[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 73 (Wednesday, May 22, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H5432-H5445]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3448, SMALL BUSINESS JOB PROTECTION
ACT OF 1996, AND H.R. 1227, EMPLOYEE COMMUTING FLEXIBILITY ACT
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 440 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 440
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
(except those arising under section 425(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974) to consider in the House
the bill (H.R. 3448) to provide tax relief for small
businesses, to protect jobs, to create opportunities, to
increase the take home pay of workers, and for other
purposes. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in
the bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against the committee amendment (except those arising under
section 425(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) are
waived. The bill and the amendment shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and the amendment to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. The yeas and nays shall be considered as
ordered on the question of passage of the bill and on any
conference report thereon. Clause 5(c) of rule XXI shall not
apply to the bill, amendments thereto, or conference report
thereon.
Sec. 2. After disposition of H.R. 3448 it shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order (except those
arising under section 425(a) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974) to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1227) to
amend the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 relating to the
payment of wages to employees who use employer owned
vehicles. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Economic and educational
Opportunities now printed in the bill, modified by the
amendment printed in section 3 of this resolution, shall be
considered as adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and any
further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) ninety minutes of debate on
the bill, which shall be equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities; (2) the further
amendment printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, which may be offered only
by Representative Riggs of California or his designees, shall
be in order without intervention of any point of order
(except those arising under section 425(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974), shall be considered as
read, shall be separately debatable for ninety minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question; (3) the further amendment printed in part 2
of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, which may be offered only by Representative
Goodling of Pennsylvania or his designee, shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order (except those
arising under section 425 (a) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974), shall be considered as read, shall be separately
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, and on which the question shall be
divided between the proposed subsection 3(d) and the
remainder of the proposed section 3(and shall not otherwise
be subject to a demand for division of the question); and (4)
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Economic and Educational
Opportunities now printed in H.R. 1227 is modified by the
following amendment: Immediately after the enacting clause
insert the following new section (and redesignate succeeding
sections accordingly):
``Section 1. This act may be cited as the `Employee
Commuting flexibility Act of 1996'.''.
Sec. 4. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 3448, the Clerk
shall--
(1) await the disposition of H.R. 1227 pursuant to section
2 of this resolution;
(2) add the text of H.R. 1227, as passed by the House, as
new matter at the end of H.R. 3448;
(3) conform the title of H.R. 3448 to reflect the addition
of the text of H.R. 1227 to the engrossment;
(4) assign appropriate designations to titles within the
engrossment; and
(5) conform provisions for short titles within the
engrossment.
(b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 1227 to the
engrossment of H.R. 3448, H.R. 1227 shall be laid on the
table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate
only.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to include extraneous
material.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a little different from the
usual rule we bring to the House floor. Today we have one rule which
makes in order two separate bills.
The first bill is a bill out of the Committee on Ways and Means, H.R.
3448, which provides a series of tax benefits to small business.
The second piece of legislation, H.R. 1227, is a bill out of the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, the Employee
Commuting Flexibility Act. This bill will clarify confusion about
situations where employees
[[Page H5433]]
use the vehicles of their employers for transportation to and from
work. This second bill will also serve as the vehicle for two
amendments specified in the rule.
One of these amendments will be offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. English], the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Martini], and others who have taken the lead on the
majority side of the aisle in the effort to increase the minimum wage.
The amendment provides for a two-step increase in the minimum wage,
from the current $4.25 an hour to $4.75 an hour beginning on July 1,
1996, just a couple of months away. Then it raises to $5.15 per hour 1
year later. That is a 90-cent increase. The Riggs-Quinn-English-Martini
amendment will be debatable for 90 minutes.
The second amendment will be offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and will be debatable for 1 hour. It
includes provisions establishing, and these are very, very important,
Mr. Speaker, a tip credit, and providing for an opportunity wage, a
training wage. It also includes an exemption for small businesses which
will be subject to a separate vote under the provisions of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, this rule waives points of order to allow for the
consideration of both of these bills, but it does not waive any points
of order to protect an unfunded mandate that may be included in either
of these bills. In other words, that provision is not protected from a
point of order.
This means that the House will have to follow the procedures set
forth in the unfunded mandates law that we all voted for back last
year, and have a separate debate and a separate vote on whether to
consider an amendment against which an unfunded mandate point of order
is properly raised. There will be someone from this side of the aisle
that is going to raise that point of order at the appropriate time.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Ways and Means bill, like almost every
tax bill for many years, will not be thrown open to further amendments
on the House floor. This long-standing policy is designed to keep the
Internal Revenue Code from becoming any more cluttered than it is
already with special interest provisions.
Also, amendments offered on short notice on the House floor might
turn out to have unintended consequences which could not be fully
appreciated without adequate time to research those issues. That is why
we have not opened up Committee on Ways and Means measures to the Tax
Code in years past under either Republican or Democrat control.
The Committee on Ways and Means bill will be subject to 1 hour of
debate, and the minority is protected in its right to offer a final
amendment and a motion to recommit with instructions.
Mr. Speaker, while Chairman Archer has stated that there is no
increase in income tax rates included in this bill, a waiver of the
rule requiring a three-fifths vote to increase income tax rates has
been included out of an abundance of caution. Different people have
interpreted the three-fifths vote requirement differently, and this
rule errs on the side of caution.
Now with regard to the second bill, H.R. 1227, reported by the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, there will be a
total of 90 minutes of debate on that bill. In addition to the two
amendments I already mentioned, there will be a motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
Finally, the rule provides that after the House has completed action
on each of these two bills, the Clerk, in the engrossment of the Ways
and Means Committee bill, will add in the text of the Opportunities
Committee bill as passed, so that only one bill will be sent to the
Senate. In other words, they will be married together and sent over to
the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, both of these bills made in order by this rule present
important issues which need to be debated on this floor and in this
House today.
As one who owned and ran a small business before I came to this
Congress 18 years ago, I am particularly pleased that we are finally
making an effort to give some tax relief to the hard-working people who
run these businesses and who provide jobs.
Mr. Speaker, these small business provisions include an increase in
the amount small businesses can expense, which will make it easier to
start up and expand a small business. The provisions also include a
modification of the rules governing subchapter S corporations. If any
of my colleagues have been in business, they know that that is
extremely important to small businessmen. For example, it will increase
from 35 to 75 the number of shareholders an S corporation may have.
The small business provision also includes pension simplification
provisions which are intended to strengthen and to encourage retirement
plan provisions for employees of small businesses. There are several
other provisions designed to encourage and protect jobs in this
measure.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a rural district that has many, many, many
small businesses. As a matter of fact, we do not have too many of the
large 500 corporations. They are an important part of the economy in my
district, and I know how difficult it is to start up and maintain a
small business. As a matter of fact, many small businesses fail before
the first year is even out.
{time} 1715
You have to ask why. It is not because of a lack of acumen by these
small businessmen. But it is because of an unfair tax law and heavy
regulatory burdens that eat up so much available operating capital that
they just cannot meet the expenses in those early years.
But even with all the difficulties, small businesses create more jobs
than any other types of businesses, much more than the Fortune 500
corporations. In fact, small businesses account for almost 75 percent
of every new job in America every single year. That means every kid
graduating from high school, every student graduating from college, all
of those new jobs, 75 percent are created by these small
entrepreneurial start-up businesses.
So, Mr. Speaker, these small business tax provisions do not just help
small businesses, they help everyone by encouraging job growth.
Let me just say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the
rule we are considering now, and I would urge support of both bills the
Committee on Rules has made in order. Let us get on with it and give
the small businessmen in this country some vital relief that they have
needed for so long.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York
[Mr. Solomon] for yielding me the time.
House Resolution 440 is a modified closed rule that provides for the
consideration of two bills, H.R. 3448, the Small Business Job
Protection Act of 1996, and H.R. 1227, the Employee Commuting
Flexibility Act of 1996.
The rule makes in order no amendments to H.R. 3448. It permits only
two floor amendments to H.R. 1227, including an amendment that would
gradually increase the minimum wage from the current $4.25 an hour to
$5.15 an hour on July 1, 1997.
I congratulate the House leadership for finally permitting a vote on
the House floor to increase the minimum wage.
This long overdue change will increase wages for those at the bottom
of the pay scale. The minimum wage has not been raised since 1991. As a
consequence, a worker making the minimum wage receives a little more
than one-third the average American's hourly earnings. Adjusted for
inflation, the minimum wage is near the lowest level in the last 40
years.
Our working poor deserve better.
I have met some of these people--one step away from poverty--in soup
lines and emergency feeding programs. Who is fighting for them? They
have no unions. They have no spokesmen. They are not organized. They
have only the U.S. Congress to protect their basic human dignity.
That's why we in the House have to pass this, today.
I wish that we could have debated this last week, or last month.
There is no excuse for the delay. This issue is too important to
Members of Congress
[[Page H5434]]
and to the people we represent to be stifled.
To my bold colleagues on the other side of the aisle who supported
increasing the minimum wage and who brought about the opportunity for
this debate, I thank you.
Mr. Speaker, though I am grateful that at long last the House is
considering raising the minimum wage, I must express dismay at the rule
governing the process.
The rule is a sort of patchwork quilt that makes in order various
bills and amendments and patches them together into one measure. We've
got an amendment on minimum wage. We've got a bill on employer-owned
vehicles for commuting. Throw in some tax provisions from another bill
and add an amendment printed in the Rules Committee report. Patch them
all together and out comes one bill, ready to send to the Senate.
The Democrats have argued for a straight vote for the minimum wage.
Up or down. This is a simple, straightforward matter. And now that we
have been given a vote on the minimum wage, the issue still gets
fuzzed.
This is not the way to treat something like the minimum wage which is
so important not only to our low-income workers, but all who are
concerned with fairness in the labor marketplace. This rule is a sign
of only the most grudging support for the poorest and neediest of our
workers.
In fact, the rule does not even guarantee a vote on the minimum wage
because it leaves in place one more hurdle. Before we get to the
minimum wage, the majority can force a vote on the question of
consideration to prevent the amendment from coming up.
I am also disappointed that the rule permits so few amendments.
During Rules Committee consideration, Democrats attempted to make in
order other worthwhile provisions. One would permit taxpayers to deduct
up to $5,000 a year for the cost of college or job training. Another
amendment would allow penalty-free withdrawals from an IRA for people
who have been unemployed for a long time. Another amendment would
exclude from taxation employer-provided graduate education. All of
these attempts were defeated along party-line votes.
Finally, I call to the attention of my colleagues the provision in
House Resolution 440 which waives clause 5 of rule 21 requiring a
three-fifths vote on measures raising taxes. This rule was written by
the Republican leadership with great fanfare at the beginning of this
Congress as a demonstration of their commitment to holding the line on
new taxes. However, since it was established, the rule has been
consistently waived. By again waiving this rule today, we are exposing
it as an empty public relations gesture.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to proceed on the minimum wage
increase, but not under this rule, which I must oppose.
