hear directly from God--our ministers and our rabbis--to 
be able to understand that Jesus may have said that the meek shall 
inherit the Earth, but he sure didn't mean that the meek should suffer 
while the rich just get richer. Thank you so much for this opportunity.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. JEFFRIES. I certainly thank the distinguished gentleman from New 
York for his eloquent, as always, observations.
  It is an honor and privilege to be joined by the Representative from 
Texas, who has been a fighter on behalf of these issues--a voice for 
the voiceless and someone who is always on the front lines trying to 
deal with socioeconomic inequality wherever it might be found in 
America, but certainly in her home district anchored in Houston, Texas. 
Let me now yield to Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

[[Page H1264]]

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the distinguished coleader of the task 
force in presenting our case to the American people, the distinguished 
gentleman from New York--and I say it with great affection and 
respect--and his coleader, Mr. Horsford, the distinguished gentleman 
from Nevada.
  Let me quickly indicate that income equality has been raised by the 
Congressional Black Caucus and the Task Force on Poverty through our 
chairwoman, the Honorable Marcia Fudge; my colleague, Barbara Lee; 
myself and others through the years--one might offer to say decade--and 
you will hear from our other members. The distinguished dean of New 
York gave the history. I know the distinguished gentleman from New 
Jersey is on the floor, as well as our southern anchor, Representative 
Mr. G.K. Butterfield. Again, we also have New York, New York's 
Representative, Yvette Clarke. I think our members are here because we 
come from far and wide.
  Income inequality refers to the extent to which income is distributed 
in an uneven manner among the population. In the United States, income 
inequality, or the gap between rich and poor, has been growing markedly 
for some 30 years.
  U.S. income inequality has been rising steadily over the past four 
decades. Let me emphasize to my colleagues that it is reaching levels 
not seen since the 1920s; and for those of us who read the history 
books, we know of the financial collapse leading to the Depression of 
that era. That is frightening.
  In the midst of that discussion, we are hearing babble or 
conversation about reducing the debt and closing the deficit, when we 
have decidedly made a mark on that over the last decade. We did so with 
President Obama's fixing and working to turn Wall Street back on its 
feet. We did it with the stimulus package which infused dollars into 
the economy. We fixed the mortgage meltdown, and so now we find that 
houses are being sold and banks want to be able to relax how they give 
money to their various clients that are seeking to buy a house.
  We are at a point where we need to stop talking about the deficit and 
the debt--which is closing--and the debt going down, and start talking 
about investing in America and closing the horror of wealth inequality. 
Somebody is going to understand from whence they came and know that 
America was always a place where someone without shoes could walk into 
the opportunities and the sunlight of opportunity.
  Lyndon Baines Johnson's history tells of how very poor he was growing 
up after the loss of income from his father. It was on his mind that 
people who are poor should not be treated with indignity.
  So one of the biggest factors driving the increase in income 
inequality since 2000 is the stagnation of the typical American 
household in terms of income. We need to raise the minimum wage. We 
need to stop blaming poor people and suggesting that their condition is 
their own.
  There are studies by the University of Wisconsin and the University 
of Kentucky, and let me give the facts. A low-wage job supplemented 
with food stamps is becoming more common for the working poor. They 
have a job, and yet they have to get food stamps. That is not their 
desire. They are working people. They want to be respected for their 
work.
  Many of the U.S. jobs now being created are low-income or minimum 
wage, part-time, or in areas such as retail or fast food. Yes, jobs. We 
don't denigrate them; but it brings about the highest level of income 
inequality. And then, on top of it, we are cutting billions from food 
stamps.
  As I told you, a young lady in Texas makes $10 an hour working to be 
able to provide for her family. Without shame, she has to get on food 
stamps; and since 2009, 50 percent of the individuals getting food 
stamps are working. That is a point that we should realize.
  We need to increase the minimum wage, and we realize that the highest 
number of high school graduates head the bulk of the food stamp 
households, but college graduates or those who have had some college 
are also on food stamps.
  Income inequality: as recently as 1998, the working age of a share of 
food stamp households was at 44. It is now up to 50.
  Let me say we are finding ourselves in an economy of globalization, 
automation, and outsourcing. I would like to work with my Republican 
friends on curing that disease--the disease of outsourcing, giving up 
people's jobs, and cutting down on manufacturing--which, in actuality, 
under President Obama, we have been able to surge up.
  I would like them to look at legislation that says if you are 
chronically unemployed, you can get training. You can get a credit and 
you get the unemployment, and you don't have to touch that. But you get 
a training credit or a stipend to change your life.
  The young lady in this newspaper article is trying to save money to 
be able to get paramedic training. She wanted to be a nurse. She had to 
drop out because of the lack of money. What are we doing about people 
like that?
  Let me close, Mr. Jeffries, with the CNN commentary, or CNN 
programing. The individual that gave these words was a prominent 
wealthy gentleman who is a senior citizen. I have a great respect for 
senior citizens. I really do. They are all over my district. But I hope 
that we don't have to come to a time that the idea of trying to balance 
wealth inequality gets you accused of being like Nazis. My heart is 
broken to able to think that someone would misconstrue the idea of 
helping this young 25-year-old suffering with low wages and trying 
to close the income gap to a ridiculous comparison as that. Freedom of 
speech, of course; but that is ridiculous.

