Major Owens

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo], and to continue our special observance of Black History Month I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

Mr. OWENS. I want to congratulate, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and congratulate the Association for the Study of Afro-American Life and History for their theme this year on Black History. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of maintaining the continuity that we have started, I am going to reserve my own comments and let my colleagues who have been waiting go at this point ahead of me. I would like to first yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Governor Romero-Barcelo.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Federal Housing Trust Fund Act of 1995, a significant piece of legislation which would offer every family in this country the opportunity to live in decent, safe, and affordable housing. In 1949, Congress enacted a comprehensive housing bill setting the national goal of a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family. Today, we are further from that goal than ever before. The VA-HUD-Independent Agencies appropriations bill which finally passed the Senate last week does not even keep pace with the problem of low-income housing. Recently, the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] released its worst case housing needs report, based on 1991 American Housing Survey data. It shows that the number of very low-income renter households with worst case housing needs is increasing at the rate of 100,000 per year. But the 1995 HUD appropriation provides money for only 88,000 additional households. Low-income people have faced a housing crisis for many years, and each year it gets worse. The 1990 Census, which does not even count deteriorated or dilapidated housing, found that over 30 percent of American households have significant problems with housing costs, overcrowding, or lack of kitchens or complete plumbing facilities. These problems affect an estimated 70 million people. Although this Nation has had federally subsidized housing programs for low-income people since the mid-1930's, the scope of the programs has been limited. In recent years, HUD has consistently found that there are over 5 million very low-income, unsubsidized renter households with worst case housing needs. These households are homeless; or they live in seriously inadequate units; or they must pay more than half of their meager incomes for housing costs, forcing them to forego other basic necessities. Just meeting the most basic housing needs requires more than doubling the present number of households receiving housing assistance. Moreover, for each household with a worst case need, there are four more households--27 million in all--which are overcrowded, lack kitchens or bathrooms, or must pay more than they can afford for housing. While low-income housing programs have failed to meet the needs of their target population, special tax benefits have provided significant assistance for millions of higher-income Americans who already can afford a home. Official estimates of the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] indicate that the cost of these special benefits to the Federal Treasury has risen from $10 billion in 1976 to $84 billion in 1994. A large majority of this cost to the Government is due to the deduction of home mortgage interest and real property taxes. While these tax deductions have helped millions of higher-income Americans achieve financial stability, they represent too high a proportion of Federal housing expenditures. For every dollar the Federal Government spends to provide housing assistance to a low-income family, a family in the top fifth of the income distribution receives $3 in benefits from homeowner deductions, primarily for mortgage interest and property taxes. The sad fact is that this Nation's housing subsidy system is upside down. While Congress restricts budget authority and outlays for low- income housing to help reduce the Federal budget deficit, higher-income people continue to receive their entitlement to benefits through homeowner deductions. Administration projections show that the cost of the mortgage interest deduction alone will amount to almost one-third of the deficit in fiscal year 1995. One result of the gross imbalance in Federal housing benefits has been the growing segregation of different aspects of American society: rich and poor, white and people of color, urban and suburban. This trend poses a threat to the Nation's general welfare, family and community life, and economic stability. It has even led to increased drug use and crime. It therefore is in the interest of all Americans to address the housing problem effectively. To reset the balance of Federal housing expenditures, I am introducing the Federal Housing Trust Fund Act of 1995. This bill would take only a fraction of mortgage interest and property tax deductions enjoyed by taxpayers in the top eighth of the income distribution\1\ and place it in a Federal Housing Trust Fund for low-income families who lack decent, safe, and affordable housing. To raise additional revenue for the trust fund, the bill also would eliminate a huge tax loophole--the favorable tax treatment of inherited property. This loophole permits wealthy American families to pass their property to their children and grandchildren and completely escape any income taxes on huge capital gains that have accumulated over a period of decades. \1\The Joint Tax Committee estimates for 1994 are that 10.6% of all ``returns'' have incomes above $75,000. ``Returns'' includes filers with and without taxes due, and estimated numbers of non-filers. About 80-90% of filers in the above- $75,000 income bracket claim homeowner deductions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Taxpayers with incomes up to $75,000 would keep all of their current mortgage interest and property tax deductions. Above $75,000, taxpayers would lose 3 percent of these deductions for each additional thousand dollars of income, down to a floor of 50 percent. So, all taxpayers, no matter how high their incomes, would keep at least half of their current mortgage interest and property tax benefits, and only 1 household in 10 would pay higher taxes as a result of this bill. Moreover, these changes would be phased in over 5 years to reduce their immediate impact. Thus, the bill would drastically reduce the cost to the Treasury for homeowner tax benefits for taxpayers with incomes above $75,000, generating tens of billions of dollars for the trust fund. The Government then would be able to provide the money needed for a comprehensive and flexible program of housing grants to eligible State and local entities. In turn, such entities would provide housing costs assistance for owners and renters, increase and improve the supply of affordable housing, increase the capacity of the nonprofit sector, and improve fair housing efforts. Specifically, two-thirds of the money in the trust fund would be designated for a housing costs assistance program, which would pay the difference between 30 percent of adjusted income and the fair market rent for a unit of the size needed in the area where the family resides or wishes to reside. Although the subsidy amount would be based on rental housing costs, the assistance could be used either to rent or purchase. The funds would be distributed by formula to cities, States, and Indian tribes, based on the number of households with severe affordability problems and the cost of housing. The remaining one-third of the funds would be used to expand the housing supply and provide related services, including fair housing and capacity-building. All housing and related services provided through this program, except for emergency repairs and hazard abatement, would be subject to permanent restrictions on housing affordability. Like the housing costs program, these trust fund dollars would be distributed by formula, but the formula would be developed by HUD based on the relative need for improving and expanding the housing stock. By limiting tax benefits for individuals who do not need them to be able to live in decent, affordable housing, the bill would provide the funding needed to attack the critical housing problems facing low- and moderate-income people, and contribute to family security, cohesiveness, and economic self-sufficiency. This bill is the kind of bold measure we need to solve the low-income housing crisis. It provides the resources to address the full range of problems--not only worst case needs, but also the needs of young families without enough income to have realistic prospects of moving into decent neighborhoods or owning their own homes. Within 10 years of passage of this bill, we could expect the same enhanced opportunities for low-income people to obtain housing as young families had after the end of World War II when, thanks to low-housing costs, an expanding economy, and Veterans Administration [VA] and Federal Housing Administration [FHA] mortgages, millions of Americans were this bill, we will inevitably see more homelessness, more broken families, and more communities without hope, cutoff from the American dream. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support and cosponsor this bill and help me to put the Nation's housing problems on the front burner.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, which product is virtually exempt from consumer regulation? Toasters, teddy bears, trucks, or guns? Most Americans would be surprised by the answer: handguns and other firearms for all intents and purposes are unregulated. Almost every product sold in America comes under the health and safety regulation of a Federal agency. The Consumer Product Safety Commission regulates the safety of consumer products used in and around the house and in recreation. The Environmental Protection Agency is in charge of toxic chemicals and ensuring that pesticides which present unreasonable and adverse effects on the health and environment are not sold. In contrast, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms [ATF]--the Federal agency with jurisdiction over the firearms industry and its products--only can issue manufacture and dealer licenses while enforcing the few Federal gun controls that are in place. The agency has no power to ensure that guns sold are safe for their intended use and lacks the authority to prohibit the manufacture or sale of current or new firearms technology that poses a significant threat to public safety. The gun industry has taken full advantage of this laissez-faire environment. In the wake of a handgun sales slump in the early 1980's, the industry moved to take advantage of this situation with a new focus on firepower and technology. The industry also expanded its market base. Recognizing the saturation of its primary market of white males, the gun industry--just like the tobacco and alcohol manufacturers before it--has directed its niche marketing tactics at minorities, women, and youth. The result of the gun industry's actions has been a literal epidemic of gun violence. Guns claim more than 38,000 lives a year. And contrary to public perception, most of these deaths are not crime related. The most common means of gun death is suicide (18,885 in 1990), and the most common scenario leading to a homicide is not felony activity, but arguments between people who know each other. Additionally, it is estimated that each year firearms injure more than 150,000 Americans. The resulting monetary costs are staggering. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that in 1990, the total lifetime economic costs of firearm death and injury were $20.4 billion. What these figures reveal is that firearms violence has created a public health crisis of which crime is merely the most visible aspect. Today, I am introducing a bill, the Firearms Safety and Violence Prevention Act, which takes the first step in beginning to reduce firearms death and injury in America by recognizing firearms for what they are--inherently dangerous consumer products. This comprehensive bill would give ATF the power to protect citizens from unreasonable risk of injury resulting from the use of firearms or related products. ATF would have the ability to set safety standards, issue recalls of defective firearms, and mandate warnings. Only if such measures failed to prevent the public from being exposed to an unreasonable risk of injury could ATF then prohibit the manufacture or sale of a specific firearm. The bill itself does not ban any firearms. The firearms industry's assertion that guns don't kill you rings as hollow as the discredited promises of the tobacco lobby that cigarettes don't cause cancer. Fore more than a century, America's gun manufacturers have operated in the shadows, avoiding public scrutiny. It is time for Congress to look behind the gun store counter to the industry that manufactures these deadly products. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on this important piece of legislation.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the ``Public Health and Safety Act of 1995.'' This legislation, also introduced last Congress by Senator John Chafee and myself, would prohibit the transfer or possession of handguns and handgun ammunition, except in limited circumstances. It would go a long way toward protecting our citizens from violent crime. Unlike rifles and shotguns, handguns are easily concealable. Consequently, they are the weapons of choice in most murders, accounting for 10,000 homicides a year and nearly 13,000 suicides a year. In fact, handguns account for 78 percent of all firearm crimes even though they represent only 25 percent of all firearms in circulation. Most other industrialized countries have a virtual ban on handgun sales, which accounts for the vast difference in homicide rate between the United States and these other nations. In 1990, handguns killed only 22 people in Great Britain, 13 in Sweden, 91 in Switzerland, 87 in Japan, 10 in Australia, and 68 in Canada. In the United States, handgun fatalities totaled 10,567. Unfortunately, gun violence is getting worse in this country, not better. Between 1960 and 1980, the Nation's firearm death rate increased 160 percent while the rate for other homicides declined. In 1993, death rates from firearm injuries and motor vehicle injuries were statistically equal, making it almost certain that firearms will emerge as the Nation's leading cause of traumatic death in 1994 once the figures have been tabulated. At these rates, 3 million people will have been shot (including 350,000 fatalities) by the end of the year 2000 since the beginning of 1993. Dr. James R. Hughes, a fellow with the American Academy of Pediatrics, has analogized the epidemic of handgun violence in this country to that of polio in the early 1950's. At that time, there were 10,000 cases of crippling polio a year in the United States. By the late 1980's, that number had been reduced to 10. Today, instead of enduring 10,000 cases of polio, we watch as 10,000 people are murdered by handguns each year. Yet somehow, there are many people in this country who do not feel we need to search for a cure for the disease of violence. I could not disagree more. If we do not act now, the ``gun culture'' will continue to thrive, sapping our health care system of its much needed resources. As the victims of gun violence pour in, hospitals across the Nation are closing affiliated trauma centers because of the spiraling costs associated with treating gunshot wounds. From 1989 to 1991, the average per-patient cost of gunshot wounds at a major New York hospital was $9,646. That figure does not even consider the costs of ambulance services, follow-up care, medication, and rehabilitation. Furthermore, studies have shown that firearm injuries are more costly than any other type of injury. The total cost of firearm injuries in 1990 was $20.4 billion. That figure includes direct costs, indirect costs, and life years lost. It represents a 42 percent increase in costs from 1985 to 1990. Over the same 5-year period, direct medical costs from firearm injuries exhibited the greatest increase--55 percent--and totaled $1.4 billion for 1990. Other studies have placed direct medical costs as high as $4 billion a year. The ``Public Health and Safety Act of 1995'' would abate the rising tide of handgun violence and its negative impact on the viability of our health care system. It would prohibit the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. Violators would be subject to penalties of up to $5,000 and up to 5 years in prison. A 6-month ``grace period'' would be established during which time handguns could be turned in to any law enforcement agency with impunity and for reimbursement at the greater of $25 or the fair market value of the handgun. After the grace period's expiration, handguns could be turned in voluntarily with impunity from criminal prosecution, but a civil fine of $500 would be imposed. Exemptions from the handgun ban would be permitted for Federal, State, or local government agencies, including military and law enforcement; collectors of antique firearms; federally-licensed handgun sporting clubs; federally-licensed professional security guard services; and federally-licensed dealers, importers, or manufacturers. I urge the Judiciary Committee to consider this legislation without delay. While passage of the Brady bill and assault weapons ban were good initial steps toward reducing gun violence, passage of this bill would be the giant leap forward this country so desperately needs. The ``Public Health and Safety Act of 1995'' represents an approach to handgun control which deserves the support of all Members of Congress who want to stop gun murders now. If this legislation is not passed swiftly, handguns will continue to be sold ``over the counter'' as easily as aspirin; the nation's at-risk youth will continue to attempt to resolve their problems by turning to handgun violence; and all of us will continue to fear for our lives when we step out of our homes at night.

