[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2621-2645]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT

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


                    Unfunded Mandate Point of Order

  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 425(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I make a point of order against 
consideration of H.R. 3846.
  Section 425(a) states that a point of order lies against 
consideration of a bill that would impose an intra-governmental 
unfunded mandate in excess of $50 million.
  The Congressional Budget Office has scored the language in H.R. 3846 
as an $880 million unfunded mandate on America's State and local 
governments over 5 years. Section 1 of H.R. 3846 increases the Federal 
minimum wage from $5.15 to $6.15 an hour over 3 years. Therefore, I 
make a point of order against consideration of this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) 
makes a point of order that the bill violates section 425(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of the Act, the gentleman has 
met his threshold burden to identify the specific language in the bill 
(section 1) on which he predicates the point of order.
  Under section 426(b)(4) of the Act, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Largent) and a Member opposed will each control 10 minutes of debate on 
the question of consideration.
  Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the Act, after that debate the Chair 
will put the question of consideration, to wit: ``Will the House now 
consider the bill?''
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) will be recognized for 10 
minutes, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) will be recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent).
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the real problems that I see we face in this body 
is that we are consumed with so much business from day-to-day that the 
institutional memory of the House of Representatives tends to be very 
short. And so, I hope to enter into a discourse here of a little 
history from 5 years ago about a bill that we passed overwhelmingly 
called the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act.
  In 1995, the House decided to change the way Washington works with 
America's State houses and city halls. The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 
was passed to protect hard-working State and local officials from the 
bullies in Washington, D.C.
  Its sponsors stood on this floor and said, ``For too long, Congress 
has imposed its own agenda on State and local governments without 
taking responsibility for the costs.''
  The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act passed this House by a vote of 394-
28.
  Several Members who have introduced the bill that is currently before 
us were, in fact, cosponsors of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. Today 
we are scheduled to trample this law by passing a Federal minimum wage 
increase.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to keep our promise to America's State and local 
officials. By voting against their own State and local officials, the 
Members are telling them, ``I know more than you do.''
  I want to be able to look my State and local officials square in the 
eye and tell them that I trust them.

[[Page 2622]]

  Many of our colleagues worked at the local level as mayors or city 
councilmen. Others were State legislators. These Members know the 
frustration of having Washington tell them how to spend their limited 
resources.
  One Member who used to work in a New York county government and who 
has been instrumental in shaping this bill on the floor today and the 
bill on the floor in 1995 said, ``Many Federal mandates involve 
important programs that many of us might support in concept. But, if we 
are going to ask others to pay for them, we should give them more of a 
say in developing them, we should level with them about who is going to 
pay for them, and we should be ready to defend the costs.''
  Where was this principle when the minimum wage bill was drafted?
  Unfunded mandates force State and local governments to reduce vital 
services and/or increase taxes, revamp their budgets and order their 
priorities. This is not the kind of Federal, State, and local 
government partnership the Founders envisioned.
  The vote on this point of order should not be confused with support 
for or opposition to a minimum wage. That issue is irrelevant. Rather, 
it is a vote for or against local control and limited government.
  Who knows best, Washington or City Hall?
  Many States, including the State of Oklahoma, have raised the minimum 
wage above the Federal level. They did not need Washington to tell them 
to do this. Because, believe it or not, they did it all by themselves.
  The Unfunded Mandate point of order can be raised against any bill 
that will cost State and local governments more than $50 million. CBO 
estimates that this increase will cost America's State and local 
governments $880 million. It costs the private sector $13.1 billion, 
$4.1 billion in one year alone.
  The Unfunded Mandate will affect 750,000 State and local government 
employees. Twenty percent of these employees work for State colleges. 
Twenty-seven percent work for State and local schools. And we all know 
how much trouble school districts are having with the money as it is. 
Why make it harder?
  Two-thirds of these employees work for local governments, one-third 
for State governments. Over 40 percent of the Mandate falls on States 
in the Southeast. Twenty-eight percent falls on States in the Midwest. 
Seventy-two percent of the burden falls on people in small towns and 
rural areas.
  The States that will be hardest hit by this Unfunded Mandate are 
California, Texas, Louisiana, Florida, and Arizona.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this Unfunded Mandate hurts State and 
local governments; it hurts schools and hospitals; it hurts nursing 
homes; it hurts workers who lose their jobs; and it hurts the 
businesses who have to lay them off. Perhaps the only people it does 
not hurt are us here in Congress.
  But, most importantly, it hurts the trust we have developed with 
State houses and city halls. It is a reversion to an old way of doing 
business.
  In a moment, I will request a recorded vote on this issue. Those 
wishing to steam roll the Unfunded Mandate law that we just voted on 
and passed overwhelmingly on 5 years ago will vote ``aye.'' Those 
wishing to defend States and local governments against Washington's 
bullying ways will vote ``nay.'' A ``nay'' vote will force Congress to 
be responsible for paying for its own laws.
  This vote draws a line in the sand. Either Members are for local 
control or they are against it. Either they believe city halls and 
State houses know best or they believe Washington knows best. It is 
just that simple.
  Vote ``no'' to show support for local control.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) is suggesting 
that we deny over 10 million American workers a modest increase in the 
minimum wage based on a technical point of order.
  The gentleman would deny 40 percent of minimum-wage workers who are 
the sole bread earner in their families a wage increase based on a 
technical point of order.
  The gentleman would prevent an increase in the minimum wage that is 
supported by 81 percent of Americans on a technical point of order.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman would condemn minimum-wage workers to an 
annual income of only $10,700, which is $3,000 less than the poverty 
level, on a technical point of order.
  Mr. Speaker, the real Unfunded Mandate today is the majority's unpaid 
for and reckless $120 billion tax cut for the wealthy. This point of 
order is just another effort by the majority to deny a fair and just 
increase in the minimum wage.
  So I urge Members who support increasing the minimum wage to vote 
``yes'' on continuing consideration of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) 
has 5 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) has 
8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I thank him for bringing up this valid Unfunded Mandate point of 
order.
  Earlier today, we voted on a rule that waived the 1974 budget rule 
saying that we should have a budget before we pass a tax cut. I voted 
against that rule because I believe that we ought to live by the very 
rules that we pass in this House.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) has correctly pointed out 
what happened 5 years ago. It is important that we consider the costs 
when we are imposing on local governments, as well as small business 
men and women, it is important that we recognize that cost and that it 
is an unfunded mandate when we vote a cost without providing the money 
to pay for it.
  I remember so well the speeches that were made on this legislation 5 
years ago.

                              {time}  1845

  This problem could have been addressed earlier today by the DeMint-
Stenholm State flexibility proposal. The approach in the DeMint-
Stenholm amendment would have given States flexibility to debate the 
minimum wage as part of an overall policy to deal with poverty, low-
income families, and welfare reform. I would much rather do it that way 
than the way in which we are proposing to do it today.
  Some States may choose to have a lower minimum wage but offset this 
with State assistance to low-income families for health care, child 
care, job training, education or other programs. States may decide that 
it may be better to target assistance to low-income families in need 
through State programs instead of a minimum-wage increase. Some States 
may decide that the lower cost of living in their State make a lower 
minimum wage reasonable. Other States may decide that a higher cost of 
living justifies a higher minimum wage.
  States are in the best position to make these judgments. These 
decisions should be made in a public debate in the State legislatures 
where these trade-offs can be debated, not on the floor of the House 
tonight.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to vote to sustain this point of 
order and let us live by those bills that we pass.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the gentleman from 
Oklahoma's point of order. I rise as a former Pennsylvania State 
legislator who knows a little bit about unfunded Federal mandates, as 
we had some experience with balancing our budget. I was appropriations 
chairman for 8 years in the State house. Every year as

[[Page 2623]]

we went to work on our State budget, by the way, which was always 
balanced, we could not print money, we realized that the Federal 
Government had stuck us with some unfunded Federal mandates.
  I think the largest one we had to grapple with every year was special 
ed. The law which Congress passed says that the Federal Government will 
provide 40 percent of the special ed funds. I think when I came to 
Congress 3 years ago, we were about 6 or 7 percent. I think today we 
are up around 14, 15 percent of those funds. But we are nowhere near 
the mandate in the law that Congress passed.
  When this body tells States that they have to spend hundreds of 
millions of dollars here and millions of dollars there, it creates a 
hardship. Fiscal responsibility may be something that we have 
discovered here in Washington in the last 5 years, but to States that 
have been balancing their budgets all along, these mandates do cause 
some complications. Most States have to cut back other programs in 
order to meet these Federal demands. Mr. Speaker, I think when we 
approach unfunded Federal mandates, we should approach them with our 
eyes open. We should realize that the minimum wage, the Federal minimum 
wage, is just another unfunded Federal mandate that we are placing on 
local governments, on businesses, and it is sort of insulting to some 
of these local governments and State legislatures that have a better 
track record than Congress in keeping their fiscal houses in order when 
we pass these.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and sustain this point of order.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this point of order, 
and I want to oppose a few cliches. Number one, the State capital does 
not always know best. Sometimes the Federal Government knows best. That 
is why we have a Federal Government and a Federal structure of 
government. If you leave it up to the States what the minimum wage will 
be, you cannot enforce the minimum wage, because businesses will tend 
to go to those States with a lower minimum wage and with less 
environmental protection. That is why we have Federal minimum wage laws 
and Federal environmental protection laws, so you do not have a race to 
the bottom because of the business climate in each State, so you can 
have a civilized minimum wage and environmental protection laws and 
occupational safety and health laws to protect workers.
  Number two, it is not an unfunded mandate. Nobody is telling the 
States what they have to do, what programs they have to do. All we are 
saying is if you hire workers to do whatever you want to do, you have 
got to pay them a decent wage, not even a living wage, merely the 
minimum wage. That is not an unfunded mandate.
  Number three, if it is construed to be an unfunded mandate, it shows 
one of the reasons that the unfunded mandate law was a foolish thing to 
pass because if it deprives us of the power of insisting on a basic 
minimum wage for people in States whether they work for State 
government or for private enterprise, it is foolish if we are deprived 
of that power because we are the tribunes of the people who must insist 
on minimum standards so that people are protected.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for 
yielding me this time, and more importantly for raising the unfunded 
mandate point of order. I would just say to my friend from New York 
that it is not a foolish piece of legislation and yes, indeed there is 
an unfunded mandate here. This is precisely what this legislation was 
intended to do when we passed it 5 years ago.
  One, to provide for information. We now have a Congressional Budget 
Office impact statement which shows there is going to be an $880 
million impact on State and local government because of the minimum 
wage bill we are about to vote on. Second, it provides for 
accountability.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma says he is going to ask for a vote. I 
think that is great. We are having a debate on this issue, we are 
having the information provided to us which we would not have had 5 
years ago, and now we are going to have a vote on whether we as a 
Congress are going to impose an additional almost $1 billion unfunded 
mandate on State and local government.
  If we really believe that in Congress we ought not to be imposing 
these costs on State and local government that have to take it out of 
things like fire and police services or raise taxes on our citizens 
back home, then we ought to take a very careful look at the unfunded 
mandate impact. And in my case, I am going to vote no, because a ``no'' 
vote means you are upholding the point of order, a ``no'' vote means 
you recognize that there will be an impact on State and local 
government that is inappropriate. I encourage my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is, Will the House now consider the bill?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 274, 
nays 141, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 42]

                               YEAS--274

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

[[Page 2624]]


     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--141

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

                             NOT VOTING--19

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

                              {time}  1918

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

                               H.R. 3846

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

     SECTION 1. MINIMUM WAGE.

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

     SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS.

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

     SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN SALES EMPLOYEES.

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

     SEC. 4. EXEMPTION FOR FUNERAL DIRECTORS.

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

     SEC. 5. STATE MINIMUM WAGE.

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

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

                               H.R. 3846

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

     SECTION 1. MINIMUM WAGE.

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

     SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FOR COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS.

       Section 13(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 213(a)) is amended by amending paragraph (17) to read 
     as follows:

[[Page 2625]]

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

     SEC. 3. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN SALES EMPLOYEES.

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

     SEC. 4. EXEMPTION FOR FUNERAL DIRECTORS.

