To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide an exception to the 60-day limit on Medicare reciprocal billing arrangements between two physicians during the period in which one of the physicians is ordered to active duty as a member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, when Speaker Pelosi spoke about the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, one of the things she said she wanted to accomplish was to begin to make the economy fairer for all Americans. Today, with this legislation to increase the minimum wage, we begin that task.

For 10 years, the lowest-paid workers in America have been frozen out of the economy of this country. They have ended up every year, after going to work every day, every week, every month, they have ended up poor, far below the poverty line of this country. They have been working at a Federal poverty wage, not a Federal minimum wage.

I am very honored today to be here supporting this legislation as the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee. I am also very honored to be sharing this legislation with our new majority leader, Mr. Hoyer. Because of his activities in the last Congress, we were able to bring this issue to a head because of the amendment that he offered on the Health and Human Services bill, where the Republicans chose not to bring the bill to the floor of the Congress, not to bring it to a vote because they wanted to deny American workers access to the minimum wage.

I consider this a new beginning and a new Congress, but I must say I cannot let the history that the gentleman from California laid out for us to suggest that that is the record. The gentleman has said numerous times in his opening statement that this is a colossal missed opportunity. Let me tell you what a colossal missed opportunity is. For the last 10 years, the Republican leadership in this House fought tooth and nail to avoid any, any opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. The only time they thought the poorest workers in America were worth an increase in the minimum wage was if they could tie it to a tax cut for the wealthiest people in the United States.

So they never really were interested in it. They wanted to use the power of the sense of fairness that the American public had about the treatment of the poorest workers. They wanted to use that power, that sense of outrage, that sense of immorality that they had about what the Republicans were doing, to drive tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country.

They said they were going to pass the bill and send it to the President's desk. We said it was going to die in the Senate, and it died in the Senate. And here today we see the same proposal being made. They are going to suggest that later today they are going to couple minimum wage with the wonderful health care plan for workers.

Their own CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, says that more than 75 percent of the small business workers, over 20 million workers and their dependents, would see their health insurance premiums increase as a result of this proposal. So now they are going to give these workers an increase in the minimum wage, but then they are going to increase their premiums for health insurance. What a wonderful gift from the Republican Party.

Can't you just give these workers an increase and be done with it? They have been working at a 10-year-old minimum wage, but they are paying 2007 bread prices and milk prices and energy prices and rentals. Where is the decency? Where is the decency to give these workers what they are entitled to, what everybody knows that they should have?

Not only that, but then we find out with this wonderful health plan that some 8 million workers who are currently insured will probably lose their insurance. So now they are going to, if you get insurance, they are going to increase the premiums. If you have insurance, you may lose your insurance.

This isn't what America thinks makes the economy fair. What they

think makes the economy fair is an increase in the minimum wage.

As you all know, this is the longest period in history of law without a wage increase. During that time, the minimum wage has dropped to its lowest buying power in 51 years. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 would increase the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour over three steps over the next 2 years.

Raising the minimum wage is critical to fighting the middle-class squeeze in this country. Fifty-nine percent of American workers state that they have to work harder to earn a decent living than they did 20 or 30 years ago. Since 2001, the median household incomes have fallen by $1,300. Wages and salaries make up the lowest share of the economy in nearly six decades. Meanwhile, corporate profits, CEO buyouts, golden parachutes, golden handshakes and golden hellos take hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars out of the same corporations that say they can't give an increase to their workers.

While the economy is growing and the wealth of its Nation is increasing, more Americans are struggling to pay their bills. Over the last 5 years, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased from 5.4 million to 37 million. One in six children now lives in poverty.

Since 2000, prices of education, gasoline and health care have all greatly outpaced inflation. Raising the minimum wage is an important first step for the Congress in its efforts to stand up for middle class and to stem the middle-class squeeze. This raise will make a real, critical difference to millions of people's lives, and that is what America understands. You pass the minimum wage, and you dramatically change life for millions of people.

Does it solve their economic problems? Does it solve the economic stress? No, it doesn't. But it changes their lives. For a family of three, increasing the minimum wage will mean an additional $4,400 a year, equaling 15 months of groceries or 2 years' worth of health care. That is a change in the standing of these people's lives.

Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour in 2009, taking into account the increases in family earned income tax credit will take those people who are 11 percent below the poverty level line and move them to 5 percent above the poverty line. Still close to the poverty line but beginning to make this economy fair.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I say, it is an interesting discussion from the other side of the aisle. It just doesn't comport with the evidence that we have in States that have passed a higher minimum wage than the Federal minimum wage. They have experienced higher job growth than those States with the low minimum wage. Overall, retail job growth between 1998 and 2006 was 10.2 percent in those States with a higher minimum wage and only 3.7 percent in the Federal minimum wage States.

Overall across all sectors it was 30 percent greater. The fact of the matter is, an increase in the minimum wage is helping the economy grow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee who has been battling this issue long and hard.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Carney), who has been a long-time champion of increasing the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to submit for insertion into the Record a statement of 650 economists, including five Nobel laureates, that support this increase in the minimum wage and say that it will not be detrimental to the economy.

Hundreds of Economists Say: Raise the Minimum Wage

The minimum wage has been an important part of our nation's

economy for 68 years. It is based on the principle of valuing

work by establishing an hourly wage floor beneath which

employers cannot pay their workers. In so doing, the minimum

wage helps to equalize the imbalance in bargaining power that

low-wage workers face in the labor market. The minimum wage

is also an important tool in fighting poverty.

The value of the 1997 increase in the federal minimum wage

has been fully eroded. The real value of today's federal

minimum wage is less than it has been since 1951. Moreover,

the ratio of the minimum wage to the average hourly wage of

non-supervisory workers is 31 percent, its lowest level since

World War II. This decline is causing hardship for low-wage

workers and their families.

We believe that a modest increase in the minimum wage would

improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have

the adverse effects that critics have claimed. In particular,

we share the view the Council of Economic Advisors expressed

in the 1999 Economic Report of the President that ``the

weight of the evidence suggests that modest increases in the

minimum wage have had very little or no effect on

employment.'' While controversy about the precise employment

effects of the minimum wage continues, research has shown

that most of the beneficiaries are adults, most are female,

and the vast majority are members of low-income working

families.

As economists who are concerned about the problems facing

low-wage workers, we believe the Fair Minimum Wage Act of

2005's proposed phased-in increase in the federal minimum

wage to $7.25 falls well within the range of options where

the benefits to the labor market, workers, and the overall

economy would be positive.

Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia have set

their minimum wages above the federal level. Arizona,

Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nevada and Ohio, are considering

similar measures. As with a federal increase, modest

increases in state minimum wages in the range of $1.00 to

$2.50 and indexing to protect against inflation can

significantly improve the lives of low-income workers and

their families, without the adverse effects that critics have

claimed.

leading economists endorse this statement

Henry Aaron, The Brookings Institution; Kenneth Arrow+

Stanford University; William Baumol+, Princeton University

and New York University; Rebecca Blank, University of

Michigan; Alan Blinder, Princeton University; Peter Diamond+,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Ronald Ehrenberg,

Cornell University; Clive Granger*, University of California,

San Diego; Lawrence Katz Harvard University (AEA Executive

Committee); Lawrence Klein*+, University of Pennsylvania;

Frank Levy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Lawrence

Mishel, Economic Policy Institute; Alice Rivlin+, The

Brookings Institution (former Vice Chair of the Federal

Reserve and Director of the Office of Management and Budget);

Robert Solow*+, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and

Joseph Stiglitz*, Columbia University.

Six hundred and fifty of their fellow economists agree.

economists supporting increase in minimum wage

Katherine G. Abraham University of Maryland; Frank Ackerman

Tufts University; F. Gerard Adams Northeastern University;

Randy Albelda University of Massachusetts--Boston; James

Albrecht Georgetown University; Jennifer Alix-Garcia

University of Montana; Sylvia A. Allegretto Economic Policy

Institute; Beth Almeida International Association of

Machinists and Aerospace Workers; Abbas Alnasrawi University

of Vermont; Gar Alperovitz University of Maryland--College

Park; Joseph Altonji Yale University; Nurul Aman University

of Massachusetts--Boston; Teresa L. Amott Hobart and William

Smith Colleges; Alice Amsden Massachusetts Institute of

Technology; Bernard E; Anderson University of Pennsylvania;

Robert M. Anderson University of California--Berkeley;

Bahreinian Aniss California State University--Sacramento;

Kate Antonovics University of California--San Diego; Eileen

Appelbaum Rutgers University; David D. Arsen Michigan State

University; Michael Ash University of Massachusetts--Amherst;

Glen Atkinson University of Nevada--Reno; Rose-Marie Avin

University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire; M.V. Lee Badgett

University of Massachusetts--Amherst; Aniss Bahreinian

Sacramento City College; Ron Baiman Loyola University

Chicago; Asatar Bair City College of San Francisco; Katie

Baird University of Washington--Tacoma; Dean Baker Center for

Economic and Policy Research; Radhika Balakrishnan Marymount

Manhattan College; Stephen E. Baldwin KRA Corporation; Erol

Balkan Hamilton College; Jennifer Ball Washburn University;

Brad Barham University of Wisconsin--Madison; Drucilla K.

