Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 31) honoring the Mare Island Original 21ers for their efforts to remedy racial discrimination in employment at Mare Island Naval Shipyard.

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday on the occasion of his birthday people across this country took time to honor and celebrate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King. Many of us participated in acts of community service and community rallies or took time out to listen to the

words of Martin Luther King and his speeches. We were reminded that the words and works of this great civil rights leader are still timely today.

In his writings Dr. King often cited examples of how the simple but courageous acts of one or two people to fight racial discrimination had far reaching implications for the future of this country. He talked about the persistence, the relentless persistence of average individuals to fight against discrimination, to fight against injustice, and to fight against inequalities. In his cell from the Birmingham jail, he writes of James Meredith and Rosa Parks, and how the simple but selfless acts of just one person helped change the course of this country. As he saw it, these acts and the destiny of African Americans were tied up with the destiny of America.

The resolution I bring forward today honors a group of men, the Mare Island 21ers, whose destiny was tied up when they bravely took action to end racial discrimination in naval shipyards in the San Francisco Bay Area in the early 1960s.

The Mare Island 21ers were a group of 21 African American shipyard workers employed at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, California. At that time minorities were mostly working in unskilled positions at Mare Island, as sandblasters, laborers and cleaners, with efforts to keep them out of certain positions. The discrimination was not restricted to withholding promotions and unfair hiring practices, according to one of the workers; they faced discrimination at every turn.

Long time denied opportunity for advancement, these workers decided to organize. Under the leadership of Willie Long, a journeyman pipefitter from Shop 56 who was also a World War II veteran and a Pearl Harbor survivor, the group met in complete secrecy to protect their safety and their jobs.

Not long after the group began to meet, President Kennedy issued his executive order establishing the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunities and reaffirming the prohibition against discrimination against any employee of or application for employment by the Federal Government because of race, color, religion, or national origin. The order issued in March of 1961 also created a discrimination complaint process for Federal workers.

Learning of the President's executive order, the 21ers decided to file a complaint with the committee. The complaint covered deplorable conditions for African American workers at the shipyard, including the denial of promotions and access to the apprenticeship program, and general unfair treatment.

In their report they cited that there was an established unwritten practice at the Mare Island Shipyard not to upgrade third step mechanics no matter what the qualifications of the employee are at any given time. As a result, there are Negro employees with 15 or 20 years of experience still in this category while white workers with much less experience and time have moved rapidly up the ladder of promotion. They also said that Negro employees are systemically barred from supervisorial positions although many are entitled to such positions by reason of seniority and experience. There are two Negro lead men and sandblasters and one Negro leading man laborer out of a force of hundreds of supervisors, and the statistics proved this discrimination. He also said that Negroes who take examinations for advancement for the most part are flunked out on later oral interviews even though they passed the previous examination. The board is made up of the top three supervisors within the shop; and so long as this situation exists, Negroes will never be able to advance through examination. Young Negro men are refused the opportunity of apprenticeship training for the most part in Shop 56. No Negro apprentices have been hired in at least 3 years. In over 20 years at Mare Island, no Negro mechanic has ever received a superior accomplishment award, to our knowledge, which included cash bonuses for those who got it. Then, in fact when the time came for apprenticeship programs, they were not given credit for the training related to their jobs and they take on their own orders in advance of themselves. In fact, Negroes are discouraged from taking any training. And, of course, when the fleet started to change in this country and we went to atomic submarines, there were no Negroes who had been selected for the training of this program.

This was the kind of discrimination that this brave group of men who had to meet in secret, who had to be very careful that anybody at the workplace would not know that they were discussing this with their fellow workers when they met at home, they said, with all of the shades drawn, this is the discrimination that they were living under in the Naval Shipyard at that time and this is the discrimination that they cited to President Kennedy's employment board. It was a complaint among many that were received by the Committee on Equal Employment in the early days of its existence. Finally, the Navy was forced to pay attention to the long history of discrimination felt by the workers at Mare Island. In August of 1963, almost 2 years after the initial complaint was filed, the Navy put policies in place to affirmatively take action on behalf of minority workers. These heroic men included Willie Long, Boston Banks, Jr., Matthew Barnes, Louis Greer, Jake Sloan, Charles Fluker, Clarence Williams, James Davis, Thomas King, Robert E. Borden, James O. Hall, Matthew Luke, Herman Moore, Jimmy James, John L. McGhee, James J. Colbert, Virgil N. Herndon, Eddie Brady, Brodie Taylor, W.J. Price, Levi Jones, Herbert H. Lane, Kermit Day, and Charles Scales.

The actions of the Mare Island 21ers resulted in new employment opportunities for African Americans at other naval bases all across the Nation.

Despite these pioneering steps, their early civil rights efforts remained in obscurity until recently. The group's surviving members still talk about the movement, but the full story was buried in the 1960s and only recently came to light as a result of a series in the newspaper articles by the Vallejo Times Herald reporter Matthias Gafni.