Decent and honest working men and women should be able to earn a
decent and honest living wage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Burton], one of the outstanding Members of this body
since he came here back in, I believe, 1980.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind remarks of
my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that bothered me last year when the
President vetoed the reconciliation bill was he gave a reason that I
thought was just way off base, and that reason was that the 936
program, which gives tax credits to companies that go down to Puerto
Rico and create jobs, was totally out of line.
There are companies in Puerto Rico today, pharmaceutical companies
and others, that are getting as much as $200,000 in tax credits to hire
one person making $50,000.
Let me repeat that. They are getting a $200,000 tax credit for some
jobs where they only pay $50,000. And for the past 20 years, they were
supposed to create jobs in Puerto Rico. They created 100,000 jobs, many
of those people came from the United States to go down there. There
were 100,000 jobs created. In the last 20 years, they have not created
one more job, and we continue to give these huge tax credits. It is
about $5 billion over a 5- to 6-year period; $5,000 million. These
corporations do not want to give up these tax credits.
Now, we wanted to use these tax credit moneys as offsets for these
other things in these bills so there would be some balance. In other
words, we were going to do away with, phase out the 936 program, and
use those tax credits, those moneys to offset other expenses in the
bills that we are talking about here today. The President has said once
again that would be a reason for him to veto it.
My Democrat colleagues talk about corporate welfare all the time.
They say that they are against corporate welfare, and here is a classic
example of corporate welfare that we could do something about and the
President says he is going to veto it because of this issue.
Can you imagine, $200,000 in tax credits for one $50,000 jobs, $5
billion over 5 to 6 years, and they are not creating one job, and that
is what they are supposed to do.
In addition to that, any money that they make in Puerto Rico, if they
invest in Puerto Rican banks, it is tax exempt. They do not pay any
taxes on it.
So I just would like to say to my colleagues, I hope that they will
talk to the administration, I am talking about the Democrats and
Republicans, because this is one area where we could save $5 billion.
And if we were creating a lot of new jobs and it was not costing an arm
and leg, if there was another way to handle it, maybe with some wage
credits, I would say OK. But to give $5 billion, to give $200,000 in
tax credits for a $50,000 job, when they are not creating one
additional job in Puerto Rico, is just dead wrong.
So I think that we ought to talk to the administration. The 936
provision phaseout is in the bill. It ought to stay in the bill, and we
ought to make sure this is not a reason for the President to veto it.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], one of our very distinguished leaders.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, now I have seen it all. Now I can honestly say I have no
idea what planet the Gingrich Republicans are living on. For months
now, Democrats have been trying to raise the minimum wage. Five
separate times we have offered a bill to raise the minimum wage, a
clean bill.
Five times Newt Gingrich has blocked it. But now that public pressure
is finally building, prompting them to act, now that they cannot block
it or bury it or duck it or delay it any longer, we have a bill before
us today that does not just raise the minimum wage, it actually repeals
it for millions of Americans. This is just another attempt by Newt
Gingrich and Dick Armey to kill the minimum wage.
When our Republican colleagues brought this to the floor, they
understood the complexity of this rule. When are they going to learn?
The American people do not want us to cut Medicare, they do not want us
to cut Medicaid or student loans, and they do not want us to repeal the
minimum wage. But we have before us today a rule that uses legislative
sleight of hand, it bogs it down, it larges it up, and it slips a
poison pill that will kill the hopes of raising the minimum wage for up
to 10 million people.
So it is no wonder that two-thirds of the American people say that
they are out of touch. This is an extreme act by an extreme Gingrich
Congress that absolutely has no respect for working people and the work
they do.
These folks work hard in this country, and they work some very tough
jobs, and they do it because they want to be good role models for this
kids, and they do it because they want to make something for themselves
in this world. But instead of rewarding hard work, instead of rewarding
their decision to choose work over welfare, and that is what we have
been talking about here passionately for years, the Republicans are
trying to give them a pay cut.
Just yesterday we found out that some of the most profitable
companies in America are giving contracts to garment sweatshops that
refuse to pay overtime and refuse to pay the minimum wage. But instead
of coming to
[[Page H5435]]
the floor today and condemning that type of action, you are actually
trying to pass a bill that will encourage more of it and take literally
millions of people off the minimum wage, will not even give them that.
Mr. Speaker, sweatshops, slave wages, and pay cuts may be Newt
Gingrich's idea of a revolution, but it is no way, it is no way, to
build a better America. Let us have some respect for the hard work that
these people do, and let us do what 85 percent of the American people
want us to do. Let us have a clean vote. Raise the minimum wage. Vote
against this rule, send it back to the Committee on Rules, and tell the
Gingrich Republicans, no poison pills, no pay cuts; raise the minimum
wage.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker said now he has heard everything.
Well, let me tell you, now I have heard everything.
You know, there are many of us that would like to vote for the
minimum wage increase, but we want to do something about relieving the
tax burden and the regulatory burdens off the backs of small business.
The backs of small business are what is so important here. Here we have
legislation that is going to do just that, and include the minimum
wage? Let me tell you something: Now I have heard everything. Boy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], a member of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Glens Falls, the
distinguished Chairman of the Rules Committee Mr. Solomon, for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. It's a carefully
structured rule that will fulfill promises made to have a debate on
several issues, including: measures to promote small business jobs, to
clarify the rules regarding employees commuting in employer-owned
vehicles, and to address the minimum wage. The latter has received the
most attention, and I would like to take a moment to discuss it from
the perspective of southwest Florida.
Those seeking an increase in the minimum wage have yet to recognize
the unintentional damage it will do to many Americans working at the
low-end of the pay scale. Despite the rhetoric, raising the minimum
wage as proposed will not create a living wage. Not even close. What it
will do is force many Americans out of work and put up new barriers for
those people seeking employment. Specifically a major concern is that
seniors would be hit especially hard by an increase in the minimum
wage.
In southwest Florida, many retirees work part time at or near the
minimum wage to supplement their retirement income. We have been
notified many of these jobs would be eliminated should minimum wage be
increased, leaving these seniors without the income that they need to
make ends meet.
Additionally, the inflationary pressures that this increase causes
will erode the financial stability of the millions of seniors living on
fixed incomes.
Further, another concern is that in Florida, like most of the Nation,
small businesses create the vast majority of new jobs. And despite our
good efforts to help small businesses in this Congress, an increase in
the minimum wage will financially strap the very employers that are the
engine for new jobs.
Finally, I am concerned that some of this debate is rooted in
politics rather than substance. To those in the minority, I would point
out that this issue never came to the floor when they ran this House.
There was not one hearing in committee nor one vote on the floor.
Indeed, the same President who is now demanding a minimum wage hike was
arguing against one when he took office in 1993. The only hike he
fought for then was a tax hike, the largest in History. Our real goal
on the majority side has been to figure out the best way to help at-
risk workers in our economy. Rather than shrinking the job market, we
need to fix our tax structure so that people who are working can keep
more of their own money. Efforts to reform the earned income tax credit
and the payroll tax would more effectively benefit the families we are
trying to help.
We know taxes consume an ever-increasing proportion of Americans'
incomes--a significant factor in the decline in purchasing power of
hard working Americans.
So today I urge my colleagues to reject the big government big union
solution. Let's not hold back Americans trying to enter the work force;
vote against hiking the minimum wage, and vote for job creation and
support for small business. And support the rule that will allow us to
make those choices.
{time} 1730
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. Clay].
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. For a year
and a half Democrats in the House, in the Senate, and the Clinton
administration have been calling for an increase in the minimum wage,
and the overwhelming majority of Americans support our efforts.
The Republican majority leader said he would oppose the minimum wage
increase with every fiber of his being. The Republican majority whip
proclaimed that minimum wage families do not exist. And the chairman of
the Republican Conference said that he would commit suicide before
allowing a minimum wage increase.
Nevertheless, public opinion and the persistence of the Democratic
Party, with the help of a few of our Republican colleagues, have
brought us to this debate today to decide whether there will be a raise
for hard-working, low-income individuals.
Amazingly, however, the rule that the Republican leadership has
presented to this House denies us an up or down vote on a clean minimum
wage increase and denies Democrats an opportunity to offer a single
amendment. Only amendments offered by Republicans are allowed.
As the ranking Democrat on the committee of jurisdiction, I sought
permission to offer three amendments, including an amendment to simply
allow a clean vote on the minimum wage. I also asked the committee to
allow me to offer an amendment that would remedy problems with the
employee commuting bill. That bill would effectively eliminate the
right of workers to choose how they will continue to work and what they
can do while they are commuting.
Unless H.R. 1227 is fixed, employers may require employees to work
without being paid for their services. At a time of unprecedented
corporate profits and rapidly declining wages, this legislation would
allow employers to steal both time and money from their workers.
Mr. Speaker, after much procrastination, the leadership of the House,
under a cynical procedure, has now consented to vote on a measure to
let workers get a long-needed raise. But there is no need to use this
as a vehicle for raising the minimum wage. By defeating the previous
question on the rule, this House can achieve what the American people
are asking of us.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SKAGGS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The gentleman will state his
inquiry.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I apologize, I may not have caught this when
the rule was read to the House. It is my understanding that the
underlying legislation includes a retroactive tax increase in
connection with repeal of section 936. Is there a provision in this
rule that waives the new rule that was so sanctimoniously passed at the
beginning of this session prohibiting retroactive tax increases?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rule waives all such points of order
against consideration.
Mr. SKAGGS. So it does waive that prohibition against retroactive tax
provisions; is that correct, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. It waives all such points of order.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
just to point out that there are no income tax rate increases in this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, my
good friend, Mr. Gekas.
[[Page H5436]]
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the minimum wage, I stand
with the President of the United States. I support his concept
enunciated in 1996 and when this election cycle began to bring
additional earning power, as he saw it, to the minimum wage community
of our country. I stand with the President.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, am I permitted to go to the other podium now
when I finish here?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may select his own place to
speak.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, on the issue of the minimum wage, I stand
with the President of the United States and oppose the elevation of the
minimum wage, because the President has said, and I stand with him,
before this election cycle began, before the rhetoric of the election
year came down upon us, that he opposed the minimum wage because it is
not the way to increase the earning power of the minimum wage
community. So I stand with the President in opposing the elevation of
the minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, can you tell me where I stand? I stood over there, I
have stood here. I stand for something about the minimum wage. The
President does not know where he stands, I do not know which podium to
use and where I stand. I think I am going to stand and stand and stand
until I cannot stand it any more.
Mr. Speaker, the parts of the minimum wage that are sought to be
increased are increases in the cost of living for many individuals,
including our senior citizens community. Every time the minimum wage
goes up or artificial income is created in any way, the prices at the
supermarket also go up. And who are the first to suffer the
consequences of that? The senior citizens of our country, the people on
fixed incomes.
I stand with the senior citizens. Whether it is at this podium, I
stand with the senior citizens.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Montana [Mr. Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. My
colleagues, if this rule passes, we have to understand what the results
of that might be.
If this rule passes it may be that many farm workers, migrant workers
in this country, for the first time, would not even earn a minimum
wage. The minimum wage would be stricken for many migrant workers in
this country.
If this rule passes, it is likely that two-thirds of the businesses
in America would be exempt from paying minimum wage increases to their
employees.