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] for the closing remarks. Mr. Speaker, I submit two articles, one which appeared in the New York Times on February 6 entitled ``Farmers Brace for Stormy Debate over Subsidies'' which contains many of the facts concerning agribusinesses on the dole, and a second article that appeared on Tuesday, February 7, entitled ``Now, After $36 Billion Run, Coming Soon: `Star Wars II'--The New G.O.P. Plan Is Smaller but Still Costly.'' It also gives facts about increasing defense expenditures at a time when we are cutting programs for the poor. The articles referred to are as follows: Now, After $36 Billion Run, Coming Soon: ``Star Wars II''--New G.O.P. Plan Is Smaller, but Still Costly (By Eric Schmitt) Washington, February 6.--Twelve years after President Ronald Reagan first proposed his ``Star Wars'' antimissile system that ultimately cost $36 billion, provoked much debate and built nothing, Republicans are pressing to revive it, although in a vastly different form. Mr. Reagan's dream of erecting an impregnable astrodome to shield the United States against an onslaught of Soviet nuclear-tipped missiles dissolved with the end of the cold war. But in its place has risen a smaller, but still very costly, plan to defend the continental United States against a nuclear, chemical or biological attack from more than a dozen rogue nations like Iraq or an accidental strike from Russia. ``One day, mathematically, something bad can happen and you ought to have a minimum screen on a continentwide basis, and that's do-able,'' Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia told reporters last month. ``And I think compared to the loss of one city, it is clearly a very small investment, although it's a lot of money over time.'' Republicans want to more than double what the Clinton Administration is spending to develop a national missile defense, to at least $1 billion a year from $400 million a year now. At a time of exceedingly tight budgets, experts say such a network would cost $5 billion to $35 billion, depending on its coverage and complexity, and could never guarantee complete protection. The new ``Star Wars'' debate puts Republicans on a collision course with the Administration over how quickly and at what cost the United States should deploy a national system. The Pentagon is developing national defenses, but at a slower pace than Congress wants. Given that senior American intelligence officials say a serious long-range missile threat from countries other than Russia or China is still 10 years away, President Clinton's priority has been to build better defenses for troops overseas to shoot down shorter- range missiles similar to the Scud rockets that Iraq launched against Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Persian Gulf war. Hanging over the growing debate is a sore reminder of past mistakes: So far, the United States has spent $36 billion on ballistic missile defenses since 1984 without one working system to show for it. Billions were poured into exotic space weapons and laser beams that gave the program its fanciful ``Star Wars'' nickname. Even the most hawkish generals at the Pentagon fear that ratcheting up financing for national defenses will only bleed away dwindling money for training, new barracks and advanced fighter jets and warships. Representative Curt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican on the House National Security Committee, is one of many missile-defense supporters who say the painful debate of the 1980's taught some hard lessons. ``The problem with `Star Wars' was we gave the program a large blank check without holding the appropriate officials accountable,'' Mr. Weldon said. ``That's not going to happen again. This will not be a black hole.'' While Republicans express general support for a national missile defense, there is no consensus among them on important issues like cost, when to put such a system in place or what technical design it should have. ``There are still a lot of outstanding questions,'' acknowledged Senator Daniel R. Coats, an Indiana Republican on the Armed Services Committee. Legislation that carried out the Contract With America, the House Republicans' political manifesto, directs the Administration to field ``a highly effective defense'' of the United States ``at the earliest practical date,'' but offers no other details. ``This proposal is broad and vague,'' Representative John M. Spratt, Jr., a South Carolina Democrat who is a leading Congressional authority on missile defenses, said at a hearing of the National Security Committee last week. ``Is it ground-based? Space-based? You haven't defined deployment. I don't think you've laid down a policy here.'' Indeed, the legislation, which the House will most likely approve later this month and send to the Senate, leaves it up to Defense Secretary William J. Perry to draft a deployment plan within 60 days after the bill becomes law. After the pitched battles between the Reagan and Bush administrations and Congress, the debate over missile defenses died down when Mr. Clinton took office two years ago. Republicans and Democrats alike agreed to improve the country's battlefield, or theater, missile defenses after Iraq fired dozens of Scud rockets in the Persian Gulf war. Indeed, when Mr. Perry's predecessor, Les Aspin, declared the ``Star Wars'' program dead in 1993, it was already moribund. The Administration merely made it official, and earmarked two-thirds of the $3 billion annual missile-defense budget to battlefield defenses like improved Patriot missiles and the new Theater High-Altitude Area Defense, or Thaad, which intercepts incoming missiles at even higher altitudes and greater distances than the Patriot. But the Administration did not entirely give up on a national missile defense. The Pentagon scaled it back to a research program that would be developed by the year 2000 and deployed depending on the threat. ``If the decision is made at that time to deploy, the deployment will be made very rapidly, within another few years,'' Mr. Perry said last month. Pentagon officials say the projected threat over the next 10 years does not warrant speedier deployment. But Republicans have seized on the Central Intelligence Agency's estimate that 15 nations now have ballistic missiles, and perhaps 20 will have them by the end of the decade, to push for a faster timetable to put national antimissile defenses either on the ground or in space. Carolina Republican who heads the Armed Services Committee, put it, ``Defense of our homeland against direct attack is a priority enshrined in the Constitution, yet it is an aspect of our national defense that has been woefully neglected.'' Mr. Perry has said that one quick option would be to spend $5 billion over next five years to field a ground-based system using existing sensors, radars and missiles to defend against a ``thin attack,'' a relatively small number of missiles fired at once. Some Republicans, like Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, favor waiting, as long as the threat is low, to develop the most technologically advanced system possible, one that could include space-based sensors and interceptors. But most Republicans say their first step will be to revive efforts to deploy 100 missiles at one site--near Grand Forks, N.D.--which is allowed under the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty. The site could protect the United States' midsection, but not the coasts. The Administration had largely abandoned this option. In 1993 the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the successor to the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, which embodied the ``Star Wars'' program, said it would cost $21.8 billion to develop and build a single site at Grand Forks by the year 2004. To cover the entire 50 states would require building five additional sites for an additional $12.5 billion, the agency estimated. Ultimately, budget pressures may dictate the size and deployment date of a national system. ``The budget hawks are prevailing,'' said Lawrence F. Di Rita, a senior official at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization in Washington. ``So whatover is proposed has to be technically feasible soon enough so that the cost is bearable. This can't be a science project.''