Mr. Speaker, in tribute to these men and their fight to end racial discrimination in the workplace, it is proper for Congress to formally recognize the Mare Island Original 21ers and thank them for their heroic actions and their gift to this Nation to end discrimination in the naval shipyards.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his comments and appreciate his support for this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), a member of the committee.

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

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his support of this.

This naval shipyard, it has been closed and it is going through the reused process, and it is a very, very exciting economic development plan for the city of Vallejo. It is in my district. And just down the way, down the river to San Francisco Bay is the Rosie the Riveter historic site. And at Rosie the Riveter, they talk about the various sites where we assembled the great American armada to carry supplies and troops to the Pacific during the Second World War.

In the town in which I was born, in Richmond, California, the Second World War and the Kaiser shipyards being located there overnight completed integrating the city. And of course we all know the story of women who went to work, women of all races went to work in those Kaiser shipyards; blacks went to work alongside white shipyard workers. Then they moved on, the shipyard, in peacetime at Mare Island, and that is where this discrimination took place.

Because of the actions of President Kennedy, because of the actions of people like the Mare Island 21ers and a lot of other brave people, today we look back at this as part of history in terms of workplace discrimination, certainly the Federal Government, one of the integrated workforces in the country. It is because of these kinds of actions that we can now speak of this, for the most part, as part of our historical past, but never losing sight of the sacrifice and the courage of ordinary people to move the dial toward integration from discrimination.

It wasn't easy in these communities; it wasn't easy in these workplaces. So when we see actions like this taken, I think it is quite fitting that the Congress would recognize this by passing this resolution commending the actions of courage of these 21 African American workers in the shipyard.

I thank my colleagues for support of this resolution. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his words in support of this resolution. I would hope that the House would adopt it unanimously.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the College Student Relief Act of 2007, a bill that will deliver much needed relief for students and families.

The College Student Relief Act of 2007 cuts interest rates in half phased in over 5 years starting July 1, 2007.

This proposal will provide debt relief for over five million students and families by cutting interest rates in half for undergraduate borrowers of subsidized loans.

In keeping with our promise to be fiscally responsible, this bill provides offsets in full compliance with our newly passed PAYGO rules.

Madam speaker, as you know college affordability is one of the most important issues facing students and families. With the significant increases in tuition over the last five years our nation's students and families will finally get some much needed help with their student loans.

Millions of college students and parents of college students are struggling to come up with the financial resources to pay for college.

And many would-be students--as many as 200,000 per year--are choosing to delay or forgo attending college altogether because they can't afford it.

This debt problem affects all of us. Public service professions like teaching are suffering, because graduates cannot manage their college debt on public service salaries. Nearly a quarter of recent college graduates have too much debt to manage on a starting teacher's salary.

This poses a serious threat not just to students and families, but to our Nation's economy and to the future of our workforce.

Today, we are finally taking our Nation's students and families in a New Direction by making college affordability a top priority.

Once fully phased in, these cuts will save the typical borrower with $13,800 in needbased federal loan debt roughly $4,400 over the life of their loan.

In my home State of California, this bill will save the typical borrower $4,830 over the life of their loan.

This will be an important first step towards making college more affordable and accessible for millions of low-income and middle class students.

As Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, one of our top priorities will be to continue to lower college costs for all qualified students.

I look forward to seeing this bill pass through the House with overwhelming support and bringing help to our students and families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4, and I want to thank the committee for bringing this bill to the floor and look forward to its passage.

In 2003, I opposed the President's prescription drug plan because it was clear that it would not help America's elderly and America's sick.

Instead, the bill guaranteed high prices to drug makers, by prohibiting the Federal Government from negotiating lower drug prices on behalf of seniors.

Today we have an opportunity to correct one of the wrongs instituted by that bill. The bill before us today is part of our ambitious agenda for the first 100 hours in this new Congress, and will start to put the interests of seniors before those of drug companies.

The states, the V.A., Fortune 500 companies, and large pharmacy chains all use their bargaining clout to obtain lower drug prices for their patients. Medicare beneficiaries deserve the same opportunity.

Giving HHS drug price negotiating authority for Medicare has overwhelming bipartisan support across the country; along with support from organizations like AARP, Consumers Union, and AFL-CIO.

Negotiating for lower prescription drug prices will be the first step towards fixing this highly flawed system and helping our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the disaster that we now see unfolding in the Middle East with the war in Iraq was set in motion when this President, against the advice of so many generals and military people, and against the advice of so many Middle East experts, made the decision to invade Iraq.

It was a war of choice, a choice not made by the American people, but a choice made by this President. And he set in motion the disaster that we now see. We understand that this decision that he made has been paid for by the lives and the injuries and the harm done to our men and women in uniform.

Last night he asked for a continuation of that disastrous choice with no new plan to change the outcome, but to simply extend the time in which our military will be engaged in Iraq.

It is foolhardy to believe that we should be sending our troops into Iraq based upon the theory that the Shia majority in Iraq for the first time in 100 years and the growing Shia majority across the Middle East is going to negotiate away their ability to act as a majority. This is a foolhardy trip, and we ought to vote against the President's proposal.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, last night the President spoke to the Nation and presented his proposal to the Nation to increase the troop levels an additional 20,000 troops to be sent to Iraq to continue the war in Iraq. What the President didn't do was lay out the plan of how that would be successful, how that would be different than what we are currently doing, and how the results would be different.