  Let me show this form as my final expression here.
  We are still fighting to get unemployment benefits. The numbers have 
gone past 1.9 million; and let me be very clear that four out of five 
beneficiaries have at least one other adult in the household. Many 
support children, single adults, multiple adults in the household. 
These people need an unemployment insurance extension for basic 
benefits, and we can't even do it. And we used to do it on an emergency 
basis in the same breath as talking about debt and deficit.
  We need to invest in America's people. We need infrastructure to 
create jobs and close the wealth inequality.
  One-half of the people who need an unemployment insurance extension 
have at least some college. Nine in 10 live in households with total 
income of less than $75,000 a year. They need that bridge to keep them 
going; and shamefully, unfortunately, we have not done that.
  So I want to thank the gentleman for giving me the opportunity. I 
feel bipartisanship coming from my colleagues as they begin to talk on 
the floor, and that bipartisanship wants to have an increase in the 
minimum wage, to make it a livable wage, pass the emergency 
unemployment insurance, and have a reconsideration. Even though I know 
there is a conference bill, we just can't cut food stamps to those who 
are suffering.
  I want to thank the gentleman. I look forward to investing in jobs 
that will be equal in income. I look forward to dealing with making 
automation work for those who want to work, technology work for those 
who want to work, closing the outsourcing gap and boosting 
manufacturing to give hardworking Americans who want something more 
than unemployment, but need it now; who want something more than low-
skilled jobs, but need jobs now; and want something more than having to 
get food stamps, but need it now, to be able to close this heinous 
income inequality that is plaguing America. It is an epidemic that we 
must fight with every bit of our breath.


  ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ACTING ON CRITICAL LEGISLATIVE ISSUES--JANUARY 
                                  2014

  House Democrats remain committed to policies that will address 
growing income inequality, the economic well-being of American 
families, and our economy--including renewing unemployment insurance, 
raising the minimum wage, and passing comprehensive immigration reform.
  Addressing these issues would greatly benefit American families and 
our economic recovery, according to reports by leading economists and 
policy analysts.

                    Renewing Unemployment Insurance

  On December 28, 2013, 1.3 million Americans lost access to emergency 
unemployment insurance. Democrats are committed to restoring this 
program that expires for an additional 72,000 Americans each week.
  Renewing this program would help millions of Americans who are 
struggling to find a job

[[Page H1265]]

and put food on the table, and it would also provide economic benefits:
  Extending Unemployment Benefits Increases Output and Employment: 
``CBO estimates that extending the current EUC program and other 
related expiring provisions until the end of 2014 would increase 
inflation-adjusted GDP by 0.2 percent and increase full-time-equivalent 
employment by 0.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2014.'' 
[Congressional Budget Office, 12/1/13]
  Failure to Extend Emergency Unemployment Benefits Hurts Jobless 
Workers in Every State: ``Failure to extend the Emergency Unemployment 
Compensation (EUC) program would affect jobless workers in every state. 
. . . In all, an estimated 4.9 million workers would lose out on EUC 
benefits by the end of 2014.'' [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 
12/11/13]
  Labor Market Will Lose 310,000 Jobs in 2014 if Unemployment Insurance 
Extensions Expire: ``Less understood but equally crucial, the UI 
benefit extensions boost spending in the economy and thereby create 
jobs. We find that continuing the extensions through 2014 would 
generate spending that would support 310,000 jobs. If this program is 
discontinued, the economy will lose these jobs.'' [Economic Policy 
Institute, 11/7/13]

                        Raising the Minimum Wage

  The minimum wage has not been raised since 2007, and raising the 
minimum wage would help American families while also growing our 
economy:
  Raising Minimum Wage Will Help Low-Wage Workers, With Little Negative 
Impact on Employment: ``The weight of the evidence is . . . that 
minimum-wage increases of the magnitude that have been enacted in the 
past . . . are a clear net benefit to low-wage workers as a group as 
well as a policy tool that pushes back against rising inequality.'' 
[Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1/7/14]
  Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Wages for 
Millions and Provide an Economic Boost: ``Raising the federal minimum 
wage to $10.10 by 2016 would lift incomes for millions of American 
workers and provide a modest boost to U.S. GDP. . . . Across the phase-
in period of the increase, GDP would grow by about $22 billion, 
resulting in the creation of roughly 85,000 net new jobs over that 
period.'' [Economic Policy Institute, 12/19/13]

                Passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform

  In addition to providing a pathway to citizenship, passing 
comprehensive immigration reform would boost economic activity and grow 
our workforce:
  Taking Action on Immigration: ``Studies show that highly educated, 
foreign-born professionals are net job creators. Low quotas for both H-
1B temporary visas and permanent residence green cards are the primary 
problems for employers seeking to hire high-skilled foreign nationals. 
Visa shortages and long waits created by the current law lead highly 
sought-after world talent to either leave America or choose to remain 
overseas and work for foreign competitors.'' [Business Roundtable, 4/5/
13]
  Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Creating Jobs and Strengthening the Economy: 
``The United States continues to lead the world in technology and 
science innovation; immigrant entrepreneurs play a large role in this 
competitive thrust. A study by Wadhwa and colleagues found that 
foreign-born entrepreneurs were founders or co-founders of more than 
25% of technology and engineering companies started between 1995 and 
2005. In 2005, these technology companies employed 450,000 workers and 
generated $52 billion.'' [Chamber of Commerce, 1/2012]
  Economic Impact of S. 744, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, 
and Immigration Modernization Act: ``Taking account of all economic 
effects (including those reflected in the cost estimate), the bill 
would increase real (inflation-adjusted) GDP relative to the amount CBO 
projects under current law by 3.3 percent in 2023 and by 5.4 percent in 
2033, according to CBO's central estimates.'' [Congressional Budget 
Office, 6/18/13]
  Immigration Reform: Implications for Growth, Budget and Housing: 
``Effective immigration reform can be a powerful instrument of economic 
revitalization. By increasing the overall population and particularly 
the number of working-age labor force participants, reform can help 
expand the economy, contribute to higher overall average wages, 
generate more consumer spending, and spur new demand for residential 
housing construction.'' [Bipartisan Policy Center, 10/29/13]

               [From the Houston Chronicle, Jan. 8, 2014]

         No. 1 Job for House: Extend Emergency Unemployment Aid


      program will help economy by creating jobs, boosting growth

                        (By Sheila Jackson Lee)

       Right now, 1.9 million Americans are experiencing an 
     economic emergency, which will turn into a catastrophe for 
     them and their families if Congress does not act immediately 
     to extend the emergency unemployment program that expired on 
     Dec. 28. Unless the aid is extended through 2014, nearly 14 
     million Americans will be negatively affected--the 4.9 
     million workers who will see unemployment insurance cut off 
     and the approximately 9 million additional family members 
     those workers are supporting.
       There are some who believe that there is no economic 
     emergency justifying an extension of the emergency 
     unemployment program. They are wrong. Let them tell that to 
     jobless veterans looking for a new job in an economy in which 
     there are still nearly 2 million fewer jobs now than there 
     were before the recession began. Let them tell that to the 
     persons who know from experience there are more than three 
     applicants for each new job created. The national employment 
     rate is 7 percent and of these unemployed, the long-term 
     unemployment rate--the share of unemployed workers who have 
     been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer--is 37 percent, the 
     highest it has been in 20 years.
       Behind these grim statistics are the heart-breaking stories 
     of real people--veterans, parents, seniors--struggling to get 
     by on about $300 a week. These benefits, which the recipients 
     earned and paid for through their payroll taxes, are needed 
     to pay rent and utilities, buy groceries, pay for internet 
     access to search for jobs and gas to get to job interviews.
       This is why the most urgent task pending before the House 
     of Representatives is to extend the emergency unemployment 
     program. To address this emergency, I introduced legislation 
     last month, the Unemployed Job Hunters Protection and 
     Assistance Act (H.R. 3773), that would extend the program for 
     12 months to provide the benefits earned by the recipients 
     and avoid what will be a tragedy not only for those who are 
     unemployed but also for an economy still recovering from the 
     worst recession since the Great Depression.
       Extending the program is good for the nation's economy 
     because it will create an estimated 200,000 jobs, increase 
     economic growth by .2 percent and generate $1.52 in economic 
     activity for each dollar expended.
       The emergency unemployment program was established in 2008 
     during the Bush Administration and has been reauthorized 
     several times as the economy continues its recovery. Congress 
     has never failed to extend emergency unemployment insurance 
     when the rate of long-term unemployment was even half the 
     current level of 37 percent. And because of the emergency 
     nature of the congressional action, the extension was not 
     subject to any offset requirements during the Bush 
     Administration. There is no good reason to impose any such 
     requirements now; doing so serves no purpose other than to 
     punish the persons who need our help.
       Despite a slowly recovering job market, these unemployed 
     job hunters have not lost faith. Every morning, they get up 
     and go out or online looking for jobs. They want to work. 
     They still have hope that things will get better so they can 
     provide for their families. But they need the help that 
     unemployment insurance is intended to provide.
       Now is not the time to scapegoat those who have lost their 
     jobs through no fault of their own. Now is the time to extend 
     the emergency unemployment aid. At a minimum, Congress should 
     and must vote to extend the program for three months while 
     negotiations continue on a long-term solution. On Tuesday, a 
     bipartisan measure that would do this cleared a procedural 
     vote in the Senate, allowing debate to continue on the three-
     month stopgap. This is an economic emergency. It is time for 
     congressional Republicans to work with their Democratic 
     colleagues on the issues of importance to the American 
     people.

