Major Owens

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to challenge the conventional wisdom on taxes and to, thereby, give my tacit support for the conference report to H.R. 2676, the ``IRS Reform and Restructuring Act.'' When H.R. 2676 was initially considered in the House last November, I voted for it enthusiastically because it appeared to be a long-overdue form of taxpayer advocacy to protect our citizens. However, the bill that we consider today has remarkably moved from transforming the administration and oversight of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the benefit of the average American taxpayer; today's version of H.R. 2676 includes provisions (not passed by either the House or Senate) which represent an arrogant, back-door effort to reduce taxes for the wealthiest Americans. H.R. 2676 not only reforms and restructures the IRS, but it reforms and restructures tax policy on capital gains, estates, and Roth Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs). Instead of determining new ways to circumvent taxes on the ``unearned'' income of the rich, it is time that America's revenue and tax policy stop penalizing the ``earned'' income of our working families. It is an undisputable fact that working people are paying the cost of government--practically all of it. Our tax system is set up to pilfer the recipients of ``earned'' income--wages, salaries, and retirement pay--and protect the recipients of ``unearned'' income--interest, dividends, rents, and capital gains. Taxes on ``earned'' income produce 85% of all personal income taxes, with only 15% brought in by taxes on ``unearned'' income. Moreover, taxes on ``earned'' income--income and Social Security taxes--bring in over 70% of all Federal tax revenue, compared to only 9% for ``unearned'' income. For every dollar of tax revenue produced by ``earned'' income, ``unearned'' income brings in only 13 cents. H.R. 2676 would exacerbate this scenario by adding another unfair layer of protection for ``unearned'' income. H.R. 2676 would shorten the length of time (from 18 months to 12 months) that an asset has to be held in order to yield a lower capital gains tax rate (from 28% to 20%). It should be noted that unlike ``unearned'' income, every single penny of ``earned'' income goes on the tax return and is fully taxed. (The only exception is the income ``earned'' by low-income people who either make only a few thousand dollars a year or who are eligible to receive the Earned Income Tax Credit.) Yet, H.R. 2676 contributes to the list of humongous loopholes, exceptions, and special provisions for ``unearned'' income, especially capital gains. This new protection for capital gains will cost the U.S. Treasury $300 million per year (beginning in the year 2000). Over a 10-year period, this provision in H.R. 2676 will cost more than $2 billion--all to the benefit of the top 5% of the income scale--individuals who make six figures a year. H.R. 2676 contains other provisions that would further underscore the regressive make-up of our tax policy. The legislation does not correct an error in the 1997 Balanced Budget Act that decreased taxes on estates with values as large as $17 million. This tax break would benefit the heirs of a few hundred people each year--the richest 0.01% of Americans. In addition, H.R. 2676 would allow wealthy senior citizens to cut their future taxes by expanding their eligibility for a newer, more financially generous IRA--the ``Roth IRA''--after 2004. This provision would cost the U.S. Treasury approximately $1 billion per year after 2004. It is unfortunate that Republicans have misused this opportunity to pass a good IRS reform bill and, instead, have authorized new tax breaks for the rich. Already the tax code is rife with flagrant examples of corporate welfare; and H.R. 2676 does nothing to alleviate existing burdens on working families. Corporations used to shoulder 39% of the tax burden while families shouldered 27%. Today corporations only contribute 11% while families contribute 44%. The bank accounts of American families should not be drained to compensate for the untouchable coffers of corporate America. Instead, corporations must be forced to pay their fair share, as well as wealthy individuals. I challenge my colleagues to step up to the plate, propose fair reform of the IRS, and achieve taxpayer justice by directing the IRS to enforce current laws. Specifically, the bill represents Congress closing its eyes to a continual corporate abuse scheme: corporations are purchasing large quantities of their own stock, which is categorically prohibited by Sections 531-537 of the Internal Revenue Code. Despite the law, hundreds of big-name corporations have been avoiding paying out dividends--and thus avoiding paying taxes on those dividends--by accumulating more than $275 billion in stock buy-backs. It must be reiterated that it is unlawful for corporate business managers to let profits pile up in the corporation, rather than to distribute them as taxable dividends. If current law were enforced today, an estimated $70 billion in penalties would be collected by the Federal government. And as evidenced by my personal investigation of this matter, the IRS is fully aware of these violations, but appears to be too timid to tackle the big corporations who are committing the offenses. The original version of H.R. 2676 was commendable. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights III, the new 9-member oversight board, the Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics, the national Office of Taxpayer Advocate with its local advocacy offices, and the goal of an 80% electronic filing rate by the year 2007--these represent a movement in the right direction towards the reform and restructure of the nation's tax collecting agency. What about ensuring that working families take home more dollars so that they will not have to struggle to pay their own bills? The addition of special tax breaks for the rich during the conference committee meetings is an affront to economic justice for all of America's taxpayers. We can do a better job, and this bill could do more to correct the imbalance in our tax structure.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, although I do not intend to object, and I ask that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) offer an explanation for his request.