Barker Hollins College; David Barkin Universidad Autonoma

Metropolitana; James N. Baron Yale University; Chuck Barone

Dickinson College; Christopher B. Barrett Cornell University;

Richard Barrett University of Montana; Laurie J. Bassi

McBassi & Company; Francis M. Bator Harvard University;

Rosemary Batt Cornell University; Sandy Baum Skidmore

College; Amanda Bayer Swarthmore College; Sohrab Behdad

Denison University; Peter F. Bell State University of New

York--Purchase; Dale L. Belman Michigan State University;

Michael Belzer Wayne State University; Lourdes Beneria

Cornell University; Barbara R. Bergmann American University

and University of Maryland; Eli Berman University of

California--San Diego; Alexandra Bernasek Colorado State

University; Jared Bernstein Economic Policy Institute;

Michael Bernstein University of California--San Diego;

Charles L. Betsey Howard University; David M. Betson

University of Notre Dame; Carole Biewener Simmons College;

Sherrilyn Billger Illinois State University; Richard E.

Bilsborrow University of North Carolina--Chapel Hill; Cyrus

Bina University of Minnesota--Morris; Melissa Binder

University of New Mexico; L. Josh Bivens Economic Policy

Institute; Stanley Black University of North Carolina--Chapel

Hill; Ron Blackwell AFL-CIO; Margaret Blair Vanderbilt

University Law School; Gail Blattenberger University of Utah;

Robert A. Blecker American University; Barry Bluestone

Northeastern University; Peter Bohmer Evergreen State

College; David Boldt State University of West Georgia; Roger

E. Bolton Williams College; James F. Booker Siena College;

Jeff Bookwalter University of Montana; Barry Bosworth The

Brookings Institution; Heather Boushey Center for Economic

and Policy Research; Roger Even Bove West Chester University;

Samuel Bowles Santa Fe Institute; James K. Boyce University

of Massachusetts--Amherst; Ralph Bradburd Williams College;

Michael E. Bradley University of Maryland--Baltimore County;

Elissa Braunstein Colorado State University; David Breneman

University of Virginia; Mark Brenner Labor Notes Magazine;

Vernon M. Briggs Cornell University; Byron W. Brown Michigan

State University; Christopher Brown Arkansas State

University; Clair Brown University of California--Berkeley;

Philip H. Brown Colby College; Michael Brun Illinois State

University; Neil H. Buchanan Rutgers School of Law and New

York University School of Law; Robert Buchele Smith College;

Stephen Buckles Vanderbilt University; Stephen V. Burks

University of Minnesota--Morris; Joyce Burnette Wabash

College; Paul D. Bush California State University--Fresno;

Alison Butler Wilamette University; Antonio G. Callari

Franklin and Marshall College; Al Campbell University of

Utah; James Campen University of Massachusetts--Boston; Maria

Cancian University of Wisconsin--Madison; Paul Cantor Norwalk

Community College; Anthony Carnevale National Center on

Education and the Economy; Jeffrey P. Carpenter Middlebury

College; Francoise Carre University of Massachusetts--Boston;

Michael J. Carter University of Massachusetts--Lowell; Susan

B. Carter University of California--Riverside; Karl E. Case

Wellesley College; J. Dennis Chasse State University of New

York--Brockport; Howard Chernick Hunter College, City

University of New York; Robert Cherry Brooklyn College--City

University of New York; Graciela Chichilnisky Columbia

University; Lawrence Chimerine Radnor International

Consulting, Inc; Menzie D; Chinn University of Wisconsin--

Madison; Charles R. Chittle Bowling Green State University;

Kimberly Christensen State University of New York--Purchase;

Richard D. Coe New College of Florida; Robert M. Coen

Northwestern University; Steve Cohn Knox College; Rachel

Connelly Bowdoin College; Karen Smith Conway University of

New Hampshire; Patrick Conway University of North Carolina--

Chapel Hill; David R. Cormier West Virginia University; James

V. Cornehls University of Texas--Arlington; Richard R.

Cornwall Middlebury College; Paul N. Courant University of

Michigan--Ann Arbor; James R. Crotty University of

Massachusetts--Amherst; James M. Cypher California State

University--Fresno; Douglas Dalenberg University of Montana;

Herman E. Daly University of Maryland; Anita Dancs National

Priorities Project; Nasser Daneshvary University of Nevada--

Las Vegas; David Danning University of Massachusetts--Boston;

Sheldon Danziger University of Michigan--Ann Arbor; Jane

D'Arista Financial Markets Center; Paul Davidson The New

School for Social Research; Jayne Dean Wagner College;

Gregory E. DeFreitas Hofstra University; Bradford Delong

University of California--Berkeley; James G. Devine Loyola

Marymount College; Ranjit S. Dighe State University of New

York--Oswego; John DiNardo University of Michigan--Ann Arbor;

Randall Dodd Financial Policy Forum; Peter B. Doeringer

Boston University; Peter Dorman Evergreen State College;

Robert Drago Pennsylvania State University; Laura Dresser

University of Wisconsin; Richard B. Du Boff Bryn Mawr

College; Arindrajit Dube University of California--Berkeley;

Marie Duggan Keene State College; Lloyd J. Dumas University

of Texas--Dallas; Christopher Dunn Earth and Its People

Foundation; Steven N. Durlauf University of Wisconsin--

Madison; Amitava K. Dutt University of Notre Dame; Jan Dutta

Rutgers University; Gary A. Dymski University of California--

Riverside; Peter J. Eaton University of Missouri--Kansas

City; Fritz Efaw University of Tennessee--Chattanooga;

Catherine S. Elliott New College of Florida; Richard W.

England University of New Hampshire; Ernie Englander George

Washington University; Gerald Epstein University of

Massachusetts--Amherst; Sharon J. Erenburg Eastern Michigan

University; Susan L. Ettner University of California--Los

Angeles; Linda Ewing United Auto Workers; Colleen A. Fahy

Assumption College; Loretta Fairchild Nebraska Wesleyan

University; David Fairris University of California--

Riverside; Warren E. Farb International Capital Mobility

Domestic Investment; Martin Farnham University of Victoria;

Jeff Faux Economic Policy Institute; Susan Fayazmanesh

California State University--Fresno; Rashi Fein Harvard

Medical School; Robert M. Feinberg American University; Susan

F. Feiner University of Southern Maine; Marshall Feldman

University of Rhode Island; Marianne A. Ferber University of

Illinois--Urbana-Champaign; William D. Ferguson Grinnell

College; Rudy Fichtenbaum Wright State University; Deborah M.

Figart Richard Stockton College; Bart D. Fmzel University

of Minnesota--Morris; Lydia Fischer United Auto Workers,

retired; Peter Fisher University of Iowa; John Fitzgerald

Bowdoin College; Sean Flaherty Franklin and Marshall

College; Kenneth Flamm University of Texas--Austin; Maria

S. Floro American University; Nancy Folbre University of

Massachusetts--Amherst; Christina M. Fong Carnegie Mellon

University; Catherine Forman Quinnipiac University; Harold

A. Forman United Food and Commercial Workers; Mathew

Forstater University of Missouri--Kansas City; Liana Fox

Economic Policy Institute; Donald G. Freeman Sam Houston

State University; Gerald Friedman University of

Massachusetts--Amherst; Sheldon Friedman AFL-CIO; Alan

Frishman Hobart and William Smith Colleges; Scott T.