  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentlelady from Texas.
  Earlier this month, we marked the 50th anniversary of the declaration 
of the war on poverty. In this Chamber in January of 1964, President 
Lyndon Baines Johnson spoke before a joint session of Congress and 
announced a series of initiatives designed to combat chronic poverty in 
America. As a result of this effort, there were several legislative 
battles that were won in the march toward trying to create, as 
President Johnson said, the Great Society--Medicare, Medicaid, the Food 
Stamp Act, the school breakfast program, college work study, Job Corps, 
and minimum wage enhancement. These were all part of the war on 
poverty.
  But, unfortunately, as we stand here today, in 2014, some in this 
Chamber have abandoned this war on poverty and instead have launched a 
war on the poor. As a result, we have seen income inequality grow. That 
is why it is such an important issue for us to confront now.
  I am pleased that we have been joined by one of the strongest voices 
in the Congress for dealing with this issue, the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina, someone who is the vice chair of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, Representative G. K. Butterfield.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me thank you, Mr. Jeffries, for yielding time, 
and thank you for your passion and your willingness to come to this 
floor

[[Page H1266]]

each week to raise issues that are very important to the Congressional 
Black Caucus and should be important to every American. Thank you for 
your energy and the way you represent your district in Brooklyn. Thank 
you to Mr. Horsford for your tireless efforts as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to the State of the Union message 
tomorrow night. I have seen probably nine or 10 since I have been in 
Congress, and each one is unique in its own way. But I am really 
looking forward to the State of the Union message tomorrow night from 
President Barack Obama.
  If press reports are correct, it seems to me that the President is 
ready to pull off the Band-Aid and expose the disease of income 
inequality in this country; and, hopefully, the President will lay out 
a plan tomorrow night to address poverty and to address the huge income 
disparity that we see in our country.
  These are the facts: there are 46.5 million Americans that live below 
the poverty level. Mr. Jeffries, there are 308 million people in 
America, and one out of six of those lives in poverty. That is 
unacceptable. In my district in North Carolina, one of four lives in 
poverty. That includes some 73,000 children, and my congressional 
district is among the bottom 10 of all of the congressional districts 
in the country.
  American workers are working very hard, but their purchasing power in 
my district and your district, Mr. Jeffries, and all across America, is 
getting less. Why is that? It is because wages are flat. Workers are 
not experiencing pay raises and raises in their income as other 
Americans are. Wages are flat. Ten percent of wage earners today earn 
50 percent of the Nation's income. Each year, the top 1 percent makes 
26 times what a minimum wage worker makes, on average.
  These are the facts. These are the statistics. We have not concocted 
this theory of people living in poverty. It is real. Nearly 50 million 
Americans are living in poverty, and so we must get serious. We must 
get serious about enabling the American Dream for millions of low-
income Americans and millions of middle-income Americans.
  A few moments ago, I heard the gentlelady from Texas, Congresswoman 
Sheila Jackson Lee, talk about the minimum wage. And she is absolutely 
correct. It is time for the minimum wage to be raised.

                              {time}  1945

  Raising the wage to $10.10 per hour would immediately lift 4.6 
million Americans out of poverty. And many of those who are in poverty 
are the working poor.
  It is time for corporate America to use their record profits. They 
are experiencing record profits, and good for them, but they must use 
their record profits to provide higher wages and better benefits. The 
fact is that corporate profits are enhanced when workers and their 
families are secure.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the State of the Union message 
tomorrow evening and urge the President to demonstrate his resolve to 
give equal opportunity to every American.
  Finally, the Congressional Black Caucus has constantly made the point 
that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of communities across America 
represented by Republicans and Democrats that have poverty rates in 
excess of 20 percent. Some of those communities have had those rates 
for more than 30 years.
  The Congressional Black Caucus has asked President Obama to use his 
executive authority to target at least 10 percent more resources to 
these communities. The Congressional Black Caucus has framed this as 
the 10-20-30 plan. I ask our President to target more resources to low-
income communities.
  I thank you, Mr. Jeffries, for yielding time.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  As you pointed out, income inequality and poverty should not be a 
partisan issue. It impacts urban America and it impacts rural America. 
It impacts blue States and it impacts red States. It impacts the north, 
the south, the east, the west, and the heartland of this country.
  That is why it has been unfortunate that, heretofore, we have seen a 
refusal by some of our friends on the other side of the aisle to do 
commonsense things like raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, 
which would lift millions of the working poor out of poverty and set 
them on a pathway toward the middle class.
  Now, one of the places where income inequality is particularly 
pronounced is in my hometown of New York City, one of the greatest 
cities in the world, one of the richest cities in the world. But 25 
percent of the population in New York City lives below the poverty 
line. In the shadow of Wall Street, the engine that drives the world 
economy, that is an unfortunate reality.
  One of the people who has been raising this issue and fighting hard 
to address this back home in New York City is my distinguished 
colleague who represents the Ninth Congressional District, immediately 
adjacent to the one that I am privileged to represent. It is my honor 
to yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York, Congresswoman 
Yvette Clarke.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Brooklyn, New York (Mr. Jeffries), my good friend and colleague, for 
yielding, and the gentleman from Nevada, the Honorable Mr. Horsford, 
for anchoring the Special Orders of the Congressional Black Caucus.
  I join with my colleagues of the Congressional Black Caucus in rising 
this evening to address the issue of income inequality that continues 
to splinter the foundation of our Nation.
  In Brooklyn, the lowest income and the lowest fifth of households 
took home about 2.5 percent of the borough's income in 2011. The top 5 
percent claimed 24 percent. Almost 22 percent of the population of 
Brooklyn lives in poverty.
  While the causes of this polarization are complex, I believe they are 
not insurmountable. The people of Brooklyn have started to stand up and 
demand action on the issue.
  We know that the wage stagnation contributes largely to income 
disparity, so let's raise the minimum wage.
  We know that education is the true ladder of opportunity in our 
communities, so let's make the vital investments in education.
  We know that unemployment insurance is not only an essential tool for 
individuals, a bridge to find new work, but it is also a stimulus to 
our local businesses, so let us extend unemployment insurance.
  Most importantly, we must make every effort to make sure that no 
American is allowed to fall through our social safety net and that we, 
as their national representatives, truly look out for those that have 
been driven deeper into desperation and poverty by the recent financial 
crisis.
  So our message today is simple: the economic disparity that has crept 
across our Nation is threatening America's fundamental promise of 
opportunity for all. We must take action: opportunities for 
entrepreneurship and job creation; maintain our social compact so that 
no American has to go hungry, that we provide the food assistance 
through a robust Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; provide the 
unemployment insurance that families need to maintain until they get 
those jobs they have been seeking.
  We must take action. That is what we have been sworn to do.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my good friend and colleague, Representative 
Yvette Clarke, and look forward to continuing the fight and the march 
toward socioeconomic justice on behalf of the people we represent back 
at home in Brooklyn and New York City.
  It is now my honor and my privilege to yield to another good friend, 
the dean of the freshman class of the CBC, someone who has continued in 
the great tradition that had been set forth by his father and his 
predecessor and is carving out his own reputation as a fighter for 
justice on behalf of the people he represents back at home in New 
Jersey. Let me now yield to the distinguished gentleman from the Garden 
State, Representative Donald Payne, Jr.
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the dynamic duo of 
the CBC's freshman class, Mr. Horsford and Mr. Jeffries, for their 
tireless leadership in the 113th Congress, and now the Second Session 
of the 113th Congress. They have demonstrated that they have hit the

