[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 27, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4568-H4574]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5672, SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE,
COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 890 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 890
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5672) making appropriations for Science, the
Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill for
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived
except: beginning with the colon on page 15, line 18, through
page 16, line 4; page 24, lines 17 and 18; and section 607.
Where points of order are waived against part of a paragraph,
points of order against language in another part of such
paragraph may be made only against such other part and not
against the entire paragraph. During consideration of the
bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises
and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation
that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding,
to consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment
of the House and Senate during the month of July.
Sec. 3. House Resolution 878 is laid upon the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.
Madam Speaker, H. Res. 890 is an open rule, and it provides 1 hour of
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. This
resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill
and provides that under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read
for amendment by paragraph. This resolution waives points of order
against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative
provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the
resolution.
It authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members
who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. This
resolution provides that it shall be in order, any rule of the House to
the contrary notwithstanding, to consider concurrent resolutions
providing for adjournment of the House and Senate during the month of
July and provides also that H. Res. 878 is laid on the table.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 890 and
the underlying appropriations bill.
H.R. 5672 will fund many of the priorities of this Nation, combating
terrorism and crime, strengthening our economy, fostering diplomatic
relations and, finally, advancing scientific growth and innovation
throughout this country. Each of these priorities is essential to
ensure a stronger and a more secure America, and this bill increases
funding over last year for almost each and every one of these
priorities.
I should also add, to the credit of the committee, under the
leadership of Chairman Wolf, that this bill also contains almost $200
million in savings for our taxpayers. I want to thank Chairman Wolf for
his stewardship of this bill.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 5672 provides $22.1 billion for the Department of
Justice. That is almost $724 million above last year, and it is $1
billion above the President's request.
This $22 billion includes $6 billion for the FBI, as they develop and
execute better ways to combat terrorism and fight various forms of
crime, from child exploitation to gang violence. This increased funding
means improved information technology, better counterintelligence
capabilities, and a greater number of highly trained human assets on
the ground.
[[Page H4569]]
Additionally, because State and local law enforcement play a
fundamental and a critical role in fighting crime, this bill includes
$2.6 billion for their efforts. And that is an increase of $1.1 billion
over the President's request.
H.R. 5672 also includes $558 million for the Edward Byrne Justice
Assistance Grants program. That is $147 million over last year, fiscal
year 2006.
{time} 1100
And to fight this scourge of methamphetamines which sadly pervades so
many of our communities, including those of my own, Georgia's 11th,
this bill provides $1.75 billion for the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the DEA.
Unquestionably, this bill demonstrates the commitment of this
Congress, working with the President, to continually reassess and
strengthen our security and our law enforcement priorities, ensuring
that threats at home and abroad are identified and neutralized.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 5672 also provides $22.7 billion to fund our
Nation's scientific priorities, with $16.7 billion for NASA as well as
$6 billion for the National Science Foundation. Having practiced as an
OB-GYN for almost 30 years, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of
encouraging scientific advancement in saving lives and improving our
quality of life. Scientific innovation also captivates the minds of our
children and other generations to come as they dream to develop
technologies that will change the world of tomorrow.
Madam Speaker, this bill also includes funding to further improve the
world of today by providing $9.7 billion for the State Department. Of
that, $1.7 billion goes to secure and replace our vulnerable embassies
throughout the world.
H.R. 5672 includes $5.95 billion for the Department of Commerce, $900
million for the Securities and Exchange Commission, $294 million for
the Federal Communications Commission, and $213 million for the Federal
Trade Commission.
Madam Speaker, these dollars are essential to not only building a
stronger economy but also ensuring a fair and a level playing field for
everyone who participates in this economy.
Madam Speaker, last but not least, this bill also includes $643
million for the SBA, the Small Business Administration, which will
support business loans to help entrepreneurs across our great Nation
access critical start-up capital for new businesses. Without question,
our economy is driven by small businesses and the entrepreneurs who are
willing to take a chance and turn a dream into a reality.
In conclusion, this bill also makes provisions for three very
important programs in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia. I
want to mention these because they are so important.
The Inner Harbor EXCEL Program in Rockmart, Georgia, in Polk County,
provides quality services for at-risk youth and offers a viable
alternative to incarceration. It funds the Douglas County Zero to Three
Program which helps the county's juvenile courts to better address the
needs of neglected and maltreated infants and toddlers.
And, lastly, the National Association of Court Management, which aims
to improve our courts and develop related educational programs.
I want to again thank Chairman Wolf for his support of these programs
which are so very important to the people of northwest Georgia.