Fullwiler Wartburg College; Kevin Furey Chemeketa

Community College; Jason Furman New York University; David

Gabel Queens College; James K. Galbraith University of

Texas--Austin; Monica Galizzi University of

Massachusetts--Lowell; David E. Gallo California State

University--Chico; Byron Gangnes University of Hawaii--

Manoa; Irwin Garfinkel Columbia University; Rob Garnett

Texas Christian University; Garance Genicot Georgetown

University; Christophre Georges Hamilton College; Malcolm

Getz Vanderbilt University; Teresa Ghilarducci University

of Notre Dame; Karen J. Gibson Portland State University;

Richard J. Gilbert University of California--Berkeley;

Helen Lachs Ginsburg Brooklyn College--City University of

New York; Herbert Gintis University of Massachusetts--

Amherst; Neil Gladstein International Association of

Machinists and Aerospace Workers; Amy Glasmeier Penn State

University; Norman J. Glickman Rutgers University; Robert

Glover University of Texas--Austin; Arthur S. Goldberger

University of Wisconsin--Madison; Lonnie Golden Penn State

University--Abington College; Dan Goldhaber University of

Washington; Marshall I. Goldman Wellesley College; Steven

M. Goldman University of California--Berkeley; William W.

Goldsmith Cornell University; Donald Goldstein Allegheny

College; Nance Goldstein University of Southern Maine;

Nick Gomersall Luther College; Eban S. Goodstein Lewis and

Clark College; Neva Goodwin Tufts University; Roger Gordon

University of California--San Diego; Peter Gottschalk

Boston College; Elise Gould Economic Policy Institute;

Harvey Gram Queens College, City University of New York;

Jim Grant Lewis & Clark College; Ulla Grapard Colgate

University; Daphne Greenwood University of Colorado--

Colorado Springs; Karl Gregory Oakland University;

Christopher Gunn Hobart and William Smith Colleges; Steven

C. Hackett Humboldt State University; Joseph E. Harrington

Johns Hopkins University; Douglas N. Harris Florida State

University; Jonathan M. Harris Tufts University; Martin

Hart; Landsberg Lewis & Clark College; Robert Haveman

University of Wisconsin--Madison; Sue Headlee American

University; Carol E. Heim University of Massachusetts--

Amherst; James Heintz University of Massachusetts--

Amherst; Paul A. Heise Lebanon Valley College; Susan

Helper Case Western Reserve University; John F. Henry

University of Missouri--Kansas City; Barry Herman The New

School; Edward S. Herman University of Pennsylvania;

Guillermo E. Herrera Bowdoin College; Joni Hersch

Vanderbilt University Law School; Thomas Hertel Purdue

University; Steven Herzenberg Keystone Research Center;

Donald D. Hester University of Wisconsin--Madison; Gillian

Hewitson Franklin and Marshall College; Bert G. Hickman

Stanford University; Marianne T. Hill Center for Policy

Research and Planning; Martha S. Hill University of

Michigan--Ann Arbor; Michael G. Hillard University of

Southern Maine; Rod Hissong University of Texas--

Arlington; P. Sai-Wing Ho University of Denver; Emily P.

Hoffman Western Michigan University; Harry J. Holzer

Georgetown University and Urban Institute; Marjorie Honig

Hunter College, City University of New York; Barbara E.

Hopkins Wright State University; Mark R. Hopkins

Gettysburg College; Ann Horowitz University of Florida;

Ismael Hossein; Zadeh Drake University; Charles W. Howe

University of Colorado--Boulder; Candace Howes Connecticut

College; Frank M. Howland Wabash College; David C. Huffman

Bridgewater College; Saul H. Hymans University of

Michigan--Ann Arbor; Frederick S. Inaba Washington State

University; Alan G. Isaac American University; Doreen

Isenberg University of Redlands; Jonathan Isham Middlebury

College; Sanford M. Jacoby University of California--Los

Angeles; Robert G. James California State University--

Chico; Kenneth P. Jameson University of Utah; Russell A.

Janis University of Massachusetts--Amherst; Elizabeth J.

Jensen Hamilton College; Pascale Joassart University of

Massachusetts--Boston; Jerome Joffe St. John's University;

Laurie Johnson University of Denver; William Johnson

Arizona State University; Lawrence D. Jones University of

British Columbia; Alexander J. Julius New York University;

Bernard Jump Syracuse University; Fadhel Kaboub Drew

University; Shulamit Kahn Boston University; Linda Kamas

Santa Clara University; Sheila B. Kamerman Columbia

University; John Kane State University of New York--

Oswego; Billie Kanter California State University--Chico;

J.K. Kapler University of Massachusetts--Boston; Roger T.

Kaufman Smith College; David E. Kaun University of

California--Santa Cruz; Thomas A. Kemp University of

Wisconsin--Eau Claire; Peter B. Kenen Princeton

University; Farida C. Khan University of Wisconsin--Parks

ide; Kwan S. Kim University of Notre Dame; Marlene Kim

University of Massachusetts--Boston; Christopher T. King

University of Texas--Austin; Mary C. King Portland State

University; Lori G. Kletzer University of California--

Santa Cruz; Janet T. Knoedler Bucknell University; Tim

Koechlin Vassar College; Andrew I. Kohen James Madison

University; Denise Eby Konan University of Hawaii--Manoa;

Ebru Kongar Dickinson College; James Konow Loyola

Marymount University; Krishna Kool University of Rio

Grande; Douglas Koritz Buffalo State College; Daniel J.

Kovenock Purdue University; Kate Krause University of New

Mexico; Vadaken N. Krishnan Bowling Green State

University; Douglas Kruse Rutgers University; David

Laibman Brooklyn College--City University of New York;

Robert M. La; Jeunesse University of Newcastle; Kevin Lang

Boston University; Catherine Langlois Georgetown

University; Mehrene Larudee DePaul University; Gary A.

Latanich Arkansas State University; Robert Z. Lawrence

Harvard University--Kennedy School of Government; Daniel

Lawson Drew University; William Lazonick University of

Massachusetts--Lowell; Joelle J. Leclaire Buffalo State

College; Frederic S. Lee University of Missouri Kansas

City; Marvin Lee San Jose State University; Sang-Hyop Lee

University of Hawaii--Manoa; Woojin Lee University of

Massachusetts--Amherst; Thomas D. Legg University of

Minnesota; J. Paul Leigh University of California--Davis;

Charles Levenstein University of Massachusetts--Lowell;

Margaret C. Levenstein University of Michigan--Ann Arbor I

Henry M. Levin Columbia University; Herbert S. Levine

University of Pennsylvania; Mark Levinson Economic Policy

Institute; Oren M. Levin-

Waldman Metropolitan College of New York; Mark K. Levitan

Community Service Society of New York; Stephen Levy Center

for Continuing Study of California Economy; Arthur Lewbel

Boston College; Lynne Y. Lewis Bates College; David L.

Lindauer Wellesley College; Victor D. Lippit University of

California--Riverside; Pamela J. Loprest Urban Institute;

Richard Lotspeich Indiana State University; Michael C.

Lovell Wesleyan University; Milton Lower Retired Senior

Economist, U.S. House of Representatives; Stephanie Luce

University of Massachusetts--Amherst; Robert Lucore United

American Nurses; Jens Otto Ludwig Georgetown University;

Dan Luria Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center; Devon

Lynch University of Denver; Lisa M. Lynch Tufts

University; Robert G. Lynch Washington College; Catherine

Lynde University of Massachusetts--Boston; Arthur MacEwan

University of Massachusetts--Boston; Hasan MacNeil

California State University--Chico; Allan MacNeill Webster

University; Craig R. MacPhee University of Nebraska--

Lincoln; Diane J. Macunovich University of Redlands;

Janice F. Madden University of Pennsylvania; Mark H. Maier

Glendale Community College; Thomas N. Maloney University

of Utah; Jay R. Mandie Colgate University; Andrea Maneschi

Vanderbilt University; Garth Mangum University of Utah;

Catherine L. Mann Brandeis University; Don Mar

San Francisco State University; Dave E. Marcotte

University of Maryland--Baltimore County; Robert A. Margo

Boston University; Ann R. Markusen University of

Minnesota--Twin Cities; Ray Marshall University of Texas

LBJ School of Public Affairs; Stephen Martin Purdue

University; Patrick L Mason Florida State University;

Thomas Masterson Westfield State College; Julie A.

Matthaei Wellesley College; Peter Hans Matthews Middlebury

College; Anne Mayhew University of Tennessee--Knoxville;

Alan K. McAdams Cornell University; Timothy D. McBride St.