The President, with his initial decision to invade Iraq, a decision that was his choice, and this was not a war of necessity, this was not a war to protect the vital interests of the United States, or the integrity of the United States or the safety of our homeland, this was a war where the President chose to go to war.

At the time he was considering going to war, he was advised by many. We all know this history of many saying not to do this and also saying that this would not work in Iraq with its history, with its culture, with its religious differences. But the President chose to go anyway, and we have been there now for 3 years. Over 3,000 young Americans have paid with their lives for this endeavor, and over 20,000 have been wounded, seriously wounded.

I have had the honor to visit with many of those soldiers as they have returned to Walter Reed Hospital with life-changing, life-changing wounds. It is remarkable that they would survive them at all, a great testimony to the medical care that is available to them, but nevertheless, life-changing injuries for these young men and women.

Now the President is suggesting, with his plan for escalation, that we will send another 20,000. The fact of the matter is that American soldiers have done all that they can for the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people, the Iraqi Government, has chosen not to take advantage of having the Americans in the country to resolve their political differences, to resolve their differences of culture and religion. They have chosen to continue to fight.

In fact, we find that our soldiers more and more now are simply the targets within the civil war that is going on in Iraq; and for all intents and purposes there is no reason to suggest that that is going to change. The President has suggested that somehow the current Iraqi Government will have to meet some thresholds.

Those thresholds are absolutely contrary to the interest of that government in terms of their survival. It is asking for a betrayal of that government against its Shi'a base, and it fails to recognize how fundamental, how fundamental the clash is between the Sunnis and the Shi'a, not just in Iraq, but throughout this region. If the President had taken time before the invasion, he might have been able to understand that. But it is a fundamental clash between these two factions in Islam.

Because of the actions of this President, he has unleashed the ability of that clash to present very real rewards and very high stakes for either sides. It is not just the oil in Iraq or the governance in Iraq, but it is really about the ability of the Shi'a to spread their influence beyond Iran, to spread their influence beyond being a majority minority in Iraq, to spread their influence beyond being a minority in Lebanon or in Syria; and these are fundamental, and they go back a long time in the history in the clashes between Sunni and Shi'a and how the Shi'a have been treated in countries where they are a minority whether it is in Jordan or whether it is in Saudi Arabia or other countries in the peninsula.

This is very, very fundamental, and the stakes are very high. At this moment our troops are a pawn in that game, in spite of what the President suggests that this is about the security of the region, this is about the blooming of democracy. It is not about any of that any longer. It may have been in his mind when he signed the order to send these troops to Iraq; but the fact of the matter is, it has been overwhelmed by history, by culture, by the nature of the region, all of which he made worse by this disastrous decision of his to choose to go to war in Iraq.

The idea now that contrary to the overwhelming desire of the American people to disengage from this area, and of this Congress that he would go forward, is arrogance that is so dangerous, so dangerous to our country, our standing in the world, and our troops in the region that immediately action should be taken in this Congress to stop this President from going forward with this very dangerous escalation that will do nothing more than add to the list of casualties by American soldiers in this region.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending you for the job you did in the chair today and the manner in which you conducted the debate on this issue; and I appreciate the professionalism with which you handled the gavel.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I want to thank all of our colleagues who participated in the debate today. We have our differences of opinions, but I thought that the debate was well conducted.

We have waited for over 10 years to have this vote on the minimum wage, a clean vote on the minimum wage for the poorest workers in this country who have worked at a wage that is 10 years old.

You know, very often Members of Congress will take the floor and they will harken back to the time in their youth when they worked at the minimum wage and they will talk about the different jobs they had. Well, let me share with you that I, too, share those experiences.

I cleaned out oil tanks; I cleaned out ships; I drove trucks in the pear orchards; I picked fruit; I worked in the canneries; and sometimes I did two of those at the same time. I worked at night in the cannery and in the daytime in the oil refinery. I worked at the minimum wage. I wonder how I would have felt about that minimum wage if it had been 10 years old. If I was working at the minimum wage and my wages were 10 years into the past and everybody else working around me had current wages, I wonder how angry I would have been if I would have had to support a family--at one point I was supporting a family with those minimum wage jobs--I would have been very angry. I would have thought this was a very unfair system, that my wages were stuck 10 years in the past and everybody else's wages were current.

Well, that is what has happened to these workers up until today. Today, we finally release them from being frozen in time, where their wages are from 10 years ago, but when they go to the supermarket, the food prices are higher; when they put gasoline in the car, the gasoline prices are higher; when they pay the utility bills, the utility bills are higher; when their kids get sick, the medical bills are higher. All of those things are higher. They are living in 2007, but in their wages they are living in 1997. There is something terribly, terribly wrong with that picture.

That is why overwhelmingly throughout the country the people support this effort now to raise the minimum wage. Eighty-nine percent of the people believe that we should do this, and they basically believe it as a matter of economic fairness, of economic justice to these people who are working so hard at minimum wage, who, as we say over and over again, but remember what they are, they are the poorest paid workers in America today.