If this rule passes, waiters and waitresses, laboring in America's
restaurants, will be denied any increase in the minimum wage.
If this rule passes, many of the long traditional American
protections, called child labor, will be removed from Federal law.
If this rule passes, it is likely that 18- and 19-year-old workers
will work for no increase in the minimum wage.
Surely our Republican colleagues have not reached such an extreme
that they would remove minimum wage protections entirely, no minimum
wage guarantees, for millions of people in the American work force.
We all agree in a free marketplace, but the American people have long
understood that an appropriate government tension is necessary if the
free marketplace is to appropriately meet the needs of its workers.
That is what minimum wage has done through the years.
This Republican Congress is about to pass a rule that will allow
those things which I have delineated to happen in this country, except
for one thing. The President of the United States has yesterday sent a
letter to this House saying if we do these things, I will veto this
bill.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have
remaining on either side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]
has 14\1/4\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall]
has 18 minutes remaining.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Schumer].
(Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans could not do it clean. They
knew that the American people, over 80 percent, wanted an increase in
the minimum wage law, and what they should have done is simply said
they made a mistake and, yes, we are going to pass it.
But because they are so wrapped up in the throes of certain special
interest groups that are eager to pay no minimum wage or eliminate the
minimum wage, they had to bollix it up. And what they did is end up
taking one step forward and two steps back, for while they do raise the
minimum wage in this proposal, they take it away from anywhere from 3
to 10 million.
Does anyone in America believe that we should remove the minimum wage
in the garment industry sweatshops, with industrial homework, with farm
workers? With the Goodling amendment that is what their proposal will
do.
As a result, they cannot come forward, those on the other side in the
Republican Party, and say that they are for work and say that they are
for justice and say that they are for fairness. Instead, the only thing
they will be able to say after tonight's exercise is that they cared
more about the selfish few who are unwilling to pay a mere $5.15 an
hour for the worst and hardest kind of labor in America than they cared
about making the American people who work hard day in, day out, those
at the bottom end of the wage scale, receive a decent wage and move off
welfare and on to work.
Ladies and gentlemen, if we want to look at the beginning of the end
of the Republican majority in this body, look at this bill. Even on an
issue where they know that they are wrong, they cannot do it straight,
they cannot do it clean, and they cave in to special interests.
{time} 1745
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Gene Green.
(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this
partially open rule, not in the effect that it has on the bill that
affects small business and the tax cuts but the effect the rule has on
the minimum wage bill.
After months of Democratic attempts to have a vote on raising the
minimum wage, the House Republican leaders have at last allowed us a
vote. This minimum wage bill, though, let me point out to the chairman
of the Committee on Rules, never had a hearing in the Committee on
Economic and Educational Opportunities, even though you gave credit to
it earlier, we never had a public hearing, never had a vote on this
bill. So now it is out here today but without having the committee hear
the bill.
We should not be fooled by this sham of a bill. This could be April
Fool's for the American workers. Now you see the wage increased, but
now you do not. House Republicans have attached special interest
provisions to exempt millions of people from the minimum wage. Now you
see it; now you do not.
Working American families expect a clean up-and-down vote on a
minimum wage increase, including those that are covered today, but not
taking millions out of protections for minimum wage. Instead, they are
caving in to the special interest groups. The restaurant lobby, they
get to freeze their minimum wage for tip workers.
There is a training wage. We have heard this before. In 1990, there
was an experiment with the training wage. It did not work. It did not
work then and it will not work now. Also the amendment to exempt
millions of workers who will lose minimum wage and fair labor standard
protections. American families are working harder. We see the disparity
in the income. The rich are getting richer, and we are trying to keep
the poor from getting poorer but
[[Page H5437]]
not with this bill. It is tough to get ahead when you cannot make
enough money in your pockets to put food on you table.
This minimum wage legislation began in 1938 with 25 cents an hour. I
have to admit that if it had taken the Republican votes to increase it
over the years, we would not have had any increases.
I ask my colleagues not to allow millions of working American
families who now earn $4.25 an hour to say, well, I am going to get an
increase. No, you are not, not if you work in a business that earns
less than $500,000.
Do not give it to them with one hand and take it away with another.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at my friend, the previous
speaker, because as I look at the record, he is complaining about the
fact that we are bringing this bill up without previous hearings. He
happened to vote in the last several weeks not to have public hearings
when they tried to force a minimum wage on the floor. He did it on the
debt limit bill. He did it on the public housing bill. He did it on the
Marshall service bill. He did it on the Utah wilderness bill, as did
most Democrats on that side of the aisle.
Let me say one other thing, the Parliamentarian will tell you that
this amendment that he is referring to still includes and continues to
apply to child labor laws.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Huntington
Beach, CA [Mr. Rohrabacher].
(Mr. ROHRABACHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a reluctant supporter of the
rule before us today because the bill, H.R. 3448, repeals a part of
Ronald Reagan's legacy, a tax provisions that encourages the creation
of employee owned companies where the employees own a majority of the
stock in the company. Employee ownership, I call it workers capitalism,
because it turns laborers into employee owners and gives them a stake
in the American dream.
We are talking about the opportunity of working Americans to share in
the profit and success of their company and an opportunity they do not
have as hourly wage earners.
Employee ownership is a Republican idea. It is a Democrat idea. It is
as American an idea as homesteading and homeownership. Years ago
President Ronald Reagan teamed up with Democrat Senator Russell Long to
craft laws promoting employee ownership. They set aside their
partisanship to work together because employee ownership is a great
idea.
Now we are dismantling part of that great idea. H.R. 3448 repeals the
section 133 ESOP lender interest exclusion. This rule denies us the
opportunity to change this unfortunate decision to diminish the
incentives for employee ownership in our society.
I would like to remind my Republican colleagues that we are losing
something we fought so desperately to keep only a few years ago.
Chairman Rostenkowski proposed with doing away with the ESOP lender
interest exclusion in 1989. It was Speaker Gingrich, the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Armey, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. DeLay, and myself and
other members of the conservative opportunity society who pounded our
fists on the table and said, no. You do not dare, because this is not
corporate welfare. It is not pork. It is an incentive to help working
people capture a piece of the American dream.
It is ironic and more than a little frustrating that a Republican
Congress is now voting to repeal an employee ownership provision that
we fought so hard to protect only a few years ago.
I urge my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means to take this
issue to heart and rally to the cause of employee ownership. The ESOP
community would like to extend the benefits of employee ownership to
sub S corporations, for instance. There are more than a dozen sub S
provisions in H.R. 3448, but no employee ownership provision.
This bill has an estate tax provision but no provision to help
smallest States transfer stock to ESOP's. Hopefully the next tax bill
will contain such provisions.
We should be expanding the opportunities for employee ownership, not
eliminating them as this rule and this bill would do.
I have a dilemma. H.R. 3448 also contains many small business tax
provisions that I support. So I will cast my vote in favor of this rule
with reluctance but hope that in the future the Republicans and
Democrats can work together to expand the very basic fundamental dream
of America, and that is for all Americans to have the opportunity to
own their own home and, yes, own part of their own business.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this deceptive
rule. This rule does not provide a free and fair vote on the minimum
wage. This rule will permit matter other than the minimum wage increase
to be part of the vote. That is not a vote on the minimum wage. This
rule would permit sweeping exemptions. Many who favor the minimum wage
increase do not favor these exemptions. That is not a vote on the
minimum wage. The American people have demanded, and the Republican
leadership had promised a vote on the minimum wage. This rule provides
for a vote on a disguised and costumed minimum wage. This rule reflects
a promise that was made and not kept. It is clear that the Republican
leadership will do anything to deny a straight-forward, up or down vote
on increasing the minimum wage.
Once again, they have chosen to hurt millions of low-wage workers in
order to give a break to big business. Those of us who support a clean
vote on the minimum wage want simply to help pave a path to the future
for the poverty level workers of America. Those who oppose a clean vote
want to keep those workers trapped in the past. Supporters of a clean
vote want to open doors for the millions who do not want charity but a
chance to earn a livable wage. Opponents of a clean vote want to slam
the door of opportunity and keep it tightly closed. We want to
mainstream workers. They want to continue their extreme ways. The
Goodling amendment, permitted by this rule, would lower wages for
workers who now earn the current minimum wage. Instead of increasing
the wage, this amendment decreases the minimum wage.
During this debate, both sides will focus on what they perceive to be
the facts of minimum wage. I hope neither side will forget the faces of
minimum wage. The faces are the children of minimum wage workers, those
young people who have been pushed into poverty, even though their
parents work. The faces are millions of women, many of them single
heads of households, who have been thrust into a spinning spiral
because it takes a miracle to make ends meet on today's minimum wage.
The faces are the minimum wage men, far too many of whom are angry
and frustrated because it is impossible to be a proud father on $8,400
dollars a year.
The faces are the families that do not function because the minimum
wage provides a little something to wear and a little something to eat,
but not much more. In the cool comfort of these hallowed halls, we will
argue the facts, but as we do, try to imagine the faces. For many, this
issue is about more than opinions and numbers. All of us should want
what is best for Americans. What is best for Americans is a job, at a
fair wage, with dignity and respect--a livable wage. Reject this rule.
It is a cruel hoax.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, Candidate Dole said earlier this year that
he did not realize that jobs and trade and what makes America work
would become a big issue in this campaign. A few weeks ago the House
Republican majority whip claimed that families trying to live on $4.25
an hour do not really exist. Just what planet are these people on? It
appears that the Republican leadership's social circle is restricted to
those who are already doing quite well, nicely, thank you. In fact,
according to this week's Forbes magazine, the bible of the Republican
Party, the median income of the CEO's, of the 800 biggest companies in
America was $1.5 million, up 15 percent from last year.
When it comes to salaries, Republicans apparently subscribe to the
[[Page H5438]]
Forbes doctrine: more dough for the CEO, but not even a dollar if you
are blue collar, while corporate chieftains may be breaking out the
champagne and caviar in the boardrooms this year, millions of American
families are still scraping to make ends meet.
Indeed, the Republican majority leader has promised corporate America
that he will resist an increase in the minimum wage with every fiber in
his being. It is just like Harry Truman always said, the Republican
Party supports a minimum wage, the lower the minimum the better for the
working people in this country. Unfortunately, the GOP leadership has
now loaded up the bill with a grabbag of back-door bennies for their
broadroom buddies.
They just cannot stop themselves. Clearly, Republican leaders in
Washington are out of touch with the needs of ordinary Americans.
Yesterday this body voted with much fanfare to repeal the gas tax.
That is $15 for each American. The minimum wage is $1,800 a year for
working Americans.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Miami, FL [Mr. Diaz-Balart], a member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of
Committee on Rules for yielding time to me.
I was listening to this debate. I had to come down because of this, I
did not think that it was on the same rule that we worked on in the
Committee on Rules that this debate was on. Apparently there is just a
tremendous misconception or purposeful falsehoods being thrown by the
other side. I do not really know if some may really believe what they
are saying.
Let us be clear as to what this rule permits. It permits an upon-or-
down vote on an amendment that would be introduced by the gentleman
from California [Mr. Riggs] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn]
to raise the minimum wage from $4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour. That is
a fact, cannot be denied.