Madam Speaker, as we move forward with this debate, I want to
encourage my colleagues to please support this rule and support the
underlying bill as we stand together in support of funding our Nation's
priorities.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, this morning, we are certainly on an
important appropriations bill, but I would like to spend my time this
morning talking about a portion of the bill that we were not able to
get into the bill.
Last week, the American people watched as the majority led the charge
against the estate tax. Republicans argued they were doing it for the
benefit of small businesses and independent farmers. But the majority
could not provide even one concrete example that supported their claim.
No farm has been found, no small business has been found that had to go
under because of the estate tax.
What the Republicans were really interested in was the 3/10ths of 1
percent of Americans who pay the tax, super-rich families, 18 of whom
have spent a combined $490 million over the last 10 years in their
quest to make the estate tax disappear. Today, I would ask my friends
in the majority to compare that sum, $490 million just in lobbying
costs, to the amount of money a full-time minimum wage earner makes in
an entire year, which is $10,712.
The minimum wage has not been increased in 9 years. Because of
inflation, it is effectively at its lowest level of purchasing power
since 1955. And this majority wants to keep it that way.
In fact, last night, in the Rules Committee, the majority refused to
allow an amendment to this bill that would have increased the minimum
wage, so we won't have the chance to debate it here today.
Contrary to the claims of Republicans, minimum wage earners aren't
just teenagers. Indeed, 46 percent of them are over the age of 25, and
35 percent are the sole wage earners for their families, many of them
working two and three minimum wage jobs to put some food on table.
Despite what Republicans will say today, there is no empirical
evidence to suggest that an increase in the minimum wage would either
increase poverty or cost small-business jobs. In fact, the studies that
are available show the opposite to be the case. Twenty States have
higher minimum wage standards than are federally required. A Center for
American Progress study found that, between 1998 and 2003, small
business employment in those States grew at an average of 9.4 percent.
In contrast, it grew at an average of only 6.6 percent everywhere else.
There is also no established connection between increases in the
minimum wage and an increase in poverty, contrary to the rhetoric. Once
again, the opposite is true. Obviously, when you increase salaries in a
way that does not decrease employment opportunities, the increase in
the minimum wage helps people to rise out of poverty and gives them
more spending power.
Finally, consider that 81 percent of all the respondents in America
to a January poll said raising the minimum wage was an important
priority in their mind. If only 19 percent of Americans aren't thinking
about it, that is overwhelming.
And so, Madam Speaker, my Republican friends find themselves in a
bind. In their steadfast and determined opposition to even a moderate
increase in the minimum wage, they cannot claim to be speaking for the
American people. They can't claim to be speaking on behalf of the
available evidence, either, because that evidence indicates that an
increase in the minimum wage will help American workers and the
economy, not hurt them.
Republicans can't really claim to be speaking for anyone, anyone
except, that is, the small group of rich business groups who have
dedicated a tremendous amount of time, energy and money to fighting a
minimum wage increase. It should not come as a surprise, of course.
Ultra-rich special interest groups were the reason that they worked so
hard to overturn the estate tax last week, and we really shouldn't
expect anything today that would be different.
Madam Speaker, what we are seeing is a democracy that has been
broken, par for the course from the party that recently tabled the
renewal of the Voting Rights Act. Our elected officials are supposed to
base their decisions on the will of the people, but this leadership
cares only about the will of a few rich businessmen.
We all know that our democracy was designed to keep this House
responsive to the needs of the public, but history shows us that this
leadership listens only to well-paid lobbyists and is willing to do
almost anything to ensure their agenda is implemented. For years, they
have repeatedly assaulted the process, abusing rules and the ethical
standards of this Congress to get what they want, no matter the price.
[[Page H4570]]
When Democrats opposed a repeal of the estate tax last week, we did
so because we believe those who have benefited the most from our
society have an obligation to give the most back. This week, I think we
saw that, with a great gift of Warren Buffett, one of our richest
persons and citizens, to help the people at large, not just in America
but throughout the world.
I ask my Republican colleagues, is that the American dream for you?
Or is it one where people cannot get a raise in their minimum income to
be able to take care of their families? Is working 40 hours a week for
poverty wages the American dream for you? Or is it the belief that
honest workers will be given an honest chance to build the life for
themselves that they deserve?
We have not forgotten that dream on our side. We are going to
continue to stand united behind Americans as they pursue it. We also
stand for an open and honest democratic government that will demand it.
And we will not rest until we have made this House the People's House
once more, because the citizens of this great Nation deserve no less.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, at this time, I want to yield as much
time as he might consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules
Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Georgia for
yielding and for his superb management of this very important
appropriation bill that is coming forward. I also want to extend my
appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for the hard
work that he has put into this very important measure. It is a
bipartisan bill that I know enjoys broad support.