And when they turn on the TV, when they watch it on their lunch break, they see a CEO walk away with $210 million and a golden handshake after that CEO took a good corporation and ran it into the ditch. They see people backdating stock options, they see people defrauding the corporation for extra compensation, and yet their wages are back in time.

This is a question of economic fairness that the American public overwhelmingly responded to in this past election; and it is this issue of economic fairness that our new speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said would be the subject of this hundred hours, that we would begin by trying to make America a fairer place for those who go to work and for those who try to provide for their families. We would make America a fairer place and we would begin by increasing the minimum wage, and that is what we are going to do in the next few minutes, when we receive a strong and a bipartisan vote to increase the minimum wage for these workers.

It is terribly important that we do this. It says something about us as a Nation. When it is questioned all over the world about the economic disparities in American society, the unfairness of it, we get a chance to begin that process to change that dynamic.

I think this is a wonderful moment for the House of Representatives, no matter what side of the aisle you sit on. We, the people's House, are going to address the needs of the people that we were elected to serve. They grant us, they grant us the authority and the ability and the honor to come to the Congress of the United States; and today, and today we are going to address their needs. Today, we are going to address the needs that have concerned them in their communities.

If I have any time left, I want to thank the new majority leader for his efforts over these 10 years to try to bring this vote to the floor when time

and time again he made that effort in the Appropriations Committee.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit. The motion is not germane. For example, the motion contains tax provisions which are clearly outside the jurisdiction of the bill.

I would simply press the point that the motion to recommit offered by the minority is not germane, and it contains tax provisions and others that are outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, and Members of the House, today is a remarkable day, because after 10 years, we are going to have an up-and-down vote on whether the poorest people in our Nation, who are working every day and, at the end of the year, end up poor, deserve a raise. That is what we are going to do today.

For 10 years, we have struggled to have this vote, and now we are finally going to have it. We have had a lot of excuses why we couldn't have it. We have had votes hijacked, and we have had votes pulled off the floor, but we could never have this vote. Today, the beginning of the 100 hours, we are going to have this vote. We are going to have this vote, because this is a major concern. This is a major concern to the American society.

What so many of my colleagues made clear today in the debate is that after you have stalled this vote for 10 years, this goes way beyond the dollars and cents of the minimum wage. It goes to the core values of America and economic justice and social justice and fairness and whether or not every American is going to get to participate in the American economic system and also be able to provide for their children and their families.

But my colleagues didn't disappoint me today on the other side of the aisle. We have one more bump in the road. This last moment, they have offered us a motion to recommit where they say, if you offer your employees a health care plan, you can keep the minimum wage at $5.15. Now it doesn't say that health care plan has to be affordable. It doesn't say what the deductibles are, the copayments, which I am sure if you are a minimum wage worker at $5.15 today, a wage that is 10 years old, I am sure you can pay the copayments and the deductibles and the premiums. That will not be a problem.

What is it you don't understand about being poor? What is it you don't understand? You are stuck at $5.15 in today's world. You can't buy the gasoline to go to work, the bread to put on the table, the milk out of the refrigerator. Your utilities are going up. The rent is going up.

Now you say, by the way, if you can pay for a health care plan, you can stay at the minimum wage, you lucky ducky. I don't think that is what America was talking about when 89 percent of them said they want this Congress to raise the minimum wage, not trade it in, not trade it in.

They didn't ask us to trade in the increase in the minimum wage for some phantom health care proposal. You know what the average premium is for a family? The average premium is $10,880. Okay. That is good plans and bad plans together. Cut it in half. You are at the minimum wage. You have got to pay $5,000? Cut it in half again. You are at the minimum wage. You can pay another $2,000 for your health care? I don't think so. I don't think so. Let us get on with the Nation's business, with the people's business, and with the minimum-wage workers' business. Let us reject this motion and pass this bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to give voice to tens of millions of Americans throughout our country who are looking for an end to the war in Iraq. I rise on behalf of our brave soldiers on our battlefield who have done everything our country has asked of them under terrible circumstances and who have made terrible sacrifices.

I rise on behalf of their families who have suffered great losses and who worry day and night for their safety and for the loved ones still in combat. I rise this evening to call on our President to give the Nation what it has deserved, a viable plan to safely bring this war to an end, to redeploy the American forces out of Iraq, and turn the future of Iraq over to the Iraqi people once and for all.

President Bush is soon expected to call for an escalation to the war in Iraq, seeking to deploy an additional 20,000 troops into combat. The President's plan would be just the latest in a series of flawed and tragic decisions that he has made regarding Iraq.

The President was advised at the outset of the war by one of his top generals to send a large American force in order to win. President Bush rejected that idea, and since then he has tried at different times a surge of American troops in an effort to win the war. Now, each time that effort has failed.

Now he appears ready to defy the odds and take great risks with the lives of others in order to try his plan one more time. The President has failed to make a compelling case for adding more troops into what is clearly the greatest American foreign policy disaster in half a century or even longer.