[[Page H1267]]

ground running and understand the issues that are important to the 
people of the United States.

  Mr. Speaker, the gap between the rich and poor in this country has 
really become staggering, and that gap is increasing every single day. 
Nowhere is that more true than in my home State of New Jersey. The 
number of wealthy families has doubled. Meanwhile, the poorest income 
brackets have increased sharply. In my district alone, more than a 
quarter of the people live in poverty, and this is likely really 
underestimated due to the high cost of living in New Jersey.
  Not only is there a growing gap, but unemployment is high, the 
minimum wage is stagnant, and there is a lack of opportunity throughout 
this Nation for people to find the jobs that they need to have their 
families live in the manner in which they should. This, in the richest 
country in the world, the greatest Nation in the world, is absolutely 
unacceptable. All of these contribute to growing income inequality.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) was correct. We are not 
saying that everyone should have the same standard of living or the 
same salary or income, but the opportunity to rise to those salaries 
and incomes is the issue of today.
  One thing that the Congress can do to help lessen this inequality is 
to extend unemployment insurance right away.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how some of this issue is couched in: 
maybe people just don't want to get up and look for a job, and if they 
take that menial job, then what is the problem? The problem is: you 
can't feed your children; you can't buy the clothes they need to go to 
school; you can't educate them. Therein lies the problem.
  We are in a time now where there are more than 1 million long-term 
unemployed who literally have been left out in the cold.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, I know what it is like to be unemployed. I know 
what it is like to be down on your luck. At one time, a company that I 
worked for for a decade, which I thought would be my career, I would 
retire from there, get the gold watch, the proverbial gold watch, well, 
Mr. Speaker, it didn't work out that way. The company closed its doors 
and I found myself unemployed, going down to the Unemployment Office to 
get the paperwork needed, and trekking across my community to attempt 
to get a job.
  That is the other thing that people don't understand about this, Mr. 
Speaker. You see, you can't just sit around and not look for a job in 
order to collect unemployment insurance.
  That it has not been extended is almost a crime because, you see, 
some of these people have paid into this system for 5 and 10 and 20 
years, and now that they need it, we are saying to those people that 
have played by the rules and done the things that we said they should 
do, that it is over for you.
  I know what it is like not to have a paycheck, to go paycheck to 
paycheck. Now, I was fortunate. In my situation, I was able to move 
back home. But what I understand, Mr. Speaker, is that everyone does 
not have that opportunity. So I will continue to fight for what is 
right and what this Nation should stand for.
  Take it from me, being unemployed, out looking for a job, is hard 
work, and it wears on you mentally and emotionally, because a job isn't 
just a paycheck. It is not just about one's livelihood. A job defines 
your purpose in life.
  The hundreds of thousands of unemployed in New Jersey remain hopeful 
and optimistic that, if they keep working hard, they keep playing by 
the rules, they will be rewarded one day and find their new purpose in 
life. We must fulfill that promise that we have made to them. The faces 
of the unemployed, of those living in poverty in New Jersey are 
numerous and diverse.
  Mr. Speaker, there is another dynamic. We have the dynamic of people 
who have great qualifications not being able to find a job because it 
is an employer's market. And, apparently, the bottom line is what is 
the most important thing for people. To lose a percentage on their 
gains or the percentage of income they make for their shareholders is 
the most important thing. So they are willing to let people lose their 
income to keep those numbers where they are.
  There are middle-aged workers who, after decades at a company they 
have loved, find themselves unemployed. There are young people with 
college and master's degrees, as I said, who did everything right but 
can't seem to find a job no matter how qualified they are.
  So I am asking my friends on both sides of the aisle to look at the 
faces of the long-term unemployed, to look at the faces of minimum wage 
workers, to look at the faces of the men and women and children living 
in poverty. I am asking my friends on both sides of the aisle to leave 
behind their political agendas and move forward with a human agenda, 
because, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Speaker, there is no reason that, in 
the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth, we have these issues to 
the degree that we do.