The Democrats time after time after time again on procedural motions,
they propose nongermane amendments or on questions on the previous
question, motions to move the previous question, and they say that they
are votes on the minimum wage, when they are not votes on the minimum
wage many times. This is a vote on an increase in the minimum wage from
$4.25 to $5.15. I want all my friends on the other side who are going
to vote no on this rule to know that, when they vote no on this rule,
they will be voting against the minimum wage. None of these falsehoods
that are being thrown over now can cover that fact.
If my colleagues vote against this rule, the Democrats, even though
they have presented all those nongermane motions before to say that
they want to support the minimum wage, even though when they had the
majority they did not propose the minimum wage, and when they had the
Presidency and the majority they did not propose an increase in the
minimum wage, today despite the fact that our leadership opposes an
increase in the minimum wage, they are permitting an up or down vote on
it.
So I just want my colleagues to know, despite all these speeches we
have heard here which I thought were on another bill and on another
rule, what they will be voting on, and they cannot hide it anymore,
they cannot hide it. I want it to be clear.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, what a cruel hoax the last speaker from the
other side of the aisle is trying to pull on the American people. The
choice here essentially under this rule is either vote for the minimum
wage increase for some workers and at the same time eliminate minimum
wage protection for probably the vast majority of those 10 million or
so Americans that are now receiving the minimum wage, or simply vote
the rule down and we will not bring up the minimum wage at all.
That is exactly the cruel hoax we are playing on the American people
today. What the Republican leadership is doing is setting up this bill
for defeat because they know that, if they have this exemption under
the Goodling amendment that is going to take out so many people from
any minimum wage protection, they know that the President cannot sign
that bill. So they are making it impossible for a real minimum wage
increase for the average American worker to be brought up on this floor
and to be passed by both Houses and go to the President. It is a hoax
because they are opposed to minimum wage protection. They do not care
about the little guy.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
{time} 1800
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTH. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin
for yielding.
The vote on the limitation of the minimum wage, the $500,000 cap,
that is an amendment that is made in order. So we get the vote on the
minimum wage, up or down, and if our colleagues do not want to limit,
vote for the limiting amendment, they vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Do my colleagues have it clear now?
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the chairman of the
Committee on Rules is the most decent, fairest, the most patriotic
Member we have in this body, and I appreciate him yielding me this
time.
This is a good rule, but I have to say something for people who
cannot speak for themselves, and no one will speak for them on the
floor of this House.
When people come here and say they are going to repeal 936, what they
are doing really is hurting the people of Puerto Rico who no one is
speaking for. Three-hundred thousand jobs are going to be lost if we do
that because one out of every three jobs in Puerto Rico is due to 936.
This is going to force thousands of people from Puerto Rico back to New
York, New Jersey, and Florida and other places.
As Paul Harvey said, ``What is the rest of the story?'' The rest of
the story is that 936 really is a free enterprise zone for the people
of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico's current per capita income is $6,500,
roughly half of that of the poorest of States in the United States. If
we eliminate 936, the economic incentives it provides for the island,
this island is going to suffer tremendously economically. I do not
think we want to do that.
The cost of these changes could very easily exceed the very modest
savings we are going to get from eliminating these incentives. Over and
above the profound economic impetus that 936 gives to Puerto Rico, this
is going to be devastating to the island's economy, and I ask that we
revisit and look at that 936 repeal.
Before I came to Congress, I owned and operated a small business in
Appleton, WI. I know firsthand that small businesses in this country
deserve some much-needed tax relief. The Small Business Protection Act
is a good bill that will go a long way in lifting the heavy tax burden
that is stifling America's engines of economic growth, our small
businesses.
My support for this tax relief, my friends, is tempered by the manner
in which we plan to pay for it. Under the legislation we are
considering today, these tax cuts are to be offset in large part by
retroactively repealing IRC section 936. Section 936, as many of you
know, provides for certain tax incentives for corporations operating in
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. It is also the single biggest rason
Puerto Rico has prospered into the mature, financially stable democracy
that it is today.
Section 936 is, quite simply, one of the lifebloods of the Puerto
Rican economy. Over the 21 years that it has been in effect, section
936 has spurred development and economic activity throughout all
sectors of the Puerto Rican economy. Today, it is responsible for over
300,000 direct and indirect jobs in the island's economy, fully one-
third of all the jobs in Puerto Rico.
Make no mistake, my friends. This is not so-called corporate welfare.
Section 936 effectively creates an enterprise zone in Puerto Rico,
using market-driven tax incentives to spur investment and create
employment opportunities. Every penny that is spent in this capacity is
recoupled 10 times over in the job creation and economic development
that results.
Section 936 also serves as the backbone to the financial system in
the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In fact, it is responsible for $6
billion in direct investments in the island, in addition to over $9
billion deposited in Puerto Rican financial institutions. This $15
billion
[[Page H5439]]
provides the Puerto Rican economy with a significant source of
liquidity and stability for its financial market.
This proposal will have other costs as well. In particular, 936 funds
in Puerto Rico are used for a number of innovative and socially
beneficial purposes. Perhaps the best example is the Conservation Trust
of Puerto Rico. The Trust, a non-profit, public interest trust jointly
created in 1970 by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the
Government of Puerto Rico, exists to preserve the natural and historic
resources of Puerto Rico.
During the past 13 years, the Conservation Trust has been authorized
to make use of a creative financial mechanism through section 936 to
collect funds in order to pursue its conservation plan. In fact,
because of this, the Trust has never received any direct funding from
either the local or Federal Government.
I have seen firsthand the excellent work the Trust has done. I can
testify to the importance of their mission, as well as to the
effectiveness of their efforts. The value of this service to the island
and people of Puerto Rico is inestimable. The Trust is responsible for
almost 80 percent of all the land acquired for permanent conservation
purposes in Puerto Rico by all public or private entities during the
last 20 years. More importantly, the Trust plays a vital role in
educating the Puerto Rican people, and in particular the younger
generations, about their cultural and historic birthright.
The immediate elimination of section 936 would deal a severe blow to
the Conservation Trust and other organizations like it. Eighty percent
of the Trust's annual revenues would disappear overnight. The vast
majority of Puerto Rico's land conservation efforts would grind to a
halt, and the preservation and management of existing properties would
be significantly jeopardized.
Section 936 has been a fixture of the Puerto Rican economy for 21
years. Over that period of time, the island's financial community has
developed an infrastructure that depends on 936 funds.
While I am devoted to the goal of giving our small businesses some
much-needed tax relief, I feel that we must be mindful of the
consequences of our actions today. Section 936 plays an integral role
in Puerto Rico's economy. If we eliminate the ounce of prevention that
Section 936 represents in the overall budget equation, we may end up
paying for the pound of cure that will result.
Puerto Rico's current per capita income is $6,500, roughly one-half
that of the poorest State in the U.S. If we eliminate section 936 and
the economic incentives it provides, the island economy will suffer
tremendously. Island poverty and unemployment rates will rise, as will
the costs of welfare and unemployment benefits to the residents of
Puerto Rico. The cost of these changes could very easily exceed the
very modest savings we stand to gain from eliminating these incentives.
Over and above the profound economic impetus section 936 provides for
the American citizens of Puerto Rico, it also relieves us from
expenditures we would otherwise have to make on the island.
Section 936 is an investment in the island of Puerto Rico--in its
economy, in its people, in its future. Retroactively repealing this tax
credit will stunt the island's economic growth, imperil hundreds of
thousands of Puerto Rican jobs and possibly undo two decades of
significant and steady economic improvement. We owe it to the people of
Puerto Rico, our friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens, to seriously
consider the implications of the repeal of section 936 as we vote on
the Small Business Job Protection Act.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to this
point about whether this is, in fact, a minimum wage bill or is it a
doing away with the minimum wage bill? Because at the end of the day
all of my colleagues need to understand this:
There are 75 percent of the businesses in this country which have
gross incomes of less than $500,000 a year. Those businesses employ
over 10 million people, and for those people, this bill would do away
with the minimum wage, do away with overtime. No such thing as overtime
pay for those anymore.
So, I hope the gentleman who was up here talking about this as a
minimum wage bill will understand that for those 10 million people this
is not a minimum wage bill; this is a bill that does away with the
minimum wage, does away with any payment for them for even overtime
work that they do.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just to say that it
is absolutely not true that millions of American workers will no longer
be covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Why, the language provides a grandfather clause that
retains coverage for any employee who is presently covered by the FLSA
while they are employed by that small business.
Further, any employer who fails to maintain the current coverage is
in violation of the law, and that employee may file a complaint with
the Department of Labor. No presently covered worker will lose
coverage, and any employer that tries to do so will be punished by the
law in New York State and Michigan and every other State. Every other
State that has a minimum wage law now is not even affected by this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Claremont, CA
[Mr. Dreier], a member of the Committee on Rules and my very good
friend.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I consider the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Watt] to be one of my very good friends, and does he want me to
yield him 10 seconds?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the
gentleman yield.
What about all those new employees?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me reclaim my time and say that I think
it is very important for us to take just a moment to recognize that we
all share the same goal. Every single Member in this House wants to
have the opportunity to encourage those who are at the lower end of the
economic spectrum. The unfortunate thing is that on the other side of
the aisle there seems to be a lack of desire to put into place the
kinds of small business incentives which economists who believe in the
free market are convinced will be necessary to help those at the lower
end of the economic spectrum. It is fascinating.
I am one who believes that increasing a federally mandated minimum
wage is a job killer, it is something that is going to jeopardize
opportunities at the lower end of the economic spectrum. But we have
recognized that a majority of the Members of this House want to have an
up or down vote, and so we are giving the membership an opportunity to
have that vote. But those on the other side of the aisle who had a
chance for the last several years to have that up or down vote have
never seized the opportunity.
I also believe that it is important for us to realize that as we look
at the tax and regulatory burden that exists for those businesses that
are trying to create jobs, that are trying to get those from welfare on
to the working roles are in the present situation denied that
opportunity, and yet this rule allows us to proceed with that. That is
why I hope very much that my colleagues in a bipartisan way will
support this rule, which provides a wide range of opportunities for
people who are supportive of increasing the minimum wage, those who are
opposed to increasing the minimum wage, a wide range of opportunities
for them to create economic opportunity for those at the lower end of
the spectrum.
Support this rule.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the Gingrich-Armey rule
to kill the minimum wage. This rule denies the people's House the
ability to carry out the people's will and to raise the minimum wage.
The Republican leadership called for hearings on the minimum wage,
stalled for months with every procedural trick in the book. Now we see
yet another trick, an amendment to increase the minimum wage will be
followed by a killer amendment to make sure that millions of American
workers at small firms would never see an increase come payday, and
worse, some would lose the minimum-wage protection that they now enjoy.
Two-thirds of the firms would be excluded, excluded from dealing with
the minimum wage.
The Republican leadership has been against the American workers and
raising the minimum wage from the beginning. What this rule gives with
one hand, it takes with the other, and then some. Not only does the
rule seek to repeal the minimum wage for millions of workers, it seeks
to role back the Fair Labor Standards Act and open the door to
sweatshops and to child labor.