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall 
be in order to consider Amendment No. 2 printed in House report 106-
516, which may be offered only by the Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered read, and shall be debatable for the time 
specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Clay) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the bill.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), our esteemed subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for 
many of the provisions of H.R. 3846. The bill makes several changes in 
the Fair Labor Standards Act, which is the primary Federal statute that 
governs the hours of wages and work.
  As a general rule, the law requires employers to pay employees time 
and a half for overtime hours. However, there are a number of 
exemptions from the minimum wage and overtime for specific groups of 
employees.
  For example, there is a provision that has been part of the law since 
1938 which provides an exemption from the minimum wage and overtime for 
an ``outside sales employee.'' The general requirement for meeting the 
exemption is that the individual must regularly work outside the 
employer's business establishment selling products or services. There 
is no minimum salary requirement.
  The bill would provide that a new exemption under the Fair Labor 
Standards Act for the so-called ``inside sales'' employee, who works 
primarily at the employer's facility using the computer and the fax and 
the phone to communicate with customers. The bill has a three-part test 
for an overtime exemption for inside sales personnel: a detailed ``jobs 
duties'' test, a ``commission on sales'' test and a ``minimum 
compensation'' test. This would remove some of the constraints within 
the current law which frequently work against many highly trained, 
highly skilled sales employees by restricting their ability to achieve 
great earnings.
  The bill would further clarify the current exemption for computer 
professionals. In 1990, a bipartisan amendment to the act created an 
exemption for the minimum wage and overtime for certain high-skilled, 
well-compensated computer professionals. The exemption detailed a 
``jobs duties'' test which clarified the treatment of these employees 
under the Act. However, there are now many new types of positions in 
the information technology industry that are not addressed by the 
current exemption, so the bill would update the law to reflect the 
recent changes in the technology industry.
  I would also note that the language in H.R. 3846 is identical to a 
bipartisan bill, H.R. 3038, introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Andrews) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  The bill would provide a new exemption under the Fair Labor Standards 
Act for licensed funeral directors and licensed embalmers from minimum 
wage and overtime. Licensed funeral directors and embalmers must 
typically undergo mandatory education and training to acquire the 
necessary skills to obtain their licenses and maintain their jobs. 
These types of employees are not specifically referenced in the current 
law, and this provision would provide some clarity as to their 
classification for the purposes of overtime.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, while I support the three straightforward 
reforms of the Fair Labor Standards Act, I am unable to support the 
underlying purpose of this bill, which is to increase the minimum wage. 
We have heard so much today from proponents of the increase about how 
raising the minimum wage is an effective antipoverty program. We have 
also heard that increasing the minimum wage imposes little social cost. 
Unfortunately, the facts do not support either of these beliefs.
  First, most low-wage workers are not in poor families. Therefore, an 
increased earnings associated with a higher minimum wage would not 
significantly impact low-income families. According to recent studies, 
only one in four low-wage workers resides in the families in the bottom 
20 percent of income distribution. Less than 1 dollar in 5 of the 
additional earnings going to families who rely on low-wage compensation 
as their primary source of compensation. When the additional earnings 
reach low-income families, most of the increase is taxed away by the 
Social Security contributions or the State and Federal income taxes.
  Second, it is illogical to think that wages will rise without any 
adverse result. Businesses may decide to increase their prices, reduce 
their workforce, or to meet their operations, or cut back on customer 
services. In other situations where the employer cannot reduce costs or 
raise prices, they must

[[Page 2626]]

absorb the new labor costs. The money comes out of the expansion or 
investment. Either way, there are clearly costs, and I would urge my 
colleagues to carefully consider these issues.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and 
I rise in opposition to H.R. 3846.
  Mr. Speaker, minimum wage workers deserve a raise. In this time of 
unprecedented prosperity, fairness dictates that we act now. Since 
1980, the average income of most workers has increased by 68 percent, 
while the real value of the minimum wage has declined by 16 percent. 
Unfortunately, this bill offers only 33 cents an hour next year to 
minimum-wage workers. Why do we, Mr. Speaker, nickel and dime those 
workers who need an increase the most?
  Stretching the minimum wage increase over 3 years instead of 2, while 
at the same time authorizing tax cuts for the most wealthy, is a 
miscarriage of justice. This bill denies almost $1,000 in pay to 
minimum-wage workers, and it would permit other workers to work in 
excess of 40 hours a week for no additional pay.
  Mr. Speaker, raising the minimum wage will not make workers rich; it 
will simply enable them to have a chance at supporting themselves and 
their families. A decent minimum wage encourages work and discourages 
reliance on welfare. A decent minimum wage allows workers to meet their 
own needs without dependence on others or welfare. A decent minimum 
wage will allow workers an amount of dignity through the elevation of 
their standard of living, and a strong minimum wage will allow workers 
to share in our prosperity.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the author of the legislation.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce H.R. 3846, a bill to 
raise the minimum wage $1 over 3 years, which is a complementary bill 
to the small business tax relief in H.R. 3832.
  In 1996, I ran for this seat in Congress as an opponent of the 
minimum wage. My Democratic opponent and I debated this issue 13 times 
throughout the 20th district. In the last debate in Centralia, 
Illinois, a portion of the debate was for questions from the audience. 
A man raised his hand and went to the microphone wanting to address the 
issue of the minimum wage. What he said there in that question 
solidified my position on this issue. He said, because of the increase 
in the last minimum wage, I lost my second job.
  This story reflects the reality that our decisions here have a direct 
impact, sometimes a negative impact, on the very people we are trying 
to help.
  Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), and the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Cramer) in crafting this bill, H.R. 3842, for two reasons. One, it 
is a political reality that the minimum wage is going to be increased 
during this Congress. While some may not like to hear it, it is true. 
However, if we are going to raise the minimum wage, I want to take an 
active role to ensure that no one loses their job as a result. These 
bills merged together will do just that.
  My second reason for joining in this effort was to show my 
colleagues, my constituents, and even myself that we can work in a 
bipartisan fashion to address the issues that face our Nation. I am 
pleased that H.R. 3846 is truly a bipartisan product which encompasses 
all interested parties in the debate over raising the minimum wage.
  The bill includes an increase of $1 over 3 years which is a 
compromise between the small business community who settled for $1 over 
4 years and the labor community who fought for $1 over 2 years. H.R. 
3846 also amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to clarify and update 
minimum wage and overtime exemptions for computer professionals, inside 
sales and funeral directors. The bill originally drafted included the 
State flex option, which I oppose, but allowed to be placed in to move 
the process to the floor; and I want to thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. DeMint) for pulling that with a unanimous consent earlier 
today.
  We have heard and will continue to hear about how today's economy is 
running at such a break-neck speed that a minimum wage can be easily 
increased. Yet, the facts are that increasing the minimum wage has a 
significant impact on the ability of our Nation to create and sustain 
entry-level and second jobs. Multinational corporations and all of 
those listed with the stock exchanges appear to be doing 
extraordinarily well in terms of their profits. However, most minimum-
wage jobs and most new jobs in general are created by small business 
owners. In fact, small businesses not only account for nearly 60 
percent of the jobs in our Nation's workforce, small businesses created 
two-thirds of all new jobs since the early 1970s.

                              {time}  1930

  So let us keep in mind, it is not Bill Gates who is paying the 
minimum wage and creating new jobs, it is our neighborhood pharmacist 
creating new jobs. It is our local grocer. It is our favorite 
restaurant.
  These small business owners are struggling every day to exist and 
expand in a market over which they have little control. Through their 
own blood, sweat, tears, and self-determination, these men and women 
are working to survive, expand, and provide jobs and a sense of 
community for our neighbors and our families.
  H.R. 3846 is a bipartisan solution which provides a $1 increase in 
the minimum wage over the next 3 years. If we look back to the last 
increase in 1996, this $1 increase that we are proposing actually gives 
a greater increase to the recipients than if we tied their wage to the 
CPI, the consumer price index.
  The CPI estimates that if the wage were to increase from 1996 to 2005 
using the CPI, minimum wage workers would actually receive less than 
what our proposal provides.
  This increase is a fair, phased-in proposal that allows us to protect 
the jobs of those who earn a minimum wage while gradually increasing it 
at the same time.
  A key factor in helping to protect minimum wage jobs is that H.R. 
3846 and H.R. 3832 do not gouge small businesses. In the Herald and 
Review of Decatur, Illinois, the editorial headline on October 26, 
1999, read ``Minimum Wage, Tax Break Link Sensible.''
  The paper stated that, when the minimum wage increases, someone has 
to pay for it, because business owners have to maintain a profit level. 
``The result could be higher prices or fewer jobs at minimum wage. Just 
as a worker will offer his work at an acceptable wage level, an 
employer will pay workers a wage that permits his company to earn a 
profit. That is why a minimum wage increase alone won't work and why a 
bill to raise the rate linked to some tax breaks for small businesses 
makes sense.''
  Mr. Speaker, I learned a lesson in 1996 when that constituent told us 
how he lost his job due to the increase in the minimum wage. I also 
learned many lessons working with my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle in fashioning this bill: Our actions have consequences, some 
intended, some unintentional; some thought out, some never considered.
  We have worked for the last year to put together a package that has 
arrows coming from all sides, but workers get a raise, small businesses 
get much-needed tax relief, and this Congress will have shown that we 
have addressed our Nation's issues in a bipartisan manner with a sense 
of purpose and civility.
  Mr. Speaker, I am just sorry that we cannot address an issue of 
another group that is going to be severely impacted by increasing the 
minimum wage. That is our nonprofit organizations, those who go and ask 
for money to run the blood banks, to run the food pantries, to run the 
clothing stores. They will also be mandated to pass an increase in the 
minimum wage, and no real benefits to recover that, other than asking 
donors for additional support.

[[Page 2627]]

  I congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and my 
colleagues on the Democratic side, particularly the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Condit) and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), 
all of whom are owed a debate of graduate for putting aside partisan 
and ideological differences for the purpose of doing the Nation's 
business. They certainly have my deepest gratitude.
  Once again, I strongly urge my colleagues in Congress to support this 
sensible increase in the minimum wage.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the other day I read that the co-founder of 
a high-tech company was spending $25 million to build himself a castle 
to live in. This castle had a moat around it. It had all the 
improvements that we could imagine. In this economy it is not unusual 
to hear stories like that, but there are other stories that are much 
more common, Mr. Speaker.
  This is the story of a woman named Cheryl Costas from Pennsylvania, a 
37-year-old mother of four whose husband is disabled with a back 
injury. That means her family depends on the check she brings home from 
her job at the grocery store. What does she earn? She earns $5.50. 
Cheryl and her husband are not thinking about building any castles. 
They are lucky just to keep a roof over their heads.
  She is not alone. Today more than 10 million hourly workers earn less 
than $6.15 an hour. Almost 70 percent of them are adults. Three out of 
every five are women. A lot of them are single moms who have to work 
two, sometimes three jobs to make ends meet, and are never home to be 
with their kids. They are seldom home. They are struggling to give 
their kids, though, a better life.
  Today we say that it is high time we do our part to help them. That 
is why we Democrats propose raising the minimum wage $1 over 2 years. 
That is $1,000 more than the Republicans have called for. That is 
enough money to buy nearly 3\1/2\ months' worth of groceries, enough 
money to buy their kids a new pair of jeans, and, God forbid, enough 
money maybe to take them out for an ice cream cone once in a while, or 
take them to a movie; enough money to help people live with a little 
bit more hope and dignity than they are able to do right now on $5.15 
an hour.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, our plan has gained the support of 
religious leaders all across America. They understand that in this 
economy, there is no excuse for minimum wage workers earning $3,200 
less than it takes a family of three to stay out of poverty in this 
country. They understand that when CEO salaries climb by 480 percent 
over the last 10 years, there is no excuse that the minimum wage 
purchases less than it did back in 1979.
  Mr. Speaker, in short, they understand that while America is a 
prosperous Nation, we will never truly be successful until poverty 
wages become part of America's past and not our future. We can pass a 
wage increase that can make a difference in the lives of the working 
poor, $1 an hour over 2 years, or we can squander this opportunity and 
instead pass a wage increase that is inadequate; and coupled with this 
tax break, $122 billion over 10 years that we just passed, this tax 
break for the rich; and then, in addition, an assault on working rights 
that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) addressed.
  Mr. Speaker, the fact is that buried in this Republican plan are 
provisions that would trash overtime protection for nearly 1 million 
workers on the job today.
  Just the other day I read where the Republican leader, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Armey), said he believes raising the minimum wage is 
wrong. He topped what he said just a few years ago, that he would fight 
with every fiber in his body to defeat it.
  I would say to the gentleman from Texas that he should take a moment 
and listen to the real America out there, not just those enjoying the 
best of times, but the working families fighting to keep these from 
becoming the worst of times.
  Those Americans not only need a raise, they have earned a raise. They 
have earned it by cleaning our offices, they have it by bagging our 
groceries, they have earned it by cooking our meals, by helping care 
for our children. They have earned it by taking care of our ailing 
parents and grandparents. They have earned it by tending to the sick in 
our hospitals.
  Mr. Speaker, we owe it to people like Cheryl and all these others out 
there, these 10 million, to listen to their voices. We owe it to them 
to act. I urge Members to vote for the amendment that will be raised on 
the floor of the House in about an hour to move the minimum wage up $1 
over 2 years. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay) for his leadership on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record correspondence from religious 
organizations which support increasing the minimum wage by $1 over 2 
years.
  The material referred to is as follows:

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

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

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

[[Page 2628]]

           Lutheran Church in America; His Grace Bishop Dimitiros 
           of Xanthos, Ecumenical Officer, Greek Orthodox 
           Archdiocese of America; The Rev. Dr. Clifton 
           Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk, Presbyterian Church 
           (U.S.A.); Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop, 
           Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit; Rabbi David 
           Saperstein, Director, Union of American Hebrew 
           Congregations, Center of Reformed Judaism; The Rev. 
           John H. Thomas, President, United Church of Christ; The 
           Rev. William Boyd Grove, Ecumenical Officer, Council of 
           Bishops, United Methodist Church; The Rev. John 
           Buehrens, President, Unitarian Universalist Association 
           of Congregations; and Dr. Valora Washington, Executive 
           Director, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee.
                                  ____


