Cynthia McKinney

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, tampering with Medicare not only impacts our seniors, it also affects our entire health care system. When we boast about having the greatest health care system in the world, it is due in no small measure to the research and financial infrastructure that Medicare provides. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, any reductions in Medicare should be carefully considered and put back into the system, not used to pay for tax cuts and star wars. Desperate, however, to provide tax breaks to their wealthy campaign contributors, Republican leaders have cooked up a plan to cut $168 billion from Medicare, although only $90 billion is needed to extend the Medicare trust fund. The GOP insists on cutting an extra $78 billion that will eventually end up in the pockets of junk-bond dealers, corporate CEO's and insurance companies. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is too important to be treated like an ugly stepchild by Uncle Newt.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my colleague's amendment to prohibit funding for the Army's School of America's in my home State of Georgia. Although I am proud to represent the people of Georgia, I must speak about this institution's shameful legacy of which I am not proud. Proponents of the school assert that it is simply a training facility for military leaders of Latin America. The truth of the matter is that many of the school's graduates are among the region's most ruthless human rights abusers. Allow me to provide some examples of the atrocities committed by graduates of the school. In 1980, four women in El Salvador, Jean Donovan, Laura Clark, Edith Ford, and Dorothy Hazell were raped and murdered by graduates of the school. That same year, after calling on the army for peace in el Salvador, Archbishop Romero was executed by other graduates. In 1981, the entire village of El Mozote, 900 people including 131 children under the age of 12, were lined up and executed. Ten of the 12 officers responsible, were graduates of the Army's School of the Americas. In 1989, School of America graduates were found responsible for the murder of six Jesuit priests. The 1991 commencement speaker at the school was General Hector Gramaho. General Gramaho alone is responsible for the death of 200,000 men, women, and children in Guatemala. In 1993, the United Nations issued a report regarding atrocities in Central America, and found that 49 of the 60 officers responsible were graduates of the U.S. Army's School of the America's. Additional graduates of the school include Manuel Noriega and Bolivian dictator Hugo Bonza. Not only are these assassins training on our own soil, but they are being funded by U.S. tax dollars. Mr. Chairman, clearly this taxpayer-funded institution has become nothing less than a prep school for the Hitlers and Stalins of Latin America. The American taxpayer should no longer have to pay for the training of rapists and child killers. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for the Kennedy amendment and close this school of the assassins.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, Medicare protections against the extra- billing of seniors are the latest target of Republican leaders. As it stands now, health care providers are not allowed to extra-bill seniors for services paid for by Medicare. Under the Republicans' latest Medicare proposal, however, seniors would become sitting ducks for unscrupulous providers who want to make a fast buck by extra-billing the sick elderly. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders are perfectly happy to let gluttonous defense contractors overbill the American taxpayer. Rather than clamping down on military contractors' overbilling the U.S. taxpayer, they will get an extra $12.4 billion, thanks to the Republicans. Under a Republican-controlled Congress, defense contractors and the health care industry have free reign to give our seniors and taxpayers a B-2-sized wedgie with Newt's blessing.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Madam Speaker, you would think that my Republican colleagues have learned their lesson. Over the past year, the American people have expressed their outrage over the 1996 congressional military budget which gave the Pentagon $7 billion more than they asked for. Well, Madam Speaker, here we go again. This year the Republican led Congress has decided to give the Pentagon $13 billion more than what it asked for. Maybe my Republican colleagues did not get the message. Why don't they use the extra $13 billion on environmental programs which their 1997 budget cut by 19 percent. Or maybe they could use the money to provide student loans to the 2.5 million young people who will have their student loans reduced under the Republican budget. Madam Speaker, we know that our military budget is much larger than the military budgets of all of our enemies combined. So, since there is no country--or, even group of countries that poses a credible threat to our national security, on behalf of the American people I must ask if the real threat the Republicans fear is a foreign power, or the wrath of the defense industry.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, finally, after months of prodding and pleading with the Republican leadership, we are going to vote on increasing the minimum wage. Not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, members of the Republican leadership were saying things like, and I quote, I will resist an increase in the minimum wage with every fiber of my being. Or, I'll commit suicide before I vote on a clean minimum wage bill. While the vote on increasing the minimum wage will only be an amendment to another bill, the fact of the matter is that the votes that we're taking today are neither clean nor real. Newt Gingrich and the Republicans have found yet another way to feed the American people a pig in a poke. This Republican political sleight of hand will actually repeal the minimum wage laws and exclude workers from minimum wage protections. Mr. Speaker, we all feared that the Republicans would go too far. We all feared that the Republicans would serve their rich fat-cat friends at the expense of the rest of us. But, by their offerings today, they've confirmed that our worst fears have indeed come true.