[[Page H5440]]
The American people want to move forward to higher wages and rising
living standards. This rule is wrong.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Syracuse, NY [Mr. Walsh].
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
Our party, the Republican Party, the majority party in America today,
represents many views. But we are united in our commitment to debate
all of the important issues.
Unlike the minority party, the Democrats who lost their majority
because they bottled up the votes on issues like term limits, balanced
budget, and the minimum wage: big talk, no action, no courage, no
conviction.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and
his colleagues on the Committee on Rules. This rule gives us our vote.
This increase in the minimum wage will help seniors in conjunction with
our raising of the earnings limit for Social Security recipients, it
will help kids save for college, it will help get people off of welfare
and back to work, and it will help small business pay for it.
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
(Mr. TORKILDSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
extremely fair rule.
While I do not agree with every amendment made in order and every
provision of these two bills, I feel strongly that the Rules Committee
has done an excellent job in ensuring that all voices are heard in this
debate. This rule gives supporters and opponents of the minimum wage
the opportunity to state their cases, and key amendments allow all
Members to express their own opinions and vote accordingly.
Those who argue against this rule are some of the same people who, as
part of the Democrat Congress, did not even give this provision an
opportunity for a vote on the floor. It is a Republican Congress that
is bringing this issue to the floor for a vote, while the Democrats
stifled this vote for the past few years.
I commend the leadership and the Committee on Rules for turning the
tide for American workers by allowing this debate on the House floor.
Support minimum wage by supporting this rule.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, the most important economic issue facing this country is
that the people on top, the wealthiest people, are becoming richer, the
middle class is shrinking, and more and more of the new jobs that we
are creating in this country are low-wage jobs paying people $4.25 an
hour, $4.50 an hour, $5 an hour. The minimum wage today in terms of
purchasing power is at its lowest point in 40 years.
Mr. Speaker, the American people want and the working people want to
see a situation in which every working person in this country can work
40 hours a week and not live in poverty. It is incumbent upon this body
to have an opportunity to vote for a clean up-or-down increase in the
minimum wage.
Our Republican friends say the Democrats should have raised the
minimum wage 2 years ago. They are right; they should have, and I had a
bill in the hopper to do just that. But 2 years later means more and
more people are living in poverty. Two years later means that today
finally we should increase the minimum wage.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, how can these mean-spirited
Republicans, too cheap to pay a worker $5.15 an hour, claim they care
about American workers? This is not a Third World country. We do not
tolerate sweatshops in America. We do not have slave labor, starvation
wages. This is 1996. It is the dawn of the 21st century.
Radical Republicans would take us back to the 19th century, no
minimum wage, no support for working families, for those who work hard,
play by the rules, and strive to improve the lives of their families,
their children.
Republicans give tax breaks to corporate bigwigs who make millions of
dollars each year, but they think that 9-to-5 workers are overpaid.
They think $8,000 a year is too much.
This is not just extreme, it is nuts, it is downright crazy. Extreme,
mean-spirited Republicans offer the American people a simple choice: Do
we live in the 21st century or the 19th century; do we pay livable
wages or starvation wages?
I say, my colleagues, it is time to stand up to these right-wing
extremists, to stand up for hard-working American families. It is time
to raise the minimum wage, not repeal it.
We cannot go back. We must not go back. We will not go back. Defeat
this rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Bentonville, AR [Mr. Hutchinson].
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond. I rise in support of
the rule; I support the rule because it, in fact, will give us a clean,
straight up and down vote on the minimum-wage increase, and I applaud
our leadership in allowing that vote.
I am going to vote against the minimum wage because I think it is
misdirected, it is election year politics, it is not real compassion,
it is a job killer, and that is the truth. It is not the economists,
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] and the gentleman from California
[Mr. Campbell], alone that are saying that, but the overwhelming
economists in this country. In 1993 a survey of 22,000 economists in
the United States; I suppose they probably are all right-wing
extremists, those 22,000 economists, 77 percent of which said raising
the minimum wage will lead to a loss of jobs in this country.
So I suggest to my colleagues this is not real compassion, else they
would have raised it 2 years ago when they controlled the House, the
Senate, and the White House and it was never even brought up for a
vote.
What it is is election year posturing. This is not real compassion;
it is not compassion to take that single mother with two children and
say, ``You are going to lose your job so we can play politics with the
American economy.''
That is wrong.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
{time} 1815
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Texas for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, let me provide this body with a few facts that might
help to clear up whether or not we should, in fact, have a clean vote
on the minimum wage for the American people.
First of all, fact: We have not raised the minimum wage more than
seven times in the 58-year history.
Fact: In the city of Houston, which I represent, there are 125,000
households with salaries of $25,000 or less. The average weekly hours
of work for minimum-wage workers is 34 hours; 2.1 million people are
employed at the minimum rate, and 77.1 percent of them are adults, with
another 1.9 million people employed below the minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, there is a need for a bill that applies to the American
people, to give them a decent wage; that is, to increase the minimum
wage. This rule is a minimum-wage killer. It is a poison pill which we
all would like not to take. Let us stand up for working women; 59
percent of them are on minimum wage. And why do we not realize that the
fact is in New Jersey, when they increased the minimum wage they
increased jobs. Let us increase jobs, increase the minimum wage.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I just was in a markup, so I walked onto the
floor and was not able to get my chart up here. But if I had it, it
would be a picture that I bring to the floor every time we have this
debate on the minimum wage. It is a split screen cartoon. At the top it
says, ``How long does it take to make $8,440?'' And on one side it has
a full-time minimum-wage worker and it says under there, ``One year''.
On the other side it has an executive, and it says, ``The average
executive CEO of a large corporation in America, one-half a day.''
[[Page H5441]]
Think of the immorality of it all. It is fine for somebody to be
successful and to make that kind of money, as long as it is not at the
exploitation of others at the low end. We have to respect work. We have
to raise the morale of the worker in America by saying, ``Your full-
time employment should be a decent, living wage for you and your
family.'' Consider, two minimum-wage earners are still below the
poverty line in a family of four. I urge my colleagues to oppose the
rule and to support the minimum wage.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this Congress the Republican
majority claimed that the House was going to consider bills under an
open process.
I would like to point out that 68 percent of the legislation this
session has been considered under a restrictive process.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record certain extraneous materials.
The materials referred to are as follows:
FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor Amendments in
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*........................ Compliance........ H. Res. 6 Closed................ None.
H. Res. 6...................... Opening Day Rules H. Res. 5 Closed; contained a None.
Package. closed rule on H.R. 1
within the closed
rule.
H.R. 5*........................ Unfunded Mandates. H. Res. 38 Restrictive; Motion N/A.
adopted over
Democratic objection
in the Committee of
the Whole to limit
debate on section 4;
Pre-printing gets
preference.
H.J. Res. 2*................... Balanced Budget... H. Res. 44 Restrictive; only 2R; 4D.
certain substitutes;
PQ.
H. Res. 43..................... Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ) Restrictive; N/A.
Scheduling. considered in House
no amendments.
H.R. 101....................... To transfer a H. Res. 51 Open.................. N/A.
parcel of land to
the Taos Pueblo
Indians of New
Mexico.
H.R. 400....................... To provide for the H. Res. 52 Open.................. N/A.
exchange of lands
within Gates of
the Arctic
National Park
Preserve.
H.R. 440....................... To provide for the H. Res. 53 Open.................. N/A.
conveyance of
lands to certain
individuals in
Butte County,
California.
H.R. 2*........................ Line Item Veto.... H. Res. 55 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
gets preference.
H.R. 665*...................... Victim Restitution H. Res. 61 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Act of 1995. gets preference.
H.R. 666*...................... Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 60 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Reform Act of gets preference.
1995.
H.R. 667*...................... Violent Criminal H. Res. 63 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Incarceration Act Time Cap on
of 1995. amendments.
H.R. 668*...................... The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Deportation gets preference;
Improvement Act. Contains self-
executing provision.
H.R. 728*...................... Local Government H. Res. 79 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Law Enforcement Time Cap on
Block Grants. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 7*........................ National Security H. Res. 83 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Revitalization Time Cap on
Act. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference; PQ.
H.R. 729*...................... Death Penalty/ N/A Restrictive; brought N/A.
Habeas. up under UC with a 6
hr. time cap on
amendments.
S. 2........................... Senate Compliance. N/A Closed; Put on None.
Suspension Calendar
over Democratic
objection.
H.R. 831....................... To Permanently H. Res. 88 Restrictive; makes in 1D.
Extend the Health order only the
Insurance Gibbons amendment;
Deduction for the Waives all points of
Self-Employed. order; Contains self-
executing provision;
PQ.
H.R. 830*...................... The Paperwork H. Res. 91 Open.................. N/A.
Reduction Act.
H.R. 889....................... Emergency H. Res. 92 Restrictive; makes in 1D.
Supplemental/ order only the Obey
Rescinding substitute.
Certain Budget
Authority.
H.R. 450*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 93 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Moratorium. Time Cap on
amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 1022*..................... Risk Assessment... H. Res. 96 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Time Cap on
amendments.
H.R. 926*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 100 Open.................. N/A.
Flexibility.
H.R. 925*...................... Private Property H. Res. 101 Restrictive; 12 hr. 1D.
Protection Act. time cap on
amendments; Requires
Members to pre-print
their amendments in
the Record prior to
the bill's
consideration for
amendment, waives
germaneness and
budget act points of
order as well as
points of order
concerning
appropriating on a
legislative bill
against the committee
substitute used as
base text.
H.R. 1058*..................... Securities H. Res. 105 Restrictive; 8 hr. 1D.
Litigation Reform time cap on
Act. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference; Makes in
order the Wyden
amendment and waives
germaneness against
it.
H.R. 988*...................... The Attorney H. Res. 104 Restrictive; 7 hr. N/A.
Accountability time cap on
Act of 1995. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 956*...................... Product Liability H. Res. 109 Restrictive; makes in 8D; 7R.
and Legal Reform order only 15 germane
Act. amendments and denies
64 germane amendments
from being
considered; PQ.
H.R. 1158...................... Making Emergency H. Res. 115 Restrictive; Combines N/A.
Supplemental emergency H.R. 1158 &
Appropriations nonemergency 1159 and
and Rescissions. strikes the abortion
provision; makes in
order only pre-
printed amendments
that include offsets
within the same
chapter (deeper cuts
in programs already
cut); waives points
of order against
three amendments;
waives cl 2 of rule
XXI against the bill,
cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of
rule XVI against the
substitute; waives cl
2(e) of rule XXI
against the
amendments in the
Record; 10 hr time
cap on amendments. 30
minutes debate on
each amendment.
H.J. Res. 73*.................. Term Limits....... H. Res. 116 Restrictive; Makes in 1D; 3R
order only 4
amendments considered
under a ``Queen of
the Hill'' procedure
and denies 21 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 4*........................ Welfare Reform.... H. Res. 119 Restrictive; Makes in 5D; 26R.
order only 31
perfecting amendments
and two substitutes;
Denies 130 germane
amendments from being
considered; The
substitutes are to be
considered under a
``Queen of the Hill''
procedure; All points
of order are waived
against the
amendments.