Louis University School of Public Health; Elaine McCrate

University of Vermont; Kate McGovern Springfield College;

Richard D. McGrath Armstrong Atlantic State University;

Richard McIntyre University of Rhode Island; Hannah

McKinney Kalamazoo College; Judith Record McKinney Hobart

and William Smith Colleges; Andrew McLennan University of

Sydney; Charles W. McMillion MBG Information Services;

Ellen Meara Harvard Medical School; Martin Melkonian

Hofstra University; Jo Beth Mertens Hobart and William

Smith Colleges; Peter B. Meyer University of Louisville

and Northern Kentucky University; Thomas R. Michl Colgate

University; Edward Miguel University of California--

Berkeley; William Milberg The New School; John A. Miller

Wheaton College; S.M. Miller Cambridge Institute and

Boston University; Jerry Miner Syracuse University; Daniel

J.B. Mitchel University of California--Los Angeles; Edward

B. Montgomery University of Maryland; Sarah Montgomery

Mount Holyoke College; Robert E. Moore Georgia State

University; Barbara A. Morgan Johns Hopkins University;

John R. Morris University of Colorado--Denver; Monique

Morrissey Economic Policy Institute; Lawrence B. Morse

North Carolina A&T State University; Saeed Mortazavi

Humboldt State University; Fred Moseley Mount Holyoke

College; Philip I. Moss University of Massachusetts--

Lowell; Tracy Mott University of Denver; Steven D. Mullins

Drury University; Alicia H. Munnell Boston College;

Richard J. Murnane Harvard University; Matthew D. Murphy

Gainesville State College; Michael Murray Bates College;

Peggy B. Musgrave University of California--Santa Cruz;

Richard A. Musgrave Harvard University; Ellen Mutari

Richard Stockton College; Sirisha Naidu Wright State

University; Michele Naples The College of New Jersey; Tara

Natarajan St. Michael's College; Julie A. Nelson Tufts

University; Reynold F. Nesiba Augustana College; Donald A.

Nichols University of Wisconsin--Madison; Eric Nilsson

California State University--San Bernardino; Laurie

Nisonoff Hampshire College; Emily Northrop Southwestern

University; Bruce Norton San Antonio College; Stephen A.

O'Connell Swarthmore College; Mehmet Odekon Skidmore

College; Paulette Olson Wright State University; Paul Ong

University of California--Los Angeles; Van Doorn Ooms

Committee for Economic Development; Jonathan M. Orszag

Competition Policy Associates, Inc.; Paul Osterman

Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Shaianne T.

Osterreich Ithaca College; Rudolph A. Oswald George Meany

Labor Studies Center; Spencer J. Pack Connecticut College;

Arnold Packer Johns Hopkins University; Dimitri B.

Papadimitriou The Levy Economic Institute of Bard College;

James A. Parrott Fiscal Policy Institute; Manuel Pastor

University of California--Santa Cruz; Eva A. Paus Mount

Holyoke College; Jim Peach New Mexico State University; M.

Stephen Pendleton Buffalo State College; Michael Perelman

California State University--Chico; Kenneth Peres

Communications Workers of America; George L. Perry The

Brookings Institution; Joseph Persky University of

Illinois--Chicago; Karen A. Pfeifer Smith College; Bruce

Pietrykowski University of Michigan--Dearborn; Michael J.

Piore Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Karen R.

Polenske Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Robert

Pollin University of Massachusetts--Amherst; Marshall

Pomer Macroeconomic Policy Institute; Tod Porter

Youngstown State University; Shirley L. Porterfield

University of Missouri--St. Louis; Michael J. Potepan San

Francisco State University; Marilyn Power Sarah Lawrence

College; Thomas Power University of Montana; Robert E.

Prasch Middlebury College; Mark A. Price Keystone Research

Center; Jean L. Pyle University of Massachusetts--Lowell;

Paddy Quick St. Francis College; John M. Quigley

University of California--Berkeley; Willard W. Radell, Jr.

Indiana University of Pennsylvania; Fredric Raines

Washington University in St. Louis; Steven Raphael

University of California--Berkeley; Salim Rashid

University of Illinois--Urbana--Champaign; Wendy L. Rayack

Wesleyan University; Randall Reback Barnard College,

Columbia University; Robert Rebelein Vassar College; James

B. Rebitzer Case Western Reserve University; Daniel I.

Rees University of Colorado--Denver; Michael Reich

University of California--Berkeley; Robert B. Reich

University of California--Berkeley; Cordelia Reimers

Hunter College and The Graduate Center--City University of

New York; Donald Renner Minnesota State University--

Mankato; Trudi Renwick Fiscal Policy Institute; Andrew

Reschovsky University of Wisconsin--Madison. Lee A. Reynis

University of New Mexico; Daniel Richards Tufts

University; Bruce Roberts University of Southern Maine;

Barbara J. Robles Arizona State University; John Roche St.

John Fisher College; Charles P. Rock Rollins College;

William M. Rodgers III Rutgers University; Dani Rodrik

Harvard University; John E. Roemer Yale University;

William O. Rohlf Drury University; Gerard Roland

University of California--Berkeley; Frank Roosevelt Sarah

Lawrence College; Jaime Ros University of Notre Dame;

Nancy E. Rose California State University--San Bernardino;

Howard F. Rosen Trade Adjustment Assistance Coalition;

Joshua L. Rosenbloom University of Kansas; William W. Ross

Fu Associates, Ltd.; Roy J. Rothelm Skidmore College;

Jesse Rothstein Princeton University; Geoffrey Rothwell

Stanford University; Joydeep Roy Economic Policy

Institute; David Runsten Community Alliance with Family

Farmers; Lynda Rush California State Polytechnic

University--Pomona; Gregory M. Saltzman Albion College and

the University of Michigan; Sydney Saltzman Cornell

University; Dominick Salvatore Fordham University; Blair

Sandler San Francisco, California; Daniel E. Saros

Valparaiso University; Michael Sattinger University at

Albany; Dawn Saunders Castleton State College; Larry

Sawers American University; Max Sawicky Economic Policy

Institute; Peter V. Schaeffer West Virginia University;

William C. Schauiel University of West Georgia; A. Allan

Schmid Michigan State University; Stephen J. Schmidt Union

College; John Schmitt Center for Economic and Policy

Research; Juliet B. Schor Boston College; C. Heike

Schotten University of Massachusetts--Boston; Eric A.

Schutz Rollins College; Elliot Sclar Columbia University;

Allen J. Scott University of California--Los Angeles;

Bruce R. Scott Harvard Business School; Robert Scott

Economic Policy Institute; Stephauie Seguino University of

Vermont; Laurence Seidman University of Delaware; Janet

Seiz Grinnell College; Willi Semmler The New School; Mina

Zeynep Senses Johns Hopkins University; Jean Shackelford

Bucknell University; Harry G. Shaffer University of

Kansas; Sumitra Shah St. John's University; Robert J.

Shapiro Sonecon LLC; Mohammed Sharif University of Rhode

Island; Lois B. Shaw Institute for Women's Policy

Research; Heidi Shierholz University of Toronto; Deep

Shikha College of St. Catherine; Richard L. Shirey Siena

College; Steven Shulman Colorado State University;

Laurence Shute California State Polytechnic University--

Pomona; Stephen J. Silvia American University; Michael E.

Simmons North Carolina A&T State University; Margaret C.

Simms Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies;

Chris Skelley Rollins College; Max J. Skidmore University

of Missouri--Kansas City; Peter Skott University of

Massachusetts--Amherst; Courtenay M. Slater Arlington,

Virginia; Timothy M. Smeeding Syracuse University; Janet

Spitz College of Saint Rose; William Spriggs Howard

University; James L. Starkey University of Rhode Island;

Martha A. Starr American University; Howard Stein

University of Michigan--Ann Arbor; Mary Huff Stevenson

University of Massachusetts--Boston; James B. Stewart

Pennsylvania State University; Jeffrey Stewart Northern

Kentucky University. Robert J. Stonebraker Winthrop

University; Michael Storper University of California--Los

Angeles; Diana Strassmann Rice University; Cornelia J.

Strawser Consultant; Frederick R. Strobel New College of

Florida; James I. Sturgeon University of Missouri--Kansas

City; David M. Sturges Colgate University; William A.