Mr. OWENS. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. OWENS. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his explanation and rise in support of the bill. This incident is just one example of the fact that the Fair Labor Standards Act is flexible, the Fair Labor Standards Act will yield to common sense after due deliberation. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, I might point out also, is enjoying its 60th anniversary today. The Fair Labor Standards Act was passed 60 years ago. It established the 40-hour week, overtime pay, the ban on child labor and the minimum wage. Today we celebrate an important day in American history, and on this day I think we should renew our effort to bring the minimum wage up to standard. The minimum wage now is $5.15 cents per hour, and that is still a poverty wage. It is a wage without opportunity or hope. As far as working people are concerned, the minimum wage still has not caught up with the years of inflation. We are still way behind in terms of buying power of the dollars that workers receive, so the minimum wage needs to be increased just to bring us one step closer to where the buying power of the dollar is today. I think it is only fitting and proper in a time of great prosperity that we increase the minimum wage. It is one way to share the prosperity and help us to guarantee the pursuit of happiness on a fair playing field for everybody. On this important anniversary of the minimum wage, let us recommit ourselves to create an opportunity for all working Americans. When we return after recess, I hope we will vote to raise the minimum wage. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for his statement.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I was detained yesterday and missed the following rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: H. Con. Res. 228, Money Laundering Investigations in Mexico, rollcall no. 255 ``yea''. H. Res. 451, Oppose Increase in Postal Rates, rollcall no. 256 ``yea''. H.R. 4059, Military Construction Appropriations for FY 1999, rollcall no. 254 ``yea''. H.R. 4060, Energy and Water Development Appropriations for FY 1999, rollcall no. 253 ``yea''. Amendments to H.R. 4060 by Rep. Foley to eliminate the bill's $5 million in funding for the Energy Department's Nuclear Energy Research Initiative, rollcall no. 252 ``nay''.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, it is generally recognized that the great drop in the national crime rate is due mostly to changes in the deployment of police officers and in the adoption of new attitudes with respect to police and community partnerships. No police and law enforcement leader in America has done more to advance these approaches and methods than Assistant Chief Patrick D. Brennan, one of New York's and Brooklyn's finest. On the occasion of the retirement of Chief Brennan we wish to express our gratitude and appreciation for his many years of service. I have met him at many late night community meetings and I know that Assistant Chief Brennan deserves the rest he will be able to get after retirement. On behalf of the constituents of the 11th Congressional District I salute Patrick D. Brennan as a POINT-OF-LIGHT for all America. Assistant Chief Patrick D. Brennan, who is retiring after serving as the commanding Officer of Patrol Borough Brooklyn South, began his career with the New York City Police Department as a patrolman for the 84th Precinct in September 1965. Before achieving the rank of Assistant Chief in July 1997, he was promoted to Sergeant in May 1973; Lieutenant in March 1984; Captain in December 1987; Deputy Inspector in May 1993; Inspector in October 1994; and Deputy Chief in August 1995. Assistant Chief Brennan has served as the Commanding Officer of the 5th, 72nd, 84th and 90th Precincts, as well as the Criminal Justice Bureau. He has served as the Commanding Officer of the 5th and 70th Precincts and 72nd Precinct Detective squad. Before joining the New York City Police Department, Assistant Chief Brennan received a Bachelor of Science Degree from John Jay College. Throughout his career, Assistant Chief Brennan has been supported by his wife, Monica, for 35 years. They are the proud parents of six children: Maureen, Tara Ann, Martin, Dermott, John and Patrick. Mr. Speaker, Brooklyn has encountered many problems involving the police within the last five years. Some very dramatic cases have received national attention. We must all strive to maintain a balanced perspective and continue to understand that the great majority of our police officers are productive and dedicated citizens. From the ranks of law enforcement we also repeatedly see the emergence of outstanding leaders like this one. Assistant Chief Patrick D. Brennan is an outstanding POINT-OF-LIGHT whose career can inspire all Americans.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, there is an emergency in America right now, and it affects the students in school. It affects the students who go to use our libraries. I would like to announce that it is only 7:10 Eastern Standard Time, and I hope that there are kids in America listening, because this is their fight and they ought to rally to defend their own interests, the E-Rate. The E-Rate belongs to the kids of America. What is the E-Rate? The E-Rate is a discount that is given through a universal service fund to schools and libraries in order to enable those schools and libraries to wire their computers to the Internet, to hook up to the Internet. Then the E-Rate also continues to provide a discount on the ongoing telecommunication services utilized by the schools. The E-Rate is the greatest thing that has happened to schools in a long, long time. The E-Rate is the result of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 gave the big corporations in broadcasting and telecommunications almost everything they asked for. The one concession they made is that they would provide discounted rates for schools and libraries. By the way, this is all schools, parochial schools, private schools, all schools are eligible for the utilization of this E-Rate, the discount from the universal fund. Libraries, all libraries, all public libraries are eligible for it. So we have started that. There was $2.25 billion made available or projected as the first year's expenditure. And 30,000 schools and libraries have applied already. They have met the qualifications. They have gone through the application process, and they are waiting for their funding from the E-Rate. We have a great reduction in the E-Rate. So kids of America, they have some monsters out here. They have some monsters out here who have stolen or who are attempting to steal the E-Rate away from the children of America. MCI wants the E-Rate to die. AT&T. And there are a lot of misguided Members of Congress who want the E-Rate to die. These big corporations and big powerful people elect are like the Grinch that stole Christmas. Only this time the Grinch is going to steal E-Rate. They are like the Giant that chased little Jack. They are powerful, overwhelming, abusive. They have all the power. But Jack outwitted the Giant. That means that the children of America can fight back. This is a democracy and their parents vote. I hope they are listening and they tell their parents to listen, that the E-Rate deserves to live. We are dealing with something like the Big Bad Wolf that was in Little Red Riding Hood's grandmother's bed. Little Red Riding Hood outwitted the Wolf. The Wolf in the end was destroyed, not Little Red Riding Hood. We are dealing with something like Yertle the Turtle. There are people that are very powerful. There are corporations that are very greedy. AT&T has been around a long time. They have made billions of dollars. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 would enable AT&T to make more money. MCI can make more money. Tremendous amounts of additional profit will accrue to these corporations as a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. But they want more. They want more. They are like Yertle the Turtle. I think I remember Yertle the Turtle correctly. I read it to my kids a long time. I have a grandson, and I have got to get ready with all of these stories and get familiar with them. Green Eggs and Ham is my favorite, but Yertle the Turtle also was a favorite Dr. Seuss story. If you recall, Yertle is not the hero. Yertle the Turtle is not the hero. Yertle is the villain. Yertle is the turtle who wanted to be the tallest turtle in the world. He wanted to be higher than everybody else. He kept forcing other turtles to get under him so he could get higher and higher and higher. Yertle was not the hero. There was a little turtle on the bottom of him named Mac. And Mack said, I'm tired of bearing all the weight of all these turtles on top of me. So Mack decided to squeeze out of the line, and the whole pile of turtles came tumbling down. Kids of America do not have to take this bullying by AT&T or MCI or the chairmen of the powerful congressional committees. Kids of America can rebel. They can fight back. Kids of America should stay awake, listen, they should talk to their parents. They need to know more about the E-Rate. They need to know more about the attempt of the Grinch to steel the E-Rate from the kids of America. Let me give everyone the background on what the E-Rate is all about. Last week I talked about leadership, and our leadership can determine the fate of a country and the fate of a nation, whether it is a small nation or a superpower. Last week I talked about Israel and how great the leadership of Israel has been to date; how Israel's leadership has brought it to the point in 50 years where it has achieved more than many countries have achieved in 200 or 300 years. Leadership. I also gave an example of leadership in the Soviet Union; how leadership in the Soviet Union was able to produce a space station, rockets, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and it was a superpower. But the leadership was so ingrained and so enclosed that they did not listen to the outside world with respect to democracy. They did not listen to new thought coming in, so they focused in on themselves and destroyed the economy of the country. They destroyed the spirit of the country. So a superpower went out of existence in our time. A giant superpower collapsed and failed. It is possible the giant superpower called the United States of America also is vulnerable if we do not have the right policies. If we bully little children, if