                              {time}  2000

  So I just want to close by saying that there are people in this 
Nation that play by the rules. There are people in this Nation that 
have done everything that we have asked them to do. So it is our 
obligation in this Nation, as its leaders, to find those opportunities 
for people to live and continue the type of life they have had in the 
American way.
  I am just here to say that I will continue to fight for the less 
fortunate because I will not turn my back on any American that wants to 
play by the rules and have done what we have said in this Nation you 
need to do. The land of the free and the home of the brave--that still 
should mean something.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his very 
thoughtful observations and, in particular, for focusing on the need to 
reauthorize unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed across 
America. There has been a myth that really has been put forth 
unfortunately by those who seek to undermine this program that 
individuals who are receiving unemployment assistance, who have been 
unemployed for 27 weeks or more, simply are sitting home looking to 
collect a check without going out and actively searching for 
employment. Nothing can be further from the truth.
  The reality is--and this is connected to the dynamic around income 
inequality that we are discussing here today--is that for every 2.8, 
2.9 million Americans who are unemployed, looking for a job, there is 
only one job that exists. So obviously we need to do more in this 
country collectively to generate employment as opposed to exploiting 
good middle class jobs to other parts of the world and not seeing any 
reciprocal economic benefit in return.
  I am thankful that I have been joined by the coanchor of the CBC 
Special Order, someone whose very district representing urban parts of 
Clark County in Las Vegas as well as rural parts of Nevada can speak to 
the issue quite clearly that income inequality and poverty in America 
is not simply an urban issue or a rural issue. It impacts all of 
America, and we are thankful here in this Congress that he has been 
such a strong champion for his district and for these issues that are 
impacting people all across the country.
  Let me yield to my good friend from Nevada, Steven Horsford.
  Mr. HORSFORD. I thank my good friend, a strong advocate for the 
people of his district in New York as well as representing the 
interests of all Americans, and for your leadership in coanchoring this 
hour on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, where we bring the 
issues that most Americans want this Congress to focus on to the floor 
of the House of Representatives.
  I would like to thank you for anchoring this hour and all of our 
colleagues who have come to the floor tonight to speak.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night, this Chamber will be packed. 
Every seat will be filled, and every seat in the Chamber will have 
Representatives here. Millions upon millions of Americans will be 
listening as our President lays out the State of our Union. I am 
looking forward to his remarks and his vision for how we can continue 
to move our country forward.
  Tonight, we come here to gather to discuss income inequality and what 
Congress can do in working with the President to move some of these 
important legislative issues forward on behalf of the constituents that 
we represent and millions of Americans across our great Nation.

[[Page H1268]]

  There is no easy answer for solving the problem of income inequality 
or economic mobility. I thank the gentleman from New York for talking 
about how our various districts are really representative of this issue 
of income inequality.
  In my home district of Nevada, the Fourth District, we have been hit 
harder than most by higher unemployment, higher home foreclosures which 
have led to economic loss, and I want to talk about some of that 
tonight because when we talk about issues of income inequality and 
economic mobility, it is for all incomes, not just for a select few. It 
is for the people in rural America as well as urban America. These are 
issues that are important to all of us.
  Now although we cannot expect Congress to solve each person's 
economic struggle, we can certainly expect our Members of Congress not 
to target those who are struggling to make ends meet, especially by 
balancing our budget on their backs.
  As of December 28, this past year, Congress did just that, 
unfortunately, and now, over 1.6 million Americans have lost crucial 
unemployment insurance benefits. Today, nearly 21,000 Nevadans in my 
State have been cut off from unemployment benefits. This is personal. 
As my colleague from New Jersey talked about, for those who understand 
what it means to be unemployed, for those of us who understand the fact 
that people are putting in resume after resume, day after day, week 
after week, it hits a person to their core, being unemployed. To add 
insult to injury, this Congress failed to do its job.
  So its unconscionable to assume that those who are looking for work 
are lazy or that they want to somehow stay unemployed. Mr. Speaker, the 
constituents that I have spoken to in my district at the work centers 
who continue to put their resumes in, they want to be employed.
  It is one thing to have our colleagues on the other side believe that 
the government should not intervene in helping to close the gap between 
the rich and poor, but it is absolutely wrong to cut critical social 
safety nets that have been in place for decades--regardless of party--
in an effort to reduce spending while maintaining corporate subsidies 
and tax breaks for the very rich.
  Mr. Speaker, it is morally outrageous to target those who have lost 
their jobs at no fault of their own, but it is even worse to see this 
happen when we have millions of dollars in tax subsidies to 
millionaires and major industry.
  What is more, the difference between the top and the bottom of the 
economic ladder is greater than ever before, and climbing this ladder 
is also becoming increasingly difficult.