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order tonight.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]. I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].

Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentleman. I hope at this point each one of you could sort of sum up and show how all of this ties together, when you give the multibillion dollar tax cuts, and you have to go and cut something out of the budget, and what we have here is a display by what I call some high-technology barbarians who are approaching the situation without any heart at all. They want to throw a large part of American humanity overboard and just say we do not care; we do not care whether they have homes, we do not care whether they have food, we do not care whether they have medical care, we are going to help the rich get richer. It all ties together. They cannot help the rich get richer without committing these atrocities against the poor and atrocities are committed these days in ways where you do not have blood. When you refuse to raise the minimum wage, that is a kind of an atrocity. When you are going to force welfare mothers to get off welfare after 2 years and not bother to try to create an economy which is going to produce jobs for them to step into, those are atrocities without blood. We have to see how it all holds together and make the American people understand that the Contract With America, which many of us call the Contract on America, is a very deadly approach indeed. We are dealing with a deadly approach to government which runs counter to the whole principle of government and the fact that society exists to take care of everybody, not just a few. The social order is threatened when you refuse to recognize the need to take care of all of the people. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

Mr. OWENS. Will the gentleman repeat that? Seventy-five percent?

Mr. OWENS. It is mostly income you do not work for on an hourly basis. Is it presently taxed at the same rate as wages are taxed?

Mr. OWENS. Capital gains are a form of income also, by the way.

Mr. OWENS. I earn wages, and all of the wage earners of America pay taxes on their wages. Do they pay the same, pay taxes at the same rate that are currently on capital gains?

Mr. OWENS. We need a total overhaul of the tax structure. The personal income tax pits one group of Americans against another. Corporate income tax makes a great deal of sense. Taxes which are focused on businesses which are accumulating wealth and on individuals accumulating wealth are the taxes that ought to be raised to take care of our needs, and there are many needs that must be met with taxes, but the personal income tax should not bear the bulk of the burden as they are at present. I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] would like to show us a little bit more about taxes and the kind of swindle that is being proposed by the Contract on America.

Mr. OWENS. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont. We also have been joined by the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], if he would like to take the other mike over here.