         National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA


                       statement on minimum wage

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

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

                                              Friends Committee on


                                         National Legislation,

                                    Washington, DC, March 1, 2000.
       Dear Representative: I am writing on behalf of the Friends 
     Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) regarding minimum 
     wage legislation.
       Perhaps as early as next week, you will be called to vote 
     on alternative proposals to increase the minimum wage. H.R. 
     3081 has been introduced by Reps. Lazio and Skimkus; an 
     alternative bill has been introduced by Reps. Bonior, Rangel, 
     Phelps, and Sandlin. Although these two proposals appear 
     similar in their minimum wage provisions (they each propose 
     to increase the minimum wage by $1, spread over either three 
     or two years, respectively) we believe that only one of these 
     proposals (the Bonior-Rangel bill) will help to reduce the 
     growing economic disparity between the poorest and the 
     weathiest in the U.S.
       Many economic indicators give evidence of the growing 
     disparity. For example, a report issued last fall by the 
     Center for Budget and Policy Priorities indicates that, since 
     1977, the after-tax income of the wealthiest 1% in the U.S. 
     has grown by 115%, the income of the wealthiest 20% has grown 
     by 43%, the income of the middle three-fifths has grown by 
     8%, while the income of the poorest 20% has actually dropped 
     by 9%. Current Census Bureau figures reveal that, for 1997, 
     the household income of the top 20% of all households by 
     income was 49.4%, nearly as much as the bottom 80% of all 
     households. FCNL believes that Congress should act to reduce 
     this enormous and growing economic gap.
       H.R. 3081 includes a tax-cut package which, it is 
     estimated, will cost the U.S. about $120 billion over ten 
     years. Moreover, since these cuts would have a major effect 
     on estate taxes, they would primarily benefit those at higher 
     income levels. Under the guise of helping minimum wage 
     workers, H.R. 3081 would likely increase the economic 
     disparity in the U.S. and thus rachet up the distress 
     experienced by poor individuals and families as they try to 
     subsist on minimum wage jobs. We oppose this charade.
       The Bonior-Rangel alternative minimum wage bill also 
     includes a tax-cut package, however it is substantially more 
     modest ($30 billion over 10 years) and is directed primarily 
     at small businesses, many of whom will bear the brunt of any 
     minimum wage increase. The tax-cut package in the Bonior-
     Rangel alternative minimum wage bill is thus designed to 
     provide a more equitable response to the effects of the 
     minimum wage increase. This package would include, among 
     other elements, incentives to help employers hire 
     disadvantaged workers and 100% tax-deductibility of health 
     insurance for the self-employed in 2000, both measures that 
     would aid many low-income workers.
       We recognize that in this period of unprecedented economic 
     growth and budget surpluses, tax cuts are very attractive. 
     However, FCNL holds that this is not the time to markedly 
     reduce government revenues (through tax breaks) but rather 
     the time to invest in programs that benefit society, such as 
     those that reduce the economic gap between the wealthiest and 
     poorest in the U.S. We believe that the Bonior-Rangel-Phelps-
     Sandlin alternative minimum wage bill, with its combination 
     of a minimum wage increase spread over only two years and a 
     tax-cut package that includes elements designed to assist 
     lower-income workers, is an appropriate bill.
       We urge you to support the Bonior-Rangel-Phelps-Sandlin 
     alternative minimum wage bill. We urge you to oppose H.R. 
     3081 and any substantially similar substitute bill.
           Sincerely,
                                              Florence C. Kimball,
     Legislative Education Secretary.
                                  ____


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

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

                                        Dr. Valora Washington,

                         Executive Director Unitarian Universalist
     Service Committee.
                                  ____

                                                    March 8, 2000.
       Dear President Clinton and Members of Congress: We at 
     NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, urge you 
     to support passage of legislation designed to raise the 
     minimum wage by $1.00 over a two-year period and to reject 
     efforts to link this raise to tax cuts that primarily benefit 
     people who are wealthy.
       NETWORK's more than 10,000 members include individuals and 
     organizations working directly with people who live in 
     poverty, including the more than 10 million workers who must 
     currently support themselves and their families in minimum 
     wage jobs. In an era of unparalleled economic prosperity, it 
     is unconscionable that millions of hard-working people are 
     forced to choose among feeding their children, finding 
     adequate housing, and buying health insurance for their 
     families. They simply cannot afford to do it all on the 
     poverty-level income from minimum wage jobs. Clearly, justice 
     demands that we do better. An immediate increase in the 
     minimum wage is a small but important step in the movement 
     toward a livable wage for all.

[[Page 2629]]

       Even as we support this legislation, we understand that a 
     person working full time and supporting two children would 
     still be living below the poverty line after the $1.00 
     increase goes into effect. We are confident that your 
     leadership in this area will continue beyond the passage of 
     this bill toward securing a living wage for all workers.
       NETWORK believes that a living wage is a fundamental right. 
     The U.S. Catholic Bishops explain:
       The way power is distributed in a free-market economy 
     frequently gives employers greater bargaining power than 
     employees in the negotiation of labor contracts. Such unequal 
     power may press workers into a choice between an inadequate 
     wage and no wage at all. But justice, not charity, demands 
     certain minimum guarantees. The provision of wages and other 
     benefits sufficient to support a family in dignity is a basic 
     necessity to prevent this exploitation of workers. (Economic 
     Justice for All, 1986)
       Thank you for understanding that anyone who works full-time 
     should not live in poverty. We look forward to your continued 
     support on this very important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Kathy Thornton,
                                 RSM NETWORK National Coordinator.

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), a member of the committee.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, we hear the plaintive cries about our need to help the 
poor; our need, our desire to increase the minimum wage. The term 
``our'' is used over and over again, ``us'', as if in fact we in this 
body are actually the people that will be giving the money to the most 
needy, the people who are going to be benefiting from the increase in 
the minimum wage.
  But, of course, it is none of us here who actually are providing this 
money that we are so freely giving away. We are giving away other 
people's money as we do so often here, we do so well and so often. To 
pretend as though it is coming out of our hide, out of our wallets, no, 
it is not. We are going to pass a law here to force somebody else to 
pay somebody else the money.
  Of course, who will actually benefit? Will the ``poor'' actually 
benefit from an increase in the minimum wage? Economic analysis 
consistently shows that most of the benefits of mandated higher entry-
level wages go to families who are already above the poverty level.
  In 1997, nearly 60 percent of poor Americans over the age of 15 did 
not work and would not be helped by such an increase. Fewer than 10 
percent of poor Americans over the age of 15 who could benefit from 
increasing the minimum wage worked an average of 16 hours a week.
  The neediest families would receive a relatively small portion of the 
increase wage bill. Most of the benefits would go to families who earn 
more than twice the poverty threshold.
  The idea that we are doing all of this for this category of worker, 
that we will raise them up out of poverty as a result of forcing people 
to pay an increase in the minimum wage, is absolutely false. The 
economists that came in and talked to us in our committee could never 
make that kind of allegation.
  They tried to. They even tried to explain where they came up with an 
idea of $1 over a 2-year or 3-year period of time. There is absolutely 
no economic benefit or no economic model they could point to saying 
this was the correct amount. Mr. Speaker, there was absolutely not one 
shred of evidence to show any of us on the committee that $1 was right, 
and even the economists said, no, we do not know that $1 is right. It 
has no significance. It is what you will get away with politically. It 
sounds good. It is a nice, round number, $1, but it has absolutely no 
relevance to any economic theory. Nobody could ever show us that it was 
important or that it mattered in the total scheme of things. It was 
just a nice round number.
  Do Members know what, that is what this whole idea of increasing the 
minimum wage is, is just a nice-sounding thing that we can go home with 
and explain that we have done something so good for the poor. In fact, 
we have done absolutely nothing.
  The idea that the government knows best how much money anybody should 
make for any particular job is idiotic. I will fully admit that I do 
not know what anyone should make in this economy. I do not know what 
the smallest minimum wage should be, or the highest. I admit that, 
because there is something that is in fact important and that does make 
that decision. It is called the marketplace. I will trust the 
marketplace.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost).
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong support for 
raising the minimum wage by $1 over a sensible 2-year period. For too 
long now we have pleaded with the majority to simply allow us to vote 
on a 2-year minimum wage increase. Apparently many Republican Members 
still do not understand the importance of the minimum wage to millions 
of America's working families.
  Let us be clear about what we are talking about this evening: 11 
million working Americans, 10 percent of our work force, toil for the 
minimum wage. To these working families, a minimum wage increase means 
a raise of $2,000 a year; that is, if we raise it $1 an hour.
  Today a single mother with two children who works full-time for the 
minimum wage does not earn enough to make ends meet. She makes just 
$10,700 annually. That is $3,000 below the poverty line. Mr. Speaker, 
this is inexcusable. We are in the midst of the longest economic 
expansion in American history. Surely we can afford a modest increase 
in salaries for working Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder.
  I support the Democratic alternative because working families need a 
raise over 2 years, not 3. Opponents of this real wage increase have 
again trotted out their usual arguments: ``We cannot afford a minimum 
wage increase. A minimum wage increase will result in massive job 
losses for low-income workers.''
  Economic evidence has again debunked these well-circulated myths. The 
last minimum wage increase did not result in job loss. In reality, 
overall employment grew among low-income workers after the minimum wage 
increase, 9.9 million working Americans saw a direct increase in their 
salaries, and nearly 20 million workers, 18 percent of the work force, 
also got a boost in pay.
  The time has come for those who pay lip service to the value of work 
to put their money where their mouth is. It is time to make work pay 
for working families.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of increasing the 
minimum wage and in support of H.R. 3846. This legislation is the 
result of hard work by both Democrats and Republicans. I commend my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working together to bring 
forth this compromise.
  Despite the harsh words about this issue from some in both parties, 
this legislation is a good example of Congress at its best, Democrats 
and Republicans working together and working to do what is best for 
America's working families. This is what the American people expect, 
and quite frankly, it is what they deserve.
  This legislation will go a long way toward helping many working 
families make ends meet. Far too many families in this Nation depend on 
one or more family members making minimum wage in order to pay their 
bills and all of their expenses.

                              {time}  1945

  This legislation will give these hard-working Americans a leg up, and 
I urge its adoption.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, common sense and logic dictate that we should 
build into our economic policy a simple way to share in the great 
prosperity that this Nation is presently experiencing. A minimum wage 
increase is the way to share our great wealth with the people on the 
bottom.
  At this time of great prosperity, the gap is growing ever wider 
between rich

[[Page 2630]]

and poor. In New York where the rich are richest, the gap between rich 
and poor is greatest.
  The infant mortality rate in New York is greater than anywhere else 
in the country. The Democratic substitute proposes a simple $1 increase 
over a 2-year period, a simple $2,000 increase in the annual pay. The 
best way to share the wealth and help the poor is to increase the 
amount of money in their paychecks.
  If my colleagues care about family values, common sense dictates that 
they support this small increase in income. If the new compassionate 
conservativism is not just phony public relations, then grant this 
measly $1 increase over a 2-year period.
  We need improvements in all of the social safety net programs: child 
care, health care, more public housing, decent schools, and educational 
opportunity. I support more funds and more programs to deal with these 
very serious problems. But the best way, the most efficient way, and 
the most effective way to help the poor is to put more money in their 
paychecks.
  Conservatives, step forward and show your compassion at a time when 
millionaires and billionaires are having their income doubled in a 
year, surely you can afford to give a $1 increase over a 2-year period 
to the poorest people in the country.
  Working families should not have to live in poverty. They go to work 
every day, and still they are in poverty. Even with this increase to 
$6.15 an hour over a 2-year period, we will not reach the $8 that is 
necessary to get out of poverty. Working families need higher 
paychecks. Compassionate conservatives, step forward and show your 
compassion.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), my neighbor across the border.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I would like us for a few 
moments to think about what raising the minimum wage means. What we are 
doing is telling a business that certainly they are prosperous enough 
to pay a dollar more an hour to their employees.
  This is clearly, then, an attempt on our part to mandate something, 
which clearly we cannot mandate; and that is prosperity. If we can 
mandate prosperity, then there are some other things that I would like 
us to mandate. How about happiness? It is just as reasonable that we 
can mandate happiness as we can mandate prosperity. If we can mandate 
prosperity and happiness, then I am particularly interested in 
mandating longevity.
  If we really can mandate prosperity, then why should we stop at a 
small dollar an hour increase? Why do we not make the minimum wage $10 
an hour or $20 an hour. See, if we really do have the power to mandate 
prosperity, why should we be so miserly in the delegation of this 
power. Let us make it $10 an hour or $20 an hour.
  The minimum wage is not an issue in the district that I have the 
honor of representing. I see signs out at sheet stores $7.25 an hour. 
But I will tell my colleagues where it is important. It is important in 
those areas where we are cutting off the bottom rung of the economic 
ladder for those who need it most.
  Who works for minimum wage? Young people living with their parents 
count for 37.6 percent of those on minimum wage. 85.1 percent of all 
those on minimum wage either live with their parents, are single and 
live alone, have a working spouse, or extended family members and 
nonrelatives living in the home. Only 5, let me repeat this, only 5.5 
percent of minimum wage earners are single parents, and only 7.8 
percent are in married single-earner families where the household may 
or may not include children.
  What I want to do is to give all the payroll taxes back to head of 
family that is working on minimum wage. I want to give more than that. 
I have no problem helping the working poor. But what we cannot do is 
pretend that we can do something we cannot do, and that is to mandate 
prosperity.
  The marketplace determines, we cannot possibly determine the value of 
a job. The marketplace determines the value of a job. But I will tell 
my colleagues what we can do is come in after the marketplace has 
determined the value of a job, and then we can help, we can help so 
that person, that family can live a reasonable life.
  I need also to say that this bill is clearly unconstitutional. I 
carry a Constitution, and I will tell my colleagues, they can search 
this from front to back, article 1 section 8 has in it all of the 
powers of the Congress. There is not even a hint in the Constitution 
that this is something that we can do. Doing this makes a mockery of 
the 10th Amendment, which says that if one cannot find it in article 1, 
section 8 the Congress cannot do it.
  Minimum wage eliminates jobs. That is why my colleagues have not made 
it $10 an hour or $20 an hour because they know that eliminates jobs. 
This small increase will also eliminate jobs. If one makes eating in 
McDonald's too expensive, those jobs simply disappear. If one makes the 
product that is produced by a manufacturer too expensive, those jobs go 
to the Pacific Rim.
  We do not need to hurt those that we are pretending to help by trying 
to do something that we clearly cannot do. Let us let the marketplace 
determine the value of the jobs and let us help in a lot of ways after 
the marketplace determines the value of the job.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, the reason the minimum wage must be increased 
over 2 years instead of 3 years is simple, because the increase is long 
overdue. The tiptoe approach that many Members of the other side of the 
aisle advocate is not fair for hard working men and women that find 
themselves at the lower spectrum of the income wage.
  Just a little while ago, I received a letter from a constituent of 
mine that worked full time all year-round and was still significantly 
below the poverty line for his family of three. If my colleagues are 
wondering how a full-time worker in this day and age could still be 
below the poverty line, the answer lies in the inadequate minimum wage 
of $5.15 an hour. Even a modest $1 increase that we are debating today 
is not enough to lift him and his family above the poverty line. Why 
then should he, and the other 11.8 million minimum wage workers, have 
to wait 3 years for a dollar increase to take place?
  The opponents of raising the minimum wage over 2 years claim that it 
will have a negative impact on jobs. Since the last increase in the 
minimum wage in 1996, 1997, the unemployment rate has dropped to its 
lowest level in 30 years, and an estimated 8.7 million new jobs are 
being created. These are not Internet jobs. By contrast, 1.2 million 
new retail jobs have been added, 415,000 new restaurant jobs have been 
added and over 4.4 million service jobs have sprung up.
  How does that have a negative impact on employment? Let me leave my 
colleagues with this thought: Between 1980 and 1998, the average worker 
increased their pay by 68 percent, while at the same time, the pay for 
the average CEO has increased by 757 percent. If the minimum wage had 
been indexed to CEO pay, it would be worth $23 an hour. We need to cut 
this disparity.
  We need to have a minimum wage, we should have a livable wage which 
is even $8.30 an hour if we are going to take people out of poverty. We 
cannot continually tell people to work 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a 
year, a family of three, and still be in poverty. It is hypocrisy.
  We have grown to the lowest unemployment rate in the history, and we 
had an increase in the minimum wage. Please reject the 3-year, add the 
2-year, which should be a 1-year.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support raising the 
minimum wage. This is long overdue. The last increase took effect in 
1996, 1997.
  A family of three, a mother and two children, making the minimum 
wage, earns only slightly over $10,000 a year, $3,000 below the poverty 
level. A dollar increase of the minimum wage still keeps this family in 
poverty.