I know that the topic of discussion is the issue of increasing the
minimum wage. I would like to say for the record, as I did in the Rules
Committee last night, that I am a strong proponent of seeing the
minimum wage increase. I want to see every American's opportunity
increased, and I believe that the policies that we have put into place,
not providing some sort of guarantee, I mean, States have minimum wage
rates. My minimum wage rate in the State of California is substantially
higher than the Federal minimum wage rate. There are some States that
have a lower minimum wage, and I think it plays a role in the standard
of living.
But I am one who has traditionally been concerned about the notion of
mandating from the Federal level an increase in the minimum wage. I
know that that is the issue that is going to be talked about time and
time again. An argument is propounded by many that we somehow are more
interested in the rich than we are in those who are trying to get onto
the first rung of the economic ladder. Nothing could be further from
the case. We believe very strongly in ensuring opportunity for every
single American.
We want to make sure that there is opportunity out there, and there
have been a wide range of empirical studies done, Madam Speaker, that
show that if we look at the impact that it has on small businesses and
on a wide range of other entities out there, it can be inflationary
and, in fact, it can cost jobs.
Now, I know a lot of people try to dispute that and say that it
hasn't happened, but I think that realizing we have a 4.6 percent
unemployment rate, as has been said time and time again by the
President and others, it is lower than the average for the last four
decades, we have a strong, growing economy today and I would not want
to take any action whatsoever that could potentially impinge on the
economic growth that we are enjoying.
And we want to see everyone's wages increase. We want there to be
greater opportunity for people to improve themselves. So, regardless of
what arguments you might hear to the contrary, we are passionately
committed to that. Some of us just have difficulty with having the
Federal Government mandate it.
I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Wolf,
and Jerry Lewis, who chairs the full committee, for this work product;
and I want to talk about one particular issue that has been very
important to me for the last 12 years.
Back in 1994, Madam Speaker, we established something known as SCAAP.
That is kind of an intriguing acronym that is out there. It is known as
the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. The idea behind that is
the fact that the Federal Government has the responsibility for the
security of our Nation's borders. We all know that. We have had a
raging debate that has gone on in this body and in the other body.
We are hoping very much that we are going to be able to come up with
a measure that focuses first on border security, which is what we did
in the House bill, but as we look at the things that were included in
that measure, increasing border fencing, criminalizing those who would
allow their property to be used for tunneling under the border, a wide
range of things, we also have to recognize that there is a real problem
that exists in this country today and that is there are many people
here illegally who have committed crimes, and in light of the fact that
they have committed these crimes, they have been incarcerated
throughout the country.
In my county alone of Los Angeles, and I represent both Los Angeles
and San Bernardino Counties, the great sheriff, Lee Baca, who was just
reelected a few weeks ago, he is in Los Angeles County, and Sheriff
Gary Penrod in San Bernardino County, they have come to me regularly
and said that it costs millions and millions and millions of dollars
for the incarceration, of criminal justice of people who are in this
country illegally who have committed crimes. In fact, Sheriff Baca has
told me repeatedly that it costs $150 million a year in Los Angeles
County alone.
Now one of the things that we have done over the past 6 years, we
have been able to provide roughly $1 billion to the State of California
for the reimbursement. Again, we don't cover all the costs, but it is,
I believe, important for us at the Federal level to step up to the
plate and realize that security of our borders is a top priority, and
if there are people who are in here illegally committing crimes and a
cost is thrown onto the shoulders of State and local governments, we
should provide this reimbursement.
{time} 1115
Last year, I was privileged to work with our colleague, Jim Kolbe,
and we coauthored an amendment that increased by $50 million the
funding level for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program to $405
million. What we have done this year, and I take my hat off to the
distinguished members of the Appropriations Committee who have worked
so hard on this, we have actually seen the committee itself come up
with a level of $405 million. Again, that is not enough, Madam Speaker,
but it is, I believe, a very important step to say to those who are
taking on this responsibility at the State and local levels that they
should be reimbursed.
We have to secure our borders. We have to do everything that we
possibly can to bring an end to the problem of illegal immigration. As
we continue to work on that, it is absolutely imperative that we do all
that we can to make sure that the Federal Government takes its
responsibility.
So this is an open rule that we have, and I believe it is very
appropriate. It has funding for important measures.
Another issue that is very important to me is the fact that when it
comes to space research, we have been able to improve the quality of
life for people all over this country and around the world. One of the
greatest centers of that operation happens to be the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, which is part of the California Institute of Technology.
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is in Pasadena.