we bully students in school. And that is what we have. We have the giant corporations teaming up with some powerful people in Congress and they are bullying the FCC and forcing the FCC to take away a benefit that is very much needed, an opportunity that is very much needed by most of the children in America. Certainly the low- income children of America have no chance, ever, of being in schools with computers hooked up to the internet that can pay the price of ongoing telecommunication services if we do not have this universal service fund, called the E-Rate for short. Let me give everyone the background. There is an article that appeared in the Congressional Quarterly June 13th, and it summarizes it very well. And, Mr. Speaker, I will place the entire article, entitled ``The FCC Votes to Shrink Internet Subsidies Program; Two Bills Would Shift Cost'' in the June 13th issue of the Congressional Quarterly, in its entirety, in the Record. So it will be, in its entirety, in the Record. Everyone can pull it off the internet, by the way, but I am going to read it in part to let everyone clearly understand what this is all about. This is a terrible injustice to the children of America, and I think once everyone hears the story, they will agree with me. The article is as follows: [From Congressional Quarterly, June 13, 1998] FCC Votes To Shrink Internet Subsidies Program; Two Bills Would Shift Costs (By Juliana Gruenwald) The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted June 12 to scale back a controversial program that provides discounts for Internet hookups to schools, libraries and rural health care centers. The FCC, in a 3-2 vote, agreed to provide $700 million for the second half of the year, bringing the total for the year to $1.375 billion, a cut of nearly 50 percent from the FCC's original plan. The action comes in the wake of pressure from Capitol Hill over how the FCC is running the program. Critics are angry that consumers are being forced to shoulder the cost of the Internet service. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, said the FCC's changes were ``an exercise in futility'' and said legislation must be enacted to stabilize the program. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., said June 8 he would try to move legislation to block the FCC program in the next few weeks. Rep. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, R-La., and Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., have said that, to pay for the Internet subsidies, they plan to introduce bills to shift revenue from the current 3 percent excise tax on telephone service. The program was created by Congress in the 1996 telecommunications law (PL 104-104) when it expanded universal service, a system in place for years to provide subsidies for phone service to low income residents and high- cost areas. (1996 Almanac, p. 3-43) Universal service is paid for by telecommunications companies, which pass the charges along to consumers. About $675 million has been collected for the Internet program, which has yet to dispense any subsidies. Some lawmakers say the FCC made the program so big it has led to an increase in long-distance rates. The program appeared in jeopardy after the top leaders of the House and Senate Commerce committees called on the FCC on June 4 to stop collecting funding for the program and revamp the universal service rules. (CQ Weekly, p. 1539) The move followed an announcement by some long-distance companies that they would impose a new surcharge on residential customers' bills to pay for their universal service costs. The issue came to a head June 10 when all five commissioners appeared at the Senate hearing. Several senators said they feared the Internet program could put support for traditional universal service at risk. Some GOP members also complained that the program was only intended to provide discounts for Internet services, not to help pay for inside wiring. About $1.3 billion of the $2.02 billion requested in the 30,000 applications from schools in libraries was to pay for inside wiring. But the program's defenders said the program had been unfairly maligned by those who are out to kill it and urged the commissioners to do what was necessary to keep it intact. ``Don't allow this covert operation to derail this initiative,'' said Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine, one of the initiative's sponsors. Carol Henderson, executive director for the American Library Association's Washington Office, said it has partially become a ``partisan political issue, and that's unfortunate . . . particularly if those who suffer for that are libraries and schools.'' Some Republicans call the program the ``Gore tax'' because Vice President Al Gore supports the program expanding Internet access to children. Regardless of the controversy, Linda Smith, director of technology for San Bernardino city schools in California, said she hopes policy-makers will keep their commitment to help needy school districts. Most of the 46,000 students in her district--77 percent of whom get free or reduced school lunches--do not ``have computers at home or access to the Net,'' she said. Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from the article as it appeared on June 13 in the Congressional Quarterly. The Federal Communications Commission, FCC, voted June 12th to scale back a controversial program that provides discounts for internet hookups to schools, libraries and rural health care centers. The FCC, in a 3-to-2 vote, agreed to provide $700 million for the second half of the year, bringing the total for the year to $1.375 billion, a cut of nearly 50 percent from the FCC's original plan. They promised the children of America one figure and they are cutting the amount in half. Why? There is no good reason. They are saying it is too expensive. Why is it too expensive for the children of America to receive a tiny portion of the huge revenues that are pulled in by the communications companies? They say, no, and the FCC has made these cuts. I want to make it clear at this point that I am not criticizing the FCC. The FCC has been bullied and pushed and forced into a position by overwhelming forces that have converged on the FCC. Since the E-Rate was established and the procedures were set up by the FCC, there has been a bullying by corporations. Some corporations have chosen to go to court and sue the FCC in an attempt to take away the E-Rate from the children of America. Some corporations have been doing that, so that puts pressure on the FCC. And then we have the heads of some of the committees in Congress writing to the chairman of the FCC committee, in a very vicious and unusual way. Unprecedented. The chairmen of committees, who, by the way, do not have the authority to give orders directly to the various agencies of the Federal Government. They do not have that authority. But they were so brutal in their attack that they frightened the FCC commissioners. And they are attempting to try to compromise in order to save some part of the E-Rate for the children of America. So the FCC is our hero at this point. The chairman of the FCC and the people who voted to at least keep half, they really are heroes for arriving at a point where, for the time being, they have offered a compromise. I am here tonight to call upon the children of America, the kids of America, to not accept the compromise. We do not want half. We need the full $2.25 billion that was budgeted in the first place. Let me continued with the article. The action comes in the wake of pressure from Capitol Hill over how the FCC is running the program. Critics are angry that consumers are being forced to shoulder the cost of the internet service. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, said the FCC's changes were ``an exercise in futility'' and said legislation must be enacted to stabilize the program. I do not know what he means by exercise in futility. What he is saying is, if we cut it in half, we have taken away half of the funds from the children of America. That is not enough. That is an exercise in futility. We are going to destroy the whole program. It strikes me as very strange that this program for children, through schools and libraries, is arousing such intense reaction from powerful people. Corporations first, AT&T, MCI, and now certain powerful people in Congress want to destroy the program. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Republican from Georgia, said June 8th he would try to move legislation to block the FCC program in the next few weeks. To block the FCC program. That is destruction. To smother it; to strangle it. Now, what have the kids of America done to deserve a program like this being strangled? Why is the big bad wolf and the Grinch and the giant and Yertle, all of them, gathering together to destroy a program that will provide opportunity for the children of America? Representative W. J. Billy Tauzin, Republican of Louisiana, and Senator Conrad Burns, Republican of Montana, have said that to pay for the internet subsidies, they plan to introduce bills to shift revenue from the current 3 percent excise tax on telephone service. Now, that sounds like, well, these guys are constructive and somebody is coming up with an alternative. When we start talking about taxes and shifting taxes, I assure everyone, children of America who are listening, after all, it is still early, I hope they are up, I assure everyone that any attempt to shift taxes or to play with taxes will not fair very well here on the floor. It will not get through. They are just going to use this as a smoke screen to pretend that they care about the kids of America; they care about their opportunity and their future to be able to really learn the kind of basic knowledge of computers and use of the internet that is going to be required when they get to the point where they are graduating from high school or they are going out there to get one of these jobs, the big jobs of the future, the important jobs, the jobs that are going to be available, that we know for certain are jobs relating to information technology. Information technology jobs are the ones that will be available. If kids do not get prepared in school, they will be able to qualify for those jobs. Low-income students in the big cities of America, students in rural areas are already way behind. Most of our suburban schools, a lot of schools in affluent communities, they are already wired to the internet. They already have computer labs and computer programs