[[Page 2631]]

  The majority of minimum-wage earners today are women. Almost a 
million women earn the minimum wage, and an additional 5.8 million are 
paid wages between $5.15 and $6.15.
  Currently, nine States, including Hawaii, boast a higher minimum wage 
than mandated by the Federal law. America must follow the call of the 
States and update our wage standards. Eleven million people today work 
for the minimum wage.
  Arguments that a minimum wage increase would contribute to a loss of 
jobs are spurious at best, considering that the U.S. jobs grew by 
another 8.7 million at the pace of 240,000 jobs a month since the last 
increase.
  Economic reports have shown that there has been no negative impact to 
business because of the 1996 minimum wage increase. The Economic Policy 
Institute documents several clear facts about the last increase. It 
raised the wages for 4 million workers. Seventy percent of these were 
adults, and 59 percent were women. Forty percent of the increase went 
to families at the bottom 20 percent of the income scale.
  The Republican bill raises the minimum wage by spanning the dollar 
increase over a period of 3 years, sacrificing $1,200 to a family 
desperately in need of this money. Around here, it does not sound like 
much, but to a family trying to scrape by on a minimum wage, this is 
$400 less for the family per year than the Democratic substitute.
  I urge this House to adopt the amendment that will put this wage 
increase effective in 2 years.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, among the people who work the hardest in our country are 
those who make the least. Tonight we are about to vote for a long 
overdue increase in the minimum wage.
  I appreciate the cooperation of the majority in including in this 
underlying legislation, legislation that I have co-authored involving 
the treatment of inside and outside sales employees on parity, 
involving the clarification of the computer professionals exemption, 
and involving the definition of funeral professionals.
  I will vote with my Democratic colleagues who would wish to 
reconsider those matters in committee so that they may have a fair look 
at them, but I support them because I think they are the right thing to 
do.
  I am going to strongly support the Democratic amendment to make the 
minimum wage increase 2 years. The people who will be most affected by 
that, Mr. Speaker, are not watching us tonight. They are cleaning 
offices. They are taking care of the elderly and the sick in nursing 
homes. They are involved in stores and retail. They are doing very 
difficult jobs for very long hours, or they are home resting after a 
long and weary day.
  At a time of booming prosperity, lowered unemployment, and greater 
opportunity, it is unconscionable that we have waited this long to 
raise the minimum wage for our lowest paid people. To make them wait 
for 3 years would be even more unconscionable.
  It is imperative that we pass the Democratic amendment to make the 
minimum wage 2 years instead of 3 and pass the underlying bill as well. 
It is a long overdue and a deserved raise for the hard-working people 
of America.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I certainly was 
shocked and surprised to hear that the last speaker would support 
something in order to get rid of three things that he is either the 
lead sponsor or the cosponsor. He is a cosponsor of inside sales, the 
lead sponsor of computer professionals, and a cosponsor of funeral 
directors. So that was kind of a shock.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the endorsement of my efforts 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling).
  I would simply say that my colleagues, who wished that there had been 
regular order to consider these in committee, I believe, should have 
been given that opportunity, where I know the gentleman would have 
given them a fair and complete hearing.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The House is considering a minimum-wage bill that is contingent on 
tax breaks. Under the guise of tax breaks for small businesses to 
offset the minimum wage increase, Republicans give $122 billion in tax 
breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers, increasing the Federal minimum over 
an extended period of 3 years. Mr. Speaker, this debate should be about 
minimum wage. Tax relief is a separate issue.
  My colleague from New York has crafted a small business tax relief 
bill that actually provides tax breaks to small businesses and is fully 
offset. However, I truly believe that today this debate should be first 
and foremost about giving a raise to America's lowest paid workers with 
tax relief for the small businesses that would be most affected.
  Believe me when I say that no one can support a family, especially in 
my district in New York City, on $5.15 an hour. A full-time, year-round 
minimum-wage worker earns only $10.72. That is almost $3,000 less than 
the $13,290 needed to raise a family of three out of poverty, and much 
less than what it takes to provide any sort of comfortable existence 
for a working family.
  Every year we do not increase the minimum wage, its current value 
decreases. In fact, if we do not increase the minimum wage today, its 
value will fall to $4.67 by the year 2003 in inflation-adjusted 
dollars; $4.67 an hour for a week's work that will only bring in 
$186.80, and that is before taxes. We should think about budgeting for 
our own families and ask the question, could I support them on less 
than $187 per week?
  Furthermore, I do not believe the arguments on the other side of the 
aisle that any minimum-wage increase will adversely impact low-wage 
earners. A study by the Economic Policy Institute showed that minimum-
wage increases in 1996 and 1997 did not result in job loss. Our hard-
working Americans deserve better. They do not deserve to work two and 
three jobs to pay rent. Our economy is booming and salaries of business 
workers have increased tremendously.
  Let us help those who are at the lowest end of the salary spectrum, 
those who work just as hard, if not harder than us, to support their 
families and make ends meet.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to this 
debate, it reminds me of Victor Hugo, who once said that there is 
always more misery among the lower classes than there is humanity in 
the higher. It seems to me that the Republican approach to this issue 
further promotes the misery and suffering of the lower class and 
illuminates the inhumanity of the higher: huge tax breaks for the 
wealthy, while stringing along and stringing out those at the bottom.
  Today, a working mother, full time, under the current minimum-wage 
law, earns a meager $10,000 a year. Combined with recent cuts in 
welfare, food stamps and affordable housing, it is impossible to live 
on that kind of salary.
  Now, I know it is difficult to understand the significance of a 
dollar raise when one has never had to function at that level. It is 
hard to know what it is like to be broke when one has always had more 
than what one needed. But I know full well how important a dollar raise 
is. In my district there are 54,000 households with incomes below 
$10,000 a year and 165,000 people living at or below the poverty level. 
These are solid Americans, struggling to live a good and decent life.
  It is time for us to listen to those who have the need. It is time to 
give

[[Page 2632]]

help to the young, to the poor, to those who are disinherited, to those 
that life has been less than the American Dream.
  I urge that we vote ``yes'' in support of the Traficant amendment and 
that we move towards a livable wage so that every person in this 
country can live with dignity, with pride, and the ability to pay their 
bills.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in a free society one is generally paid according to 
their qualifications to do the job, the demand for their skills, and 
their dedication to doing a good job. However, H.R. 3846 has some much-
needed reforms to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Let me repeat, 
1938. This is the 21st century, and we are still dealing with rules and 
regulations and laws of 1938. These three reforms are important 
regulatory relief for small businesses.
  Section 2 amends the Fair Labor Standards Act and updates the current 
computer professionals exemption from the overtime provisions of the 
act. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Owens) supported this legislation.
  With the explosion of new jobs in the Internet industry, many 
positions that did not exist a decade ago are causing confusion as to 
the appropriate classification of these workers. This provision 
clarifies the existing exemption in the law. There was a lot of 
discussion in committee on this. The bill would specify additional 
duties performed by workers who have similar skills to those already 
exempted.
  This bipartisan reform is identical to H.R. 3038, introduced by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) from 
the other side of the aisle.
  Section 3 amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide increased 
opportunity and flexibility for sales professionals. The House passed 
an identical bipartisan bill in 1998 with considerable Democrat 
support. Sales employees who work outside of the office, traveling from 
customer to customer, have always been exempt from overtime 
requirements, but technology has left the Fair Labor Standards Act 
behind. Today, sales professionals can better serve their customers and 
be more productive using modern communications and computers to keep in 
touch with their customers.
  There is no reason to penalize these innovative workers because they 
do not get in their cars to visit their customers. With the ever-
increasing use of technology, the law must be updated to accommodate 
the changes that have occurred in the job duties and functions of an 
inside sales force. This exemption would only be extended to sales 
employees who meet strict criteria regarding job duties, compensation, 
structure, and minimum salary.
  This section is identical to H.R. 1302, introduced by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Andrews). It is amazing. Every one of these pieces of legislation has 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) right in the forefront. All 
three are bipartisan pieces of legislation. This provision is also 
identical to H.R. 2888, which passed the House by a vote of 261 to 165 
last Congress with bipartisan support.
  Section 4 exempts licensed funeral directors and licensed embalmers 
from minimum wage and overtime requirements. The act does not 
specifically address the treatment of these employees. This provision 
will offer some clarity in this area of the law.
  H.R. 793 was introduced by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). It is 
identical to section 4 of this bill. What they offered is identical to 
section 4 of this bill.
  I support these reforms that provide needed regulatory relief for 
employees and small businesses.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the 
Traficant/Martinez Amendment to increase the minimum wage over a two-
year period, rather than the three-year period currently in this bill. 
I am in strong favor of increasing the minimum wage for all hardworking 
Americans; however, I cannot support the Republican sponsored bill--
Minimum Wage Increase (HR 3846). This bill seeks to give large tax 
breaks to the wealthy, on the backs of working families and this I will 
not accept.
  HR 3846 will provide a $1 an hour increase in the federal minimum 
wage over three years, reaching $6.15 by the year 2002. However, this 
bill will not keep pace with the inflation rate, presently 21% below 
the 1979 level. This is because this measure delays and stretches out 
the much-needed minimum wage increase over the next three years.
  Economists at the Economic Policy Institute analyzed the effects of 
the real value of minimum wage inequality in the overall wage 
structure. They concluded that for workers with less than a college 
education (representing approximately 75% of the total labor force) 
maintaining the minimum wage at its 1979 purchasing power results in a 
significant decline in the real hourly wage rate of those earning above 
the minimum.
  As a consequence, women with just high school diplomas have 
experienced a decline in their average real hourly rate. This is just 
an example of the widening equality in our nation's wage structure. We 
must support sensible minimum wage increases.
  This bill also seeks to eliminate the overtime protections that 
benefit many of hard working families throughout the nation. For 
example, this bill will exclude hi-technology employees, salespersons, 
and funeral directors from inclusion in the overtime calculation. 
Terminating overtime will encourage workers to work longer hours for 
less money with less time for quality family time.
  In addition, the bill also permits states to ``opt out'' of any 
increase in the minimum wage above the current level of $5.15. Thus, 
states could freeze the minimum wage at its current level, or provide a 
smaller increase than set by the bill. This measure is unacceptable, 
and the President rightfully will veto this bill.
  Minimum wage increases are not just about dollars and cents. It is 
about the majority of those who live either in poor families or 
families in which the primary earner has low wages. We must give those 
who have not prospered in this age of economic prosperity a chance to 
provide for their families. An honest wage, for an honest day's work.
  Higher wages will increase greater employee loyalty and effort at the 
workplace. Though an employer's payroll cost may go up, employers will 
gain productivity and reduced turnover, training, and recruitment 
costs.
  The last time we increased the minimum wage was back in 1996. How can 
we not come together and resolve our difference? With 72% of minimum 
wage workers making $15,000 a year in annual income, we must seek 
responsible legislation to increase the minimum wage.
  I cannot support a bill that couples an inadequate minimum wage 
increase with large tax cuts for those who have benefited most in this 
economic boom. Let us not forget those who need assistance. American 
workers need wage increases now, and we cannot stand idly by while our 
citizens fall deeper into economic despair. However, I will not support 
irresponsible tax cuts at the expense of those who truly need a wage 
increase.
  Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, the New York Times has editoralized against any 
minimum wage at all. Their editorial was headlined: The Right Minimum 
Wage: $0.00
  Let me quote from that editorial:
  Raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity of the 
least skilled workers and fewer will be hired.
  If a higher minimum means fewer jobs, why does it remain on the 
agenda of some liberals? A higher minimum would undoubtedly raise the 
living standard of the majority of low-wage workers who could keep 
their jobs. That gain, it is argued, would justify the sacrifice of the 
minority who became unemployable. The argument isn't convincing. Those 
at greatest risk from a higher minimum would be young, poor workers, 
who already face formidable barriers to getting and keeping jobs.
  Perhaps the mistake here is to accept the limited terms of the 
debate. The working poor obviously deserve a better shake. But it 
should not surpass our ingenuity or generosity to help some of them 
without hurting others.
  * * * The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome poverty is old, 
honorable--and fundamentally flawed. It's time to put this hoary debate 
behind us, and find a better way to improve the lives of people who 
work very hard for very little.
  Tonight's debate is just as hoary as when that editorial was 
written--in 1987.
  Indeed, this debate is so hoary that I need only to reproduce here 
the remarks I made in

[[Page 2633]]

1996 and 1989 when Congress debated this same subject.