I applaud the efforts of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who have called for a new course in Iraq. On Friday they wrote: ``Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next 4 to 6 months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror.''

I implore the President to seriously consider these views, and I implore him to also consider the views of the current and former military and political leaders of his own administration who have openly questioned sending additional troops to Iraq. For instance, on December 17 in 2006, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said, ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.''

On November 15 General Abizaid expressed, ``I've met with every divisional commander. General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey--we all talked together. And I said, `In your professional opinion, if we were to bring more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?' And they all said no.''

The war in Iraq is a mistake from the beginning, and I voted against authorizing this war. But regardless of one's position then, clearly there is no sound basis now for increasing America's military presence in Iraq. The war has claimed the lives of over 3,000 American soldiers and has wounded more than 20,000, and it has clearly become a civil war.

It is unconscionable to ask one more American soldier to fight and die in a civil war in Iraq. The President must engage key nations like Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and others in an effort to create a political solution in Iraq. The Nation opposes the ongoing war in America. There is still time for the President to change course, to reconsider his call for 20,000 more troops in Iraq, and to begin the redeployment of our troops and our forces now.

I salute those who continue to serve in Iraq. I salute their families and pledge to them my unyielding support and respect as we try to safely bring the war to an end.

Mr. President, listen to the people of the Nation which you govern. They have spoken, and they have spoken overwhelmingly. They reject the prolonging of the war in Iraq. They want our soldiers redeployed and brought home safely, and they want it done now.

Please, Mr. President, listen to the people of this Nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to invite my colleagues to join me in honoring the Mare Island Original 21ers for their efforts to end racial discrimination at Mare Island Naval Shipyard.

On Nov. 17, 1962, twenty-one African American workers at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo, CA, took a historic step by filing a racial discrimination complaint with President Kennedy's newly created Committee on Equal Job Opportunities. The complaint quickly helped lead to sweeping changes locally at the shipyard and nationally at military installations, including early Affirmative Action-type programs. All the men wanted was a wage comparable to their white co-workers and to be treated equally. What they started was a chain reaction that reverberated around the country. The group would become known as the Mare Island Original 21ers, and would forever change the base's social landscape.

Despite these pioneering steps, their early civil rights efforts remain in obscurity. The group's surviving members still talk about the movement, but the full story was buried in the 1960s and only recently came to light as a result of a series of newspaper articles by Vallejo Times Herald reporter Matthias Gafni.

Their story is typical of the time. Vallejo was a Navy town, and a separated one. With its naval shipyard, Vallejo has always had a population reflecting a wide range of ethnic backgrounds; but it was not always harmonious. In the late 1950s minorities were mostly working in unskilled positions at Mare Island as sandblasters, laborers and cleaners, with efforts to keep them out of certain positions. The discrimination was not restricted to withholding promotions and unfair hiring practices, according to one of the workers. At every phase of each work day they faced discrimination.

By 1960 the Civil Rights Movement was in its infancy and the African American workers were losing patience. In March 1961, President Kennedy issued an executive order establishing a sweeping, government-wide Equal Employment Opportunity Policy. Twenty-one workers began organizing under the leadership of Willie Long, meeting in complete secrecy to protect their safety and their jobs. A complaint was drafted and twenty-five workers ultimately signed it. The complaint covered deplorable conditions for black workers, involving promotions, the apprenticeship program, and general unfair treatment. The shipyard commander found no pattern of discrimination, but President Kennedy's committee was inundated with similar complaints from around the country and changes were finally made after several years. Almost everyone who signed the original complaint was promoted to supervisor and fortunately escaped any of the serious reprisals they feared.

Their quiet but risky fight for equal treatment helped change our Nation. These heroic men included Willie Long, Boston Banks, Jr., Matthew Barnes, Louis Greer, Jake Sloan, Charles Fluker, Clarence Williams, James Davis, Thomas King, Robert E. Borden, James O. Hall, Matthew Luke, Herman Moore, Jimmie James, John L. McGhee, James J. Colbert, Virgil N. Herndon, Eddie Brady, Brodie Taylor, W.J. Price, Levi Jones, Herbert H. Lane, Kermit Day, and Charles Scales.

Madam Speaker, in tribute to these men and their fight for equal rights, it is proper for us, and it is indeed my honor, to formally recognize the Mare Island Original 21ers, and thank them for their heroic actions.

Madam Speaker, as part of this first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, I am proud to introduce the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. The introduction of this bill provides Congress with a long-overdue opportunity to stand up for the dignity of those 5.6 million workers in the United States making minimum wage, or near minimum wage.

The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 would increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour in three steps over two years. Under this bill, sixty days after enactment, the wage would rise from the current $5.15 per hour to $5.85 per hour. One year later, it would rise to $6.55. And a year after that, it would finally rise to $7.25 per hour. The bill also extends federal minimum wage coverage, under a separate timetable, to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

For almost a decade, the federal minimum wage has remained at just $5.15 an hour. The nation's poorest workers have suffered through the longest period in the history of the law without a pay raise. As a result of congressional inaction, the real value of the minimum wage has hit a 51-year low. If the rate remains unchanged in 2007, a minimum wage employee working full-time will earn only $10,712, which is $5,888 less than the $16,600 needed to lift a family of three out of poverty. This is unconscionable. These Americans have suffered at poverty wages for far too long. It is time for Congress to demonstrate that it values hard work.