I am proud to say the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is in La Canada-
Flintridge. I jointly represent that area with our colleague Adam
Schiff. When I look at this bill, I am very pleased that recognition of
the importance of that facility and the programs there is included in
it.
So this is a good bill. I am strongly supportive of it and believe
the rule will allow for a wide-ranging debate.
Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
[[Page H4571]]
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I am urging every Member to vote ``no'' on
the rule as a protest against the Rules Committee action in refusing to
allow a minimum-wage increase amendment to be attached to this bill.
I know that there are some people that say it shouldn't be on this
bill; but the fact is, Mr. Hoyer and I and several others tried to have
it attached to the Labor-Health-Education appropriations bill, and
after we won, with the help of seven Republicans and 1 Democrat, the
House Republican leadership decided to prevent that bill from coming to
the floor of the House. So now we are trying to attach it to this bill.
I make no apology for that. The majority leader of the Senate
attached 40 pages of unrelated language to the defense bill last year,
language which insulated the pharmaceutical industry from lawsuits.
This issue is not about committee jurisdiction. This issue is about
whose side are you on. For more than 9 years, we have seen no increase
in the minimum wage. I take that problem personally, because after my
parents were divorced, my mother worked for the minimum wage, and I can
tell you how it feels to see a woman work 40 hours and come home with
less than $40 in the check. It doesn't feel very good.
I can tell you how it feels to see you run out of money before you
run out of days of the month, so at the end of every month, you have to
take a household item, a table or a lamp or a radio, down to Etzkins'
Pawn Shop to get a little money to get through the month. And the
outrageous fact is that today, the minimum wage buys less than it did
when my mother was earning it a number of years ago.
This Congress has an obligation to do something about that, but it
hasn't. In the meantime, food prices have gone up by 20 percent,
housing costs have gone up by 25 percent, medical expenses have gone up
by 40 percent, and gas prices have doubled.
Last week, this institution voted to take no action to block a cost-
of-living increase for Members of Congress. It takes a woman working at
the minimum wage 4 months to earn the equivalent of that congressional
COLA. Four months. What is the matter with people in this institution
if they can justify a COLA increase for Members of Congress at the same
time that they have been blocking a minimum-wage increase for 9 years?
I find it outrageous.
I don't want to hear this baloney about, ``Oh, President Clinton
warned that he would veto the minimum wage a few years ago.'' President
Clinton was a strong proponent of the minimum-wage increase. He was
forced to warn the Congress that he would find a bill fiscally
irresponsible if the Congress took the minimum wage and attached it to
over $200 billion in tax giveaways and tax cuts that were paid for
totally with borrowed money.
So let's not have any nonsense on this floor about how President
Clinton, after all, resisted the minimum wage. What President Clinton
did was to resist the taking of the minimum wage hostage to the tax
writing, borrow-to-pay-for-tax-cut schemes of the majority party.
So, Madam Speaker, this, to me, is a matter of elemental decency. It
is a matter of equity. A Congress that does nothing to stand in the way
of a cost-of-living increase for itself is a Congress that certainly
ought to have the decency to pass a minimum-wage increase for the
people we are talking about.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, in regard to some of the minimum-wage arguments the
gentleman from Wisconsin is making, I want to point out, and these are
not my statistics, but these are accurate statistics, that one-third of
minimum-wage workers are children of the head of a household. Over
half, 52 percent, actually of minimum-wage workers are under 25 years
old. Less than 1 percent of minimum-wage workers are in households with
a total income of $20,000 or less.
The big concern, of course, Madam Speaker, in regard to minimum wage,
and I am certainly not suggesting that that issue might not be
considered by this Congress in a more appropriate setting than this
appropriations bill, indeed it might, and indeed we may need to raise
that minimum wage somewhat, but we have to be very, very careful that
in the process we don't destroy some of these jobs.
The gentleman talked about a situation with his own mom, and there
are plenty of people in those situations. But if we raise the minimum
wage to too high a level, then they won't have any job at all to come
home from.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Sweeney), a hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee.
(Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SWEENEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying
legislation. Let me point out that I think Chairman Wolf and Ranking
Member Mollohan have done a spectacular job in very tight circumstances
with this bill. Having been on the committee in the past, I am very
proud of this work product.
As my friend from Georgia pointed out, this bill has a multiple of
purposes, and one of them is to help fund the efforts of the State
Department to establish diplomatic relations throughout the world.
Twenty years ago in West Berlin the La Belle Discotheque was bombed
by the Libyan Government. Eighteen years ago, over Lockerbie, Scotland,
Pan Am Flight 103 was shot down by the Libyan Government.