Mr. OWENS. The Contract With America does not talk about a number of things that ought to be put on the table. It certainly does not talk about the tremendous wealth of this country and how the wealthy are increasing at an escalating rate, increasing their profits while we cannot contemplate an increase in the minimum wage to $5.15 an hour. The contrast is overwhelming. We are the richest country that ever existed in the history of the world, and we take the position, or the position is taken in the contract for America that there is no room in there to provide a job for everybody, there is no room in there to provide health care, there is no room in this Nation and no resources to provide health care. And we do have 12 million people who are unemployed workers. And we said before the official statistics at 5.7 percent would give us 7,498,000 unemployed workers. That is what we admit officially that we have. If you take those part-timers who are looking for full-time work, and you just count half of them because they are only working half time, you have another 2,346,000 people who are out of work. Discouraged workers who have not been looking for work for the past week are 1,783,000. Discouraged workers not looking in the past year, 440,000. These are figures that come from the Economic Policy Institute and they all add up to about 12 million people who are unemployed in this Nation. There is work to be done. It is not that there is no work to be done. We do need to build schools. We do need to take care of our infrastructure in terms of roads and highways. We do need to have workers in programs like Head Start and some other programs of the kind that were mentioned in the stimulus package that the administration introduced last year and it was passed on the floor of this House. Those kinds of programs are still needed to put people to work. It may be that there is some great adjustment taking place in the global provide all of the jobs we need by the year 2000. But right now there is a lack of jobs, and there is a need to address the problem of people's anxiety about jobs and those, of course, who are unemployed by the fact that they do not have any jobs. So we need a program right now to deal with the needs of 12 million people.

Mr. OWENS. Will the gentleman slow down for a minute and explain what a CEO is, and let the American people understand what we are talking about in terms of the kinds of salaries or the kind of what they call a total remuneration package we are talking about? The average American CEO I understand makes no less than $1 million and some of them make above $20 million. People ought to understand we are talking about $20 million in total compensation packages, salary, pension, et cetera.