                        Washington, May 23, 1996

                            The Minimum Wage

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


                       WASHINGTON, MARCH 22, 1989

               Debating Government-Mandated Wage Controls

       Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2 and 
     in support of the Goodling-Penny-Stenholm bipartisan 
     substitute which is endorsed by President Bush.
       No less a liberal bastion than the New York Times has 
     supported President Bush's arguments that the substantial 
     increase in the minimum wage being urged here today is a bad 
     idea. In an editorial today, the New York Times said, ``An 
     increased minimum wage is no answer to poverty.''
       On January 14, 1987, the New York Times--in an editorial 
     titled, ``The Right Minimum Wage: Zero,'' set out in great 
     detail the arguments in favor of expanded opportunity for the 
     working poor--and against the minimum wage. I'd like to share 
     a portion of the Times editorial with you now, because it is 
     right on target in this current debate.
       The Federal minimum wage has been frozen at $3.35 an hour 
     for . . . years. . . . It's no wonder, then, that Edward 
     Kennedy, the . . . chairman of the Senate Labor Committee, is 
     being pressed by organized labor to battle for an increase. 
     No wonder, but still a mistake. . . . [T]here's a virtual 
     consensus among economists that the minimum wage is an idea 
     whose time has passed.
       Raising the minimum [wage] by a substantial amount would 
     price working poor people out of the job market. . . . It 
     would increase employers' incentives to evade the law, 
     expanding the underground economy. More important, it would 
     increase unemployment. . . . If a higher minimum [wage] means 
     fewer jobs, why does it remain on the agenda of some 
     liberals? . . . Perhaps the mistake here is to accept the 
     limited terms of the debate. The working poor obviously 
     deserve a better shake. But it should not surpass our 
     ingenuity or generosity to help some of them without hurting 
     others. . . . The idea of using a minimum wage to overcome 
     poverty is old, honorable--and fundamentally flawed. It's 
     time to put this hoary debate behind us, and find a better 
     way to improve the lives of people who work very hard for 
     very little.
       That is what the New York Times has said. Frankly, Mr. 
     Chairman, I could not have put it better myself.

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

       House Republicans are committed to higher take-home pay and 
     better job opportunities for low-income Americans. We 
     strongly support policies to give low-income Americans 
     increased wages and improved chances to find work. But we are 
     against government-mandated wage and price controls that 
     destroy jobs and hurt the economy.
       President Nixon concluded, after leaving the Presidency, 
     that the wage and price controls initiated during his 
     Administration were a serious mistake. During much of the 
     1970s, the President and Congress imposed harsh wage and 
     price controls on most sectors of the economy. These policies 
     were disastrous for the long-term economy and failed to meet 
     even short-term goals, instead contributing to the 
     ``stagflation''--economic stagnation coupled with runaway 
     inflation--for which the Carter era is known. By destroying 
     economic opportunity, these policies dimmed the American 
     Dream for millions.
       All this changed in 1981, when, as one of his first actions 
     as President, Ronald Reagan ended the remaining Carter price 
     controls. His action became the first element of a 
     coordinated economic program of deregulation, the end of 
     price and wage controls, elimination of trade barriers, an 
     inflation-fighting monetary policy, and tax cuts to encourage 
     economic growth and increase the take-home pay of all 
     Americans. Ronald Reagan's economic policy ushered in the 
     longest peacetime economic expansion in American history.
       Echoing Ronald Reagan, Candidate Bill Clinton promised in 
     1992 to balance the budget, cut taxes for the middle class, 
     and ``grow'' the economy. But once in office, he signed into 
     law the largest tax increase in American history, stifling 
     economic growth. In 1995, the economy grew at a sickly 1.5%. 
     Clinton's vetoes of spending cuts insure continued deficits 
     well into the 21st century. Then, having succeeded in 
     implementing this tax-and-spend agenda--without a single 
     Republican vote in the House or Senate--he sought to 
     nationalize our health care system by placing a bureaucrat in 
     nearly every health care decision, levying taxes on 
     ``excessive'' health care benefits, and imposing price 
     controls to ration health care for every American.
       Republicans strongly opposed to Clinton's effort to impose 
     price controls on one-seventh of our national economy. That 
     principled opposition to government controls on the health 
     care system contributed measurably to the 1994 election of 
     the first Republican Congress in 40 years.
       Government should not--indeed, cannot--rationally determine 
     the prices of labor, goods, or services for health care, 
     energy, or any other industry in a free market economy. In 
     the 1970s, when the federal government imposed price controls 
     on gasoline, the result was shortages and long lines. By 
     attempting artificially to fix the price of gasoline, 
     government ensured we got less of it. Wage controls have 
     precisely the same effect. ``Raise the legal minimum price of

[[Page 2634]]

     labor above the productivity of the least skilled workers,`` 
     the New York Times editorialized when the Democrats 
     controlled Congress, ``and fewer will be hired.'' Their 
     editorial was headlined, ``The Right Minimum wage: $0.00.'' 
     The politically liberal editorial policy of the New York 
     Times caused them to ask: ``If a higher minimum means fewer 
     jobs, why does it remain on the agenda of some liberals?'' 
     Their answer: the liberal arguments aren't convincing--
     particularly since ``those at greatest risk from a higher 
     minimum would be young, poor workers, who already face 
     formidable barriers to getting and keeping jobs.''
       Because in so many cases the minimum wage jobs that will be 
     lost are the all-important first jobs--the jobs that give 
     young Americans the experience, the discipline, and the 
     references they need to move to better, higher-paying jobs in 
     the future--an imprudent increase in the minimum wage would 
     contribute to cycles of poverty and dependence.
       Such government focus on starting wages is especially 
     misguided since low paying, entry-level jobs usually yield 
     rapid pay increases. According to data compiled by the Labor 
     Department, 40% of those who start work at the minimum wage 
     will receive a raise within only four months. Almost two-
     thirds will receive a raise within a year. After 12 months' 
     work at the minimum wage, the average pay these workers earn 
     jumps to more than $5.50 an hour--a 31 percent increase.
       In a very real sense, the minimum wage is really a starting 
     wage--the pay an unskilled, inexperienced worker can expect 
     on first entering the work force. Once these workers have a 
     foot on the employment ladder, their hard work and abilities 
     are quickly rewarded. But these rewards can only be earned if 
     workers can find that all-important first job. Consider who 
     earns the minimum wage. According to the Labor Department, 
     half are under 25 years of age, often high school or college 
     students. Sixty-three percent work part time. Sixty-two 
     percent are second income earners. And fully 80 percent live 
     in households with incomes above the poverty level. Even 
     Labor Secretary Robert Reich, in a 1993 memorandum to now-
     Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, admitted that ``most minimum 
     wage earners are not poor.'' But while undue increases in the 
     minimum wage do little to help the poor, curtailing unskilled 
     employment opportunities will exacerbate poverty.
       Bill Clinton himself has argued against raising the minimum 
     wage. In 1993, he called it ``the wrong way to raise the 
     incomes of low-income workers.'' He was right: according to 
     Labor Department statistics, half a million jobs were lost in 
     the two years following the last increase in the minimum 
     wage. In the year after the minimum wage was increased, 15.6 
     percent fewer young men (aged 15-19), and 13 percent fewer 
     women, had jobs. Over three-fourths of the 22,000 members of 
     the American Economics Association believe a minimum wage 
     increase would lead to a loss in jobs. Many estimates of the 
     cost of raising the minimum wage exceed one half of a million 
     jobs lost. One such study, by Michigan State University 
     Professor David Neumark and Federal Reserve Economist William 
     Wascher, estimates a loss between 500,000 and 680,000 jobs.
       ``The primary consequence of the minimum wage law is not an 
     increase in the incomes of the least skilled workers,'' 
     liberal economists William Bumble and Clinton Federal Reserve 
     appointee Alan Blinder recently wrote, ``but a restriction of 
     their employment opportunities.'' An increase would also be 
     an unfunded mandate on every State locality in America. 
     According to the Congressional Budget office, the minimum 
     wage increase will cost state and local governments (that is 
     taxpayers) $1.4 billion over five years.
       President Clinton did not raise the issue of minimum wage 
     publicly during 1993 or 1994, when the Democrats controlled 
     the Congress. Congressional Democrats, likewise, failed to 
     hold even a single hearing on the minimum wage during that 
     same period. The Democrat devotion to this issue in 1996 is 
     entirely political--and, as the New York Times editorialized, 
     inexplicable for liberals who care about the working poor.
       The snare and delusion of wage and price controls must not 
     distract us from the fundamental economic and fiscal policy 
     reforms necessary to expand our economy and create good job 
     opportunities for all Americans. A balanced budget, tax 
     relief for workers and small business, and regulatory relief 
     from unnecessary government red tape offer the surest means 
     of steering our economy toward lasting growth. Comprehensive 
     welfare reform that promotes work and breaks the cycle of 
     dependency can go far toward restoring the natural incentives 
     for individual responsibility and personal growth. And 
     redoubled efforts to focus our educational resources in the 
     classroom--where educators, parents, and students exercise 
     control over learning rather than taking dictation from 
     federal and state governments--can pave the way for a better 
     trained and more employable workforce for the future.
       These solid Republican policies will lead us to a better, 
     stronger America. Wage and price controls, in contrast, are 
     premised on the notion that government fiat can raise wages 
     without cost--a notion that fails both in theory and in fact. 
     It is individual initiative rather than government 
     beneficiaries that creates wealth, jobs, and a higher 
     standard of living for all Americans.

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I 
oppose the H.R. 3846, a bill to raise the federally-mandated minimum 
wage. Raising living standards for all Americans is an admirable goal, 
however, to believe that Congress can raise the standard of living for 
working Americans by simply forcing employers to pay their employees a 
higher wage is equivalent to claiming that Congress can repeal gravity 
by passing a law saying humans shall have the ability to fly.
  Economic principles dictate that when government imposes a minimum 
wage rate above the market wage rate, it creates a surplus ``wedge'' 
between the supply of labor and the demand for labor, leading to an 
increase in unemployment. Employers cannot simply begin paying more to 
workers whose marginal productivity does not meet or exceed the law-
imposed wage. The only course of action available to the employer is to 
mechanize operations or employ a higher-skilled worker whose output 
meets or exceeds the ``minimum wage.'' This, of course, has the 
advantage of giving the skilled worker an additional (and government-
enforced) advantage over the unskilled worker. For example, where 
formerly an employer had the option of hiring three unskilled workers 
at $5 per hour or one skilled worker at $16 per hour, a minimum wage of 
$6 suddenly leaves the employer only the choice of the skilled worker 
at an additional cost of $1 per hour. I would ask my colleagues, if the 
minimum wage is the means to prosperity, why stop at $6.65--why not 
$50, $75, or $100 per hour?
  Those who are denied employment opportunities as a result of the 
minimum wage are often young people at the lower end of the income 
scale who are seeking entry-level employment. Their inability to find 
an entry-level job will limit their employment prospects for years to 
come. Thus, raising the minimum wage actually lowers the employment and 
standard of living of the very people proponents of the minimum wage 
claim will benefit from government intervention in the economy!
  Furthermore, interfering in the voluntary transactions of employers 
and employees in the name of making things better for low wage earners 
violates citizens' rights of association and freedom of contract as if 
to say to citizens ``you are incapable of making employment decisions 
for yourself in the marketplace.''
  Mr. Speaker, I do not wish my opposition to this bill to be 
misconstrued as counseling inaction. Quite the contrary, Congress must 
enact ambitious program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to remove 
government-created obstacles to job growth. For example, I would have 
supported the reforms of the Fair Labor Standards Act contained in this 
bill had those provisions been brought before the House as separate 
pieces of legislation. Congress should also move to stop the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from implementing 
its misguided and unscientific ``ergonomics'' regulation. Congress 
should also pass my H.J. Res. 55, the Mailbox Privacy Protection Act, 
which repeals Post Office regulations on the uses of Commercial Mail 
Receiving Agencies (CMRAs). Many entrepreneurs have found CMRAs a 
useful tool to help them grow their businesses. Unless Congress repeals 
the Post Office's CMRA regulations, these businesses will be forced to 
divert millions of dollars away from creating new jobs into complying 
with postal regulations!
  Because one of the most important factors in getting a good job is a 
good education, Congress should also strengthen the education system by 
returning control over the education dollar to the American people. A 
good place to start is with the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 
935), which provides parents with a $3,000 per child tax credit for K-
12 education expenses. I have also introduced the Education Improvement 
Tax Cut (H.R. 936), which provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for 
donations to private school scholarships or for cash or in-kind 
contributions to public schools.
  I am also cosponsoring the Make College Affordable Act (H.R. 2750), 
which makes college tuition tax deductible for middle-and-working class 
Americans, as well as several pieces of legislation to provide 
increased tax deductions and credits for education savings accounts for 
both higher education and K-12. In addition, I am cosponsoring several 
pieces of legislation, such as H.R. 1824 and H.R. 838, to provide tax 
credits for employers who provide training for their employees.
  My education agenda will once again make America's education system 
the envy of the world by putting the American people back in