Madam Speaker, that was at the beginning of, the early part of, the
war on terror and terrorism. Lockerbie had an incredible toll, 270
murdered victims, with 189 Americans part of that. La Belle had two GIs
murdered in that bombing and 50 permanently injured American citizens.
In 2002, Libya agreed to pay compensation to the families of
Lockerbie in order to avoid a criminal trial, avoid a criminal trial.
In 2004, they agreed to pay $35 million to the victims of the La Belle
Discotheque.
During the full Appropriations Committee markup, I passed an
amendment, Madam Speaker, that prohibits the State Department from
fully establishing diplomatic ties with Libya and accepting a Libyan
ambassador until the Libyan Government makes full compensation payments
to the victims of these two horrendous terrorist acts. You may ask why
I did that and why that was appropriated in this bill. Well, it is
about timing.
On May 15, the State Department proposed the removal of Libya from
the list of state-sponsored terrorist nations. Congress has 45 days
under the law to review that removal. That 45 days will be up this
Thursday. I fear very much so, and that is why we incorporated it into
this bill, that this is the last opportunity that this government has
to do the right thing for the people, for American citizens who have
been victimized by terrorist attacks.
Without the language that was put into the full appropriations markup
and protected by the Rules Committee, this Congress, this government,
might not be there to stand and do the right thing, which,
unfortunately, over the last 20 years it has shown it has not been all
that willing to do for the victims of these vicious attacks.
So I want to thank Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee and I want
to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos of the International
Relations Committee for agreeing that it is important that we go
forward and ensure that the full compensation, the reparations, if you
will, to these families, is maintained.
Madam Speaker, in 2002, Libya agreed to pay compensation to the
families, in order to avoid a criminal trial. While 80 percent of that
agreement has been met, the remaining 20 percent was held back by Libya
as long as they remained on the U.S. list of state sponsors of
terrorism.
Libya has now been removed from that list, and must now follow
through on its agreements. The State Department removed Libya from the
list on May 15th. Congress has 45 days to review the removal of Libya.
That 45-day window is up on Thursday. We need to send a strong signal
to Libya that they must live up to their deal.
Some of my constituents experienced this act of terror very
personally. Glendon and Margaret Rafferty, of Ticonderoga in my
Congressional District, lost four family members--
[[Page H4572]]
their daughter Bonnie Leigh Williams, son-in-law Eric, and
granddaughters Stephanie and Brittany. Joan and Tom Dater, of Pittstown
in my Congressional District, lost their daughter, Gretchen.
Despite Libya's pending removal from the state sponsors of terror
list, Libya publicly stated yesterday they are no longer obliged to pay
the final installment of these reparations to the families. This is
unacceptable.
I will point out to my colleagues, if they don't think it is serious,
the Libyan Government indicated yesterday that they don't intend to
meet the full obligations under this agreement, just as they have for
20 years stonewalled efforts by those families to reach some reward;
and I don't know if we can call it a just reward, because it really
isn't. Money is not going to replace their loved ones or their children
murdered here, but at least some branch of this government is going to
step up and say that it is wrong that that happened, that we not going
to let it happen, and you don't just get a free pass back in once you
have committed those kinds of horrendous, awful terrorist acts.
I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for joining with
me on this. I want to let the families of these attacks know that we
are with them.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 seconds simply to say
that the workers who need it most, 57 percent of the benefits of the
wage increase will go to families with working adults in the bottom 40
percent of the income scale. It is true that people are trying to raise
families on the minimum wage.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia
(Mr. Mollohan).
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I regret that this rule does not make in order two
amendments that were offered during full committee.
First, I offered an amendment that would provide $600 million
additional money to this bill to protect our communities, invest in
economic development, especially in rural areas, provide critical legal
assistance to low-income families and respond to concerns by Members
about the Federal investment in science and education funding. All of
this, Madam Speaker, would have been accomplished by just nicking by
about $1,657 the tax cut received by the wealthiest people in this
country, those who make over $1 million a year.
Under this amendment, those who make over $1 million a year, instead
of an average tax break of $114,172, under this amendment, which would
have allowed us to put $600 million more into this bill for those
worthy causes, they would have received an average of $112,515. All of
that could have been paid for, and certainly they would not have been
hurt at all.
Well, we had a good debate in full committee, an hour and a half
long, touching on the budget policy of the past few administrations,
the budget resolution that resulted in this bill's tight allocation and
the tax cuts that I believe are evidence that the Bush administration
is not serious about balancing this budget.
This discussion was important because it was a reminder of our
different priorities. My amendment is a reflection of the Democratic
priorities that, with more funding, could be reflected in this bill,
and I regret that that amendment was not made in order today.