Mr. OWENS. I think the gentleman is correct, but the important thing is that on election day, even though there was a turnover, and the 36 percent or 37 percent who went out to vote did vote for a major change, the exit polls, the interviews at the exit polls, indicated that people were voting because of their anxieties and their concern about their own incomes and their jobs. We have not addressed that, as you said. Millionaires are obviously the favored concern here. We have just gone through a situation where, you know, when Congress refused to consider or indicated that it would not favorably consider a $40 billion bailout for Mexico, a $20 billion bailout was voted from the White House, and millionaires obviously are a great concern here, because we hear much more talk about a capital gains tax cut than we hear about a program to create jobs. Millionaires are obviously in favor here, because it took some coaxing to get a proposal on the table for a minimum-wage increase. At least we have that and we are going forward. Most Americans agree, over 80 percent agree, that a minimum-wage increase is very much in order, but there seems to be no great deal of enthusiasm in the leadership of our party. We are in a situation where the people who are controlling the greatest part of the wealth, and getting wealthier at a faster rate all the time, are the people who seem to be of greatest concern to Congress, while those who have the greatest anxieties about their jobs and are worried about losing their jobs and not earning adequate income are being ignored totally.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, jobs, the No. 1 concern of the overwhelming majority of Americans. Jobs are the No. 1 concern of the people, but you do not see that same concern reflected here in Washington around the floor of this House. The question that most Americans are asking is will we be better off when the 100 days are ended and the Contract With America has been passed. Does it matter one way or the other with respect to our concern about jobs and income? Will we be better off, those who have lost wages over the last 10 years? They have jobs, but the jobs are not paying as much as they paid before. So, will they have higher paid jobs after the Contract With America is passed? Will they be better off? No. There is a tremendous amount of downsizing that is taking place. Corporations are maximizing their profits. Profits are escalating, getting greater increasing dramatically. You know, we talk about taxes being too high, regulations being too great, and yet corporations are thriving, great profits are being made. We are the wealthiest country, the wealthiest Nation, that ever existed in the history of the world, and yet people are worried about losing their jobs. Those who have jobs are not being paid enough. Those who have jobs often fear that downsizing is going to lead to an end to those jobs, and there are large amounts who are unemployed. Unemployment now is officially at 5.7 present. That is the official rate. If you add those people who have been out of work for a long time and stopped looking, it is even higher than that. If you add those people that are working part time, it is even higher than that. Most people calculate the real unemployment rate as between 9 and 10 percent. Millions of Americans are out of work, about 12 million out of work. The welfare recipients will have to go to work at the end of 2 years. Most of them would love to have jobs. Most of them would be very willing to take jobs, but when they have to go to work in 2 years they will find there are no jobs out there because we have no policies here which are dedicated to dealing with the primary concern of Government that ought to be to manage and to influence the economy in a way that guarantees that every person can survive, and survival means jobs. If you have a job, when you provide jobs, you feed the hungry. But when you provide jobs, you take care of the sick. When you provide jobs, you take certain that people are not homeless. The highest of our Judeo- Christian values, the highest of our family values, are reflected in the way we deal with the provision of jobs in our society. But here in Washington you do not hear any talk of any great amount of job creation in the Contract of America or even among the Democrats from the White House. We hear no realistic attempt to provide the kind of jobs that must be provided during this very critical period where Americans have expressed great stress. We hear no realistic attempt to provide the kind of jobs that must be provided during this very critical period where Americans have expressed great stress. They have great anxiety about losing jobs, about jobs that are not paying well, and about the ongoing increase and escalation in the unemployment rate. Of course, the unemployment does not bother our official agencies like the Federal Reserve Board. The Federal Reserve Board seems to think unemployment is very good for people, it is good for the economy. So they take steps and promulgate policies which encourage unemployment. Whenever we have a great decrease in the amount of unemployment, they see that as a threat to the economy because it may raise inflation, and they cut off the supply of money so that those who create jobs through investment cannot create more jobs. They will hold down the employment so that labor will not be able to bid up its demand for higher wages, and therefore they will curb inflation. Mr. Greenspan of the Federal Reserve Board is the author of this. I very much strongly would like to recommend to Mr. Greenspan that if he thinks unemployment is good for the Nation's economy, he should do his patriotic duty and take off 1 month every month. Take his turn unemployed along with the millions of others so our economy can prosper. There are many other ways in which we show a callous disregard for the need to create employment opportunities for Americans. We have tremendous amounts of money that we are wasting that could be used in job creation. The previous speakers on the floor talked about what they were going to do to cut the budget of the United States. In several ways, they are going to cut it short-term and cut it long-term through a balanced budget amendment. I welcome the opportunity. I would like to join with them in cutting some of the waste out of our Government. Let us start with the agribusiness. Let us start with the agribusiness, which gets handouts from the Government of billions of dollars: $149 billion over the last 10 years has been poured into crop subsidies; $149 billion over the last 10 years. Take the State of Kansas alone: $8 billion in the State of Kansas has been received from the Government. A handout, a dole to the farmers; $20,000 to $40,000 annually goes to the average Kansas family. I welcome the opportunity to join with my colleagues in those kinds of cuts so the money can be transferred into job-creating programs that are being suggested, that are programs that really do something for the economy and for individuals. If we had a school building program, billions of dollars being spent for school building, instead of paying farmers not to grow grain, then the benefit received from the school would last for decades, because the school would be there to serve as part of the educational facilities network. You know that kind of benefit would be gained. If you use the money that you are wasting, giving a way to farmers not to grow grain, then of course you could also build some of the roads and the bridges that we need, which could be used for many decades to come, improving our transportation arteries and helping the economy overall. So we have a problem in that we refuse to look at the problem that is the real and most important problem. The problem should be the No. 1 priority, and that is the creation of jobs so people have the opportunities to earn income and earn a living. This evening we would like to talk about the job situation from three basic viewpoints. We would like to show that the economic picture is much bleaker than what it shows on the surface. It is important for us to understand the current Bureau of Labor Standard estimates of the unemployment rate, first of all, are way, way off. They underestimate unemployment at least by 3.3 percent. As I said before, instead of a 5.7 percent unemployment rate, if you looked at all of the people out of work and who stopped working, and the people who are working but working only half-time, then you would get an unemployment rate of 9 percent. The No. 1 priority in America should be the creation of jobs, because we cannot stand a 9 percent unemployment rate. It hurts us in many ways. One of the ways it hurts us is just automatic common sense will tell you when people are working, they pay income taxes. When people are working, they do not have to be using unemployment insurance, they do not have to be using food stamps, or go on welfare. The Congressional Budget Office estimates for every 1-percent reduction in the amount of unemployment, the Government, the Treasury, will benefit by receiving $40 to $50 billion. In income tax they take in and the money they do not have to send out, it all adds up to a 1-percent increase in employment equals a $40 to $50 billion gain for the Treasury. That is common sense. But nobody wants to look at that kind of common sense. We are instead ready to propose to $50 billion increase in defense. We declared there is a military threat at this particular time in the history of America and we must have $50 billion more over the next 5 to 6 years. We must build some more Seawolf submarines. I see in the budget the President asked for another Seawolf. Who needs that? I see we need more F-22's built at Marietta, GA. They may provide some employment, but for every dollar you spend on military spending, you could create twice as many jobs for the dollars spent on military spending. If you take the dollars you spend on military spending and put it into civilian jobs, you would create twice as many jobs. Study after study confirms that. We look at the picture, and the fact that the situation is such that it demands we take more aggressive action and make jobs the No. 1 priority. We are also going to examine how the Republican plan for welfare forces people out of work after a 2-year time limit and creates a situation which is inhumane. Because if there are no jobs there, then we are forcing people into involuntary servitude. It is a form of slavery. Every person of African descent like myself will tell you we all no unemployment. In the state of slavery, everybody had a job. But who wants a job at that cost? That is what we are saying when we say that we are going to provide welfare for people. The highest benefits are received in my State probably and a few others. A family of three may get $6,000 or $7,000 a year from welfare, versus a farm family in Kansas that gets $20,000 to $40,000 a year for not growing grain from the same Government. But never mind. They will get $6,000 a year and be asked to work 40 hours a week in order to receive $6,000 a year. That is not a form of slavery, when you force that kind of situation on people? So unless we have jobs, unless the whole job market is dealt with so that not only do you have jobs for welfare recipients, but also for the people who have been unemployed for a long time and for people losing their jobs as a result of the downsizing, we cannot create just a group of jobs for welfare people and say we are going to provide jobs for people coming off welfare. That means everybody will want to get on welfare and will line up and be able to get a job. No, you have to improve the situation for the whole economy by creating thousands of new jobs. The Republican welfare reform proposal, folks, focuses too much attention on one kind of welfare, as I said before, and we missed the point by focusing in and bullying mothers who are taking care of children who receive aid to dependent children. Yes, that is a high cost; yes, most of them who are able-bodied should go to work. Nobody quarrels with that, and neither do the mothers themselves. They would love to go to work if they had a job that would pay a decent wage and also provide health care. It is the Medicaid, the health care, that keeps most people tied to the welfare system. There is nothing to be gained by accepting a minimum-wage job and losing the health care benefits for your family, and finding that as soon as someone gets sick, you will have to come back and go on welfare again. So by focusing on the aid to dependent children, you may save $16.5 billion. If every one of them could miraculously be taken off welfare in 2 years, there would be a huge savings. On the other hand, we have far more costly forms of welfare through the dependent corporations, including the agribusinesses which I mentioned before. Let us deal with the kind of handouts, the doles that are being received by American corporations, and let us deal with the kind of dole that is being received by the American farmers if we really want to deal with waste in Government. I think if we dealt with it realistically, we would have the money we need to create a jobs program which would have an escalating effect. You provide a job opportunity to people who make salaries, and they go forward from there in order to take care of their own needs. They will feed themselves or clothe themselves and you will have a much healthier economy and a healthy society. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