[[Page 2635]]

control of education and letting them use more of their own resources 
for education at all levels. Combining education tax cuts, for K-12, 
higher education and job training, with regulatory reform and small 
business tax cuts such as those Congress passed earlier today is the 
best way to help all Americans, including those currently on the lowest 
rung of the economic ladder, prosper.
  However, Mr. Speaker, Congress should not fool itself into believing 
that the package of small business tax cuts will totally compensate for 
the damage inflicted on small businesses and their employees by the 
minimum wage increase. This assumes that Congress is omnipotent and 
thus can strike a perfect balance between tax cuts and regulations so 
that no firm, or worker, in the country is adversely effected by 
federal policies. If the 20th Century taught us anything it was that 
any and all attempts to centrally plan an economy, especially one as 
large and diverse as America's, are doomed to fail.
  In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that while it may make 
them feel good to raise the federal minimum wage, the real life 
consequences of this bill will be vested upon those who can least 
afford to be deprived of work opportunities. Therefore, rather than 
pretend that Congress can repeal the economic principles, I urge my 
colleagues to reject this legislation and instead embrace a program of 
tax cuts and regulatory reform to strengthen the greatest producer of 
jobs and prosperity in human history: the free market.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I would like take the time to 
express to you my significant concern over the current debate which is 
occurring in Washington regarding increasing the minimum wage. The 
impact of a $1.00 per hour increase in the minimum wage on rural 
hospitals would be devastating. The impact on direct payroll alone 
could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. What is impossible to 
estimate is the impact that it will have on other hospital costs, for 
example, food costs, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals, and utilities. 
Where is it anticipated these funds will come from?
  At many rural hospitals, over 80% of the patients they treat are 
beneficiaries of either the Medicare or Medicaid program. Certainly, 
unless reimbursement levels are increased under these programs, there 
is no source for providing the funds that a minimum wage increase would 
require. The remaining 20% of patients that rural hospitals serve are 
largely charity patients, for whom there is no reimbursement, or 
private sector patients whose reimbursement is fixed under managed care 
agreements.
  The minimum wage issue is a glaring example of the concerns which are 
frequently expressed about unfunded mandates--Congress cannot continue 
to impose higher levels of cost on rural hospitals without increasing 
reimbursements under the Medicare and Medicaid programs by a like 
amount. Continuing to proceed with unfunded mandates will simply bring 
about the demise of rural health care, unless some method of relief is 
instituted.
  Our rural hospitals have suffered enough. Before casting your vote on 
the minimum wage bill, I urge my colleagues to contact your rural 
hospitals to hear first hand the devastating impact an increase in the 
minimum wage would have upon them.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, raising the minimum wage is touted 
as a way to help many blue-collar workers. And there are millions of 
others who earn more than the proposed minimum wage increase but who 
still struggle to make ends meet.
  Reform of our immigration policies would help all these workers.
  Each year, almost a million legal immigrants enter the United States. 
Of these, about 300,000 lack a high school education. This policy 
destroys the opportunities of American workers with a similar education 
level.
  Our immigration policy should create opportunities for those in the 
workforce. But it does the opposite.
  The National Academy of Sciences concluded in a study that 
competition from immigration was responsible for ``about 44 percent of 
the total decline in relative wage[s] of high school drop outs.''
  The Center for Immigration Studies calculated that ``immigration may 
reduce the wages of the average native in a low-skilled occupation by . 
. . $1,915 a year.'' It concluded that: ``Reducing the flow of less-
skilled immigrants who enter each year would . . . have the desirable 
effect of reducing job competition between more established immigrants 
and new arrivals for low-wage jobs.''
  The RAND Corporation reported that in California, ``the widening gap 
between the number of jobs available for non-college-educated workers 
and the increasing number of new non-college-educated immigrants 
signals growing competition for jobs and, hence, a further decline in 
relative earnings at the low end of the labor market.''
  The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by former 
Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, found that ``immigration of unskilled 
immigrants comes at a cost to unskilled U.S. workers . . .''
  The Brookings Institution published a paper concluding that 
``immigration has had a marked adverse impact on the economic status of 
the least skilled U.S. workers . . .''
  Think of a single mother barely surviving in a minimum wage job who 
sees her annual wages depressed by $,2000 because she must compete with 
more and more unskilled immigrants. She might even be a recent 
immigrant seeking a better life for herself and her children. Or think 
of the recent welfare recipient struggling to keep his first job.
  Think what they could do for themselves and their children with that 
lost money--buy a used car, put a down payment on a modest home, fix 
the furnace before winter comes. Or think what will happen if they 
actually lose their jobs because of the never-ending competition from 
new arrivals.
  The $1,915 reduction in wages that competition with immigrants costs 
low-skilled workers equals a $1 increase in the minimum wage.
  To be certain, it is not the immigrants themselves who are to blame 
and who understandably want to come to America. But who knows how many 
people have been hurt by the unintended consequences of our outdated 
immigration policy?
  No one should complain about the plight of the working poor or the 
persistence of minority unemployment or the levels of income inequality 
without acknowledging the unintended consequences of our present 
immigration policy and the need to reform it.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I support a raise in the minimum wage. The 
fact of the matter is that this is an issue on which we can no longer 
drag our feet. Each month that passes without a minimum wage increase 
means another paycheck that falls short of keeping hard working people 
out of poverty.
  However, there are some provisions in the Republican bill which 
concern me greatly. Therefore, I support both of the Democratic 
amendments being offered to this legislation which would rectify 
language I find troublesome. The first amendment would strike the 
provision of the bill that permits states to opt-out of any increase in 
the federal minimum wage above the current level of $5.15 per hour. The 
opt-out language included in the bill is simply an underhanded method 
of undermining an increase in the minimum wage. Hard working people 
can't ``opt-out'' of living in poverty; states should not be able to 
effectively ignore this initiative by opting out of paying a decent 
wage.
  The second amendment would mandate that the $1 increase would take 
effect over two years rather than three. Let's be frank, raising the 
minimum wage by $1 is helpful, but still only restores the purchasing 
power of this wage to what it was in 1982. Making workers wait for 
three years rather than two to actually reap the benefits of this raise 
is almost adding insult to injury, working people need--and deserve--to 
see a prompt implementation of this legislation.
  Unlike many other legislative initiatives, raising the platform for 
workers' wages would actually benefit those who need it most. Fifty-
seven percent of the gains from the last minimum wage increase assisted 
families at the bottom 40 percent of the income scale.
  Many of the arguments that we have heard repeatedly from those who 
are against raising the minimum wage simply do not hold water. 
Opponents of this legislation maintain that teenage workers are the 
only people to benefit from a raise in the minimum wage. However, 70 
percent of minimum wage workers are over the age of 20, and 40 percent 
are the sole breadwinners in their families. Therefore, this myth 
should be put to rest so that we can finally focus on helping working 
families.
  Beyond the purely financial hardships faced by minimum wage earners, 
we can not forget the cultural and family ramifications as well. The 
work schedules maintained by parents in many households erode time and 
attention they could be spending on their children. Despite working 
longer hours and sending more family members into the workforce, 
minimum wage workers are increasingly less able to hold onto what were 
once considered the essential elements of a middle class life. I'm not 
talking about extravagant living, but rather comfortable economic 
survival--a roof over your head, some food on the table, and the 
ability to spend quality time with family.
  Simply stated, the disturbing trend of the wealthiest Americans 
grabbing the lion's share of income gains must be put to an end. 
Raising minimum wage is a much needed, positive step toward closing the 
income gap. It is time

[[Page 2636]]

that the workers who are largely responsible for the day to day 
operations to finally get fair compensation for their hard work.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 3846, the 
GOP's feeble attempt to raise the minimum wage and H.R. 3081, the Wage 
and Employment Growth Act. I cannot support this half-hearted gesture 
that gives our lowest-paid workers a mere $1 per hour increase over 
three years when the Democratic alternative would have offered these 
workers $1 per hour increase over a two-year period and would have 
eliminated the top-heavy Republican tax cuts. Unfortunately, the 
leadership did not allow for debate and a vote on the Democratic 
alternative. The Wage Growth and Opportunity Act is a misleading title. 
This bill actually gives tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans but is 
disguised as offsetting the effects of a minimum wage increase on small 
businesses. I will not support this misleading and reckless bill.
  Studies have shown that increasing the minimum wage does not have a 
discernable impact on small businesses as some would have you believe. 
But given that the sponsors of the tax proposal want the American 
taxpayers to believe that a minimum wage increase can hurt small 
businesses, then we must scrutinize the bill on the floor of the House 
today.
  H.R. 3081 does little for small businesses but does much for the 
wealthiest one percent of Americans. While the GOP intends to prolong a 
minimum wage increase, and thus lower the benefit from an increase, it 
also wants to provide $123 billion in tax breaks to the wealthy. It 
does this through estate tax relief for the wealthy and pension changes 
that benefit those who contribute $10,000 per year to their 401(k) 
plans.
  Nearly 65 percent of H.R. 3081 is dedicated to reducing the estate 
tax for all estates. Only a small fraction of estate taxes are paid on 
small businesses included in estates. This bill has little bearing on 
small businesses and has nothing to do with the minimum wage. The 
estate tax provisions in this bill are targeted to wealthy individuals 
who don't even own small family businesses. I'd hardly consider 
Microsoft a small business, yet Bill Gates will reap a $6 billion tax 
break from H.R. 3081.
  We still don't have a Medicare prescription drug benefit for seniors, 
yet our legislative leadership is asking Congress to squander billions 
of dollars on those who don't need it. We also don't have a plan in 
place to shore-up Social Security for future retirees. I suggest to my 
colleagues that we take a close look at our legislative priorities 
prior to enacting such irresponsible tax cuts.
  The tax cuts proposed today grow over time and are permanent. The 
minimum wage bill is not permanent and does not grow with the rate of 
inflation. The Republican tax bill over ten years is nearly eleven 
times greater than their proposed minimum wage increase. Clearly, the 
tax bill before us today is a gift to the wealthy at the expense of our 
minimum wage workers and seniors.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the GOP minimum wage and tax bill and 
give minimum wage workers $1 per hour increase over two year, not 
three.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to stand 
up for America's working families.
  Today we will vote on a measure that will affect millions of people 
across America. Unfortunately, the Republicans want to use this 
opportunity to instantly give another tax break to the wealthy and make 
working families wait three years for a complete increase in the 
minimum wage.
  The Republicans will do anything they can to avoid raising the 
minimum wage. Last year, even while they raised their own pay, they 
refused to allow a vote on a measure to raise it. This year, the 
Republicans say they will raise the minimum wage one dollar over three 
years, but only if they can hand out $122 billion in tax breaks skewed 
to the most affluent in our society.
  Instead of letting Democrats introduce a tax substitute which 
provides more relief to family farms and small businesses, the 
Republicans are standing behind a bill which would give the top one 
percent of all taxpayers almost three-quarters of the tax reduction. As 
a cosponsor of the Small Business Tax Relief Act, I am proud to say 
that, under our bill, family farms and small businesses worth up to $4 
million would pay no estate tax at all.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic Small Business Tax 
Relief Act and to enact a minimum wage increase over two years. It is 
time to take care of America's working men and women.
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
increasing the minimum wage. A real increase in the minimum wage is 
long-overdue. In a period of unprecedented economic expansion, every 
worker should reap the benefits of the booming economy. The real issue 
here is a much-deserved minimum wage hike, and Congress must ensure 
that every minimum wage worker receives the increase our economy can 
surely afford.
  The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets the current minimum wage at 
$5.15 per hour. This is unacceptably low. At $5.15 per hour, a minimum 
wage worker who is employed 40 hours per week for 52 weeks will earn a 
mere $10,712 a year. This is approximately $1,000 below the poverty 
level for a family of two. We cannot continue to sit idly by while 
working families struggle in a growing economy. Increasing the minimum 
wage to $6.15 per hour will help fulfill our moral obligation to 
working people--the obligation to pay a living wage.
  Mr. Speaker, the global strength of the United States and the 
strength of our economy is due to the strength of our labor force. 
Full-time, working families should not be allowed to fall below the 
poverty level. It is time that we give the workers who help run this 
nation and fuel our economy just compensation for their work.
  Beyond this, the need to pay a fair minimum wage to the average 
American worker is crucial to the overall success of our country's 
economy. Since the last minimum wage increase in 1996, the economy has 
created new jobs at a pace of over 250,000 per month; the inflation 
rate has been cut nearly in half; and the unemployment rate has fallen 
to 4.4 percent. By raising the minimum wage, we will give monetary 
merit to the workers who are responsible for this unprecedented growth 
and increase their purchasing power.
  The impact from the last minimum wage increase is clear: 10 million 
workers got a raise, and there is no evidence that jobs were lost. 
Furthermore, economic studies find no negative effect of the minimum 
wage on employment. In fact, recent research has even suggested that 
higher wages can increase employment because they improve employers' 
ability to attract, retain, and motivate workers. Finally, recent 
increases in the minimum wage have helped reduce the welfare caseload 
by increasing the incentive to work.
  While I do not believe that an increase in the minimum wage should 
have to be tied to a tax cut, I do support the provisions of this 
particular small business tax package. Specifically, this bill contains 
important estate tax relief for small business and family farms. I have 
fought for repeal of this egregious tax since I came to Congress, and I 
am happy today to finally see some meaningful relief.
  In addition to estate tax relief, this bill would increase 
contribution and benefit limits for retirement plans, enabling more 
Americans to save for their future. It also increases business meal 
deductions to 60% and accelerates the 100% deduction for health 
insurance for the self-employed and increases the deduction for the 
purchase of business equipment. Perhaps one of the most important 
provisions of the tax portion with regard to small businesses is the 
repeal of a current law prohibiting businesses that use accrual 
accounting methods from selling assets in installments and spreading 
out their tax liability. Unfortunately, this provision was part of a 
larger tax relief bill passed last year and has proven to be 
detrimental to small businesses. As a cosponsor of H.R. 3594, the 
Installment Tax Correction Act, legislation which would repeal this 
penalty, I am happy to lend my support to this important provision. 
Finally, the tax portion of today's bill would also authorize the 
creation of fifteen new ``renewal communities'' that would be eligible 
for various tax breaks and would increase the low-income housing tax 
credit.
  Mr. Speaker, the critical issue at stake today is a much-needed 
increase in the minimum wage. The minimum wage plays an important role 
in ensuring that all workers share in the growing economy, and there 
are numerous reasons for an increase. I call on my colleagues today to 
support this much-needed legislation and help ensure that no working 
American will have to live in poverty.
  Mr. COYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a minimum wage 
increase over two years and in opposition to an unjustifiable tax 
break.
  Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage has significantly improved the quality 
of life for American Working families. And yet, the majority of 
Republicans in Congress have consistently opposed or worked to 
eviscerate the minimum wage.
  Today we see Congressional Republicans bowing to significant pressure 
to raise the minimum wage--but offering a minimum wage bill that as 
their leadership recently acknowledged, raises the minimum wage as 
little as possible over the longest possible period of time. It would 
also provide numerous exemptions for certain categories of workers and 
allow states to opt out of the minimum wage increase. I find such an 
attack on America's working families to be indefensible.
  That is bad enough, but the Republican House Leadership will also 
attempt to either