Nearly 13 million American workers will see their pay rise as a result of the Fair Minimum Wage Act--5.6 million workers directly and 7.4 million workers indirectly. This number includes 7.7 million women, 3.4 million parents, and 4.7 million people of color. 79 percent of these workers are adults, and the majority of these workers work full- time.

Families with affected workers rely on those workers for more than half of their family's income. 46 percent of child-rearing families with affected workers rely solely on the earnings from those workers. If this bill becomes law, over 6.3 million children would see their parents' income rise. For a family of three this means an additional $4,400 a year, equaling 15 months worth of groceries or two years worth of health care for these families. It will mean greater dignity on the job.

Congress has a moral duty to raise the minimum wage. Churches, synagogues, and other faith groups are calling on Congress to support the Fair Minimum Wage Act. In this country, an average CEO earns more before lunchtime in one day than a minimum wage worker earns all year. This is a moral outrage in the richest country on earth. With the costs of health insurance, gasoline, and college tuition increasing, it is important, now more than ever, that we raise the minimum wage so that these hard working Americans are able to meet basic human needs.

Raising the minimum wage is not only the right thing to do, it is also economically prudent. Increasing the minimum wage will help boost the economy as a whole, putting more money into the hands of those people who need it and will spend it--indeed, spend it on basic necessities. Last year, some 665 economists, including several Nobel Laureates, signed a statement in support of raising the minimum wage. As they explained, 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.''

Raising the minimum wage is critical to fighting the middle class squeeze in this country. America's middle class is this country's economic backbone. It is what makes us strong. Yet the middle class is shrinking. Since 2001, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million, to 37 million. More than one in six American children now lives in poverty. The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 is an important first step for this new Congress in its efforts to stand up for the middle class and to stem the squeeze.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation introduced today by Congressman Radanovich to implement a practical agreement to revive our State's second-longest river.

This is a remarkable accomplishment, and I congratulate the parties who have worked tirelessly to get to this point.

When we debated and passed the Central Valley Project Improvement Act in the early 1990s, we anticipated a program to reestablish the San Joaquin River's salmon run that was eliminated by the construction of Friant Dam.

But bringing about something as momentous as this agreement is easier said than done. This settlement has been literally decades in the making, and I think we should all be very glad we're at this point, rather than watching another several years of litigation and argument.

It took a collaborative effort to bring this settlement about, and I'd like to take a moment to recognize the leaders of this effort.

Congressman Radanovich and Senator Dianne Feinstein took the lead in directing the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Friant water users to settle the 18-year legal dispute, and in negotiating the legislation to implement their settlement.

Attorney Hal Candee has shepherded NRDC's effort to reverse 60 years of destruction on the San Joaquin, and Friant's counsel, Dan Dooley, ensured that the river could flow without devastating his farmers.

My hat is off to each of the parties who have made this happen.

There is still a lot of work to be done before the salmon can return to the San Joaquin River again, and I look forward to working in the 110th Congress and beyond to help move the restoration efforts forward.

I will also make sure that this worthy effort does not detract from other ongoing restoration efforts, like the important work taking place on the Trinity River in northern California.

There is still much to be done in order to implement and fund the 2000 Record of Decision for Trinity River restoration, and I intend to work with my colleagues to restore that river and its fishery, including the resources that the United States holds in trust for the Hoopa Valley Tribe.

Again, I want to thank those who have led in this collaborative effort, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to settle a very long legal dispute and finally to bring salmon back to the once- great San Joaquin River.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill H. Res. 1091, to condemn Iran's commitment to hold an international Holocaust- denial conference.

Recent reports that the Iranian government is sponsoring a Holocaust- denial conference are deeply disturbing and offensive.

Over the course of the last year, the tirades and actions of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government have included calling the Holocaust a myth and holding an international contest for cartoons about the Nazi genocide. President Ahmadinejad has also called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map,'' and his anti-Semitic rhetoric and this conference are clearly part of an ongoing campaign to attack the Jewish people and Israel by any possible means.

We live in a time in world history when we desperately need increased cooperation and understanding between nations and peoples in order to help reduce, not exacerbate, hostilities and tensions that can lead to deadly conflict.

There is no place for these state-sponsored anti-Israel and anti- Semitic provocations. And there is no justification, of course, for a conference on whether or not the Holocaust ever occurred. We all know that it did. To suggest otherwise is a repugnant and inflammatory action that is deeply disturbing to the Jewish people and to all people who had to endure the atrocities of World War II and all genocides that have occurred before and since.

I join my colleagues and the world community in rejecting and denouncing this effort to fan the flames of hatred.