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a consponsor of H.R. 3024, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity tonight to oppose the Gingrich-Goodling amendment. I suppose we should have expected that the Republican leadership would not allow a vote to increase the minimum wage without first giving away the farm. The Gingrich-Goodling amendment, Mr. Speaker, would deny nearly 10 million American workers the right to earn the minimum wage and overtime pay, even though these workers have those rights today. Only in a Republican controlled Congress would we vote to increase the minimum wage 1 minute, then make 10 million workers ineligible for it in the next minute. This amendment, Mr. Speaker, is little more than a cruel and cynical joke made at the expense of millions of working families. I urge my colleagues who support the minimum wage increase to oppose this antiworker amendment. From folks who oppose even the concept of a minimum wage, we really should not expect any better.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise today in support of the CBC/Progressive Caucus budget. Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have a budget on the floor that is courageous enough to say: It is time for America's corporate welfare kings and bloated military to share in the burdens of balancing the budget. Going after such sacred cows makes sense not only because it is fair, but because it was President Reagan's corporate tax giveaways and military spending that put us in this deficit hole in the first place. Mr. Chairman, our budget is the only budget that tackles the issue of corporate tax entitlement spending. Our budget is the only budget that says, it's time for the Pentagon and military contractors to go on a diet, too. Just like everyone else. The CBC/Progressive Caucus budget reaches balance by the year 2002 without cutting Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment in order to pay for tax breaks. Our tax breaks come after the budget is balanced. That is the responsible thing to do. As this chart here demonstrates, the share of the national tax burden paid by corporations has declined steadily since the 1950's, while average Americans have continued to carry about the same share of the national tax burden. if Wall Street paid in taxes what corporations used to pay the budget would be balanced in 1 year, not 6. Mr. Chairman, at a time when corporate profits are going through the roof, the stock Market is breaking new records and CEO salaries are making sports heroes blush, it is time that corporate America paid its fair share to balance the budget--just like everyone else. Moreover, instead of giving the Pentagon $270 billion a year, let's ask them to make due with $220 billion a year. And why not, especially when we spend more than all of our potential enemies combined. Mr. Chairman, I would like to demonstrate this fact with this chart. Here are all our potential enemies and what they spend on the military. And this is what we spend and then some. Mr. Chairman, Ronald Reagan and George Bush gave us this deficit with their tax cuts for the wealthy and pork for the Pentagon. It is time to say: No longer are we going to pay McDonald's and M&M's to advertise overseas. No longer should we pay to build golf courses at military bases. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this budget which protects middle class families in this changing economy. Our seniors, students, and poor should not be asked to carry the entire burden of balancing the budget. Everyone must pull the wagon, including Wall Street and defense contractors. Support the American middle class and support the CBC/Progressive Caucus budget.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, here we go again. Instead of offering a budget that protects middle-class families in this changing economy, the Republican Party has once again lived up to its reputation as defender of Wall Street's barons. Why do we need to cut Medicare, only to give $124 billion in tax breaks. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, the Republican budget does virtually nothing to go after corporate welfare. In fact, the conservative Cato Institute issued this news release today which says, ``Eliminating corporate welfare would cut the deficit in half--business subsidies cost $75 billion per year, Cato study says.'' Why must our seniors, schools, environment, and the poor be first in line to face cuts when we give away at least $75 billion in corporate welfare every year? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat this budget which is nothing more than the same old, same old. In addition, Mr. Chairman, the Republicans have innovated a new form of governance. I call it kitchen sink legislation. They throw in everything--including the kitchen sink--and wait to see what survives the conference committee. This is no way to govern and we need to defeat this Republican budget. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: [From the Cato Institute News Release, May 15, 1996] Eliminating Corporate Welfare Would Cut Deficit In Half--Business Subsidies Cost $75 Billion Per Year, Cato Study Says ``In 1995 the corporate safety net was left largely intact,'' says Stephen Moore, director of fiscal policy studies at the Cato Institute. ``If members of Congress balk at cutting aid to dependent corporations again in 1996, they will look like fiscal frauds and fools.'' In a new Cato Institute study, ``How Corporate Welfare Won: Clinton and Congress Retreat from Cutting Business Subsidies,'' Moore and Cato fiscal policy analyst Dean Stansel note that the federal government currently spends $75 billion per year on corporate welfare--the use of government authority to confer targeted benefits on specific firms or industries. They identify the 35 ``least defensible'' business subsidies and show that Congress moved to cut only $2.8 billion, or 15 percent, from the 1995 level. The Clinton administration has been hostile to even the modest corporate welfare cutbacks proposed by Congress, Moore and Stansel argue. ``If Congress's performance was a disappointment, the Clinton administration's was dismal. In fact, we find that for the 35 corporate welfare programs identified in this study the administration's 1996 budget actually requested a slight increase in spending.'' Moore and Stansel recommend eliminating or sharply scaling back programs including the Export Enhancement Program, Foreign Agriculture Service, Market Promotion Program, Advanced Technology Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Mines, Export-Import Bank and Overseas Private Investment Corporation. ``If all federal assistance to business were purged from the budget, the budget deficit could be cut in half,'' Moore and Stansel write. ``Both the social welfare and corporate welfare states needed to be reformed with equal urgency.'' Policy analysis No. 254--contact: Stephen Moore, director of fiscal policy studies, 202-789-5252 Dean Stansel, first policy analyst, 202-789-5250; Dave Quast, director of public affairs, 202-789-5266; and Peggy Ellis, director of government affairs, 202-789-5284.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, we are here today not to debate the size of the military budget, but to debate which arms manufacturers will get more of taxpayers' dollars. How is it that we can find an extra $13 billion to give away to defense contractors, but we can't find the money to increase education funding? As this chart demonstrates, Mr. Chairman, we spend more on the military than Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, and Cuba combined. It appears that we are paying an extra $13 billion so that companies like Lockheed-Martin can send around these cassette tapes of radio programs to all the Members of Congress. Why, Mr. Chairman, must we throw another $13 billion at the largest and most wasteful bureaucracy in the world? The answer is simple, more Pentagon pork for military contractors means more campaign contributions for big defense defenders. Just one more example of the GOP's new and improved cash-and carry government.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. American women should not have to check their reproductive rights at the door once they enlist in the U.S. military. This amendment would simply allow U.S. servicewomen to spend their own money should they require an abortion. Thousands of our servicewomen are stationed in countries like Saudi Arabia where abortions are illegal. This leaves them no choice but to have their abortions performed at a U.S. military facility. Why should our servicewomen have their bodies governed by Saudi law and not American law? If men were the ones getting pregnant, Mr. Chairman, I am certain none of us would even be here right now. We need to pass the DeLauro amendment.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the National Security Committee for their cooperation in accepting my co-production reporting amendment. The committee bill devotes significant additional resources to modernization, because in the words of the committee, ``the U.S. military's technical superiority depends on a steady investment in modernization of new and upgraded weapons systems and equipment.'' The taxpayers' investment in modernization and new military technologies should be carefully guarded just as we seek to protect patented products and intellectual property from pirating overseas. Mr. Chairman, Congress and the public must be fully informed about our arms production technologies being exported abroad. My co- production reporting amendment would do just that with a simple reporting requirement on all co-production agreements between the United States and foreign countries. Again I thank the distinguished chairman and the ranking member.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I am no longer astonished by the lengths to which Republican leaders will go just to cut education funding. Monday's Washington Post reported that the Republican House majority leader favored cutting education in order to pay for a repeal of the gas tax. Now, that's audacious stuff coming from someone who used Government loans to get through school. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership could have easily paid for a repeal of the gas tax by not giving the military $7 billion more that what it asked for in 1996. In fact, what guarantee do we even have that the oil companies will reduce their prices once the gas tax is repealed? Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has demonstrated that it is only interested in greasing the rigs of the oil companies, while giving the American middle class a Texas-sized wedgie. I include for the Record the following article from the Washington Post of Monday, May 6, 1996: Armey: Cheaper Fuel Via Education Cuts (By Serge F. Kovaleski) House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) yesterday suggested that the revenue loss from a repeal of the 1993 gasoline tax could be offset by cutting spending on education. ``Maybe we ought to take another look at the amount of money we are spending on education,'' Armey said on NBC's ``Meet the Press.'' ``There is a place where we're getting a declining value for an increasing dollar. It's in education. ``If in fact we can get some discipline in the use of our education dollar, I think we can make up the difference,'' Armey added. The White House said yesterday that targeting education funds is not acceptable. Reducing the federal 18.3-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax by 4.3 cents, as proposed by Republicans, would save the average motorist about $27 a year in taxes, but would reduce federal revenue by $30 billion to $35 billion over the next seven years, the White House estimates. Senate Marjority Leader and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Robert J. Dole (Kan.), who has made repeal of the 1993 gas tax a focus of his campaign against President Clinton, plans to introduce legislation Tuesday to repeal the 1993 tax temporarily. The increase was part of the deficit reduction package that Clinton pushed through Congress in 1993 without a single Republican vote. Under the Dole proposal, the tax would be rolled back through January 1997 and a permanent repeal would be considered as part of the budget for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1. Clinton has said he would be willing to consider scrapping the tax if Republicans found a fair way to make up the revenue loss. But in a statement yesterday, White House Chief of Staff Leon E. Panetta called on Dole and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) ``immediately and unequivocally'' to repudiate Armey's suggestion that education spending could be cut to finance a reduction in the gasoline tax. White House economic adviser Laura D'Andrea Tyson, also interviewed on ``meet the Press,'' refused to say whether the President would sign a freestanding bill to kill the tax hike, but argued that any cut should be part of a balanced budget plan. ``It's going to be very hard for them to find $30 billion to $35 billion,'' she said. Tyson stressed the White House would prefer tax reductions for education or a family tax credit or an IRA expansion rather than a gasoline tax cut. Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), on ABC's ``This Week With David Brinkley,'' said the best way to offset the tax repeal would be to cut welfare benefits for legal immigrants, which would result in savings of about $14 billion a year. He also said Congress should not twin the gasoline tax repeal and a minimum wage increase, which Dole has suggested to appeal to Clinton and the Democrats. Gingrich echoed that view in remarks on CBS's ``Face the Nation.'' He said the gas tax legislation would be a ``simple, narrow bill'' that would not be lined to the minimum wage issue. He said the House Ways and Means Committee would meet Tuesday to consider how to pay for the tax repeal. He did not embrace Armey's suggestion or reject it. He said that Dole's ``proposal to repeal the gas tax increase has been generally pretty popular. I think it will pass by a big margin,'' giving Clinton ``a chance to sign it into law before Memorial Day so that Americans who drive over Memorial Day will pay slightly less for gasoline.'' The Clinton administration, however, said that wholesale prices are already going down after the President's decision last week to sell 12 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Economists have noted that when the price of gasoline is adjusted for inflation, it is cheap by historical standards. In 1995 dollars, average gasoline prices are at 1991 levels but are well below where they were for most of the 1980s. The average national price for a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline at the pump is $1.273. That is also far cheaper than gasoline prices in most of the world. In some European countries gasoline is three times the U.S. price.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, here we go again with promises made, promises broken. I rise today in opposition to another million-dollar ripoff of the American taxpayer. This bill would have us spend $1 million to fund a select subcommittee to look into an issue that the International Relations Committee has already dealt with. Why is it necessary to create a whole new subcommittee with a dozen new staffers, when we already have a subcommittee to handle issues related to Bosnia? Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is well aware that this is an election year and that Senator Dole needs all the help he can get. It must be quite disheartening for the Republican leadership to see their nominee for President so far behind President Clinton in the polls. Apparently, the 50-plus hearings they have held on Whitewater have not done enough to hurt the President's ratings. So now they are trying a new approach--Iranian arms transfers to Bosnia. Somehow, Mr. Speaker, GOP leaders will try to blame President Clinton for Iran's transfer of weapons to Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to arms transfers of all kinds. In fact, I have introduced legislation that would require greater congressional oversight of weapons transfers from the United States to dictators, human rights abusers, and military aggressors. But I fail to see why we have to spend $1 million of taxpayers' money--especially in these austere times--when we already have an International Relations Committee. Clearly, Republican leaders are trying to create a $1 million political entity designed to help candidate Dole, who has hit the limit on his campaign spending. Let us face it, this is the mother of all independent expenditures. I will say it again, Mr. Speaker, we already have a standing International Relations Committee charged with looking into matters related to Bosnia. And if not to help candidate Dole, why else would we be setting up yet another International Relations subcommittee? Why, Mr. Speaker, we are telling the American public that we must cut education funding, but somehow we have $1 million to blow on among other things, new RCA color TV's and bottled water for this new and redundant subcommittee? Mr. Speaker, this Congress should be focusing on raising the minimum wage, improving education, and reducing corporate welfare. We do not need to hire a dozen new staffers and create the most expensive subcommittee in the House of Representatives. Moreover, let us not forget the memo Republican leaders sent around to Republican committee chairmen asking them to use their committees to find dirt on President Clinton. Mr. Speaker, let us create this subcommittee. All I ask is that we call it what it really is: the select House subcommittee to sling mud on Democrats and elect Bob Dole for President.