I also was concerned that the rule does not make in order an
amendment that I was proud to cosponsor with Representatives Hoyer and
Obey that would have raised the minimum wage, which has not been
increased since 1997, from $5.15 to $7.25 by January 1, 2009.
{time} 1130
The increase would occur in three increments, 70 cents each on
January 1, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Such a small amount of money would have
huge meaning to working families.
There are 7 million low-wage workers that would receive an increase
in their hourly wage rate and increase their standard of living if the
minimum wage were increased.
While I am pleased that the rule does provide protection for an ill-
advised tax on commercial explosives which was proposed by President
Bush, this rule does not protect this ill-advised tax the President's
fiscal year 2007 budget contained for the second year in a row, a tax
on the users of explosives. My State, due to its extraction industry,
would bear the largest share of the burden associated with this tax. At
an appropriate point in this bill, I intend to make a point of order
against the tax.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The gentleman is talking about how he would pay for his amendment
that would cost $600 million. Madam Speaker, I think it is important
that we point out that they always say how much of a tax break people
making more than a million dollars, and they talk about a $114,000 tax
break, and we are going to cut that down to $112,000, but they never
say, the gentleman from West Virginia certainly did not say, how much
these people with an adjusted gross income of over $1 million are
actually paying in taxes every year. It is a huge number, and they do
not want to share that with the fellow Members.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule
because it precludes the consideration of an increase in the minimum
wage which has not been increased in 8 years.
In regard to the underlying bill, I do appreciate the work of the
chairman and the ranking member in funding valuable programs within
this year's utterly inadequate allocation. I am pleased that this bill
contains funding for SBA's Microloan program.
For the past 3 years, the President has recommended eliminating this
program, but this Congress has funded SBA Microloans every year since
the program was established in 1992 by the first President Brush.
Last week, on a bipartisan basis, the Appropriations Committee
restored funding for SBA's Microloan program for fiscal year 2007.
These Microloans go to people with viable businesses who have limited
credit history, limited collateral, and limited or no business
experience. They go to low-income individuals, women and minority
owners that have faced obstacles in securing capital, and they are a
significant source of new jobs in rural areas.
Through the Microloan program, intermediaries have provided 23,500
loans totaling more than $282 million, averaging only $12,500 per loan,
a small amount of funding each year. This program has created over
64,000 jobs during its existence. In my district, the Western
Massachusetts Enterprise Fund has issued 92 loans, for a total of $1.5
million and created 180 jobs.
Businesses that use the Microloan program receive more than just
financial backing. Lender intermediaries offer technical assistance and
support to these small business owners as their companies develop. The
assistance component of the program lasts throughout the life of the
loan and ensures a high success rate.
Intermediaries like the Western Mass Enterprise Fund respond to the
needs of owners at each step in the business growth.
As we all know, small businesses are the lifeblood of the American
economy. The greatest job growth in the economy comes from the growth
of successful small businesses.
With that, I again, Madam Speaker, urge, in spite of good features in
the underlying bill, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, at this time I have no additional
requests for time, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, for the last 5 years Republicans have
stood by as the compensation of chief executive officers of major
corporations has soared. At the same time, the salaries of middle-class
Americans have stood absolutely still.
The minimum wage has not been raised since 1997, almost a decade. In
that time, Congress has voted to increase its own pay nine times. If
this Congress can get a raise, the American people ought to be able to
get a raise. Had it been merely adjusted just for inflation from its
level in 1968, those earning minimum wage would be making $9.05 instead
of $5.15. Instead, its
[[Page H4573]]
purchasing power remains at its lowest level in half a century.
Madam Speaker, millions of full-time minimum wage workers and their
families live in poverty. Sixty percent of minimum wage workers are
women. They are adults over 20 years old. On average, minimum wage
workers contribute over half of their total family's income. Who can
live, much less raise a family, on $10,700 a year?
It is not just the cost of milk and bread that has increased by 25
percent since it was last raised, Madam Speaker. Four-year public
college tuition has increased 77 percent, health insurance 97 percent,
gasoline 136 percent. Today, it takes a full day's pay for a minimum
wage worker to pay for a single tank of gas.
Is there any clearer indication that the quality of life for those
earning minimum wage in this country has decreased? Is there any more
obvious sign that these families are headed in a downward spiral? The
cost of everything is going up, while their wages are spiraling down.
For Democrats, this is a moral issue. We believe we should be raising
the minimum wage, one of the best tools we have to keep families from
falling off an economic cliff in this country. Even more than that, we
believe something very elemental, that people who work full time in
America should not be poor. We believe that their families should not
be poor.