which are fully educating their children on the benefits of how to use computers and learning how to use computers in the applications for the future. To go back to the article, I quote again, The program was created by Congress in the 1996 telecommunications law, Public Law 104-104, when it expanded universal service, a system in place for years to provide subsidies for phone service to low-income residents and high cost areas. Let me just quote that again. I am quoting from an article from the Congressional Quarterly. They said the program that we are talking about now, the E-Rate, the universal fund expansion to include discounts to libraries and schools was added to another fund in 1996, in the 1996 telecommunications law, when it expanded universal service. Universal service existed already. They are making it appear they never had anything like this, but there is a universal service that existed already, and that service provides service to low-income residents and high cost areas. Universal service is paid for by telecommunications companies and they pass the charges along to consumers. Is it a large charge? We have been receiving an extra charge for years. For years we have never known it even existed. Most people did not know there was a universal service and that a slight amount of money was taxed on to the phone bill to pay for that service that already existed. But now that it is there for children, it is there to provide wiring to the internet and ongoing telecommunications services on the internet, it has suddenly become a big issue and corporations want to go to war against the children of America. About $675 million has been collected for the internet program to date, which has yet to dispense any subsidies. They have not spent a penny yet. We have been getting ready since last fall. Applications originally were supposed to be submitted last fall. They moved it back to January. We started submitting applications in January. Remember, those who were part of those 30,000 schools that have submitted? It was done mostly over the internet. Most of the submissions were done over the internet. They could do it some other way, in print, but they encouraged everybody to do it over the internet. And those applications were complicated. The process was complicated. And now that they have it all in, and not a penny has been spent yet, before the program can even start, the bullies, the giants, the grinches, the big bad wolves, the Yertles, the turtles, they have come along and stolen half of it and they want the rest. Kids of America better rise up and fight this. Some lawmakers say the FCC made the program so big it has lead to an increase in long-distance rates. The program appeared in jeopardy after the top leaders of the House and Senate commerce committees called on the FCC on June 4 to stop collecting funding for the program and revamp the universal service rules. The move followed an announcement by some long-distance companies, the move followed an announcement by some long-distance companies, that they would impose a new surcharge on residential customers' bills to pay for their universal service cost. Here is where was set in motion the process which has now led to an attempt to steal the E-Rate from the kids of America. The move followed an announcement by some long distance companies that they would impose a new surcharge on residential customers' bills to pay for their universal service cost. The issue came to a head June 10th, when all five commissioners appeared at the Senate hearing. Several Senators said they feared the internet program could put support for traditional universal service at risk. Some GOP members also complained that the program was only intended to provide discounts for internet services, not to help pay for inside waring. About $1.3 billion of the $2.2 billion requested in the 30,000 applications from schools and libraries was to pay for inside wiring. I am reading from Congressional Quarterly's summary of the attempt to steal the Internet from the kids of America. They are making an issue out of the fact that some of the money goes to help wire the school to provide basic wiring to hook computers up to the net. They do not use the money to buy computers. They do not use the money to pay for teachers or technical assistants. They do not use the means to pay personnel to wire the schools necessarily, but the wiring costs and some basic costs that enables the schools that are poorest to get into the game. The biggest amount of the money and the money that will be spent on an ongoing basis will be for the actual telecommunications services on an ongoing basis month after month after month. Some schools will get a discount as high as 90 percent. In the poorest schools in my district, it means that for every dollar that the schools spend on a monthly basis for telecommunications services, they would only have to pay 10 cents. They can get as high as that. The poorest districts of America could get a 90 percent discount. What are the poorest districts? They measure them by the districts that have the largest amount of children who are eligible for the free school lunch program. The school lunch program, in order to be a part of it, they have to submit from their parents and their home, they have to submit proof of their income status. There are some schools in my district where 95 percent of the children are eligible for the school lunch program, which means that that school certainly is eligible for the biggest discount. So at one end they may have some suburban schools, affluent neighborhoods, they get a 15 percent discount. Some people complain about they should not get anything. I think the program should be for every school district, for every school, for every library. I do not think it should be cut off for some and only available to the poorest. I think there should be some funds available for every school. I do not think $2.2 billion that has been requested by the 30,000 schools and libraries is too much when we consider the billions of dollars being earned by the big telecommunications companies. I am quoting again from the Congressional Quarterly article. ``But the program's defenders said the program had been unfairly maligned by those who are out to kill it and urge the commissioners to do what was necessary to keep it intact. Don't allow this covert operation to derail this initiative,'' said Senator Olympia J. Snow, Republican of Maine, one of the initiative's sponsors. Karen Henderson, the executive director for the American Libraries Association's Washington office, said, ``It has partially become a partisan political issue.'' And that is unfortunate, particularly if those who suffer for that are libraries and schools. Why are the Republicans making this a partisan issue? Do Republicans not care about education in America? Do they not want the children of America who are in school today to be prepared to meet the qualifications for the information technology jobs of tomorrow? Why are the Republicans against providing universal, across-the-board service which would allow all schools and libraries to become part of a process of utilizing information technology starting with computers? They are making it a big partisan issue. Remember the Republicans, 2 years ago they tried to steal part of school lunches from children, they wanted to cut the school lunch program two years ago? At that time I called on the kids of America and their parents to wake up. Kids of America, there is a fiscal crunch. This great Nation now needs your lunch. I wrote a little appeal to the kids to understand what they are saying. The Republicans say there is a fiscal crunch. The Nation needs your lunch. I was absurd, ridiculous of course. $2 billion will be saved by cutting back on school lunches. The kids of America and their parents, everybody out there with common sense, rose up in horror. How can the Republicans take lunches from little kids? How can they take lunches from students at school? And the horror became evident in the public opinion polls and in the focus groups, so that the Republicans in 1996 retreated. They gave up not only their great cuts in school lunch program, they gave up many other education cuts, understanding that common sense in America says that education ought to be one of the first priorities in the Federal Government. Education should be one of the first priorities. They tried to politicize education. They called for the complete elimination of the Department of Education. They were going to cut Headstart. They were going to cut title I. The budget that they presented in 1995 in many ways resembles the budget that they presented in 1998. Again, they are calling for elimination of title I. They are going to convert title I to vouchers. Again, they refuse to deal with the overwhelming problem of school construction that we need help in constructing more classrooms. In order to bring down class size we need to do two things. We need to construct more classrooms as well as provide some money for more teachers. But the Republican budget that has just been released, they do not have anything in there for school construction, for reduction of class sizes. They want to cut title I and turn it into a voucher program. They want to politicize something as great as this universal service funds for schools and libraries. It now is going to become a political football. The next paragraph in that article describes part of that process. A quote from the Congressional Quarterly article. ``Some Republicans call the program the Gore tax because Vice President Al Gore supports the program expanding Internet access to children.'' ``Some Republicans call the program the Gore tax because Vice President Al Gore supports the program expanding Internet access to children.'' What a pity that this becomes a political football. Vice President Al Gore should be lauded and applauded for the way they have provided leadership. This is leadership and vision that has been provided and leading the way for schools to get involved in their educational programs with the kind of process educating children for information technology jobs that exist tomorrow. That process will not happen automatically. Schools have lots of problems. Only the vision of Vice President Gore and of President Clinton has opened this whole process. We made a breakthrough. The President stood here 2 years ago and called for the wiring of all the schools of America through a volunteer process. The President himself, in California, helped