[[Page 2637]]

kill or take advantage of a minimum wage bill by linking it to a tax 
package, provides that $122 billion in tax breaks to some of the 
wealthiest families in the country. Three quarters of the tax breaks in 
this bill would go to the one percent of the American people with 
incomes of more than $300,000. If that is not class warfare, I don't 
know what is.
  The bill's supporters argue that the tax breaks are necessary to 
offset the cost to small businesses of increasing the minimum wage. 
Since the Republican proposal provides eleven dollars in tax cuts for 
every one dollar in increased wages, that argument rings false.
  Moreover, the Republican tax package is back-loaded, which means that 
the bill's impact on the federal budget will not be fully felt for many 
years to come. It puts another massive dent in the projected budget 
surplus before Congress has adopted a plan to save Social Security, a 
plan to preserve Medicare, a play to provide a Medicare prescription 
drug benefit, a plan for paying down the national debt, or even a 
budget plan for the coming fiscal year. While the substance of the tax 
bill is unacceptable, the timing of this tax cut is inexplicable.
  I urge my colleague to reject this unwise approach. Let's pass a 
clean minimum wage increase--or barring that, let's pass a tax break 
package that helps the struggling ``Mom and Pop'' businesses on Main 
Street, not the folks already living on Easy Street. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the bill and in favor of a motion to 
recommit with instructions.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for giving the American people a raise. I share the belief of millions 
of Americans who strongly believe anyone who works hard should be 
rewarded by receiving wages that not only allow them to subsist and 
survive, but to feed, clothe, house and support their families. Working 
Americans should not have to live in poverty or turn to federal 
assistance to subsist. The simple idea that hard work should be 
rewarded is a fundamental American value. I would note a recent ABC 
news poll shows 83 percent of Americans support a higher minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage must keep pace with the changing value 
of the dollar. The value of today's minimum wage is 21 percent less 
than it was in 1979. At a minimum, it is time to raise the minimum wage 
by $1.00 over two years. In my opinion, it should be raised higher 
still. Raising the minimum wage to $6.15 over two years simply restores 
the value of the minimum wage to 1982's level.
  Currently, a full-time minimum wage worker earns $10,700 per year 
$3,200 below the poverty level. Forty percent of minimum wage workers 
are sole breadwinners for their families. The Traficant-Martinez 
amendment would directly benefit nearly 10 million workers nationwide, 
400,000 in Michigan alone.
  The Republican leadership has worked hard to prevent a real minimum 
wage increase, tying the minimum wage to a fiscally irresponsible tax 
cut the President has promised to veto. In place of a helpful wage 
package, they also have offered a watered down minimum wage increase 
that provides little immediate assistance to workers and, for some 
ludicrous reason, allows states to opt out. These deceptive attempts to 
dupe the American public only shortchange those Americans at the bottom 
of the pay scale and help corporate businesses and special interest 
groups. Mr. Speaker, let's not play politics with hard working 
Americans' salaries. Let's give workers a real raise.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time for 
general debate has expired.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House 
Report 106-516.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Traficant

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

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

     SECTION 1. MINIMUM WAGE.

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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 434, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) seek time in 
opposition?
  Mr. BALLENGER. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will have the time in 
opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), the coauthor of this 
amendment, and as he walks down the aisle, I want to thank him for 
coming to my district some 15 years ago and helping to save many family 
homes in my valley. I consider the gentleman to be one of the great 
Democrats in the House, and I am proud to have him as a coauthor.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) for his kind remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague in Ohio in offering an 
amendment that will raise the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years.
  The last time Congress raised the minimum wage was back in 1996. This 
amendment raises the minimum wage in two steps, the first is to $5.65 
an hour beginning April 1, 2000 and the second is to $6.15 an hour 
beginning April 1, 2001.
  Let me put it in simple terms, Mr. Speaker. A $1 increase in the 
minimum wage is enough for a family of four to buy groceries for 7 
months or pay rent for 5 months. Now, one of my colleagues said we are 
trying to promote prosperity and happiness. I can tell my colleagues 
that we are not trying to promote prosperity; but for sure, coming from 
a poor family, I can say that when there is a little more on the table, 
or the landlord is not knocking at the door for the rent, yes, it 
brings a lot of happiness.
  Now, I would have preferred that we were debating a clean minimum-
wage bill, one free of special-interest exemptions, but reality 
dictates otherwise. American men and women cannot and should not have 
to wait any longer for Congress to provide them with a living wage. 
This increase is long overdue. It is unacceptable to delay the American 
worker this pay raise even one additional year. A 3-year increase, as 
proposed by the bill, would cost a full-time, year-round worker more 
than $900 over 2 years. Now, $900 may not sound like a lot of money to 
Members of Congress, but to millions of Americans who make a minimum 
wage, it can sometimes make the difference in raising them above the 
poverty level.
  America has achieved the longest period of economic growth in our 
entire history, Mr. Speaker. It is time, with the lowest unemployment 
rates in 30 years, with the lowest poverty rates in 20 years, that we 
provide a decent wage to working men and women, the very people who 
made this economic growth possible. Why must these people, these men 
and women, wait for even 1 more year?
  There are nearly 12 million American workers who depend on us today 
to do the right thing. Will we do the right thing and provide them with 
a step up to a better future for their families and their children? 
Will we provide these families a chance to pursue the American Dream? 
Mr. Speaker, it is embarrassing for the richest Nation in the world, 
the most powerful Nation in the world, the most advanced Nation in the 
world to have a minimum wage that falls below the level needed to keep 
a family out of poverty.
  I urge every Member, and I especially urge Members on the other side 
of the aisle, to show that compassion that I know they can show and 
take a stand for working families in this country.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friends, 
and I would like to apologize to them ahead of time.
  We have heard so much discussion today from the proponents of the 
increase about a higher minimum wage lifting the working poor out of 
poverty. But the proposed increase will have little impact on low-
income families because few workers actually support families under the 
minimum wage. The

[[Page 2638]]

minimum wage is typically paid to individuals who are just entering the 
workforce, the overwhelming majority of whom are young, single, and 
childless.
  According to the statistics, or the data that we get from the U.S. 
Census Bureau, 37 percent of those who benefited from the last-minimum 
wage increase were young people living with their parents.

                              {time}  2015

  Some 85 percent either live with their parents, or are single and 
childless, or living alone, or have a working spouse. Only one in ten 
minimum wage earners is trying to support a family. In reality, the 
minimum wage is a poorly targeted issue for anti-poverty as a tool.
  The proponents of a higher minimum wage increase seem to suggest that 
entry-level employees work for years without a wage increase. But 
according to recent research, the vast majority of those who start at 
the minimum wage do not remain there long. Nearly two-thirds of minimum 
wage workers move above the minimum wage within one year of working. 
The majority of minimum wage workers use entry level positions to gain 
experience and acquire the skills necessary to move ahead in better 
paying jobs.
  Those employees who do not quickly advance beyond the minimum wage 
tend to be the least skilled, the least educated, and the least 
experienced workers. Typically, those are the most vulnerable in terms 
of losing their jobs or having their hours of work reduced. Research 
has shown that the minimum wage increases shift many jobs from low-
skilled adults to teenagers and students.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. 
Increasing the minimum wage is an ineffective way of helping those in 
need. It is not well targeted at poor families. And while it benefits 
some individuals, it will clearly harm others by lessening employment 
opportunities.
  For the 25 percent of low-wage workers whose families are poor, 
hiking the minimum wage too quickly may do more harm than good. Minimum 
wage increases cause price increases that disproportionately affect the 
poor.
  We also heard testimony regarding the disemployment effects of the 
higher minimum wage. Witnesses concluded that the net effect of the 
minimum wage is to increase the proportion of families that are poor.
  In addition, Chairman Greenspan has testified before Congress that 
the wage inflation that we may have could derail the booming economy. 
The hallmark of the economic good times we enjoy today has been low 
inflation. Raising the minimum wage will contribute to raise inflation 
at the same time as the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates to 
contain the deleterious effects of wage inflation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, might I inquire how much time is 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the dynamic 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, now I know why we are here trying to 
convince some of the Members on the other side of the aisle that we 
should allow a $1 raise over a 2-year period of time. They really do 
not understand.
  The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) just told us that 
there are no real people out there who are working for a minimum wage 
that are taking care of families. He said they are teenagers and they 
are people just starting in the workplace.
  Well, I do not know what he knows about home health care workers, 
people who do some of the toughest work who make minimum wages. I do 
not know if he knows that many of the people who serve food in our 
restaurants, waiters and waitresses, make minimum wage. I do not know 
if he knows what is happening in the nursing homes, where they are 
taking care of the sick and the elderly, that many of them are on 
minimum wage. I do not know if he knows that the airport safety workers 
who check us when we go through the metal detectors are making minimum 
wage. He does not know that they are elevator operators.
  Well, now I know why we must tell this story over and over and over 
again. They are ignorant of the facts.
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many people here have ever worked at 
the minimum wage. I did when it was 65 cents an hour.
  I would like to mention, in fact, that in every one of the cases that 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) mentioned, all of these 
are going to result in cost increases.
  Take day-care. I checked this out at home. The day-care workers that 
we have started on the CEDA program and they are now up to $7.50 an 
hour, $8 an hour. If we raise the minimum wage, do not tell me that 
they are still able to charge the same price for day-care.
  So anybody that uses day-care, anybody that uses those services for 
the elderly, they are going to all suffer from the increased costs.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Ballenger) has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the dynamic 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 2-year increase 
in the minimum wage.
  Working men and women deserve an immediate increase in the minimum 
wage from a meager $5.15 to $6.15 an hour. During these times of 
unprecedented economic prosperity, we should do nothing less.
  What we really should be talking about, though, is a livable wage, a 
living wage, which in Northern California, for example, is $14 an hour.
  I also oppose the Republicans' proposal for the tax cut because $123 
billion will go to the wealthiest of Americans. This is wrong. Why 
should the rich get a tax break while America's lowest wage workers 
continue to struggle each and every day to make ends meet? We should be 
supporting our lowest wage individuals.
  The Republican plan ignores these hard-working men and women. When in 
the world are we going to begin to close these huge income disparities 
in our country? Income inequality should not exist in a country such as 
America.
  Let us be fair to working men and women. Let us raise the minimum 
wage as soon as possible. At least we should raise it within 2 years.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, since I have more speakers, will the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) yield some of his time to 
me as a courtesy?
  Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my distinguished friend 
from North Carolina for that gesture. He has always been fair. Even 
though we disagree on this, we agree more often than not; and I thank 
him.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
to raise the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years.
  In this era of unprecedented prosperity, we should be both willing 
and able to ensure that workers are not left behind.
  Now, I have no doubt that we are able to provide this increase. We 
live in a wealthy Nation that is in its economic prime, 110 consecutive 
months of growth in our economy. We live in a Nation in which 
enterprises are starting all the time, in which top executives are 
compensated with almost unimaginable sums of money. Sixty-three new 
millionaires a day are being created in the Silicon Valley alone. Study 
after study has shown that the minimum wage does not cost jobs.

[[Page 2639]]

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

                              {time}  2030

  There is absolutely nothing. It is just a good, round number. There 
is no economic reason for this. There is not even a moral justification 
for it. Because, as I say, we will not be improving the lives of the 
people that we have heard so much about on the floor of the House 
today. In fact, we may be doing damage to them. But we do not know that 
because, of course, we are trying to be the unseen hand in the market. 
We have made this assumption about the fact that we know exactly how to 
adjust the marketplace between an employer and employee.
  I do not doubt for a moment that there are people out there working 
for perhaps less than they are worth, and I certainly do not doubt for 
a moment that there are people out there working for more than they are 
worth. We have heard all about these people, heads of companies making 
these outrageous sums of money as if this has any relevance whatsoever 
to this particular piece of legislation. It of course does not.
  But just as we can concede that we do not know what is right for the 
highest wage earners to make, it is appropriate for us to concede that 
we do not know what is right for the lowest wage earners to make. We 
simply do not know that. Let us confess it. Let us tell the people the 
truth. We do not know if a dollar is right over a year, over 2 years, 
over 3, over 4, we have no idea. It sounds good, so, therefore, we are 
going to propose it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Martinez), my coauthor, to respond to the previous 
speaker.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I do not challenge the gentleman from 
Colorado's figures. They are probably accurate. But his logic is a 
little skewed. Every year the cost of living goes on and almost every 
other wage earner is guaranteed at least that cost of living increase, 
whether he works for an organized shop or not. But the fact is, that if 
the cost of living keeps going on, and you do not raise the minimum 
wage, that minimum wage is going to buy less than what it bought last 
year and the year before and the year before and so that eventually 
they are going to be living in poverty, worse than they are now.
  The fact is, that we need to understand the premise of a minimum wage 
is to make sure people do not starve to death. That is what it is. All 
we are doing is trying to provide them with somewhat of a livable wage. 
If what you are saying is allow the marketplace to determine, that does 
not even determine, because an employer himself determines.
  Every employer, and I was in business, there are other costs that go 
up, cost of materials to produce your product, cost of operations in 
your facility if it is a service facility that make the price of your 
service go up; and you