H.R. 1271*..................... Family Privacy Act H. Res. 125 Open.................. N/A.
H.R. 660*...................... Housing for Older H. Res. 126 Open.................. N/A.
Persons Act.
H.R. 1215*..................... The Contract With H. Res. 129 Restrictive; Self 1D.
America Tax Executes language
Relief Act of that makes tax cuts
1995. contingent on the
adoption of a
balanced budget plan
and strikes section
3006. Makes in order
only one substitute.
Waives all points of
order against the
bill, substitute made
in order as original
text and Gephardt
substitute.
H.R. 483....................... Medicare Select H. Res. 130 Restrictive; waives cl 1D.
Extension. 2(1)(6) of rule XI
against the bill;
makes H.R. 1391 in
order as original
text; makes in order
only the Dingell
substitute; allows
Commerce Committee to
file a report on the
bill at any time.
H.R. 655....................... Hydrogen Future H. Res. 136 Open.................. N/A.
Act.
H.R. 1361...................... Coast Guard H. Res. 139 Open; waives sections N/A.
Authorization. 302(f) and 308(a) of
the Congressional
Budget Act against
the bill's
consideration and the
committee substitute;
waives cl 5(a) of
rule XXI against the
committee substitute.
H.R. 961....................... Clean Water Act... H. Res. 140 Open; pre-printing N/A.
gets preference;
waives sections
302(f) and 602(b) of
the Budget Act
against the bill's
consideration; waives
cl 7 of rule XVI, cl
5(a) of rule XXI and
section 302(f) of the
Budget Act against
the committee
substitute. Makes in
order Shuster
substitute as first
order of business.
H.R. 535....................... Corning National H. Res. 144 Open.................. N/A.
Fish Hatchery
Conveyance Act.
H.R. 584....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 145 Open.................. N/A.
Fairport National
Fish Hatchery to
the State of Iowa.
H.R. 614....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 146 Open.................. N/A.
New London
National Fish
Hatchery
Production
Facility.
H. Con. Res. 67................ Budget Resolution. H. Res. 149 Restrictive; Makes in 3D; 1R.
order 4 substitutes
under regular order;
Gephardt, Neumann/
Solomon, Payne/Owens,
President's Budget if
printed in Record on
5/17/95; waives all
points of order
against substitutes
and concurrent
resolution; suspends
application of Rule
XLIX with respect to
the resolution; self-
executes Agriculture
language; PQ.
H.R. 1561...................... American Overseas H. Res. 155 Restrictive; Requires N/A.
Interests Act of amendments to be
1995. printed in the Record
prior to their
consideration; 10 hr.
time cap; waives cl
2(1)(6) of rule XI
against the bill's
consideration; Also
waives sections
302(f), 303(a),
308(a) and 402(a)
against the bill's
consideration and the
committee amendment
in order as original
text; waives cl 5(a)
of rule XXI against
the amendment;
amendment
consideration is
closed at 2:30 p.m.
on May 25, 1995. Self-
executes provision
which removes section
2210 from the bill.
This was done at the
request of the Budget
Committee.
H.R. 1530...................... National Defense H. Res. 164 Restrictive; Makes in 36R; 18D; 2
Authorization order only the Bipartisan.
Act; FY 1996. amendments printed in
the report; waives
all points of order
against the bill,
substitute and
amendments printed in
the report. Gives the
Chairman en bloc
authority. Self-
executes a provision
which strikes section
807 of the bill;
provides for an
additional 30 min. of
debate on Nunn-Lugar
section; Allows Mr.
Clinger to offer a
modification of his
amendment with the
concurrence of Ms.
Collins; PQ.
H.R. 1817...................... Military H. Res. 167 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Construction cl. 6 of rule XXI
Appropriations; against the bill; 1
FY 1996. hr. general debate;
Uses House passed
budget numbers as
threshold for
spending amounts
pending passage of
Budget; PQ.
H.R. 1854...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 169 Restrictive; Makes in 5R; 4D; 2
Appropriations. order only 11 Bipartisan.
amendments; waives
sections 302(f) and
308(a) of the Budget
Act against the bill
and cl. 2 and cl. 6
of rule XXI against
the bill. All points
of order are waived
against the
amendments; PQ.
[[Page H5442]]
H.R. 1868...................... Foreign Operations H. Res. 170 Open; waives cl. 2, N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 5(b), and cl. 6
of rule XXI against
the bill; makes in
order the Gilman
amendments as first
order of business;
waives all points of
order against the
amendments; if
adopted they will be
considered as
original text; waives
cl. 2 of rule XXI
against the
amendments printed in
the report. Pre-
printing gets
priority (Hall)
(Menendez) (Goss)
(Smith, NJ); PQ.
H.R. 1905...................... Energy & Water H. Res. 171 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against the bill;
makes in order the
Shuster amendment as
the first order of
business; waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; if adopted
it will be considered
as original text. Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.J. Res. 79................... Constitutional H. Res. 173 Closed; provides one N/A.
Amendment to hour of general
Permit Congress debate and one motion
and States to to recommit with or
Prohibit the without instructions;
Physical if there are
Desecration of instructions, the MO
the American Flag. is debatable for 1
hr; PQ.
H.R. 1944...................... Recissions Bill... H. Res. 175 Restrictive; Provides N/A.
for consideration of
the bill in the
House; Permits the
Chairman of the
Appropriations
Committee to offer
one amendment which
is unamendable;
waives all points of
order against the
amendment; PQ.
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)........... Foreign Operations H. Res. 177 Restrictive; Provides N/A.
Appropriations. for further
consideration of the
bill; makes in order
only the four
amendments printed in
the rules report (20
min. each). Waives
all points of order
against the
amendments; Prohibits
intervening motions
in the Committee of
the Whole; Provides
for an automatic rise
and report following
the disposition of
the amendments; PQ.
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*...... Interior H. Res. 185 Open; waives sections N/A.
Appropriations. 302(f) and 308(a) of
the Budget Act and cl
2 and cl 6 of rule
XXI; provides that
the bill be read by
title; waives all
points of order
against the Tauzin
amendment; self-
executes Budget
Committee amendment;
waives cl 2(e) of
rule XXI against
amendments to the
bill; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.R. 1977...................... Interior H. Res. 187 Open; waives sections N/A.
Appropriations. 302(f), 306 and
308(a) of the Budget
Act; waives clauses 2
and 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; waives all
points of order
against the Tauzin
amendment; provides
that the bill be read
by title; self-
executes Budget
Committee amendment
and makes NEA funding
subject to House
passed authorization;
waives cl 2(e) of
rule XXI against the
amendments to the
bill; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.R. 1976...................... Agriculture H. Res. 188 Open; waives clauses 2 N/A.
Appropriations. and 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; provides
that the bill be read
by title; Makes Skeen
amendment first order
of business, if
adopted the amendment
will be considered as
base text (10 min.);
Pre-printing gets
priority; PQ.
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)........... Interior H. Res. 189 Restrictive; provides N/A.
Appropriations. for the further
consideration of the
bill; allows only
amendments pre-
printed before July
14th to be
considered; limits
motions to rise.
H.R. 2020...................... Treasury Postal H. Res. 190 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; provides
the bill be read by
title; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.J. Res. 96................... Disapproving MFN H. Res. 193 Restrictive; provides N/A.
for China. for consideration in
the House of H.R.
2058 (90 min.) And
H.J. Res. 96 (1 hr).
Waives certain
provisions of the
Trade Act.
H.R. 2002...................... Transportation H. Res. 194 Open; waives cl. 3 0f N/A.
Appropriations. rule XIII and section
401 (a) of the CBA
against consideration
of the bill; waives
cl. 6 and cl. 2 of
rule XXI against
provisions in the
bill; Makes in order
the Clinger/Solomon
amendment waives all
points of order
against the amendment
(Line Item Veto);
provides the bill be
read by title; Pre-
printing gets
priority; PQ. *RULE
AMENDED*.
H.R. 70........................ Exports of Alaskan H. Res. 197 Open; Makes in order N/A.
North Slope Oil. the Resources
Committee amendment
in the nature of a
substitute as
original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides a
Senate hook-up with
S. 395.
H.R. 2076...................... Commerce, Justice H. Res. 198 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; Pre-
printing gets
priority; provides
the bill be read by
title..
H.R. 2099...................... VA/HUD H. Res. 201 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; Provides
that the amendment in
part 1 of the report
is the first
business, if adopted
it will be considered
as base text (30
min.); waives all
points of order
against the Klug and
Davis amendments; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
that the bill be read
by title.
S. 21.......................... Termination of H. Res. 204 Restrictive; 3 hours ID.
U.S. Arms Embargo of general debate;
on Bosnia. Makes in order an
amendment to be
offered by the
Minority Leader or a
designee (1 hr); If
motion to recommit
has instructions it
can only be offered
by the Minority
Leader or a designee.
H.R. 2126...................... Defense H. Res. 205 Open; waives cl. N/A.
Appropriations. 2(l)(6) of rule XI
and section 306 of
the Congressional
Budget Act against
consideration of the
bill; waives cl. 2
and cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; self-
executes a strike of
sections 8021 and
8024 of the bill as
requested by the
Budget Committee; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
the bill be read by
title.
H.R. 1555...................... Communications Act H. Res. 207 Restrictive; waives 2R/3D/3 Bi-
of 1995. sec. 302(f) of the partisan.
Budget Act against
consideration of the
bill; Makes in order
the Commerce
Committee amendment
as original text and
waives sec. 302(f) of
the Budget Act and
cl. 5(a) of rule XXI
against the
amendment; Makes in
order the Bliley
amendment (30 min.)
as the first order of
business, if adopted
it will be original
text; makes in order
only the amendments
printed in the report
and waives all points
of order against the
amendments; provides
a Senate hook-up with
S. 652.
H.R. 2127...................... Labor/HHS H. Res. 208 Open; Provides that N/A.
Appropriations the first order of
Act. business will be the
managers amendments
(10 min.), if adopted
they will be
considered as base
text; waives cl. 2
and cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; waives all
points of order
against certain
amendments printed in
the report; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
the bill be read by
title; PQ.
H.R. 1594...................... Economically H. Res. 215 Open; 2 hr of gen. N/A.
Targeted debate. makes in
Investments. order the committee
substitute as
original text.
H.R. 1655...................... Intelligence H. Res. 216 Restrictive; waives N/A.
Authorization. sections 302(f),
308(a) and 401(b) of
the Budget Act. Makes
in order the
committee substitute
as modified by Govt.
Reform amend
(striking sec. 505)
and an amendment
striking title VII.
Cl 7 of rule XVI and
cl 5(a) of rule XXI
are waived against
the substitute.
Sections 302(f) and
401(b) of the CBA are
also waived against
the substitute.
Amendments must also
be pre-printed in the
Congressional record.
H.R. 1162...................... Deficit Reduction H. Res. 218 Open; waives cl 7 of N/A.
Lock Box. rule XVI against the
committee substitute
made in order as
original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1670...................... Federal H. Res. 219 Open; waives sections N/A.