initiate the first volunteer wiring of the schools. They go out on a Saturday and they get volunteers and they wire a school. They even set up a national process where there is a kit to wire a school we could purchase between $500 and $600. Because they purchased the equipment and wires, everything was purchased in large quantities, so they are able to supply the kit at the very lowest cost. Then they can get volunteers to do the hookup. We also need some people who are aware of how to do this. So they have to call upon people like the Bell Atlantic employees in my district who have been magnificent. Bell Atlantic employees and Bell Atlantic has supported the wiring of schools for Internet in my district. In other districts, they had other telecommunications companies and they had unions. I think my colleague the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) is a leader in this Congress; and she gave us a whole handbook and a whole list of ways in which they can get their school wired. So wiring of a school by volunteers has been initiated by the President and Vice President. Members of Congress and Democrats have picked up on it. And we have had a large number of schools that have been wired. They need the help on an ongoing basis to pay the cost of telecommunications services. Then there are other situations where a large number of schools have not been wired. In the inner cities of America, most of the schools still remain unwired. I have led in my district an effort to wire schools. Out of the 70 schools that exist in my Congressional district, 70 schools, elementary, junior high school and high school, we only wired 22. With the great Herculean volunteer effort, we only wired 22. We are a pilot program. We have had the help of the Board of Education. We had the help of Bell Atlantic, one of the communications companies. We had the help of a group called New York Connects, which organizes other private-sector companies to give us help in wiring the schools. We had a lot of help from a group called the Husain Institute of technology. Mr. Husain is an engineer, a computer engineer, who volunteers his services, as well as he operates a free school for training students, adults, and children on the computer. So we have had all this with us, and still we have only wired 22. What this does, the E-rate, the universal fund does is allow this process to be speeded up and accelerated. We do not have to wait for all of this to be done by volunteers. The first barrier that most inner cities cannot cross is that measly $500 to $600. All they need for the kit to buy all the wire, all the tools, all the hookups, all the plastic stuff, all the copper, all that is supplied in a kit for $500 to $600. Most schools cannot raise the $500 to $600. They cannot get the volunteers outside to do it. We have been fortunate that Bell Atlantic and New York Connects and some other private-sector people have done that for us in order to make certain that nobody is left behind, that all of the schools, private, parochial, and public in America do receive this connection with the Internet. By the way, the wiring of the schools, when we use that term, we are talking about the library and five classrooms. Wiring of the schools is library and five classrooms. It is not the whole school. It is just a measly fundamental necessary beginning. And that is all we are asking. Let the universal fund go forward Let us keep the E-rate so that that is possible. Let me just conclude this article by reading the last two paragraphs. ``Regardless of the controversy, Linda Smith, who is Director of Technology for San Bernardino City Schools in California, said she hopes policymakers will keep their commitments to help needy school districts.'' I hope that policy makers will keep their commitments. I fear that the bullies here will not let us do that. We are the policy makers. The Congress of the United States wrote into the legislation that the FCC should provide a way to make certain that all schools and libraries get service, connection with the Internet. It is in the law. It is a very simple statement, very general. It was left up to the FCC to determine how to do that. The former commissioner of the FCC, Reid Hunt, did a magnificent job of guiding us to a point where they established this program, with all of its complications. The present commissioner, William Kanard, is attempting to carry out what was decided upon by commissioners previously. It is most unfortunate that the bullies have all ganged up on the FCC and have forced them to back down. We lost half of the Internet as a result of their actions. The last paragraph of this article from the Congressional Quarterly on July 13th, ``Most of the 46,000 students in Linda Smith's district, 77 percent of whom get free or reduced school lunches, do not have computers at home or access to the Net,'' she said. That is the case in my district. That is the case of thousands of school districts across the country. They do not have access to the Internet, and they will not have it if we let them take the universal fund away. Kids of America, AT&T, MCI, they are bullies. They are grinches who want to steal the E-rate. They are giants who want to chase little Jack. They are the big bad wolves. They are Yertle the Turtle. In the comic books, there is the council of doom. In modern space comic books, where we deal with the whole universe and in certain planets, sets of planets, they have a council of doom, the evil monsters attempting to gain control of the universe; and they raid against the counsel of justice, the good guys who are attempting to go fight off evil and make certain that democracy prevails in the universe and that everybody has an opportunity to survive in the universe in peace and harmony. Now we have got a council of doom going after the E-rate. The council of doom has won the first battle. The council of doom was able to force the FCC to back down and cut the E-rate in half. Kids of America, do not take it lying down. ``Kids of America, wake up. Arise, March all together. Before the E-rate dies. Kids of America, arise. AT&T is telling your parents misleading lies. Kids of America, it is time to fight. Take out your light. Let it shine for truth. Boycott the AT&T booth. AT&T lies have clouded our blue skies. Don't make any calls. Then the monster falls. Kids arise. Fight AT&T lies. Altogether students attack. Take opportunity and the Internet back. Kids of America, arise.'' You do not have to take this lying down. Tell your parents you will not allow them to take it lying down. You have a telephone. Call AT&T now. Call your Congressman. We will not take this lying down. The grinch will not steal the E-rate from the kids of America. This giant will not destroy little Jack. The big bad wolf got outwitted by Little Red Ridinghood. And we will outwit the big bad wolf again. Yertle the turtle got knocked off his pedestal my Mack. The council of doom has won the first battle. But we will not let the council of doom prevail. The council of justice will take over. This is not the first time I have appealed to the kids of America to come forward and fight. We won last time. When they tried to take the school lunches away, or cut the school lunch program, I called on the kids of America to rally, and they did. They got to their parents, they got to the voters, the message got through to the Republicans that we will not stand for a cut in the school lunch program. Mr. Speaker, I am going to read my colleagues a section of the Congressional Record from Tuesday, April 4, 1995. That was shortly after we started the battle with the Republican majority to get back the school lunch program. They had voted to cut the school lunch program. I want Members to just see how relevant this battle is to the present one. They could not cut the school lunch program, but now they are going after something that is fundamental to the minds, the future training opportunity for our young people. On April 4, I entered the following statement into the Congressional Record: Mr. Speaker, the final word has not yet been said about the Republican swindle of the children who receive free lunches in schools across our Nation. But the final, most authoritative figures have been established by the Congressional Budget Office. The very conservative but thorough Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Republicans will capture slightly more than $2 billion from their block-granted school lunch program. They were going to take $2 billion out of the school lunch program for the kids of America. This will be $2 billion more to go into the tax cut for the rich. This is a scenario filled with horror. It conjures up the image of the poster where Uncle Sam is pointing the finger and saying to potential military recruits, ``I need you!'' While the Republicans advocate a $50 billion increase in the Defense budget and turn their backs on welfare for corporations and rich farmers, they are saying to the children of America, ``This Nation needs your lunch.'' Kids of America, there is a fiscal crunch. This great Nation now needs your lunch. To set the budget right, go hungry for one night. Don't eat what we could save. Be brave. Patriots stand out above the bunch. Proudly surrender lunch. Kids of America, nutrition is not for you. Sacrifice for the rich few. When tummies hurt, go to bed. Be a soldier and play dead. The F-22 then might rescue you. The Sea Wolf sub might bring hot grub. Now hear this, there is a fiscal crunch. This Nation needs your lunch. Pledge allegiance to the flag. Mobilize your own brown bag. The enemy deficit must be defeated. Nutrition suicide squads are desperately needed. Kids of America, there is a fiscal crunch. This great Nation now needs your lunch. They demanded your lunch before and you said ``no.'' Your parents said ``no.'' The voters said ``no.'' The Republican majority retreated. Now they are demanding your opportunity to learn what you need to know in order to go into the 21st century. Kids of America arise. Don't accept the AT&T lies. MCI wants the E-rate to die. A lot of other telecommunications corporations are suing the Federal Communications Commission. Some misguided chairmen are bullying the FCC. There are people coming to our defense. There are a lot of efforts to try to turn back this terrible action. I want to commend the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Mr. Kennard. I want to commend the Secretary of Education, Mr. Riley. They are fighting back and we are going to