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, a major part of the American dream is to own your own home. Unfortunately, for millions of people in public housing, this dream has little chance of becoming reality, because they don't earn enough to get out of public housing. As a result, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. taxpayer covers the cost of public housing because millions of working poor don't make enough money to pay rent and put food on the table. A large part of the reason for this is our tragically low minimum wage. We could do a great deal to move people out of public housing by increasing the minimum wage to a level where people can earn enough to move out on their own. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is so opposed to raising the minimum wage that they would rather kick the working poor into the streets. Mr. Speaker, this bill misses the point. The way we reduce the need for public housing is to give people a living wage. And today's minimum wage is certainly not a living wage.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I have tried to compile the reasons why the Republican majority will not allow us to vote on a minimum wage increase, and the first reason I came up with was, of course, stated by Majority Whip DeLay, who says that minimum wage families do not really exist. He says, ``Emotional appeals about working families trying to get by on $4.25 an hour are hard to resist. Fortunately such families do not really exist.'' An honorary member of the Republican freshman class, Rush Limbaugh, says on the official poverty line, ``14,400 for a family of 4? That's not so bad.'' Now he said that in November 1993. Earlier he said, ``I know families that make $180,000 a year and they don't consider themselves rich. Why, it costs them $20,000 a year to send their kids to school.'' Unfortunately, the House majority leader, Dick Armey, has said that he will resist a minimum wage increase with every fiber in his being. He says that the minimum wage is a very destructive thing. Limbaugh goes on to say, ``All of these rich guys like the Kennedy family and Perot, pretending to live just like we do and pretending to understand our trials and tribulations and pretending to represent us, and they get away with this.'' Well, in 1993 while Limbaugh was equating himself with the average American family, Limbaugh's 1993 income was estimated to be $15 million. That is from Forbes, April 1994. One of the freshmen who also does not know about middle-class living, real middle-class living, says, ``300,000 to $750,000 a year, that's middle class.'' I think that is out of touch. And anyone who makes above $750,000 a year, he says, ``that's upper middle class.'' Now, this is a real person who is representing all of the American folks in this Congress. But what about the people who really are working hard and making minimum wage and need a little bit of representation down here on the floor of this House? Who is it that our Republican majority is representing, and who is it that people who are fighting for a minimum wage increase are representing? This is a cartoon from the National Journal. How long does it take to make $8,840? Full-time minimum wage worker, it takes this poor woman one year, because most of them are women. And the average CEO of a large U.S. corporation? Half a day. So we do need to raise the minimum wage. Finally, I keep coming back to this poster, because it so accurately describes what is going on in Washington today with this new Republican majority. It says, ``The 104th Congress may be the worst in 50 years.'' And while we cannot get an increase, a vote on increasing the minimum wage, we learned that the GOP has decided that they want their committee Chairs to look into abuses of the Clinton administration and of labor organizations. This very well could go down in history as the worst Congress in 50 years.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, is it not correct that $1.4 million was given to the Republican candidates by the Golden Rule Insurance Co. and now the Republicans are trying to put----

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, last week, the Senate voted unanimously in favor of a health care reform bill that did not include costly medical savings accounts. In fact, the other body voted explicitly on April 18 to keep medical savings accounts out of the bill. Now the presumptive Republican nominee for President wants to appoint to the conference committee Senators whose sole purpose will be to force MSA's into the bill when no one is looking. You can tell a lot about a man the way they act when they think no one is watching. I guess we're supposed to ignore the fact that the Golden Rule Insurance Co. has given $1.4 million in campaign contributions to Republicans. And that Golden Rule also happens to be the premier company peddling MSA's. Regardless of how the Senate voted, Golden Rule will get its way through the back door. Mr. Speaker, this buyout is just one more fine example of how the GOP has perfected the art of cash-and-carry Government.