Mr. OWENS. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. OWENS. We heard previous speakers give us a progress report on the Contract With America. Do you see, after that contract is fulfilled at the level of the House of Representatives, and assuming that they pass most of the legislation related to the contract, do you see any impact on the lives of American working people? Will they be better off then than they are now? special order, and a couple of things that were mentioned. First of all, not to the point that you mentioned--well, I will get to the point that you mentioned, then I will return to my other point. I do not. I do not know how these process votes, line item veto, balanced budget amendment, which will not spell out where they are going to go with the balanced budget, some of the amendments that we considered in bills that we considered today, how they will have a specific affect on increasing people's living standards and increasing the spiritual awareness and the spirituality of their lives. I do not see any of that really having a direct effect on people's lives. The other point I wanted to make, in the special order that our colleagues gave this evening, they talked about how we had bottled up a lost of this legislation. Not so. Four of the pieces of legislation that we have passed so far we had on this very floor. We talked about the Congressional Accountability Act. In fact, it was our bill. We passed it. It was killed in the Senate by a Republican right before the end of the session. We brought line item veto to this House floor last year. We brought the balanced budget amendment to the floor last year. It did not pass. Both of them did not pass. So the question that we have been bottling things up is absolutely inaccurate. One thing that you will not find in the contract is the word ``jobs.'' Another thing you will not find in the contract, two words, ``good wages.'' You will not find that in their contract. Their contract does nothing to mention the question of minimum wage, which my friend from New York talked about a little earlier this evening. The minimum wage is a very important issue for this country, and it is not just teenagers we are talking about, who are trying to earn a few bucks on the side. We are talking about working people. Most people on minimum wage are over 26 years of age, and the represent in their earnings about 40 percent of the incomes of their families; 60 percent of these people are mothers. Most of them have kids that they are trying to provide for. If we are really going to renew this American civilization, we have got to get back to the contract between workers and their employers. And one of the first things we can do is increase the minimum wage. Now, we are not alone. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], we are not alone in calling for this. We have about 80 percent of the American people think that we should increase the minimum wage. You will not live on $8,600 a year, especially if you have children. It is virtually impossible. It is below the poverty level. In fact, the poverty level line in this country has been going up steadily as our society expands, but the cost on the minimum wage has been going down, so there is a deepening gap between those who are working and those who are collecting welfare, in many instances. That is not rewarding work. We have to get back to rewarding work. If you work, you are going to be rewarded for it. It was a Republican, Christine Todd Whitman, who said it best. The day after she delivered the Republican response to the State of the Union, she said, and I quote, ``Obviously, in my State, if you try to live on a national minimum wage you couldn't do it. It is a sustenance wage.'' The minimum wage in her State is $5 an hour. Nationally, it is $4.25, which is about $8,600 a year. The average Member of Congress makes that much in 28 days. The average CEO of a Fortune 500 company makes that much in 28 hours, 28 hours. Mr. Speaker, these are the people who work in our hospitals, who change our bedpans, who do tough, often dirty, often demanding work, and they ought to be compensated for it. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the average minimum-wage worker is not some pimply faced teenager who is trying to earn money for the weekend. Two-thirds of them are adults, and many of them with families. People have to ask themselves, ``Could you keep a family on $9,000 a year?'' These are the people who are working 40 hours a week, sometimes more, yet they are living in poverty today. What does that say about rewarding work? We are going to be doing welfare reform soon. It seems to me if we are going to be serious about it, we have to face this basic issue. When we raise this issue, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle say ``Well, we will trade you. We will make you a swap.'' It is like you are collecting baseball cards as kids, I will give you a Mickey Mantle for a Ted Williams, or if you are lucky enough to have a Mickey Mantle or a Ted Williams, it is a swap. What they want to trade, Bob Dole said it last week on one of those Sunday talk shows, he said: ``We will consider it if they give us a reduction in the capital gains tax.'' So basically he wants to swap raising the minimum wage for the people who make the least in our society for a tax cut for those who are making the most in our society. That is what we are dealing with here.

Mr. OWENS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

Mr. OWENS. Thirty percent equals what? Give us some examples in terms of the kind of amounts.