fight back. Children will not be alone. There are many others who will join us in this fight to make certain that the E-rate is not stolen. Jesse Jackson has attacked the telecommunications industry in an article which appeared in the Amsterdam News on June 11. I quote from the article: A $2.25 billion program designed to provide discount rates to wire poor urban school districts and libraries for the Internet was unveiled Monday at the Chicago headquarters of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition. At a press conference attended by several Members of Congress and the Chicago Public School System, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, the head of the coalition, called the project another example of the growing class gap in America. Companies that are perennially poised to feed at the public trough, Jackson charged, have once again turned their backs on the consumer by passing on the cost of wiring poor urban and rural school districts to their consumers. Although some 30,000 applications for the discount rate have been submitted from school districts and libraries across the country, Jackson noted that the telecommunications industry is lobbying Congress to call a halt to the plan. ``This action will essentially resegregate our schools along class lines,'' Jackson declared. On the other hand, he said that there are schools that are wired for the Internet and its attendant technology. Jackson said that the poor urban and rural children will be shut out of the technology. He said further that the big telecommunications moguls should not be allowed to leave some children behind. ``They would rather lock them up than train them in school facilities that are adequately wired for increasing technology,'' Jackson said. As my colleagues know, it costs more than $30,000 a year to keep a prisoner in a cell. Why can we not afford some discounts on telecommunications to make certain that our children get the very best possible education? Why is our leadership so blind? Why is there so little vision? At a time like this when America is more prosperous than it has been in decades, why are we attempting to take away opportunity for children to learn what they need to know in order to qualify for the jobs, in order to be leaders in the 21st century? Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by reading a letter from William Kennard, and a letter from Richard Riley. I will not read the entire letter, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I enter into the Record two letters which appeared in the Washington Post, one from William Kennard, Federal Communications Commission Chairman, and one from the Secretary Richard W. Riley, Secretary of Education, as follows: A Computer in Every Classroom (By William E. Kennard) James Glassman's June 2 op-ed column criticized Congress's decision to make connecting libraries and classrooms to the communications network part of our national concept of universal service. Mr. Glassman said the initiative is not needed. But an enormous disparity in access to communications technology exists in this country, and the Federal Communications Commission is implementing its congressional mandate in a way that supports local control of education and does so without creating large, inefficient bureaucracies. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress expanded universal service to include advanced telecommunications services to all public libraries and grades K through 12 in public and private schools. Schools in affluent communities now have double the Internet access of schools in low income or rural areas. Nationwide, only 27 percent of our classrooms, and only 13 percent of classrooms in our neediest areas, have access to an Internet connection. Few poor children will have access to the Internet outside of school, yet studies show that students in classes that use computers not only outperform their peers on standardized tests but show more enthusiasm for communicating and learning. This increase in technology will improve the lives of American schoolchildren. None of the changes means that local school boards will not decide what technology to acquire and fund. On average, universal service covers only 15 percent of the projected cost of connecting, operating and using networks in classrooms. Each school and library applying for a universal- service discount must pay as much as 80 percent of the total cost of the discounted service. Universal service discounts can be applied only to the cost of obtaining telecommunications services, establishing network connections and receiving Internet access. School districts also must certify that they have a plan for how to use the discounted services and that the plan has been approved by their state. Nor is universal service for schools and libraries an entitlement administered by an oversized federal bureaucracy. The private, nonprofit, nonpolitical entity established to administer the program has a staff of 14 people. Mr. Glassman charged that I and other supporters of universal service to rural America, low-income citizens and classrooms and libraries have opposed efforts by communications carriers to itemize contributions on customer bills. On the contrary, I favor full disclosure by all telephone companies. But companies that say they will pass on ``new'' charges also should commit to passing on reductions and to disclosing both. I support neither a ``hidden tax'' nor a ``hidden rate increase.'' Finally, let's be clear about the cost of universal service for classrooms and libraries. Connecting classrooms and libraries can be achieved for less than $1 per line per month. The rest of the proposed universal service fees continue our 60-year national commitment to affordable and adequate telephone service for rural America and our poorest citizens. The real issue is not a ``hidden tax'' but the hidden agenda of Mr. Glassman and others who oppose our national commitment to ensuring that all Americans have access to communications technology as we enter the 21st century.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We could have total bipartisan cooperation if we really recognized what is at the heart of this controversy at this point. It is money. It is only money; $22,600 a year is not a proper cutoff point. I recognize that the Fair Labor Standards Act is 60 years old. We have made some adjustments in situations where adjustments made sense, but here we are proposing to make an adjustment on the backs of the working families. We are proposing an adjustment which has no logical rationale. Common sense has been thrown out the window. We have a cutoff point of $22,600 a year. We did this same thing for the computer programming industry. They had certain circumstances which made it evident that large amounts of hours were required, and they could not keep paying more and more overtime, but they had a staff of specialized people. They could not go out and get more people because they did not have the skills. We took that into consideration and we amended the 60-year-old Fair Labor Standards Act. And certainly we could work out an amendment now, a bipartisan amendment, if we would just admit the fact that $22,600 a year is not a proper cutoff point. My colleague from California, an expert in human resources, said that the average is $40,000 a year for retail salespeople, it is $40,000 a year, not $57,000 like the computer programming people. Well, this particular industry has a set of facts which we should all look at, and maybe she is right, $40,000 is the figure, not $57,000. We cannot just be arbitrary and say $57,000, that is a pretty good living even now. We did that a few years ago. But even now $57,000 looks pretty good compared to $22,600. So if we are not interested in robbing the working families to make the rich richer, which is what most of the amendments that are brought to the committee by the Republican majority do, if we are not interested in exploiting working families, if we really care about working people, if we are a committee that is concerned with work force protections and not work force harassment, then we could work out a compromise. We should withdraw this bill now, work out a compromise, and let us arrive at a figure between $40,000 and $57,000, and we can accept a lot of other rather vague things that are here that may make for difficulties in the future. The whole definition of what a specialist is and who is selling a specialized product. I know people who are in the grocery business, and they insist that they are specialists, they are professionals. Not everybody can come in and sell groceries. It used to be there was a sitcom at one time where the guy was a hardware store owner and used to get all riled up about what it took to sell hardware. And he would always end his statements by saying, this is not just some little common thing in the street; hardware is something special. So everybody can make the argument that they are a specialist. Certainly employers who want to make people work more hours without overtime could always say, you are really a specialist. You are selling eggs and milk, but you are a specialist and you do not get any overtime. There are a lot of pitfalls here. We can settle it all and reach agreement, if we would just talk about a reasonable, common sense figure that does not exploit working families. Do not put people in a bind where they cannot get any more cash for overtime at the level of $22,600 a year. Let us go on and take a hard look at all the factors and come back and offer the working families something which comes off the table. The table is full now of goodies. It is a very prosperous time. Wall Street is making more money than they ever made before. The Dow Jones average hovers between 8000 and 9000 on a daily basis. It is just amazing that the energy of the Republican majority is all concentrated at taking things away from working families at a time like this. We have a window of opportunity. Let us share the prosperity. If we have to set some figures for exemption in the Fair Labor Standards Act, let us raise them high enough to be meaningful for working families. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman realize this is about inside sales, which means people cannot go home and make phone calls from home. They have to be on the job. That is the whole thing. They are bound to the job. They are bound at the spot. They are bound at the spot. They are inside.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman..