  Recently, Harvard economist Dr. Raj Chetty found that those who are 
our parents, and how much our parents earn, are more consequential 
today than ever before. Dr. Chetty identified five key factors that are 
heavily correlated with economic mobility and income inequality. First 
is segregation. Second is inequality. Third is the quality of our 
public school systems. Fourth is social and civic engagement. Fifth is 
family structure.
  And for decades, low-income workers have seen their wages frozen 
while the profits of the Nation's wealthiest Americans have continued 
to explode. Now I have nothing against successful people, people who go 
out and put their ingenuity and entrepreneurship to work and become 
successful, but I also believe that it is important for this Congress 
to also focus on the needs of those who are part of the middle class 
and those who have fallen into poverty who want to be part of that 
middle class.
  It is time that Congress acted to address the minimum wage crisis in 
our country. $7.25, which is the Federal minimum wage, is not a living 
wage in today's America, and we need to recognize that. We need to 
recognize that the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, the bill that has 
been introduced by our House Democratic colleague, Representative 
George Miller of California, and in the Senate by Senator Tom Harkin of 
Iowa, is the type of commonsense legislation that a majority of 
Americans expect this Congress to focus on.
  Gradually increasing the Federal minimum wage from a current rate of 
$7.25 an hour to $10.10 per hour by 2016 in three 95-cent installments 
is the right economic step to take for our country and the people that 
we represent. $10.10 is the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum 
wage compared to what it was in the 1960s. Raising the tipped minimum 
wage from $2.13 per hour to $7.07 per hour.
  Now let's talk about who these people are that we are fighting to 
increase the wage for. First, these are low-wage workers who will 
benefit from an increase in the minimum wage and are more likely to 
work full time. In fact, 55 percent of those who are on minimum wage 
today work full time. Fifty-six percent of those on minimum wage today, 
Mr. Speaker, are women, and 80 percent are adults who are at least 20 
years of age.
  Those are not the only groups that would benefit from the minimum 
wage. Increasing the minimum wage would also generate some $22 billion 
in economic activity and create an additional 85,000 jobs nationwide. 
Contrary to what Republicans and some super-PACs may want the American 
people to believe, raising the minimum wage is good for the economy. It 
creates jobs, and it helps lift people out of poverty. It would raise 
4.6 million Americans out of poverty and put an average of $1,700 back 
into the pockets of our country's lowest-wage workers.
  In Nevada alone, over 139,000 people, 20 percent of our State's 
children, would be directly or indirectly affected by an increase in 
the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage would actually take pressure 
off of our government by allowing people to be in more sustaining wages 
that help them provide for themselves and their families rather than 
relying on Federal assistance to take care of themselves.
  So these are the growing inequalities that we are here to talk about, 
Mr. Speaker, and one of the greatest threats to our Nation's future is 
this issue of growing income inequality. Our country's greatness was 
built on the foundation of the world's most prosperous middle class and 
on a society where those who worked hard had the opportunity to rise on 
that economic ladder of opportunity. That has become far from the truth 
over the last 30 years but particularly during the recovery from the 
Great Recession.
  Before I turn the time back over to my colleague and engage in a 
little bit of back and forth, I would like to look at this graph for a 
moment because it charts our country's various recessions and 
depressions and our subsequent recoveries. In the Great Depression, 
everyone suffered. It devastated everyone in the economy, regardless of 
income. In the following years, when our economy started to grow again, 
all levels of income recovered at approximately the same rates that had 
declined. The top 1 percent share of the recovery was only about 28 
percent at the time.
  During the Clinton expansion years, in the 1990s, it was an economic 
boom for all levels of income. And although the top 1 percent held 45 
percent of that growth, it was still a shared economic prosperity.
  Moving ahead to the Bush expansion, after the 2001 recession, you can 
see more of the growth being concentrated in the top 1 percent at 65 
percent. When the recession of 2007 to 2009 came about, only 49 percent 
of the loss belonged to the 1 percent despite the massive gains they 
had accrued during the Bush expansion.
  So this is not the type of economic system that we want for our 
country, where the wealthiest elite continues to grow and the Nation's 
middle class shrinks and suffers, and that is what we are here to talk 
about tonight.
  I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding to me and I yield 
back.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Nevada for the 
very precise and comprehensive analysis that was given today on the 
House floor.