Ms. McKINNEY

Ms. McKINNEY. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for securing this time so we could have this discussion about raising the minimum wage. I have a quote here: ``A living wage for a fair day's work is a hallmark of the American economic philosophy.'' I do not know if the gentleman knows who said that. It was not some left-wing person, it was not a person who is out of left field. These words were spoken by Bob Dole in 1974: ``A living wage for a fair day's work is a hallmark of the American economic philosophy.'' Yet, Mr. Speaker, in 1996, we have the House majority leader saying, ``I will resist an increase in the minimum wage with every fiber in my being.'' We have the House Republican whip saying, ``Working families trying to get by on $4.25 an hour don't really exist.'' And then more recently we had the Republican Conference chairman say, ``I will commit suicide before I vote on a clean minimum wage bill.'' Now, we have had some folks who have come to us with an economic argument and they have said that this is bad for the economy. Well, we have 101 economists who have signed on to the call for a higher minimum wage. Among those 101 economists are 3 Nobel prize winners. Those economists range from Henry Aaron at the Brookings Institution to Kenneth Arrow at Stanford University to David Blanchflower at Dartmouth College; Lawrence Klein, University of Pennsylvania; James Tobin of Yale, John Kenneth Galbraith of Harvard. We have got people who have received the world's highest honor and they have said that the minimum wage increase is the right thing to do. At the same time that we were talking about not raising the minimum wage, not even allowing the vote to come on the floor, at one time there were even proposals to cut the earned income tax credit. So I believe that this is the right thing to do and I am pleased to join with my colleague from Louisiana, and I am anxious to hear my colleague from Arkansas who is my good friend, and maybe I should not say that out loud, but this is the hour of civility, so I ask my colleague from Arkansas to join us.

Ms. McKINNEY. Well, it is a statement.

Ms. McKINNEY. I just want to make a few points in closing, and I will yield to the gentleman here who want to dominate the debate. The gentleman from Arkansas made some reference to productivity gains, and there have, indeed, been productivity gains experienced by our economy, except that in the past those productivity gains accrued to the community at large. Now those productivity gains are not accruing to the community, perhaps to stockholders and CEO's, but certainly not to the low-wage workers. And that is one argument in favor of protecting the interests of our low-wage workers. I think we have also seen that the gentleman from Arkansas shares the opinion of his colleagues in the Republican leadership that he also fights the increase in the minimum wage or the concept of the minimum wage with every fiber in his being as well.

Ms. McKINNEY. The gentleman has said that we need to take care of the employers. I would posit that Congress is doing just that. When McDonald's can get $200,000 to advertise chicken nuggets, then I think we are taking care of employers. When AT&T can get $34 million, we are taking care of employers. We have not begun to talk about corporate welfare yet. This Congress wants to repeal the alternative minimum tax, build more stealth bombers, defend Americans who renounce their citizenship in order to avoid paying taxes, and yet they want to deny poor folks, working folks a 90 cent increase in the minimum wage. Now, you know, you have to be a little bit less heartless than that.

Ms. McKINNEY. The bottom line on what I say about that, we all know that crime doesn't pay, but if you happen to work for Congressman Dickey your work doesn't pay either.

Ms. McKINNEY. I am just playing.