Acquisition 302(f) and 308(a) of
Reform Act of the Budget Act
1995. against consideration
of the bill; bill
will be read by
title; waives cl 5(a)
of rule XXI and
section 302(f) of the
Budget Act against
the committee
substitute. Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1617...................... To Consolidate and H. Res. 222 Open; waives sections N/A.
Reform Workforce 302(f) and 401(b) of
Development and the Budget Act
Literacy Programs against the
Act (CAREERS). substitute made in
order as original
text (H.R. 2332), cl.
5(a) of rule XXI is
also waived against
the substitute.
Provides for
consideration of the
managers amendment
(10 min.) If adopted,
it is considered as
base text.
H.R. 2274...................... National Highway H. Res. 224 Open; waives section N/A.
System 302(f) of the Budget
Designation Act Act against
of 1995. consideration of the
bill; Makes H.R. 2349
in order as original
text; waives section
302(f) of the Budget
Act against the
substitute as well as
cl. 5(a) of rule XXI
and cl. 1(q)(10) of
rule X against the
substitute; provides
for the consideration
of a managers
amendment (10 min).
If adopted, it is
considered as base
text; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.R. 927....................... Cuban Liberty and H. Res. 225 Restrictive; waives cl 2R/2D
Democratic 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI
Solidarity Act of against consideration
1995. of the bill; makes in
order H.R. 2347 as
base text; waives cl
7 of rule XVI against
the substitute; Makes
Hamilton amendment
the first amendment
to be considered (1
hr). Makes in order
only amendments
printed in the report.
H.R. 743....................... The Teamwork for H. Res. 226 Open; waives cl N/A.
Employees and 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI
managers Act of against consideration
1995. of the bill; makes in
order the committee
amendment as original
text; Pre-printing
get priority.
H.R. 1170...................... 3-Judge Court for H. Res. 227 Open; makes in order a N/A.
Certain committee amendment
Injunctions. as original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1601...................... International H. Res. 228 Open; makes in order a N/A.
Space Station committee amendment
Authorization Act as original text; pre-
of 1995. printing gets
priority.
H.J. Res. 108.................. Making Continuing H. Res. 230 Closed; Provides for ..............
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee.
H.R. 2405...................... Omnibus Civilian H. Res. 234 Open; self-executes a N/A.
Science provision striking
Authorization Act section 304(b)(3) of
of 1995. the bill (Commerce
Committee request);
Pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 2259...................... To Disapprove H. Res. 237 Restrictive; waives cl 1D
Certain 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI
Sentencing against the bill's
Guideline consideration; makes
Amendments. in order the text of
the Senate bill S.
1254 as original
text; Makes in order
only a Conyers
substitute; provides
a senate hook-up
after adoption.
H.R. 2425...................... Medicare H. Res. 238 Restrictive; waives 1D
Preservation Act. all points of order
against the bill's
consideration; makes
in order the text of
H.R. 2485 as original
text; waives all
points of order
against H.R. 2485;
makes in order only
an amendment offered
by the Minority
Leader or a designee;
waives all points of
order against the
amendment; waives cl
5(c) of rule XXI (\3/
5\ requirement on
votes raising taxes);
PQ.
H.R. 2492...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 239 Restrictive; provides N/A.
Appropriations for consideration of
Bill. the bill in the House.
H.R. 2491...................... 7 Year Balanced H. Res. 245 Restrictive; makes in 1D
H. Con. Res. 109............... Budget order H.R. 2517 as
Reconciliation original text; waives
Social Security all pints of order
Earnings Test against the bill;
Reform. Makes in order only
H.R. 2530 as an
amendment only if
offered by the
Minority Leader or a
designee; waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; waives cl
5(c) of rule XXI (\3/
5\ requirement on
votes raising taxes);
PQ.
[[Page H5443]]
H.R. 1833...................... Partial Birth H. Res. 251 Closed................ N/A.
Abortion Ban Act
of 1995.
H.R. 2546...................... D.C. H. Res. 252 Restrictive; waives N/A
Appropriations FY all points of order
1996. against the bill's
consideration; Makes
in order the Walsh
amendment as the
first order of
business (10 min.);
if adopted it is
considered as base
text; waives cl 2 and
6 of rule XXI against
the bill; makes in
order the Bonilla,
Gunderson and
Hostettler amendments
(30 min.); waives all
points of order
against the
amendments; debate on
any further
amendments is limited
to 30 min. each.
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 257 Closed; Provides for N/A
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee.
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 258 Restrictive; Provides 5R
in the Statutory for the immediate
Debt Limit. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee; self-
executes 4 amendments
in the rule; Solomon,
Medicare Coverage of
Certain Anti-Cancer
Drug Treatments,
Habeas Corpus Reform,
Chrysler (MI); makes
in order the Walker
amend (40 min.) on
regulatory reform.
H.R. 2539...................... ICC Termination... H. Res. 259 Open; waives section ..............
302(f) and section
308(a).
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 261 Closed; provides for N/A.
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of a
motion by the
Majority Leader or
his designees to
dispose of the Senate
amendments (1hr).
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 262 Closed; provides for N/A.
in the Statutory the immediate
Limit on the consideration of a
Public Debt. motion by the
Majority Leader or
his designees to
dispose of the Senate
amendments (1hr).
H. Res. 250.................... House Gift Rule H. Res. 268 Closed; provides for 2R
Reform. consideration of the
bill in the House; 30
min. of debate; makes
in order the Burton
amendment and the
Gingrich en bloc
amendment (30 min.
each); waives all
points of order
against the
amendments; Gingrich
is only in order if
Burton fails or is
not offered.
H.R. 2564...................... Lobbying H. Res. 269 Open; waives cl. N/A.
Disclosure Act of 2(l)(6) of rule XI
1995. against the bill's
consideration; waives
all points of order
against the Istook
and McIntosh
amendments.
H.R. 2606...................... Prohibition on H. Res. 273 Restrictive; waives N/A.
Funds for Bosnia all points of order
Deployment. against the bill's
consideration;
provides one motion
to amend if offered
by the Minority
Leader or designee (1
hr non-amendable);
motion to recommit
which may have
instructions only if
offered by Minority
Leader or his
designee; if Minority
Leader motion is not
offered debate time
will be extended by 1
hr.
H.R. 1788...................... Amtrak Reform and H. Res. 289 Open; waives all N/A.
Privatization Act points of order
of 1995. against the bill's
consideration; makes
in order the
Transportation
substitute modified
by the amend in the
report; Bill read by
title; waives all
points of order
against the
substitute; makes in
order a managers
amend as the first
order of business, if
adopted it is
considered base text
(10 min.); waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1350...................... Maritime Security H. Res. 287 Open; makes in order N/A.
Act of 1995. the committee
substitute as
original text; makes
in order a managers
amendment which if
adopted is considered
as original text (20
min.) unamendable;
pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 2621...................... To Protect Federal H. Res. 293 Closed; provides for N/A.
Trust Funds. the adoption of the
Ways & Means
amendment printed in
the report. 1 hr. of
general debate; PQ.
H.R. 1745...................... Utah Public Lands H. Res. 303 Open; waives cl N/A.
Management Act of 2(l)(6) of rule XI
1995. and sections 302(f)
and 311(a) of the
Budget Act against
the bill's
consideration. Makes
in order the
Resources substitute
as base text and
waives cl 7 of rule
XVI and sections
302(f) and 308(a) of
the Budget Act; makes
in order a managers'
amend as the first
order of business, if
adopted it is
considered base text
(10 min).
H. Res. 304.................... Providing for N/A Closed; makes in order 1D; 2R
Debate and three resolutions;
Consideration of H.R. 2770 (Dornan),
Three Measures H. Res. 302 (Buyer),
Relating to U.S. and H. Res. 306
Troop Deployments (Gephardt); 1 hour of
in Bosnia. debate on each.
H. Res. 309.................... Revised Budget H. Res. 309 Closed; provides 2 N/A.
Resolution. hours of general
debate in the House;
PQ.
H.R. 558....................... Texas Low-Level H. Res. 313 Open; pre-printing N/A.
Radioactive Waste gets priority.
Disposal Compact
Consent Act.
H.R. 2677...................... The National Parks H. Res. 323 Closed; consideration N/A.
and National in the House; self-
Wildlife Refuge executes Young
Systems Freedom amendment.
Act of 1995.
PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION
H.R. 1643...................... To authorize the H. Res. 334 Closed; provides to N/A.
extension of take the bill from
nondiscriminatory the Speaker's table
treatment (MFN) with the Senate
to the products amendment, and
of Bulgaria. consider in the House
the motion printed in
the Rules Committee
report; 1 hr. of
general debate;
previous question is
considered as
ordered. ** NR; PQ.
H.J. Res. 134.................. Making continuing H. Res. 336 Closed; provides to N/A.
H. Con. Res. 131............... appropriations/ take from the
establishing Speaker's table H.J.
procedures making Res. 134 with the
the transmission Senate amendment and
of the continuing concur with the
resolution H.J. Senate amendment with
Res. 134. an amendment (H. Con.
Res. 131) which is
self-executed in the
rule. The rule
provides further that
the bill shall not be
sent back to the
Senate until the
Senate agrees to the
provisions of H. Con.
Res. 131. ** NR; PQ.
H.R. 1358...................... Conveyance of H. Res. 338 Closed; provides to N/A.
National Marine take the bill from
Fisheries Service the Speaker's table
Laboratory at with the Senate
Gloucester, amendment, and
Massachusetts. consider in the House
the motion printed in
the Rules Committee
report; 1 hr. of
general debate;
previous question is
considered as
ordered. ** NR; PQ.
H.R. 2924...................... Social Security H. Res. 355 Closed; ** NR; PQ..... N/A.
Guarantee Act.
H.R. 2854...................... The Agricultural H. Res. 366 Restrictive; waives 5D; 9R; 2
Market Transition all points of order Bipartisan.
Program. against the bill; 2
hrs of general
debate; makes in
order a committee
substitute as
original text and
waives all points of
order against the
substitute; makes in
order only the 16
amends printed in the
report and waives all
points of order
against the
amendments;
circumvents unfunded
mandates law;
Chairman has en bloc
authority for amends
in report (20 min.)
on each en bloc; PQ.
H.R. 994....................... Regulatory Sunset H. Res. 368 Open rule; makes in N/A.
& Review Act of order the Hyde
1995. substitute printed in
the Record as
original text; waives
cl 7 of rule XVI
against the
substitute; Pre-
printing gets
priority; vacates the
House action on S.
219 and provides to
take the bill from
the Speaker's table
and consider the
Senate bill; allows
Chrmn. Clinger a
motion to strike all
after the enacting
clause of the Senate
bill and insert the
text of H.R. 994 as
passed by the House
(1 hr) debate; waives
germaneness against
the motion; provides
if the motion is
adopted that it is in
order for the House
to insist on its
amendments and
request a conference.
H.R. 3021...................... To Guarantee the H. Res. 371 Closed rule; gives one N/A.
Continuing Full motion to recommit,
Investment of which if it contains
Social security instructions, may
and Other Federal only if offered by
Funds in the Minority Leader
Obligations of or his designee. **
the United States. NR.