Sundstrom Santa Clara University; Jonathan Sunshine

Reston, Virginia; Paul Swaim Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development; Craig Swan University of

Minnesota--Twin Cities; Paul A. Swanson William Paterson

University; William K. Tabb Queens College; Peter Temin

Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Judith Tendler

Massachusetts Institute of Technology; David Terkla

University of Massachusetts--Boston; Kenneth Thomas

University of Missouri--St. Louis; Frank Thompson

University of Michigan--Ann Arbor; Ross D. Thomson

University of Vermont; Emanuel D. Thorne Brooklyn

College--City University of New York; Jill Tiefenthaler

Colgate University; Thomas H. Tietenberg Colby College;

Chris Tilly University of Massachusetts--Lowell; Renee

Toback Empire State College; Mayo C. Toruno California

State University--San Bernardino; W. Scott Trees Siena

College; A.

Dale Tussing Syracuse University; James Tybout Penn State

University; Christopher Udry Yale University; Daniel A.

Underwood Peninsula College; Lynn Unruh University of

Central Florida; Leanne Ussher Queens College, City

University of New York; David Vail Bowdoin College; Vivian

Grace Valdmanis University of the Sciences in

Philadelphia; William Van Lear Belmont Abbey College; Lane

Vanderslice Hunger Notes; Lise Vesterlund University of

Pittsburgh; Michael G. Vogt Eastern Michigan University;

Paula B. Voos Rutgers University; Mark Votruba Case

Western Reserve University; Susan Vroman Georgetown

University; Howard M. Wachtel American University; Jeffrey

Waddoups University of Nevada--Las Vegas; Norman Waitzman

University of Utah; Lawrence A. Waldman University of New

Mexico; John F. Walker Portland State University; William

Waller Hobart and William Smith Colleges; Jennifer Warlick

University of Notre Dame; Matthew Warning University of

Puget Sound; Bernard Wasow The Century Foundation; Robert

W. Wassmer California State University--Sacramento; Sidney

Weintraub Center for Strategic and International Studies;

Mark Weisbrot Center for Economic and Policy Research;

Charles L. Weise Gettysburg College; Thomas E. Weisskopf

University of Michigan--Ann Arbor; Christian E. Weller

Center for American Progress; Fred M. Westfield Vanderbilt

University; Charles J. Whalen Perspectives on Work;

Cathleen L. Whiting Williamette University; Howard Wial

The Brookings Institution; Linda Wilcox Young Southern

Oregon University; Arthur R. Williams Rochester--

Minnesota; Robert G. Williams Guilford College; John

Willoughby American University; Valerie Rawlston Wilson

National Urban League; Jon D. Wisman American University;

Barbara L. Wolfe University of Wisconsin--Madison; Edward

Wolff New York University; Martin Wolfson University of

Notre Dame; Brenda Wyss Wheaton College; Yavuz Yasar

University of Denver; Anne Yeagle University of Utah;

Erinc Yelden University of Massachusetts--Amherst; Ben E.

Young University of Missouri--Kansas City; Edward G. Young

University of Wisconsin--Eau Claire; June Zaccone National

Jobs for All Coalition and Hofstra University; Ajit

Zacharias Levy Economics Institute of Bard College; David

A. Zalewski Providence College; Henry W. Zaretsky Henry W.

Zaretsky & Associates, Inc.; Jim Zelenski Regis

University; Andrew Zimbalist Smith College; and John

Zysman University of California--Berkeley.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee and a long-time proponent of increasing the minimum wage and making our economy fairer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Sires).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) on behalf of raising the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Essentially, the case that the gentleman from Georgia makes, it just doesn't reflect the reality on the ground. As those States have increased the minimum wage far above the Federal minimum wage, their economies have expanded, job hiring has expanded, business growth has expanded far faster than in those States that thought it was in their interest to keep a lower minimum wage.

And I also find it interesting that in my own State of California the business organizations support an increase in minimum wage to $8 an hour and our economy continues to grow and continues to add those jobs. So the real-world experience is different than data from 20 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the

gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), a member of the committee.

(Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the Congressional Daily that the Republican ranking member on this committee says he does not expect the health care package to be part of minimum wage. So, once again, we have a mismatch here of hijacking this bill to improve minimum wage for the lowest-wage working people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

(Ms. SUTTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a long-time battler for economic and social justice.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting that speaker after speaker gets up on the other side of the floor and in spite of the economic evidence of how well those States that have raised their minimum wages are doing compared in terms of job creation and economic growth to those States that kept the minimum wage low; it is rather compelling and overwhelming evidence in terms of higher job growth and higher economic growth, significantly higher even in the retail professions in those States that increased the minimum wage.

It is also rather interesting in light of the fact that the Gallup Poll of small business owners in March of last year said the overwhelming majority of small business owners, 86 percent, say the minimum wage had no impact on them. Nearly half the small business owners, 46 percent, supported the increase in the minimum wage.

It is an interesting dynamic you are talking about, but it is almost 20 years out of date in terms of the economics, what is taking place, as States have continued to raise the minimum wage, and the economic growth that has followed the wage increases that have followed, the growth and retail, which is very difficult in a competitive area, and the job growth that was created in those areas because people had money to put into the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) who has been a long-time advocate of the increase in the minimum wage, both in this Congress and before he came to this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the staff of the Education and Labor Committee, Jody Calemine and Michele Varnhagen, for all of their work on this legislation. They have diligently worked for years to get this day to come before the House of Representatives, and I know they have the appreciation of all of the members of our committee.

I also want to thank our newer staff members, Megan O'Reilly, Brian Kennedy and Michael Gaffin, for their good work today and all of their efforts on behalf of this legislation, preparing it for the floor.

I also want to thank my colleagues on this side of the aisle who argued on behalf of this bill to increase the minimum wage, and I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who said that they were going to support this measure. They may not fully agree with it, but they said they would support it.

And I want to thank the cosponsors of this legislation, including I believe seven Republicans who were original cosponsors of this legislation and over 193 Democrats on this side of the aisle.

I was especially taken with the remarks of my colleagues on this side of the aisle who understand that this debate is about more than dollars and cents per hour. This is about the values of this Nation. It is about the value we place on work. It is about the statement that we make to people who go to work every day and work terribly hard in very difficult jobs that most people in this country would prefer not to have. But they go to work every day to do that, to provide for themselves, to provide for their children or to provide for their families.

When you talk to minimum wage workers, whether they are providing for themselves or themselves and a child or a child and a spouse, it is tough. It is tough. As the gentleman said on the front page of The Washington Post today, ``When I get all done, I have nothing left for me,'' because he is also taking care of his parents as he is earning the minimum wage.

So this is a big day. This is a big day because this is the first time in 10 years that the Congress signals that in fact we are going to raise the minimum wage.

It is what our leader, Speaker Pelosi, said she wanted to do in this first 100 hours. In this first 100 hours she wanted to address urgent parts of the national agenda that are of deep concern to the American people. And to over 80 percent of the American people in this country, they understand that the increase in the Federal minimum wage is a matter of morality, it is a matter of their values, it is a matter of the reflection of our Nation. They understand that these people, minimum wage workers in this country, have been working at a wage that is 10 years old. Ten years old. And they understand the unfairness of that, and they understand the difficulty of that.

That is why we brought this bill as a clean bill, because we wanted to highlight and to speak to the Nation about this group of workers who are toiling in spite of the fact that in 28 States they have raised the minimum wage at or above the levels we are talking about. In spite of that fact there are still some 13 million people who are directly impacted by the actions we take here today and the actions we take later on to send this bill to the President of the United States.

There are 13 million people whose economic viability is dependent upon this bill to increase the minimum wage. That is why we have to do this, and that is why I am so terribly proud of the Members who stood up today and argued for this increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve 5 minutes of my time, yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) so he may have a similar amount of time, and yield back the balance of my time over the 5 minutes.

Thank you, Mr. McKeon, for allowing the Ways and Means Committee to control 30 minutes of the time in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.

This debate today is important. It is obviously important to a lot of people around the country who are making minimum wage or who would seek an entry-level job in our country. It is also important, though, to many small businesses around our Nation who are struggling to stay in business, struggling to create jobs, and to face the competition often from much bigger establishments that have some advantages in the marketplace. It is those small businesses that the McKeon-McCrery alternative would address today. If we are given the chance today to modify the legislation before us to include some benefits for small businesses, in our view this would greatly improve the legislation before us regarding the minimum wage.

Let me just briefly explain what that alternative would be if Members of this House were given the opportunity to vote on it.

The minimum wage provisions would be the same as in the underlying legislation that is on the floor today. It would increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over 2 years in three increments. But it would add to that a provision from the Education and Labor Committee regarding association health plans that would make it easier for small businesses to get health insurance for their employees, and three tax provisions designed to help small businesses cope with the burden that would be placed on them by an increase in the minimum wage.