Mr. OWENS

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

Mr. OWENS

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, we and seven other members of the Progressive Caucus today are introducing one of the 11 bills of the Progressive Caucus Alternative--The Progressive Promise--to the Republican Contract With America. Our legislation will create at least 1 million new jobs for unemployed Americans in each of the next 2 years by rebuilding our Nation's highways, bridges, mass transit, and other physical infrastructure and by investing in job training and expanded services for the most needy in our society. This major jobs bill goes to the heart of the sweeping legislative package that the 33 members of the Progressive Caucus unveiled 2 weeks ago as the only comprehensive legislative alternative brought forth in the Congress so far that charts a positive alternative course of policy action to the Republican Contract With America. More specifically, our ambitious jobs bill will provide $63.6 billion in new investments to stimulate the national economy during fiscal years 1996 and 1997. It is fully paid for by eliminating tax loopholes that reward U.S.-based multinational corporations for investing abroad and exporting U.S. jobs and through targeted progressive tax increases that will fall principally upon the unearned income of upper-income Americans. Beginning in the 1940's and reaffirmed by the Humphrey-Hawkins Act in 1978, Federal law has deemed 4 percent unemployment as the hallmark of a strong and stable economy. But now we are confronted with a Republican welfare reform plan that abandons our national commitment to training and providing jobs for millions of unemployed Americans who desperately want to work and attain some small measure of economic security for themselves and their families. The members of the Progressive Caucus believe that it is cruel, short-sighted, and counterproductive to enact welfare reform legislation without providing jobs for millions of unemployed Americans who are ready, willing, and eager to be a part of the mainstream American economy. Furthermore, we believe that fundamental fairness dictates that upper-income Americans who have received the biggest tax cuts during the last 15 years, as well as highly-profitable multinational corporations that have enriched themselves by investing huge sums of increasingly scarce capital to manufacture overseas and to take advantage of cheap, unprotected foreign labor, pay their share to retool and rebuild our Nation to compete more effectively in the 21st century. Full employment is what America is about. It is our promise to ensure that every American has a job with an adequate income that enables individuals and families to join in the American dream. No one that is willing and able to work should be denied that opportunity or should have to work 40, 50, or 60 hours a week and still live in poverty. This is not a new concept. It was the centerpiece of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's ``Economic Bill of Rights,'' proposed in 1944 as part of his last State of the Union Message. In it he called for jobs for everyone willing and able to work. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognize work as a basic human right. One in every 10 American families now puts food on the table only with the aid of food stamps. Tens of millions more survive on bare subsistence, from paycheck to paycheck. Millions have fallen into unemployment or underemployment. In more and more abandoned neighborhoods in America, a lack of jobs, income, education, and hope has created an extraordinary climate of savagery and violence surpassing that of many communities in third world countries. In 1978 with the passage of the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act, the U.S. Congress made a promise to Americans. Congress made a contract with America for full employment, where the national unemployment rate was not to exceed 4 percent. Before we move on the Republicans' Contract With America and balance the budget on the backs of poor, hard-working Americans, we have an obligation to carry-out a 50-year-old promise for full employment. Five decades ago, our national leaders recognized what is still true today: that there are numerous economic and social costs to the Nation without full employment. Those costs were stated in the Humphrey-Hawkins legislation. Without full-employment we are: Depriving our nation of the full supply of goods and services, the full utilization of labor and capital resources, and the related increases in economic well-being that would occur under conditions of genuine full employment; Lacking sufficient output of goods and services to meet pressing national priorities; Depriving workers of job security, income skill development, and productivity necessary to maintain and advance their standards of living; Exposing many families to social, psychological, and physiological costs, including disruption of family life, loss of individual dignity and self-respect, and the aggravation of physical and psychological illnesses, alcoholism and drug abuse, crime and social conflicts; Undermining Federal, State and local government budgets by deficits due to shortfalls in tax revenues and increases in expenditures for unemployment compensation, public assistance, and other recession- related services in the areas of criminal justice, alcoholism, drug abuse, and physical and mental health. Depriving businesses, especially small businesses, of the production, sales, capital flow, and productivity necessary to maintain adequate profits, undertake new investment, create jobs, compete internationally, and contribute to meeting society's economic needs. These days, more people at work is bad news for the economic pundits and financial speculators. Declining unemployment should be good news. Too many of those who do have work are employed in low-wage or dead-end jobs. Statistics reveal that in the first half of last year, for instance, 27 percent of all new jobs were in the temporary-help industry, and a further 26 percent were part-time. Less than half of the new jobs were private sector, non-temporary jobs. Manpower, Inc., the leading provider of temporary workers, is now the largest private employer in America. If we look at wages we again see the decline in well-paying, permanent jobs. In the Reagan-Bush eighties, the hourly pay of four- fifths of the American workforce declined. The typical worker was paid 4.9 percent less than at the start of the decade. No wonder workers in the United States slipped from 1st to 13th Today, almost a third of the Nation's workforce--31 percent--is employed at poverty level pay. The current minimum wage, at $4.25 an hour, buys 26 percent less in purchasing power than the minimum wage did in 1970. Is it any surprise that a recently-published study found that low-paid American workers are the lowest paid workers in the industrialized world? Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan insists that creating more jobs, and reducing unemployment, is bad for the economy. He is dead wrong. What we need is more jobs. We need to create millions of decent- paying jobs, not encourage massive corporate downsizing. We need a bold and courageous Congress who will fight for the needs of the average American worker, not timid politicians whose vision is circumscribed by the campaign contributions of big money interests. It is time to address the jobs crisis that America, and American workers, are facing. The Progressive Caucus is leading the way to a brighter future and taking the first large step forward, and today we invite others to join us in this effort. We encourage our colleagues to become cosponsors of this bedrock bill in our Progressive Promise--The Job Creation and Invest in America Act of 1995. We call upon all Americans who want to build a stronger and more fair America to join in our commitment to create millions of jobs by investing billions of dollars to rebuild and upgrade America's physical infrastructure, cleanup the environment, and improve the skills of our workforce. In keeping with the fiscal challenge confronting our Nation in these times, we do not add a penny to the deficit, but pay for our investment program by cracking down on corporate welfare. We close tax loopholes for offshore production while rewarding U.S. companies that invest, produce, and create jobs in the United States. We require the wealthiest U.S. corporations and citizens to pay their fair share of taxes. Finally, let us underscore that the jobs we seek to create are good- paying jobs. They are jobs rooted in upgrading our Nation's physical infrastructure and improving our Nation's human capital. They represent investments in restoring real, long-term, sustainable economic growth in America. Retooling our national economy and basing it upon real economic growth and economic justice also requires that working Americans have more real income to spend. In sponsoring this legislation, members of the Progressive Caucus are endorsing our Nation's 50-year national commitment to full employment. In the coming weeks and months, all of us who belong to the Progressive Caucus will be steadfast in offering low-income and middle-income Americans genuine hope for real jobs with livable wages and a chance to participate in the American dream.