Mr. Speaker, with a heavy heart, I rise to pay tribute to the life of former California State Senator John A. Nejedly who died on September 19, 2006. For more than 35 years, Senator Nejedly dedicated his life to serving the people of California and his Contra Costa County community. As a California State Senator, Mr. Nejedly was a brilliant leader in environmental policy and following his career in the senate, he was a relentless advocate for disadvantaged youths in Contra Costa County and throughout California.

John A. Nejedly was born on October 22, 1914, in Oakland, California, and had been a resident of Walnut Creek since 1938. He graduated from the University of California with a Bachelor of Science degree and in 1941 earned his law degree from Boalt School of Law. His ties to the University were especially strong and the gold sweater he wore as a symbol of his devotion to Cal soon became his trademark.

In 1942, with World War II at hand, John Nejedly became an intelligence officer in the Army Air Force and served as a Japanese language officer until his honorable discharge in 1946. Shortly after the war, John opened his law firm and was soon after appointed to the position of City Attorney for the city of Walnut Creek and Deputy District Attorney for Contra Costa County. He worked diligently in this capacity for 12 years before being elected Contra Costa County District Attorney.

In 1969, District Attorney Nejedly was elected to the California State Senate. John served the people of the 7th Senate District with distinction for 11 years. As a State senator, he wrote some of California's most important environmental laws and in the process became one of our State's principal water policy experts. He also helped create one of California's greatest urban park institutions for Contra Costa County. Renowned for his art of persuasion, John was instrumental in securing our precious resources for generations to come and, as a result, in 1966 he was named one of ten ``Outstanding Americans in the Field of Conservation''.

Senator Nejedly retired from public office in 1980 and followed his passion of helping disadvantaged youth full time. He donated 80 acres of landing California's Sierra Mountains to provide a camp for the Boy Scouts and created the Contra Costa Youth Council to assist disabled, and underpivileged youth take pleasure in the outdoors. In addition, he funded a generous scholarship to help minority adults today who will never forget the generosity and compassion John Nejedly showed them in their youth.

Throughout his life, John was magnificent leader. Whether it was water, open space or parks he was a pioneer. He was a true public servant.

To John's children, Mary Piepho, his sons, Jim and John, his stepson, Greg, and his grandchildren I extend my heartfelt condolences. Their loss is shared not only by those who knew John personally but also by all those who have been touched by the work he has done. We will be forever grateful for the integrity, compassion and generosity with which he sought to make our community, the State of California, and our country, a better place for all of us. We are extremely grateful to John's family for sharing him with us for so many years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rev. Angelo D'Agostino, a hero and a pioneer in the fight against AIDS in Africa.

I was deeply saddened when I heard news of Father D'Agostino's death. I met Father D'Agostino on my trip to Kenya in 2000 and I became a firm believer in his AIDS orphans and families programs.

He was a friend and a champion in the fight against AIDS. Constantly fighting the small battles on the front lines of the war against AIDS, he was responsible for improving the lives of many young Kenyans devastated by the scourge of AIDS.

Father D'Agostino, a Jesuit priest, was sent to Kenya to coordinate the refugee work of the Jesuits. Through his work, he was exposed to the AIDS-affected population of the country. All over Kenya, children were orphaned as AIDS claimed the lives of their parents; leaving the children alone, abandoned and in many cases HIV positive. He was deeply disturbed by the devastating effect of the disease on children and the community and knew that helping these children and families was his mission. Father D'Agostino dedicated his life to making a better life for those suffering the devastating effects of the horrible disease.

He founded the Nyumbani Orphanage with three children in 1992 and expanded it into a community for children and adults alike. The Nyumbani organization is also involved in community-based programs such as Leo Toto (meaning to raise a child), which are set up to provide outreach services to HIV-positive children and their families in the Nairobi area. His tireless efforts to better the lives of those touched by AIDS were widely successful.

Father D'Agostino believed that every individual had a right to an education. He successfully sued the Kenyan Government, forcing them to repeal a law banning HIV positive children from public schools.

Under Father D'Agostino's leadership, Nyumbani became the first place in Africa to import hugely discounted AIDS drugs. It also has the most advanced blood diagnostic laboratory in Kenya.

Father D'Agostino was truly a hero and a pioneer in the fight against the scourge of AIDS. He believed that every HIV positive and AIDS inflicted child and family, no matter how poor or meager their existence, deserved the chance to live a better life. He was a model for those who wish to dedicate themselves to improving the lives of others. I admire his work and commitment in serving children marginalized by society. He will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that will help the San Francisco Bay Area to solve its water challenges. My bill, ``The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Projects Authorization Act of 2006,'' will provide local agencies with the Federal partner that they need in order to implement an ambitious and forward-thinking regional water recycling program.

We put the tools for these Federal-local water recycling partnerships in place with the historic Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, which not only included my Central Valley Project Improvement Act but featured a provision now known simply as the ``Title XVI'' water recycling program.

Across the country--and especially throughout the West and California--people recognize the critical need for water recycling as a means of drought-proofing and increasing our reliable water supply. Accordingly, the Title XVI program has been embraced not only by policymakers, local agencies, and water managers but by many within the Bureau of Reclamation, from the staff level to regional directors.