                              {time}  2015

  There were several important points that you raised that I would like 
to elaborate on and perhaps have a follow-up discussion. One of the 
issues that you discuss relates to the failure of the economic 
expansion as well as the recoveries that have taken place increasingly 
over the last several decades to benefit in any proportional way people 
in the middle class and those who aspire to be part of the middle 
class. This has been a trend that we have seen for

[[Page H1269]]

the last 30-plus years. It has been particularly pronounced in the 5 
years or so since the economy collapsed in 2008.
  When we look at the recovery, I mentioned earlier today that it is a 
particularly schizophrenic and inconsistent one because we know that 
the stock market is way up, corporate profits are way up, CEO 
compensation is way up and the productivity of the American worker is 
way up, but middle class wages remain stagnant.
  Now, why is that a problem? This chart illustrates the fact that 
essentially since 1950, the productivity of the American worker--our 
ability as workers throughout this country to produce more in a more 
efficient fashion, costing less in time and resources, has consistently 
and exponentially increased--the productivity of the American worker. 
But essentially over the last 30-plus years or so, wages connected to 
that output of the American worker have remained flat.
  So what does that mean? That essentially means that while the 
American worker is far more efficient and effective in doing their job 
and in being more productive, the profits and the output generated by 
the American worker have not inured to the employees. It has inured to 
the employer and a very small percentage of individuals.
  So when we talk about income inequality, we are not saying that we 
have a problem with success. We are saying everyone should benefit from 
the success that the American worker has created as opposed to just a 
small number of individuals--the so-called job creators. We are 
thankful for their ingenuity and their effort; but the reality is the 
productivity of the American worker has increased, yet the middle class 
has not benefited.
  Back between 1978 and 2001, CEO compensation had increased 876 
percent--CEO compensation between 1978 and 2001. And what has happened 
as it relates to compensation for the average American worker during 
that same time period? It has increased 5.4 percent. That is a shameful 
difference, one that we should not tolerate in this great country.
  The other observation that my distinguished colleague made related to 
the fact that if we increase the minimum wage, it will not just benefit 
millions of Americans by lifting them out of poverty. Parenthetically, 
why in the world would we want a society where people work full-time 
throughout an entire year yet find themselves in poverty? That makes no 
sense. But increasing the minimum wage benefits the economy, as my 
colleague indicated, because it increases consumer demand. An increase 
in consumer demand leads to economic growth, an increase in economic 
growth leads to additional job creation, and everybody benefits. It is 
a commonsense solution.
  So let me now turn to my colleague from Nevada for some parting 
thoughts. And I appreciate, as always, your comprehensive analysis and 
observation.
  Mr. HORSFORD. And I appreciate yours. Just to reinforce the point you 
were making, this chart illustrates the very facts of the matter. Why 
is it okay that Wall Street profits are at record highs over the last 3 
years since 2009, at 720 percent, but it is not okay to increase the 
minimum wage for millions upon millions of Americans who are using that 
minimum-wage job to provide for themselves and their family? Why is it 
okay that the unemployment rate is over 102 percent during this period, 
but it is not okay to increase the minimum wage for workers in this 
country? Why is it okay that CEO pay is 185 times bigger than the 
average worker according to the Economic Policy Institute, but it is 
not okay to raise the minimum wage from $7.25, incrementally, to $10.10 
in order to lift people out of poverty? And why is it okay that 
Americans' home equity has dropped 35 percent during 2007-2009 thereby 
affecting the very income wealth that the majority of middle class 
Americans did have and yet not help to lift our economy by raising the 
minimum wage?
  These are the questions that we would like to pose to our friends and 
colleagues on the other side. These are the questions that the American 
public expect this House of Representatives to debate, and these are 
the issues that would really go to the crux of closing the income 
inequality and moving economic mobility forward in this country.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on these and 
other measures. We have introduced legislation to increase the minimum 
wage, to extend unemployment insurance benefits, to provide training to 
workers to move into high-growth sectors and to invest in our 
infrastructure to create the type of jobs that our country desperately 
needs. But we need our colleagues on the other side to work with us and 
our President to move these legislative proposals forward and to stop 
the continued obstructionism that has plagued this Congress for far too 
long.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my colleague.
  In summation, income inequality is a threat to our economy and the 
integrity of our democracy, and we must do everything possible to right 
this wrong in America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to income inequality in the United States. As millions of 
Americans remain without work, while others are underpaid or 
underemployed, it is imperative that we address the growing threat to 
our country that is income inequality.
  Since the 1970s, we have witnessed a dangerous trend develop where 
wage growth for middle and lower income households has become stagnant 
while incomes at the very top continue to rise sharply. From 1973 to 
2005, real hourly wages for the top 10 percent rose by 30 percent or 
more, whereas the bottom 50 percent of all Americans experienced only 
marginal real wage increases of a little more than 5 percent.
  The income gap is further amplified when comparing races. Overall, 
Caucasian males earn a median income of more than $40,000 per year 
while African American males average roughly $30,000 during the same 
period. Hispanic Americans average just over $26,000 in the same 
category. These discrepancies among demographics is alarming, 
considering those figures are even lower for women.
  The percentage of wealth controlled by the richest Americans is 
another disturbing fact that is often overlooked. The top 1 percent of 
Americans own 40 percent of our entire nation's wealth, while the 
bottom 80 percent of Americans share only 7 percent of the nation's 
wealth. In historical terms, the last time our nation faced such a wide 
income gap was during the 1920s leading up to the Great Depression.
  Mr. Speaker, while Congress struggles with raising the minimum wage, 
millions of working individuals and families across the country 
continue to struggle with stagnant pay and rising inflation. Unless we 
take a serious approach that transcends simply raising the minimum wage 
in order to curb income inequality, the consequences could prove 
catastrophic for our economy.

                          ____________________