[[Page 2640]]

have to increase that to keep up with that. It is no different with the 
wage.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a dynamic young Member from the Cleveland area, 
doing a great job replacing Lou Stokes, one of our greatest.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) 
for that warm introduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this amendment. At a time when our 
economy is at its best, why not give those at the bottom of the 
economic ladder an opportunity to eat a piece of the bountiful pie? 
Currently, a full-time minimum-wage worker makes $10,920, out of which 
they must pay all of their expenses. One dollar over 2 years is not all 
we would like to have, but it is better than having it over 3 years.
  I guess very few Republicans make minimum wage. Otherwise, they would 
be screaming on the floor like we are protesting like the Democrats. We 
are telling these families, buy your children food. No, wait, wait 3 
years, you can buy food in 3 years. No, wait, buy your children shoes 
in 3 years. No, wait, get the medicine you need over 3 years. Do not 
even try and drive a car because gasoline has increased over the last 6 
months more than we are offering an increase in the minimum wage. Bread 
costs the same for minimum wage workers. How do they buy it? Eggs cost 
the same for minimum wage workers. How do they buy it? Meat costs the 
same for minimum wage workers. How will they buy it?
  The economic fact is that people are underpaid at minimum wage. The 
economic fact is they need more to buy clothing, to buy shoes; and let 
us not even think about health care, which they do not get on minimum 
wage. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
  Mr. SHERWOOD. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment to increase the 
Federal minimum wage by $1 over 2 years. Our Nation's economic 
expansion came a little late to the 10th Congressional District of 
Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, we have too many working Americans in my 
district for whom the struggle to afford housing and other basic 
necessities is a formidable challenge. That is why I made a commitment 
to support a minimum-wage increase.
  Since last fall, I have been working with my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to bring about an increase in the minimum wage. The Bureau 
of Labor Statistics found that 4 million workers in America earn $5.15 
an hour. I have too many of those workers in my district, and their 
families are working three jobs to support the family.
  Just yesterday, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a report on our 
Nation's workers' productivity. In the fourth quarter of 1999, both the 
business sector and the nonfarm sector saw productivity rises which 
were the largest since the fourth quarter of 1992. Manufacturing 
productivity rose at a 10.3 percent annual rate. Our economy has 
enjoyed 20 consecutive years of labor productivity. I believe now is 
the time for a Federal minimum-wage increase. It has been more than 2 
years since we did this.
  I am aware that businesses, and I was a businessman for 30 years, 
particularly those in the restaurant and the retail industries, will 
face higher labor costs. For that reason, I supported the Small 
Business Tax Fairness Act of 2000. That includes several key provisions 
to provide the needed tax relief to keep these small businesses going, 
which have been the engines of our economic growth.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to let a little of our unprecedented 
prosperity down to the people that work the hardest for their wages.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), a good friend and a powerful fighter for 
the military second to none.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, there is a line from a very 
popular song, ``Harvest for the World.'' It keeps asking the question 
rhetorically, why do those who pay the price come home with the least?
  When it came time to balance the budget this year, it was done at the 
expense of the men and women in uniform. They delayed their pay by 2 
days. Again, for a Congressman, no big deal. For a young E-4, a young 
E-5 trying to take care of his wife and his kid, that is probably a 
weekend when baby formula does not get bought, or the Pampers do not 
get bought, and they try to make do as best they can.
  I listen to Members of this body say we have to give the senior 
citizens a COLA, and everybody votes for it. We have to give the 
retirees a COLA. Everybody votes for it. So if we are willing to reward 
people for what they have done, why are we not willing to reward people 
for what they are doing in some of the crummiest jobs in America? What 
this whole amendment is about is 17 cents an hour, the difference 
between the Republican proposal and the Democratic proposal. We are 
willing to give them that 17 cents a year sooner. If we want people to 
value work, then work must have value.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote for the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the dynamic 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, let us raise the minimum wage. Let us do it 
from $5.15 to $6.15 an hour. Let us do it in 2 years, 50 cents this 
year and 50 cents next year. My God, imagine. Let us try to string it 
out, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would do, 33 
cents a year. I wonder if that is what they would do with their raises, 
to let it just drift out at 33 cents a year. It is unconscionable. We 
have a unique opportunity to do something for hard-working Americans in 
this country. This alternative provides that opportunity.
  Seventy percent of minimum-wage workers are adults. Sixty percent are 
women. Nearly half are full-time workers. There are more than 60,000 
people in my own State of Connecticut who rely on a minimum-wage job. 
You cannot raise a family on $5.15 an hour even when you work full 
time. The minimum wage is the best measure of our willingness to defend 
the ideal that if you work hard, if you play by the rules, then you 
should be able to support your family and create a better life for your 
family. This is about our values, who we are as Americans. Let us pass 
a minimum wage; let us do it in 2 years and give these folks a break.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I proudly stand in support of a 
minimum-wage increase. The original bill, H.R. 3846, falls short of 
meeting the needs of the American family and that is why the Traficant-
Martinez amendment is needed. A full-time, year-round minimum-wage 
worker with a family of three earns about $2,000 less than what is 
needed to live above the Federal poverty line. Our economy is the 
strongest it has been in years and these American workers deserve to 
share in our prosperity.
  That is why I support the Democratic substitute by my California and 
Ohio colleagues which increases the minimum wage instead of from 3 
years to 2 years over the period of time. More than 11.8 million 
workers will benefit from this increase. In my home State of Texas, 
13.3 percent of the workforce stands to benefit from such an increase, 
and that is over 1 million workers. That is why an increase will give 
not only my constituents but also hard-working Americans the chance to 
earn a livable wage.
  We had a great Senator from Texas named Ralph Yarborough. When he 
debated the minimum wage, he said, it is time we put the jam on the 
lower shelf for the little people.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the fiery gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), who tells it like it is.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Let me be very honest and say

[[Page 2641]]

that I think a $1-an-hour increase over a 2-year period is not enough. 
In my view, we should raise the minimum wage today to at least $6.50 an 
hour. The idea, however, of doing it over a 3-year period is an 
absolute insult to millions and millions of low-income workers who are 
struggling to keep their heads above water. Let us defeat the 
Republican proposal. Let us pass the Traficant amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Ohio is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Speaker, the 
Republican leadership and the Republican Party for giving us an 
opportunity to bring this amendment. I want to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina for being so fair, which he always is. 
Ironically as we bash around here, in the last 4 years there have been 
two minimum wage increases and the Republicans were in the majority.

                              {time}  2045

  Quite frankly, I do not like the spin that it is mean spirited by the 
Republicans to oppose the minimum wage. I believe they make a valid 
argument that inflation could hurt every one of our workers.
  Now having made that statement, I think it is time to tell it like it 
is. We have people out there that are struggling to make a go of it. We 
have gasoline prices now approaching $2.00. We have families that build 
the economy, not kill it.
  The last minimum wage increase spurred an economic boom for the 
following simple reason: Poor people do not have enough money to save. 
Poor people spend their money, put their money on the streets and they 
grow the economy. This is a growth bill, not a wage increase bill.
  Now, I voted earlier today to reduce taxes for a tax break. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and I were the only two 
Democrats. Yes, I want to give the boss a break. He deserves it so he 
can give a raise to my people who desperately need it. Without an 
investor, there is no company. Without a company, there is no worker. 
Mr. Speaker, without an entrepreneur, there is no job.
  There is reasonableness here, but what I am trying to do today is to 
ensure that if this vehicle is vetoed and we revisit it, we will be 
revisiting $1.00 over two years. Let me say this: That 17 cents is not 
going to kill anybody.
  Now I come from a very poor family, and that is not making a 
political statement here. Many of my colleagues have. My father finally 
got into that middle class maybe when I was about 10, 11 years old. We 
had a lot of love, but my dad never worked for a poor man.
  We cannot continue to pit rich against poor, old against young, black 
against white. This partisanship must end.
  I want to commend the Republican Party for reaching out and including 
in their bill a minimum wage increase that we thank them for, but we 
think it is a little too modest, quite frankly, and we are asking the 
Republican Party Members to join with us and pass this amendment.
  There is one last statement here. When someone waters the tree, the 
big tree, do they water the leaves or do they water the roots?
  We cut back on welfare. We must incentivize work and incentivize work 
by making work more attractive, making work one that people will aspire 
to; moving from dependence to independence, self-actualized lifestyles. 
This is more than a minimum wage increase.
  I want to commend the Republican Party here. I want to commend their 
Speaker. I want to commend each and every one of them for allowing the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) and I to bring this amendment 
and I am asking for the votes from the Republican side of the aisle.
  I would say to the gentlemen from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), I want them to consider voting for 
this. I am asking them for their vote.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of raising the national 
minimum wage by $1.00 over two years. The Traficant amendment to H.R. 
3846 accomplishes this goal.
  American workers need relief and three years is simply not soon 
enough. The Democratic measure increases the minimum wage to $6.15 by 
September 1, 2000. Some context is needed for considering this 
amendment. In 1998, approximately 4.4 million wage and salary workers, 
paid on an hourly basis, earned at or below $5.15 per hour. Today's 
minimum wage has 21% less purchasing power that it had in 1979. 
According to a recent study by the Economic Policy Institute, some 10.3 
million American workers stand to benefit from a new increase in the 
minimum wage. Forty percent of minimum wage earners are the sole 
breadwinners in their families. The Democratic proposal is patently 
more responsive than H.R. 3846 to the needs of America's workers and 
should be passed by this body.
  I support raising the minimum wage because I believe it will help 
ensure work pays more than welfare and assists lower-income families 
struggling to make ends meet. Mr. Chairman, lets really think about 
what this really means for American families. Minimum wage workers play 
a pivotal role in today's economy--caring for our parents and 
grandparents in their homes, and for our children in daycare. Under 
current law, a single mother of two, employed full-time, 40 hours per 
week for 52 weeks, earns $10,712, $3,200 below the poverty line. Work 
should be a bridge out of poverty but, unfortunately, there were nearly 
3.4 million full-time workers in 1997 who still lived below the poverty 
line. We all know that we cannot truly reform our welfare system unless 
we ensure that work pays more than welfare and truly allows families to 
become self-sufficient. Raising the minimum wage is a critical part of 
this equation.
  Opponents of this legislation argue that raising the minimum wage 
over two years will endanger the longest economic expansion in our 
nation's history. If history is an indicator, this is simply not a 
reasonable concern. Since the minimum wage increase in 1996, statistics 
indicate that employment has actually increased in every sector, even 
among those regarded as the most difficult to employ. Further, over the 
past two years the minimum wage has increased 90 cents, while the 
unemployment and inflation rates have decreased to record lows.
  The Traficant amendment is responsive to this labor trend and 
provides American workers with much needed relief. Again, the 
Department measure is more responsive to the needs of America's workers 
than the Republican alternative and should be adopted.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Traficant/
Martinez amendment to H.R. 3846, the ``Minimum Wage Increase'' bill. 
This amendment would provide for a real minimum wage increase of $1 
over two years, which is so necessary for American workers. By 
combining the minimum wage bill with H.R. 3081, a bill that gives $122 
billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest taxpayers, instead of allowing 
a clean vote on real minimum wage reform, the Republican leadership has 
shown that they only want to pay lip service to this vital pay raise 
for America's low-wage workers.
  Even though the minimum wage was raised to $5.15/hour in 1996, you 
certainly can't raise a family on that salary. At present, a single 
person, male or female, working full time, earning the minimum wage and 
supporting a family of three, takes in $10,700 a year, placing them 
well below the poverty line. In Detroit, an astounding 43% of the 
population lives below that poverty line.
  Raising the minimum wage is extremely important because we have to 
continue to redress the damage inflicted during the 1980's, when 
American workers lost 25% of their purchasing power. From 1990 to 1995, 
this trend continued and they lost a further 12%. If we really wanted 
to match the purchasing power of the minimum wage in 1968, when it 
reached its peak, the minimum wage today would be $7.40/hour across the 
board.
  I joined Representative David Bonior earlier this year in introducing 
a bill to raise the minimum wage to $6.15/hour. The increase would 
occur in fifty cent increments over two years. This would be an 
important first step towards addressing the fundamental economic 
injustice resulting from the stagnant wages during the Reagan-Bush era. 
The amendment before the House today would provide this real pay 
increase which has been delayed so long to working Americans for far 
too long.
  An increase in the minimum wage would benefit 300,000 people in my 
state of Michigan alone. Most of those who earn the minimum wage are 
women, and 40% of them are the sole breadwinners of the family.
  The 12 million people who earn the minimum wage across the country 
are the people

[[Page 2642]]

who prepare our food, care for our elderly and our children. Remember 
an increase in the minimum wage will not only help close the increasing 
gap between the rich and the poor, but will benefit all Americans. 
Extra buying power will be injected into small businesses, family 
stores, and restaurants, stimulating the economy at the local level and 
the state level. Through increasing the earnings of so many families 
American children will learn the value of hard work--that it really 
pays to work hard.
  Many of my colleagues from across the aisle have suggested that an 
increase in the minimum wage will cost jobs. However numerous studies 
have proven that increasing the minimum wage will not cost jobs and the 
buoyancy of the American economy ensures this fact. Since the last 
minimum wage hike in 1996, unemployment has fallen to its lowest 
(official) rate in 25 years, inflation has dropped from 2.5 to 1.7% and 
the American economy continues to grow, creating jobs at a historic 
high of 250,000 per month.
  Americans appreciate the raise too: three polls taken during 1998 by 
the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times all showed that 76% to 
78% approve the wage increase.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the Trafficant/
Martinez amendment for a real minimum wage increase. The American 
people deserve a living wage.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 43]

                               AYES--246

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

                               NOES--179

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

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

                              {time}  2110

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


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Clay

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

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

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

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the provisions 
     of section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 
     U.S.C. 206) shall apply to the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands.
       (b) Transition.--
       (1) In general.--Nothwithstanding subsection (a), the 
     minimum wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) shall be $3.55 an 
     hour beginning on the date that is 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section.
       (2) Increases in minimum wage.--
       (A) In general.--On the date that is 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, and every 6 months thereafter, 
     the minimum wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act

[[Page 2643]]

     of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) shall be increased by $0.50 per 
     hour (or such a lesser amount as may be necessary to equal 
     the minimum wage under such section) until such time as the 
     minimum wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands under this subsection is equal to the minimum 
     wage set forth in section 6(a)(1) of such Act for the date 
     involved.
       (B) Further increases.--With respect to dates beginning 
     after the minimum wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands is equal to the minimum wage set 
     forth in section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 
     1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)), as provided in subparagraph (A), 
     such applicable minimum wage shall be immediately increased 
     so as to remain equal to the minimum wage set forth in 
     section 6(a)(1) of such Act for the date involved.

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

                              {time}  2115

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 44]

                               AYES--181

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton

[[Page 2644]]


     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--243

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

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

                              {time}  2137

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 45]

                               AYES--282

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

                               NOES--143

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

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

                              {time}  2150

  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.

[[Page 2645]]

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

                          ____________________