The fact is that despite the fact the economy grew 4.2 percent last
year, its best statistical performance since 1999, very little of this
growth is reaching many families. Indeed, over the past 5 years,
productivity as measured by real GDP per hour worked has risen by about
14 percent, as the real wages of non-managerial workers have risen less
than 2 percent. Who is getting the 12 percent?
So when people look at the statistics like that and wonder where is
the rest of the money going, all they need to do is to look at their
Congress emptying the Treasury by passing massive estate tax cuts for
the likes of millionaires and billionaires.
Madam Speaker, by raising the minimum wage to $7.25, this Congress
can say that hardworking families have a right to share in some of this
economic growth, that this country is not about the survival of the
fittest but about opportunity and opportunity for all.
Lastly, Madam Speaker, there is a direct corollary between small
business growth and the minimum wage. I think the findings would
surprise many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Between 1997 and 2003, small business employment grew more in States
with a higher minimum wage, 9.4 percent, than in the Federal minimum
wage States where it only grew 6.6 percent. That tells us that raising
the minimum wage is not only a matter of economic security for families
but for businesses and for our economy as well.
So, Madam Speaker, I will oppose this rule, because I believe the
American people need to know where their Representatives in this
Congress stand when it comes to the minimum wage. They need to know,
are you for economic security for families or are you against it? Do
you stand with America's families or do you stand against them? That is
the choice before this Congress today. I oppose the rule.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, in response to some of the comments the gentlewoman
from Connecticut was making, and the gentleman from Wisconsin earlier
said in his remarks that they wanted an opportunity, and was taking an
opportunity on this bill, to discuss the minimum wage issue even though
it was not the appropriate format, and I agree with that, I think that
the discussion of this issue certainly would be more appropriate for
the next appropriations bill that we will be considering, Labor-HHS. Or
maybe it will come up even as a stand-alone measure. I do not know.
But it just seems to me that on this appropriation bill, Science,
State, Justice and Commerce Appropriations Act, that this is not the
right format to bring up the issue.
I do not question the gentleman's right or any of the Members on the
other side of the aisle who have spoken during this rule time about the
minimum wage issue. But this is not something that this is the last
opportunity to get this done.
I want to say, Madam Speaker, too, in regard to this issue, listen to
this, minimum wage hikes pit low-skilled adults against teenagers from
higher income families. This was an article in a newspaper May 13,
2004.
Employers react to minimum wage hikes by replacing low-skilled adults
with teenagers from high-income families who are drawn into the job
market by better pay. Decades of research confirmed what President
Roosevelt's Department of Labor found just 1 year after the minimum
wage made its debut in 1938.
In a number of instances there have been reports that workers who
have been receiving less than the minimum wage have been laid off and
replaced by more efficient workers. Minimum wage hikes can destroy jobs
and destroy them permanently. When jobs are destroyed by minimum wage
hikes, those jobs often never come back.
Again, this is a newspaper article from May 13, 2004. Following
minimum wage increases, employers often replace less skilled employees
with machines or simply reduce the level of service to customers.
Businesses automate their telephone reception. Fast food diners bus
their own tables. Gas stations go self-service. Shoppers scan and bag
their own groceries.
The point I am making, Madam Speaker, is that you have to be, and I
know the gentleman from Wisconsin certainly understands these issues as
well as anybody, but the concern is that you do not want to destroy
jobs by raising the minimum wage to a level, that this in fact happens,
as I quoted from some of these articles in past statistics.
I do not think that this side of the aisle is opposed to looking at
this issue, and, again, whether it is on the Labor-HHS bill or whether
it is on a stand-alone situation, but I do not think this is the
appropriate time to have this debate.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 10\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, the gentleman says that this is an
inappropriate bill to which to attach the minimum wage. The majority
party has routinely attached gigantic pieces of legislation to
appropriation bills.
The Senate majority leader did that, as I just recited a few minutes
ago, on an outrageous special interest provision insulating the drug
companies from legal suit just a few months ago.
Let me tell you what is inappropriate. What is inappropriate is to
have a bunch of guys wearing suits in this Chamber sit on their duffs
for 9 years and not find a way to increase the minimum wage for the
lowest paid workers in this country. That is what is inappropriate.
{time} 1145
This is what is outrageous, and that is why the ranking of this
Congress is less than 23 percent in the public opinion polls. I would
like to find somebody in that 23 percent. I cannot believe there are 23
percent of the people who think this Congress has lived up to its
obligations to middle-income workers and the middle class.
The fact is, you can either help raise the minimum wage or you can
stand as an obstacle to it. So far, the Rules Committee has stood as an
obstacle to it. The Republican leadership of this House has stood as an
obstacle to it. When we did attach it to the most appropriate
appropriations bill, your leadership blocked that bill from coming
forward.