Those three tax provisions are a 1-year extension of the higher small business expensing limits. As you will recall, we passed in the last few years legislation allowing small businesses to expense up to $100,000 of investment in their small business in the year of that investment. That provision currently is scheduled to expire at the end of 2009. This legislation, this alternative that we would like to present today, would extend that provision 1 year through 2010.

The next tax provision that would help small businesses is a 15-year depreciation period for new restaurant construction.

Now, that is important because current law allows a much shorter depreciation period, 15 years, for leasehold improvements, including restaurants, but it has to be improvements to an existing building. In the restaurant business, a lot of times to keep up with the competition and to keep market share, an owner will have to build a new facility. You can't just refurbish the old facility. You have got to build a new building to keep pace.

Under the current law though, he would have to depreciate that investment over 39 years. This provision would put him on an equal standing with those who just recently built a restaurant and are upgrading it with improvements.

So it would give a 15-year depreciation period, both to leasehold improvements for existing buildings, existing restaurants, but also a 15-year depreciation period for the construction of new restaurants.

Finally, the third tax provision that we would add to this legislation to help small businesses would be the FUTA surtax repeal, that is the unemployment payroll tax. Back in the 1970s, when we were having problems with our unemployment trust fund, and we were extending unemployment benefits across the Nation, we had to impose a surtax to bring money into the system to be able to pay the unemployment bills around the country. That debt though was paid off in the 1980s, and for whatever reason, Congress has decided to continually extend that unemployment surtax.

This bill would accelerate the expiration of that .2 percent unemployment surtax that employers have to pay today. It would accelerate it from the end of this year 2007 to April 1 of 2007.

As you know, that surtax, that .2 surtax is imposed only on the first $7,000 of wages, so it would most directly give relief to those employers who have those low-skilled, low-dollar employees, and would give them some immediate relief in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, our proposal is to increase the minimum wage, but also give help to those businesses that will be most adversely affected by the imposition of these increased costs for their businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Linder.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the Congressional Budget Office as to the cost to State, local, and tribal governments and to the private sector of the provisions of the legislation before us; simply about $1 billion to governments and about $16 billion to the private sector, mostly small businesses.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, December 29, 2006.

Hon. William ``Bill'' M. Thomas,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to respond, in the

attachment to this letter, to your questions about the

potential effects on government revenues and outlays that

could result from enactment of an increase in the federal

minimum wage rate from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.

In addition, at the request of Congressman McKeon, CBO has

prepared a cost estimate (dated December 29, 2006) for H.R.

2429, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005, which would raise

the minimum wage to $7.25 in three steps over a two-year

period. A copy of that estimate is also attached.

If you require additional information about the effects of

increases in the minimum wage, CBO will be pleased to provide

it. The staff contacts are Paul Cullinan, Ralph Smith, and

Mark Booth.

Sincerely,

Donald B. Marron,

Acting Director.

Attachments.

Congressional Budget Office Responses to Questions Posed by Congressman

Thomas About the Effects of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage

Question. How many workers currently earning under or just

above $7.25 an hour would be affected? Does CBO believe that

a higher minimum wage will result in increased unemployment

among this group?

Answer. According to data from the Current Population

Survey, in October 2006, there were approximately 8.4 million

workers usually paid on an hourly wage basis whose wage rate

was between $5.15, the current federal minimum wage rate, and

$7.25; two-thirds of them were paid more than $6.00 per hour.

The number of workers at or just above the federal minimum

wage rate has been declining and is expected to continue to

decline because of market forces and actions taken by many

states. As of October 2006, 20 states and the District of

Columbia had laws that required employers covered by their

legislation to pay wage rates above $5.15 per hour.

In 2007, eight more states will fall in that category. Some

states, including California and Massachusetts, will have

minimum wage rates above $7.25. Thus, the number of people

that would be directly affected by an increase in the federal

minimum wage rate and the magnitude of the wage adjustments

that would be required of employers are expected to diminish

over time.

The potential employment and unemployment impacts of

raising the federal minimum wage rate to $7.25 per hour are

difficult to predict, but are likely to be small. Economists

have devoted considerable energy to the task of estimating

how employers would respond to such a mandate. Although most

economists would agree that an increase in the minimum wage

rate would cause firms to employ fewer low-wage workers,

there is considerable disagreement about the magnitude of the

reduction. The main reason for that disagreement is the

difficulty in distinguishing the effects on employment that

were attributable to past changes in the minimum wage from

those that were attributable to other changes in the labor

market.

Moreover, the results of such analyses are difficult to

apply to future changes because labor market conditions will

be different. Many of the attempts to estimate the employment

impacts of increases in the minimum wage were based on data

from periods in which the federal minimum wage was much

higher, as a percentage of average wages, than it is now or

will be when any proposed increases would take effect.

Likewise, the number of people paid at the federal minimum

wage rate is much smaller now than it was prior to previous

increases even though the labor force has grown

significantly.

Employers could respond to an increase in the federal

minimum wage in many different ways. Some would reduce the

number of workers they employed or cut back on the number of

hours worked by some of their employees. Because many of

the workers in the affected wage range are on part-time

schedules, reducing the hours of employment might be

easier to do than it would be if all workers were employed

on fixed eight-hour schedules.

Other ways that employers might respond to an increase in

the federal minimum wage would not involve adjustments in

employment levels or hours. Employers might screen job

applicants more closely to select employees from whom they

would expect higher productivity. Some employers might reduce

fringe benefits for their employees. Some employers might

attempt to pass along at least a portion of the additional

payroll costs to their customers by raising prices. They

might be successful in doing so if their competitors were

also faced with higher labor costs because of the increase in

the minimum wage.

Any reductions in the growth in employment resulting from

such an increase in the minimum wage rate would not

necessarily result in a corresponding increase in

unemployment--that is, the number of people actively seeking

work. The impact on the level of unemployment would also

depend on how the changes in work opportunities resulting

from an increase in the minimum wage rate affected people's

decisions about participating in the labor force.

Question. Does CBO expect there to be any increased or

decreased spending on work support programs such as the

Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, or Food Stamps? Is there

an expected increase or decrease in the number of people

participating in these antipoverty programs as a result of

higher wages resulting from the minimum wage?

Answer. The increases in the minimum wage on the order of

magnitude suggested in your letter could affect federal

spending, but the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) judges

that those effects would be small. Moreover, whether those

impacts would be an increase or decrease in spending is

uncertain because the result would depend on the income and

family characteristics of the affected individuals. Some

workers would see their incomes increased, but others might

see their work hours and earnings decline (or sometimes

eliminated completely) as employers responded to the increase

in the minimum wage. CBO expects that, in many cases, those

groups of workers would have similar characteristics and

therefore similar tendencies to participate in public

programs. For those workers newly unemployed, increased

participation in assistance programs would generate

significant additional costs on a per-case basis, but

decreased costs for workers with increased earnings would

offset most or all of that effect.

The majority of minimum-wage workers do not receive any

benefits under the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Food

Stamp program, or Medicaid. Those eligible for EITC payments

could receive either higher or lower payments depending on

whether or not they were in the ``phase-in'' or the ``phase-

out'' income ranges. Workers would lose EITC payments if they

were in the phase-out range and received higher earnings, and

they would gain EITC payments if they were in the phase-in

range and received higher earnings, within limits. CBO's

analysis suggests that more affected workers are in the

phase-out range than in the phase-in range. However, the

implicit tax rate for EITC recipients in the phase-out range

is generally much lower than the rate of benefit accrual for

recipients in the phase-in range. As a result, CBO's

preliminary analysis suggests that the phase-in and phase-out

effects would virtually offset each other and total EITC

payments would be little changed.

Food Stamp benefits would fall for some workers, but could

rise for others if they were among those in the labor force

who saw their work hours decline. Similarly, some Medicaid

recipients would reach income levels that would make them

ineligible for that coverage, while others whose work hours

were diminished might become eligible.

Question. Will there be significant increases in the amount

of payroll or income taxes collected as a result of the

increased income from affected workers?

Answer. CBO's estimate of the potential effects of an

increase in the minimum wage on federal revenues is similar

to that for spending--the impact would be small and of

indeterminate direction. The effective tax rates for workers

whose income would rise are not likely to be very different

from those who might see their hours and earnings decreased.

Those effective tax rates reflect payroll taxes (for Social

Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance) and income

taxes.