Unfortunately, even though people on the ground understand the need for these recycling partnerships, the Bureau of Reclamation's official position is to oppose nearly every project proposed under Title XVI. As recently as this week, the Administration testified against two water recycling projects in the House Water and Power subcommittee.

This opposition from the Administration has made it very difficult for local agencies to get

the Federal support and funding that they deserve. Instead of providing Federal cost sharing and technical support to local water recycling projects, the Bureau has effectively let proposals under the existing Title XVI program pile up.

This is a shame. These projects are the future of water supply, and it's high time the Bureau joined that future. The best water recycling and reclamation projects are sustainable, scalable, reliable, and meet local needs with a local funding source. Unlike major dams and storage projects, water recycling projects do not have to cost billions of dollars, they don't destroy rivers--in fact, they can ease the pressure on natural waterways --and they don't trigger decades of litigation.

In addition, traditional storage projects based on major dams and reservoirs have to spend the last dollar, pour the last ounce of concrete, and line the last canal before a single drop of water comes through the tap. But water recycling is modular and incremental, meaning that as each piece of the system is put in place, you can serve more people and more industries; you don't have to wait years to see results, and you can build on your successes by easily expanding the infrastructure to meet new needs.

I hope that under the new Reclamation commissioner and the new Secretary of the Interior we will see a new commitment to the Title XVI program and to these clean solutions to water conflicts. It is very clear to me and to most others who follow these issues that the Bureau has struggled to keep pace in the modem era of water policy. In future Congresses, I am hopeful that we will review the agency's mission and its budget to determine that it is headed in the right direction.

There is increasing awareness in Congress regarding the importance of water recycling, and an increasing commitment to improving Title XVI so that it works for everyone. For instance, I am very glad that my colleagues, Representative Napolitano, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Feinstein, have taken the lead in introducing legislation to reform the Title XVI program.

Their new bipartisan, bicameral proposal, entitled ``Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act,'' is a wise one. First, their bill makes it perfectly clear that the Bureau of Reclamation's role includes creating new water supplies by reclamation and recycling. Second, as Senator Feinstein summarized it in her introductory statement, the legislation ``establishes firm deadlines, a clear process, and very specific criteria by which project reviews are to be conducted.'' This will help ensure that deserving projects don't get left on the shelf.

This legislation is sound, and I hope to work with my colleagues to implement it. And with the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Projects Authorization Act of 2006 that I am introducing today, I am applying the principles of the ``Reclaiming the Nation's Water Act'' to the San Francisco Bay Area.

The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program is a collaboration of public utilities that helps to meet our region's and state's growing water needs through a set of recycling and reclamation projects. As the program agencies wrote in a letter to me this summer: ``The regional approach ensures that potential projects with the greatest regional and statewide benefit receive the highest priority and support for implementation.''

The projects in this coalition have been repeatedly vetted, both internally at the local level and by the Bureau of Reclamation. The 2004 CALFED authorization directed the Department of the Interior to assess these projects' feasibility under Title XVI. That report, released this-year, stated that many of the Bay Area projects ``were very close to meeting the requirements,'' but that none passed all the Federal tests. Unfortunately, like other deserving Title XVI proposals across the West, that could have been where these projects stalled.

We need to encourage communities who are trying to meet water demands with innovative technologies. The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Projects Authorization Act of 2006, which is the result of a long process of deliberation and communication with those local agencies, authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the six Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program projects that are closest to completion. Each community with a project will be eligible to receive 20 percent of the project's construction cost.

Constructing all six of these projects will bring online nearly 10,000 acre-feet per year of reliable dry-year water supply. To produce the same amount of water with a traditional dam and reservoir project, you would need a dedicated facility that stored 47,500 acre-feet of water.

Projects included in the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Projects Authorization Act of 2006 are located in the City of Palo Alto; in the Cities of Pittsburg and Antioch through the Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD); in the North Coast County Water District; in Redwood City in partnership with the South Bayside System Authority; and in the City of Gilroy in partnership with the Santa Clara Valley Water District.

Although these worthy projects have supplied local funding, and secured matching State funding, they still need the Federal partner to step up. That's why my legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate in these six projects.

I know for a fact that Pittsburg, in my district, has worked diligently, along with Delta Diablo, to move through each step of the existing Title XVI process. This legislation gives them the assurance that the Federal partner will be there for them at the end to help implement their viable, feasible, and laudable project.

There is a clear Federal interest in these projects, as there is in the other successful regional recycling programs like those of Southern California. A good water recycling program stretches existing supplies and provides certainty to all of the water users in the area; conflict can be reduced even in a critically dry year. As we all know, a stable and reliable regional water supply makes good neighbors.

This very small Federal investment in the Bay Area Water Recycling Program will yield massive dividends to the Bay Area over time. Every gallon of recycled water that goes towards irrigating a golf course or highway median--or for commercial or industrial use--is a gallon of water that didn't need to be pulled from the troubled Bay-Delta.

These programs are a fiscal and environmental win-win, and encouraging them is sound federal policy. I'm glad to be able to help them with this new bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I again would like to commend Representative Napolitano and Senators. Feinstein and Murkowski for their leadership.