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am strongly opposed to H.R. 2888. Mr. Chairman, why are we here at 11 o'clock tonight? Why is this bill on the floor as an open rule tonight or any other time? This is a very trivial piece of legislation in one sense. By itself it does not have much meaning. But if you look at it in the context of a whole series of small, seemingly trivial bills which harass American working families, then this is a very important bill. It is probably not important to many people because it has an open rule. Nothing comes to this floor with an open rule that is really important. When bills related to budgets and taxes and really important things come to the floor, they do not have an open rule. So it is really being treated in a very trivial way and by itself it would be, but it is part of a bigger guerilla campaign, a guerilla warfare campaign of the Republican majority against the American working families. At a time like this in America when the stock market is booming, unprecedented prosperity, why are we chipping away at the wages and income of the people at the very bottom? We are talking about sales people and calling them managing consultants. What managing consultant do you know that makes $22,000 a year? That is what we are talking about. When you take the wages plus the commissions, the cut-off point for this is $22,000 a year. At that point, the Fair Labor Standards Act ceases to apply and these people are left out there on their own. If they can sell and make commissions, then good. But since they are inside salesmen and since they are helping customers with the product, giving advice, they are doing a number of things which do not bring a commission. You only get a commission when you sell. If you do not sell, you do not get a commission. But they are doing lots of other work. So why are we here chipping away at the income of people at that level? As my colleagues know, this is a part of a campaign that I find baffling, the majority party continues. Today we had a series of bills on OSHA where they were chipping away at the safety and health standards for American workers. Now we are going to the heart of the matter, and we are going after their cash. We are taking away the cash. Now this bill is like a landmine on the way to a bigger objective. As my colleagues know, the bigger objective is to take away overtime cash payment for overtime completely. I think many of us still remember that the 105th Congress opened up with a bill which was a comp time bill, a bill which said that an employer could give comp time instead of cash to employees. I think my colleagues may remember that that bill passed the House of Representatives. It is still out there. The Senate has not acted upon it yet, we have not had a conference, but there is still a danger in this year, and I call this to the attention of all the working families out there. As my colleagues know, I hope they are still awake, I hope they are here. We can take advantage of this maneuver that they are pulling to alert people that the comp time bill is out there still. It passed the House of Representatives, it is waiting, they are waiting to take away overtime, they are going to take away cash for their overtime. This is part of the whole plot, and if our colleagues pass this, we are one step further along the road to taking cash payment for overtime. Now at that time when we had that bill on the floor, I proposed a compromise. I proposed that, all right, there is a lot of talk about middle-class families, people who are making $100,000 or more. They want comp time, and they do not want to be bound by having to take their overtime only in cash payments. They want to be able to take time off. So I had a simple proposal, a simple amendment, put it on the floor. I said that all those people who are making minimum wage, and if they are making minimum wage, it meant their salary, their total earnings for the year, assuming they worked every hour of a 40-hour week for the whole year, was less than $12,000 a year. Anybody earning minimum wage, less than $12,000 a year, let them remain under the Fair Labor Standards Act and receive cash payment. They need cash to put food on the table. They need cash for clothing, for shelter. They do not need comp time. That is what they need. That bill was voted down here. It did get 170-some votes, but it was voted down. As my colleagues know, how can we keep saying with an honest and with a straight face that this prosperous economy cannot afford to have people receive overtime payment when they are making less than $12,000 a year? And here we have another situation, another standard of $22,000 a year. Now unless somebody complains that I am not germane, let me proceed to say that this piece of legislation, the effect of this legislation is to permit employers to either require workers to work longer hours, how to pay workers less for each hour's work. Far from enhancing the earning opportunity of workers, the primary effect of this legislation is to increase the income of the employers at the expense of the workers. H.R. 2888 exempts an undetermined number of nonretail inside sales personnel from the requirement that employers pay time and a half for hours worked in excess 40 hours a week. Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as many as 1.5 million workers may lose overtime protection if this legislation is enacted. Unlike outside sales people, an inside sales person is directly employed in making and processing sales for their entire time at work, and I want to emphasize again Secretary Reich was right. They are engaged in a large number of activities that do not necessarily end up in sales. They do provide advice, they do explain things. There are a number of ways in which inside sales persons are working all the time and there is no commission attached to their labor. I agree with the chairman of the committee. As my colleagues know, managing consultants is what we could describe them as in terms of the duties that they perform. They do not get a managing consultant's pay, and that is what we should focus on. We are not talking about people who get paid at the level of managing consultants or any other kind of consultant. Since the employer is receiving a direct benefit from the employee's labors, from the employee's entire work period, employers should be required to pay overtime when the employee is required to work more than 40 hours in a week as the law currently provides. There is no justification for denying overtime pay to these workers. There is some confusion. I do not know why there is such confusion. It is a simple matter. They are forcing people to work, and they are not paying them in accordance with the overtime regulations of the Fair Labor Standards Act if they exempt them, force them into an exempt status. Under this legislation, employees are exempted if they earn wages or salary of $16,000 a year and if they earn an additional $6,500 a year in commissions. In other words, the $16,000 an employee must earn in wages or salary is regardless of the number of hours that he works, that is worked by this employee. An employee, by being required to work more than 40 hours a week may be paid well below the time and a half standards, well below 1.5 times the minimum wage, and still qualify for the exemption so long as the annual wage exceeds $16,068.40. A minimum wage worker who is required to work 60 hours a week without a sufficient base salary, to be exempted from overtime by this legislation. This legislation further provides that an employer need not pay anything in wages or salary to covered workers for hours worked beyond 40 hours a week. In other words, an employee who earns $7.73 an hour and earns the equivalent of another $3.09 an hour in commissions may be required to work overtime without earning a penny more in wages and salaries. This bill does not simply repeal the requirement that employees be paid 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for overtime work, it repeals a requirement that an employer provide any wage or salary for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week. Employers may still require employees to work overtime. If during the overtime period the employee earns no commissions, then the employee would be paid nothing, nothing at all, for the additional hours worked. Exempting workers who make no more than $22,600 a year from overtime protection is a horrific policy, and that is what it all boils down to. If at this hour of the night I am certain that anybody listening is confused, and there are a lot of folks who seem permanently confused, it all boils down to taking a person who is in combination salary plus commissions at the