Question. What effect will the increased minimum wage have

on the unemployment insurance program? Does CBO expect that

state unemployment payroll taxes will need to be increased or

that unemployment benefit payments will increase as a result

of any unemployment resulting from the increase in the

minimum wage?

Answer. CBO estimates that increases in the minimum wage

would have a negligible effect on the unemployment insurance

(UI) program. Unemployment benefits might rise slightly from

any increase in unemployment that might ensue, but only a

very small share of minimum-wage workers end up qualifying

for benefits. Initially, taxes under the program could rise

or fall depending on what happened to earnings under the

annual cap on taxable wages. Moreover, to the extent that the

balances in the state UI accounts deviated from a state's

desired position, the state would adjust its tax rates and

benefit provisions to offset those deviations, CBO assumes.

Thus, CBO expects the net effect on the UI program to be

neutral over time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman from New Jersey talked about the experience in New Jersey of increasing the minimum wage, and he stated that no jobs were lost. He didn't cite any study to that effect. He just stated it. There are studies, though, that show that after the increase in minimum wage in the 1990s, there were, in fact, job losses. 146,000 jobs were cut from restaurant payrolls, and operators of restaurants signaled plans to postpone hiring an additional 106,000 new employees because of the raise of the minimum wage. And, also, the Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that following the increase in minimum wage, net increase in jobs were significantly reduced around the country. And whether that is a coincidence or not, we don't know, but certainly the evidence is fairly clear that there was an impact.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, just in response to the gentleman from Oregon, no one here is suggesting that government does not have a legitimate role to play in protecting workers' rights. That is not the point of the alternative that we are trying to offer here today.

Our point is that the businesses that will be most directly impacted by the increased mandated burden of costs need to be helped so that we minimize the job loss that we know will come as a result of that.

So I agree with the gentleman: There is a legitimate role, and we are not arguing that. In fact, our alternative does increase the minimum wage and gives help to those businesses that will most directly be impacted.

I don't have time to yield, but I will talk to the gentleman off the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), another distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, as the minority leader's designee, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this debate represents a series of colossal missed opportunities. The new Democratic leadership of the House promised us and the voters a fair, open, honest, and, yes, democratic process in considering major pieces of legislation. Instead, today we are stuck with unfair, closed and heavy-handed terms for our debate, terms that were tucked into an unrelated rules package less than a week ago.

Not only was that move unprecedented, but it also means that during today's debate on a minimum wage increase, what you see is what you get. No comprehensive alternative has been allowed. No amendments will be considered. In fact, I didn't even get a chance for those types of considerations before the Rules Committee because, well, the Rules Committee didn't meet on this issue. There was no hearing.

That is unfortunate because, frankly, there are Members on both sides of the aisle who support a balanced minimum wage increase, and this bill, this early in the Congress, represented an opportunity to work together toward a true, bipartisan, bicameral consensus. But we won't, and that is a colossal missed opportunity.

My colleagues will remember that last summer the Republican majority brought forward and passed legislation to increase the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 an hour with important considerations for small businesses and their workers. Many Democrats joined us in advancing the measure. In fact, had a few more on the other side of the Capitol supported this measure, today's debate would be unnecessary because the minimum wage increase would already have taken place.

Nonetheless, I was hopeful that when we considered minimum wage legislation under the new Democratic majority we would again do so with our Nation's small businesses and their workers in mind, particularly since both the President and the Senate majority leader have indicated their willingness to forge such a consensus. But it is apparent that we are not here on this side of the Capitol, and that is a colossal missed opportunity. So later in this debate I will offer a motion to recommit that would provide them the very protections that the Democratic leadership's bill does not.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, my friend, the ranking Republican member on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McCrery from Louisiana, and I introduced minimum wage legislation that,

quite frankly, puts the bill before us today to shame. It is a three- pronged measure that includes the same, the same, minimum wage provisions that are in the Democratic leadership's bill.

As you can see on the chart, here is the unbalanced Democratic plan. It does raise the minimum wage. Then the comprehensive Republican plan. It also raises the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour over the 2 years, in precisely the same increments as the Democrat leadership's bill.

Also identical to the Democrat leadership bill, the Working Families Wage and Access to Health Care Act that we offered yesterday would extend the Federal minimum wage to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. We don't stop there, however. But the Democrat leadership does, another colossal missed opportunity.

As you can see, the Working Families Wage and Access to Health Care Act not only increases the minimum wage in the same exact manner as H.R. 2, but it also would expand access to affordable health care for working families, including many families that may benefit from the wage increase. The Democratic leadership's scaled-down proposal does not include this.

For the last several Congresses, Republicans and Democrats alike have joined together behind legislation that would significantly expand access to health coverage for uninsured families across the country by creating Small Business Health Plans.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of Americans who have no health insurance is about 46.5 million. Estimates indicate 60 percent or more of the working uninsured work for or depend upon small employers who lack the ability to provide health benefits for their workers. To ease the burden on small businesses and provide meaningful benefits to those who work for them, the Working Families Wage and Access to Health Care Act would allow small businesses to join together and purchase quality health care for workers and their families at a lower cost.

Now, during today's debate, we are likely to hear from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle about how a certain percentage of the American people support a minimum wage increase. By the same token, my colleagues also should be aware that a whopping 93 percent of Americans support creating small business health plans; and 36 members of their own Democratic caucus supported them in the 109th Congress. Doing so again during this debate would not only be logical but it would be welcome news for scores of uninsured working families. But the Democratic leadership's bill won't allow for it, and our bill simply isn't allowed at all. A colossal missed opportunity.

Finally, as you can see, only the Working Families Wage and Access to Health Care Act includes a number of other important considerations for small businesses and their workers. Small businesses create two-thirds of the Nation's new jobs, and 98 percent of the new businesses in the U.S. are small businesses. Increasing the minimum wage increases costs for small employers, and often they may be forced to respond by reducing their number of workers, scaling back benefits or hiring fewer new employees.

Given that small employers are responsible for most of the new jobs in our Nation, and practically every new business, why would we do anything to endanger their momentum? Well, you would have to ask the Democratic leadership, because that is exactly what their proposal would do. By offering small businesses and their workers important protections, the Working Families Wage and Access to Health Care Act would protect American jobs. The House Democratic leadership's scaled- down minimum wage proposal will not. A colossal missed opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, only the Republican-led Working Families Wage and Access to Health Care Act will both raise the minimum wage and protect small businesses and their workers. And only the Republican-led Working Families Wage and Access to Health Care Act will both raise the minimum wage and expand access to affordable health care for working families.

Unfortunately, due to unfair, closed, and heavy-handed tactics, only the scaled-down Democrat leadership plan is before us today. A colossal missed opportunity, not just for the House but for working families and small businesses as well.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the chairman of the RSC committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the ranking member on the Ways and Means Committee.

I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin), a new Member of this Congress, for her maiden speech on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 2 minutes to our new colleague, my neighbor from California (Mr. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield to the gentleman from California, a good friend and colleague, Mr. Rohrabacher, 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire again the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, we will reserve and let them take some time to kind of even that out.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the committee, Mr. Price.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

My colleague, the chairman of the committee, earlier read a statement from a Member of the other body. I would like to read a couple of them.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, ``If it takes adding small business tax cuts to get a minimum wage increase, we are going to do it.''

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said, ``This Congress promised to raise the minimum wage, and we will. We also need to pass meaningful small business incentives along with the minimum wage increase. We can do both, and we will.''

I commend them. I applaud them, and I am hopeful that when we leave this body, we will join together in a bipartisan, bicameral way.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Sali).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman said that this Congress will remember the little guy. The small businessmen that we are trying to help, for the most part, are little guys.

I remember when I first started in business. It was a small family business. We had two stores. My dad ran one, and I ran one. I couldn't afford any employees. I had to wait until a friend came in and I could ask him to watch the store for a minute so I could use the restroom or maybe grab a sandwich, or I would just eat standing behind the counter if I didn't have any customers in. So I understand the problems that we are facing.

And if we could all focus back on the debate today, the substitute bill that the Republicans wanted to put into play that Mr. McCrery and introduced yesterday does exactly the same thing as the Democratic bill on increasing the minimum wage. But it also goes further, to help small businesses to provide health care to the workers, which I think is very important. And

we are missing a wonderful opportunity to join together in a bipartisan way to work to help more people.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am extraordinarily happy to rise in support of this legislation. This legislation is very late in coming to this floor as a free-standing bill. It is, however, never too late to do the right thing.

This legislation, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, is long overdue. I believe it will pass this House today with broad bipartisan support, as the 9/11 bill did yesterday, making our country safer.