H.R. 3019...................... A Further H. Res. 372 Restrictive; self- 2D/2R.
Downpayment executes CBO language
Toward a Balanced regarding contingency
Budget. funds in section 2 of
the rule; makes in
order only the
amendments printed in
the report; Lowey (20
min), Istook (20
min), Crapo (20 min),
Obey (1 hr); waives
all points of order
against the
amendments; give one
motion to recommit,
which if contains
instructions, may
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee. **
NR.
H.R. 2703...................... The Effective H. Res. 380 Restrictive; makes in 6D; 7R; 4
Death Penalty and order only the Bipartisan.
Public Safety Act amendments printed in
of 1996. the report; waives
all points of order
against the
amendments; gives
Judiciary Chairman en
bloc authority (20
min.) on en blocs;
provides a Senate
hook-up with S. 735.
** NR.
H.R. 2202...................... The Immigration H. Res. 384 Restrictive; waives 12D; 19R; 1
and National all points of order Bipartisan.
Interest Act of against the bill and
1995. amendments in the
report except for
those arising under
sec. 425(a) of the
Budget Act (unfunded
mandates); 2 hrs. of
general debate on the
bill; makes in order
the committee
substitute as base
text; makes in order
only the amends in
the report; gives the
Judiciary Chairman en
bloc authority (20
min.) of debate on
the en blocs; self-
executes the Smith
(TX) amendment re:
employee verification
program; PQ.
H.J. Res. 165.................. Making further H. Res. 386 Closed; provides for N/A.
continuing the consideration of
appropriations the CR in the House
for FY 1996. and gives one motion
to recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader;
the rule also waives
cl 4(b) of rule XI
against the
following: an omnibus
appropriations bill,
another CR, a bill
extending the debt
limit. ** NR.
H.R. 125....................... The Gun Crime H. Res. 388 Closed; self-executes N/A.
Enforcement and an amendment;
Second Amendment provides one motion
Restoration Act to recommit which may
of 1996. contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee. **
NR.
H.R. 3136...................... The Contract With H. Res. 391 Closed; provides for N/A.
America the consideration of
Advancement Act the bill in the
of 1996. House; self-executes
an amendment in the
Rules report; waives
all points of order,
except sec. 425(a)
(unfunded mandates)
of the CBA, against
the bill's
consideration; orders
the PQ except 1 hr.
of general debate
between the Chairman
and Ranking Member of
Ways and Means; one
Archer amendment (10
min.); one motion to
recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee;
Provides a Senate
hookup if the Senate
passes S. 4 by March
30, 1996. **NR.
H.R. 3103...................... The Health H. Res. 392 Restrictive: 2 hrs. of N/A.
Coverage general debate (45
Availability and min. split by Ways
Affordability Act and Means) (45 split
of 1996. by Commerce) (30
split by Economic and
Educational
Opportunities); self-
executes H.R. 3160 as
modified by the
amendment in the
Rules report as
original text; waives
all points of order,
except sec. 425(a)
(unfunded mandates)
of the CBA; makes in
order a Democratic
substitute (1 hr.)
waives all points of
order, except sec.
425(a) (unfunded
mandates) of the CBA,
against the
amendment; one motion
to recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee;
waives cl 5(c) of
Rule XXI (requiring
\3/5\ vote on any tax
increase) on votes on
the bill, amendments
or conference reports.
[[Page H5444]]
H.J. Res. 159.................. Tax Limitation H. Res. 395 Restrictive; provides 1D
Constitutional for consideration of
Amendment. the bill in the
House; 3 hrs of
general debate; Makes
in order H.J. Res.
169 as original text;
allows for an
amendment to be
offered by the
Minority Leader or
his designee (1 hr)
** NR; PQ.
H.R. 842....................... Truth in Budgeting H. Res. 396 Open; 2 hrs. of N/A.
Act. general debate; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 2715...................... Paperwork H. Res. 409 Open; Preprinting get N/A.
Elimination Act priority.
of 1996.
H.R. 1675...................... National Wildlife H. Res. 410 Open; Makes the Young N/A.
Refuge amendment printed in
Improvement Act the 4/16/96 Record in
of 1995. order as original
text; waives cl 7 of
rule XVI against the
amendment;
Preprinting gets
priority; **NR.
H.J. Res. 175.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 411 Closed; provides for N/A.
Appropriations consideration of the
for FY 1996. bill in the House;
one motion to
recommit which, if
containing
instructions, may be
offered by the
Minority Leader or
his designee. **NR.
H.R. 2641...................... United States H. Res. 418 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Marshals Service gets priority; Senate
Improvement Act hook-up. **PQ.
of 1996.
H.R. 2149...................... The Ocean Shipping H. Res. 419 Open; Makes in order a N/A.
Reform Act. managers amendment as
the first order of
business (10 min.);
if adopted it is
considered as base
text; waives cl 7 of
rule XVI against the
managers amendment;
Pre-printing gets
priority; makes in
order an Obestar en
bloc amendment.
H.R. 2974...................... To amend the H. Res. 421 Open; waives cl 7 of N/A.
Violent Crime rule XIII against
Control and Law consideration of the
Enforcement Act bill; makes in order
of 1994 to the Judiciary
provide enhanced substitute printed in
penalties for the bill as original
crimes against text; waives cl 7 of
elderly and child rule XVI against the
victims. substitute; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 3120...................... To amend Title 18, H. Res. 422 Open; waives cl 7 of N/A.
United States rule XIII against
Code, with consideration of the
respect to bill; makes in order
witness the Judiciary
retaliation, substitute printed in
witness tampering the bill as original
and jury text; waives cl 7 of
tampering. rule XVI against the
substitute; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 2406...................... The United States H. Res. 426 Open; makes in order N/A.
Housing Act of the committee
1996. substitute printed in
the bill as original
text; waives cl 5(a)
of rule XXI against
the substitute; makes
in order a managers
amendment as the
first order of
business (10 min); if
adopted it is
considered as base
text; Pre-printing
gets priority;
provides a Senate
hook-up.
H.R. 3322...................... Omnibus Civilian H. Res. 427 Open; waives cl N/A.
Science 2(l)(2) of rule XI
Authorization Act against the bill's
of 1996. consideration; makes
in order a managers
amendment as the
first order of
business (10 min); if
adopted it is
considered as base
text; waives cl 5(a)
of rule XXI against
the bill; pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 3286...................... The Adoption H. Res. 428 Restrictive; provides 1D; 1R
Promotion and consideration of the
Stability Act of bill in the House;
1996. makes in order the
Ways & Means
substitute printed in
the bill as original
text; makes in order
a Gibbons amendment
to title II (30 min)
and a Young amendment
(30 min); provides
one motion to
recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee.
H.R. 3230...................... Defense H. Res. 430 Restrictive........... 41 amends;
Authorization 20D; 17R; 4
Bill FY 1997. bipartisan
H.R. 3415...................... Repeal of the 4.3- H. Res. 436 Closed................ N/A.
Cent Increase in
Transporation
Fuel Taxes.
H.R. 3259...................... Intelligence H. Res. 437 Restrictive........... N/A.
Authorization Act
for FY 1997.
H.R. 3144...................... The Defend America H. Res. 438 Restrictive........... 1D
Act.
H.R. 3448/H.R. 1227............ The Small Business H. Res. 440 Restrictive........... 2R
Job Protection
Act of 1996, and
The Employee
Commuting
Flexibility Act
of 1996.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation 1st Session, 53% restrictive; 47% open. *** All
legislation 2d Session, 69% restrictive; 31% open. **** All legislation 104th Congress, 58% restrictive; 42%
open. ***** NR indicates that the legislation being considered by the House for amendment has circumvented
standard procedure and was never reported from any House committee. ****** PQ Indicates that previous question
was ordered on the resolution. ******* Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which
can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified closed rules as well as completely closed
rules and rules providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This
definition of restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules
Committee in the 103d Congress. N/A means not available.
Legislation in the 104th Congress, 2d Session
To date 13 out of 31, or 42% of the bills considered under
rules in the 2d session of the 104th Congress have been
considered under an irregular procedure which circumvents the
standard committee procedure. They have been brought to the
floor without any committee reporting them. They are as
follows:
H.R. 1643, to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory
treatment (MFN) to the products of Bulgaria.
H.J. Res. 134, making continuing appropriations for fiscal
year 1996.
H.R. 1358, conveyance of National Marine Fisheries Service
Laboratory at Gloucester, Massachusetts.
H.R. 2924, the Social Security Guarantee Act.
H.R. 3021, to guarantee the continuing full investment of
Social Security and other Federal funds in obligations of the
United States.
H.R. 3019, a further downpayment toward a balanced budget.
H.R. 2703, the effective Death Penalty and Public Safety
Act of 1996.
H.J. Res. 165, making further continuing appropriations for
fiscal year 1996.
H.R. 125, the Crime Enforcement and Second Amendment
Restoration Act of 1996.
H.R. 3136, the Contract With America Advancement Act of
1996.
H.J. Res. 159, tax limitation constitutional amendment.
H.R. 1675, National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of
1995.
H.J. Res. 175, making further continuing appropriations for
fiscal year 1996.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, to sum up, I urge a no vote on the
rule. The resolution does not provide the opportunity for a straight
up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. And make no mistake about it; the
small business exemption will drag this legislation down. This issue is
too important for working families. Let us send it back to the
Committee on Rules. Vote no on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I would just say that we would think from the rhetoric
spewing forth from the Democrats that they were not going to have a
chance to vote up-or-down on a minimum wage. Come back in about an
hour-and-a-half and I want everybody to see what takes place. It will
be an up-or-down vote on a minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we have to get into these partisan
fights on something that is so terribly important. Yes, it is important
for a minimum wage increase, but yes, it important that we relieve
small business of some of the expenses in order to pay for that minimum
wage increase. That is exactly what this bill does.
Small business incentives, decreasing expenses for small businesses,
that means a lot to small businesses. Home office deductions, do
Members know what that means to so many working mothers that want to
work out of their homes? That is what Members are voting for when they
come over here and vote for this rule. That is terribly important to
working mothers that want to stay in their homes and take care of their
children.
Mr. Speaker, we can go down and line. Here are dozens and dozens of
little benefits that add up to so much: employer-provided educational
assistance. That is so important. The Democrats ought to be standing up
there voting for this bill. Pension implication provisions, to allow
pensions for the few employees that small businesses have. That is what
this whole debate is all about.
Everyone should come over here, they should vote for this rule, and
then they should do a favor for small business and a favor for working
people that might be on the minimum wage. This is a good bill. It is a
compromise. That is what we all have to learn in politics: We cannot
always have it our own way. Let us work together. Come over here and
vote for the rule and then vote for the bill. Members will be doing
something for people of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 211, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 189]
YEAS--219
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
[[Page H5445]]
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moorhead
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--211
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunning
Cardin
Chapman
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cubin
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Largent
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McIntosh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shadegg
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--4
Bliley
Molinari
Payne (VA)
Scarborough
{time} 1840
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Scarborough for, with Mr. Payne of Virginia against.
Mr. SHADEGG changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CRANE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________