level of $22,600 a year and saying to them, ``You are no longer going to get paid cash for your overtime, you are not going to get anything for your overtime, and your employer can work you as many hours as he wants to because there's no reason why they couldn't schedule you to work. It doesn't cost them anything. It costs you your hours, time away from your family, but at 22,600 you're in another zone.'' $22,600 happens to be 12 percent below the average annual income earned for all workers. Let me repeat. $22,600 is 12 percent below the average annual income for all workers. The median income for nonretail sales representatives is $40,000. Under the current law, employees in the computer programing industry must make $57,000 a year before they are exempted from overtime. And I want to repeat that again. The computer programing industry has a unique exemption, and I was a part of the legislation which gave that exemption. Some of us are accused sometimes of not being willing to compromise, of not being willing to change anything that has been in the law for 30 years or being dogmatic, et cetera. No. We have a clear situation with the computer programing industry. It was clear that they needed some relief from the Fair Labor Standards Act, and we gave it to them, but it was reasonable. The threshold number was $57,000 a year. Employees in the computer programing industry must make $57,000 a year before they are exempted from overtime. Now considering all the other reasons why they needed to be exempted, and they gave good reasons, if it had not been at a level of $57,000 a year, I would have never agreed to it. Many others would not have agreed to it. That is the crux of the matter tonight. What is your breaking level, where do you start shutting off cash payments on overtime for the people that the law is designed to protect? Notwithstanding the unprecedented prosperity the economy has enjoyed over the past 5 years, income disparity between the very wealthy and everyone else is increasing. The drop in overall unemployment rates has not significantly diminished the fact that more and more Americans must work longer hours just to make ends meet. Rather than addressing these matters, H.R. 2888 exacerbates them. The majority party continues to exacerbate the problems faced by working families in America. Working families in America should know that we are not here to discuss tonight the important issues like a raise in the minimum wage. If we just raise the minimum wage in a very conservative way, 50 cents a year for the next 2 years, by the year 2000 we would have a minimum wage of $6.15 an hour. We would still be behind in terms of not being able to keep up with inflation, but that is not even being entertained. We cannot even talk about that. It is not put on the floor for discussion. We have something called the American Competitiveness Act, which goes after people who are computer programming specialists and information technology workers. Instead of training more workers and discussing how we can train more workers and have the workers in this country, people who are now being laid off and downsized from other jobs, trained to take these jobs, we just passed something in the other body which is called the American Competitiveness Act, a real outrageous name for such an act. The American Competitiveness Act will soon be on the floor of this House, and it was not even sent to our committee. It is handled by another committee. But it deals with taking jobs away from workers. It is going to raise the quota for the admission of professionals into this country and allow more people with computer programming knowledge to come in. Thirty thousand more will be allowed in per year for the first year, and 20,000 a year for the next 3 or 4 years. That needs to be discussed. We are taking jobs and total income, total salary, away from large numbers of American workers. They are striking, I understand, now in Flint, Michigan, because workers are concerned about their jobs being taken overseas. We are not discussing that in the Committee of Education and Workforce. We do not protect the work force in this committee. The majority makes certain that the work force is harassed and that we are constantly finding ways to downsize the income and downsize the health and safety standards for working people. This is a serious flawed piece of legislation, and although it looks small, it is a land mine on the way to another catastrophe. The big catastrophe is waiting. We already passed it out of the House, it is waiting out there, and it is called comp time. They are going to take away the protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act from everybody and have comp time replace cash time for overtime, cash payment for overtime. This is an important bill. Keep your eyes on the guerrilla war being raged by the Republican majority. This is a seriously flawed piece of legislation. I urge its defeat. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), an expert management personnel consultant, a real consultant. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. OWENS. In the list of extensions, are there other situations which involve part of the income being derived from commissions? Part of this 22,000 is commissions. It is only 16,000 that is really salary, and part is commission. Is there any other situation where an exemption is given to some position which makes up commissions, is made up partially with commissions?

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides that employees who lose their overtime protection as a result of this legislation will have a right to choose whether or not they will work overtime. They will have the right and not the employer. Employers would be prohibited from requiring those sales people to work in excess of 40 hours a week, or 8 hours a day. The proponents of H.R. 2888 as we have heard tonight contend that workers want to work overtime without overtime pay. For 60 years Americans have had this protection in place for inside sales people and sales have gone very well. The economy has boomed. Why fix it if it is not broken already? We have a working situation here. But they say that workers want to work overtime without overtime pay. They have overtime pay now. Workers are dying to give it up. They have stated repeatedly that this legislation is intended to help workers. I have said that is not the case. I submit that claims that this legislation will help workers are wholly false. This legislation will help employers, but it will harm workers. Under current law, the only legal restriction on the number of hours an employee may be required to work is a requirement that employers pay time and a half for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a week. This puts a brake on exploitation. This puts a brake on employers who want to drive their workers in order to make greater profits without also compensating the workers. Under H.R. 2888, an employer would no longer be required to pay a worker anything for overtime work except for such commissions as the employee may earn during that period. Indeed if an employee earns no commission during the overtime period, the employer is not required to pay the employee anything at all for that work. This legislation shifts business risks from the employer to the employee. H.R. 2888 also creates a powerful incentive for employers to require employees to work overtime by permitting employers to pay a worker less for overtime work than for regular work. In my view, this consequence is obvious and intentional. However, if this legislation is truly intended to benefit employees, then clearly the worker and not the employer should exercise control over how much overtime will be worked. That is all that my amendment would accomplish. Employers may continue to require employees to work 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week. Employers may continue to specify when those hours will be worked. However, if the employee is going to undertake the risk of working additional hours beyond 40 hours, with no guarantee of being paid for those hours, it would be at the employee's own choosing and not the employer. Even if my amendment is adopted, many workers will not have a true choice. $22,600 is not a living wage for most families. Many workers would be financially compelled to work overtime. However, my amendment ensures that all employees who would otherwise lose overtime protection would at least have some voice as to how much overtime they will work and when they will work it. If those who support H.R. 2888 are serious about their desire to help workers, they will support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, no objection to the amendment.