At long last, Mr. Speaker, this House is just hours away from finally passing a clean increase in the Federal minimum wage and sending this legislation to the Senate, where we devoutly hope the Members of the other body will do the same without delay.

H.R. 2 is the second key piece of legislation in the new Democratic majority's 100-hours agenda, and we are following through on our pledge to the American people to immediately address these critical issues.

There is probably not a Member of this House who fails to appreciate that an American who works full time at today's minimum wage of $5.15 per hour is essentially living in poverty. That is not right, Mr. Speaker. That worker, if he or she works 40 hours per week for 52 weeks, makes roughly $10,700 per year. If that mom has a child or that father has a wife and a child, they are essentially living on $6,000 less than we determine to be poverty in America.

Passing this legislation today, which will raise the minimum wage by $2.10 per hour to $7.25 in three steps over the next 2 years, is simply a matter of doing what is right, what is just and what is fair.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, if it were up to me, I would do $7.25 an hour now. But we are going to phase this in so that small businesses and others can accommodate this raise. But that will mean, Mr. Speaker, that those on the minimum wage will still have to wait.

It has been 9 years and 4 months since the last increase in the Federal minimum wage took effect, and that was under President Clinton. This represents the longest period without an increase since Congress established the minimum wage in 1938, since Congress said we are going to have a minimum in the United States that we will pay people and respect people who work to make themselves, their families and their country better.

At $5.15 today, the minimum wage level is at its lowest level, adjusted for inflation, in over 50 years, half a century. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if the minimum wage had been adjusted by a cost of living increase on an annual basis since 1968, a minimum wage worker would not be making $5.15, would not be making $7.25, but would be making $9.05. So, effectively, this raise will be $1.85 less than they would be making if it had been raised on a regular basis.

Meanwhile, just since 2000, the cost of health insurance, gasoline, home heating, attending college, food and other related expenses have all increased, in fact, for an average family, about $5,000 a year in that period of time. Yet the minimum wage worker has not received any raise.

This legislation will benefit literally millions of Americans. An estimated 5.6 million Americans who make less than $7.25 per hour will directly benefit from this increase. An estimated additional 7.3 million Americans, including family members of those making less than $7.25, will indirectly benefit.

Now there are those who will claim this legislation will hurt small business and the economy. I reject that. I believe history shows that that is not the case. In fact, when we raised it in 1997, the economy was having one of its most successful periods of time, which continued long past the adoption of the minimum wage. In fact, according to one recent study, small business employment grew more in States with a higher minimum wage between 1997 and 2003 than in Federal minimum wage States. In other words, in those States that were paying above the $5.15 an hour, their economies grew more and they created more jobs than did those States which had frozen their minimum wage at the Federal minimum wage.

In fact, Lee Scott, the chief executive officer of Wal-Mart, has stated that the current minimum wage ``is out of date with the times. We can see firsthand at Wal-Mart how many of our customers are struggling to get by. Our customers simply don't have the money to buy basic necessities between paychecks.''

Now, what is Wal-Mart all about? Wal-Mart is about bringing prices down. It is very controversial how they do it, but the fact is they know their consumers cannot buy even discounted necessities of life on the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, you and I know that in the richest Nation on the face of the Earth, that is wrong.

In a bipartisan way, and I haven't counted the Republican votes, but we are going to get a lot of Republican votes from those who are saying to the American people, as we are, we agree with you. Because 89 percent of the American people, when questioned, believe the minimum wage ought to be raised. Eighty-nine percent of the American people. And, Mr. Speaker, 83 percent of small businesses say this will not adversely affect them.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to pass this legislation. Sixty-four House Republicans joined all Democrats here last July in voting for a $7.25 per hour wage under the vocational education bill.

There is simply no reason, I suggest to you, not to support this legislation. In the United States of America, the richest country on the face of the Earth, you should not be relegated to poverty if you work hard and play by the rules.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this reasonable bipartisan legislation. The President of the United States has indicated that he will sign a minimum wage increase. There may be some changes that he wants, but he has recognized, as we will recognize today, that it is long past the time when we need to pay people and give them the dignity that their work demands and has earned.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), who has been the leader on this issue in the House of Representatives and one of the leaders in the country and who chairs the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Speaker, in America, we can either have maximum opportunity or we can have minimum wages. We cannot have both. In the land of the free, in a Nation as great as ours, how can we deny people their maximum opportunity, their opportunity to secure the American Dream?

Well, apparently, our Democrat colleagues can, because, for thousands, they will now replace the American Dream of boundless career opportunities instead with the nightmare of welfare dependence.

Columnist George Will recently wrote that increasing the minimum wage is ``a bad idea whose time has come.'' And, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, apparently that time has come.

What is the purpose? Notwithstanding the rhetoric that we hear today, the purpose of this law is really to protect skilled labor from the competition of unskilled labor. We understand the elections are over. The American people have spoken. But, apparently, now labor union bosses are collecting their chits.

Now, what is the effect of this law? Indeed, I admit, some will have a mandated pay raise in America. Those will be the lucky ones. Many more will have their hours cut, Mr. Speaker. Many will have their benefits cut due to this law, and many will lose their jobs. And again, thousands, thousands will be denied that opportunity to climb on that first rung of the economic ladder in America and, instead, be condemned to a life of poverty. This should not happen in America.

Mr. Speaker, I recently spoke to a number of people who create jobs and hope and opportunity in America, good solid citizens from the Fifth Congressional District of Texas. I heard from David Hinds, the owner of Van Tone Created Flavors of Terrell, Texas. His company employs over 25 people in this community in my district. But he says, if we pass this increase in the minimum wage, he is going to have to lay off three, maybe four of his employees and automate his plant to use less labor.

I heard from Kevin and Jeaneane Lilly. Kevin was a guy who started out at McDonald's years ago frying up the french fries. He now owns 10 McDonald's restaurants. He says, if the Democrats act today to increase the minimum wage, they will be forced to lay off all of their part-time workers and use only full-time workers.

I spoke to Larry Peterson, who has a small business called EmbroidMe in Dallas, Texas. He says, instead of hiring three to four people at the current minimum wage, he is going to have to do with one to two higher paid, more highly skilled people, denying those other two people their rung on the economic ladder.

Mr. Speaker, these are just a few stories from one congressional district in Texas, but these stories are going to be replicated all over America if we pass this law.

Now, the proponents of this law say somehow it is necessary, because we have to force employers to pay fair wages. Yet I know, Mr. Speaker, that 99 percent of all Americans have their wages set by free people negotiating in a competitive marketplace.

In other words, without any interference by Congress whatsoever 99 percent of all people in the workforce were able to find work above the minimum wage. Do we not believe in the American free enterprise system anymore? The proponents also say we must raise the minimum wage to help the poor, but by and large the minimum wage workers aren't poor. Less than one in five lives below the poverty line. The average family income of a minimum wage worker is about $40,000 a year. Very few minimum wage workers, indeed, support a family. Instead, the majority are teenagers. They are college students, and many are part-time workers.

In fact, the problem is that many poor people either cannot work or will not work. Over three-fifths of the individuals below the poverty line did not work in 2005. Only 11 percent work full time.

An increase in the minimum wage is going to do very little to help poor people who either cannot work or will not work. The way to help poor people is not to cut off the bottom rung of the economic ladder in America. For those who feel that they want to help the poor over and above what we are already doing, I would remind them that, by and large, the working poor qualify for health care through Medicaid, through subsidies, through food stamps, housing subsidies through section 8 vouchers, energy assistance through LIHEAP, cash assistance through Earned Income Tax Credit, TANF, and the list goes on and on and on.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, there has been an explosion of anti-poverty spending at the Federal level under President Bush, up 39 percent between the years 2001 and 2005. So contrary to the protest of the other side of the aisle, there is a lot of direct government assistance here. We need to remind people again that any wage rate is better than no wage rate.

The pool of minimum wage workers is constantly changing, and as they learn new skills, they prove themselves and they climb up the economic opportunity ladder. Why do we want to deny them this opportunity?

Mr. Speaker, I have some personal experience here because I was in high school in May of 1974, when Congress promised me a pay raise. I was the bellman at the Holiday Inn in College Station, Texas, trying to put some money together to go to college. I worked my way through college.

But when Congress gave me that pay raise, guess what? I got my pink slip. That Holiday Inn was struggling. They had to lay off the two newest employees they had to make ends meet. This causes unemployment. This should be voted down.