So give me a break. It is not that you do not think this is the
appropriate vehicle. It says your party, by a 2-1 ratio, in this House
is really against the minimum wage increase; and that is outrageous
after you have just voted to give yourself a COLA.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to make sure that the gentleman from Wisconsin knows that
this Member voted against giving himself a COLA and has consistently
done
[[Page H4574]]
that in the two terms that I have served.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I wish more Members would join him and me.
Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I have no further requests for time, and I will close with an urge to
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule as a protest against not
being able to raise the minimum wage. The idea that if we were to raise
that 50 cents would cause such inflationary spirals in this country is
so laughable that I am surprised anybody would even try to contemplate
such a thing, or that in order to have to pay somebody an extra dollar
an hour you would go out and buy a many thousand dollar machine. I
cannot imagine any businessperson in the country to be that incredibly
dumb.
The fact of the matter is that we simply have got our foot on the
necks of those people, and we cannot worry about them because the
concerns of this Congress are for the rich and not for those who are
struggling to make it.
Even if there are young people trying to pay their way through
college, for heaven's sake, give them a better break. The college
tuition costs have gone up higher than almost any other thing in the
country. That is one of the reasons it always breaks my heart on the
death rate and wounding rate in Iraq, because so many of the young and
men and women who went into the Guard and Reserve did so in order to be
able to get an education.
I think it is deplorable that this country cannot provide better
education opportunities for its students without having them to put
their lives on the line, but that is the circumstances we find
ourselves in.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I would simply like to point out small
business employment between 1997 and 2003 grew at a faster rate in
States with a higher minimum wage than it did in Federal minimum wage
States, 9.4 percent versus 6.6 percent.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. The gentleman is correct, and I believe 43 States have
had the wisdom to try to raise the minimum wage because we simply
cannot get it done here.
It should not be the luck of the draw where you are living whether
the minimum wage is going to be raised or not. It is a responsibility
we have and a responsibility, frankly, most people are tired of
watching us shirk.
With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule because of the minimum
wage.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, in regard to minimum wage increases and the hope, the
fact is that as minimum wage increases, hope for job seekers decrease.
A Duke University economist found recently that for every 10 percent
increase in mandated wages, the probability of job seekers finding a
job decreased by nearly 3 percent, according to the Employment Policies
Institute.
Other top researchers found similar results. This one, a Boston
University study, noted that low-skilled adults in States that raise
their minimum wage are often crowded out of the job market by teens and
students.
Research from Michigan State University echoed this conclusion,
finding that high-skilled teens are those who are perceived as
desirable employees often displace low-skilled employees in a minimum
wage job after a mandated wage hike.
Madam Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in
recognition of the importance of this underlying bill.
H.R. 5672 funds the critical operations of our government from the
diplomatic affairs of the State Department to the law enforcement
activities of the Justice Department.
Additionally, it provides funds for the various watchdog agencies
that ensure a free and fair economic playing field for businesses and
consumers alike.
This bill has substantial funding for sciences, to make sure that
America stays on the forefront of medical and technological innovation
as we continue to reach for the stars, both literally and figuratively.
While some critics may call for more funding of this program or that
program, they not only fail to realize the limited funds available in
this Federal budget but also fail to fully appreciate the hard work of
the subcommittee in balancing our funding needs with the need to
respect the taxpayer dollar.
Madam Speaker, while this bill may not be perfect, no bill is, it is
a good bill that sets priorities and it sets a solid vision for the
future on multiple fronts.
So, in conclusion, I again want to thank subcommittee Chairman Wolf,
Ranking Member Mollohan, full committee Chairman Lewis and for all of
the hard work and the time that went into this bill before us today.
I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this rule and the underlying bill.
Mrs. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I oppose the Rule, because it prevents
an amendment offered by Representatives Obey, Hoyer and Mollohan to
phase in over two years an increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to
$7.25 an hour.
Madam Speaker, millions of hard working Americans are barely earning
enough to support their families on the wages they are being paid. Some
of these people are single mothers, and some are working several jobs
just to make ends meet.
Madam Speaker, the proposal to raise the minimum wage is a modest one
and it is phased in over time.
Department of Labor figures show that the minimum wage was at its
most valuable in 1968, and since then its value has fluctuated, but it
has never been lower than it is now.
In January 2006, it would have needed to be increased to $9.05 to
equal the purchasing power of the statutory minimum wage in 1968.
There has been no raise in the minimum wage in almost ten years, and
minimum wage increases over the years have not kept up with increased
prices.
I have always, and will continue always to support a reasonable
increase in the minimum wage, and since the Rule sought to prohibit an
amendment to do this, I oppose this Rule.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam 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. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________