[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 102 (Friday, July 28, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6023-H6029]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WAIVING REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
                  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 958 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 958

       Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII 
     for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee 
     on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is 
     waived with respect to any resolution reported on the 
     legislative day of July 28, 2006, providing for consideration 
     or disposition of any of the following measures:

[[Page H6024]]

       (1) A conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2830) 
     to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
     and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform the pension 
     funding rules, and for other purposes.
       (2) A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
     increase the unified credit against the estate tax to an 
     exclusion equivalent of $5,000,000, to repeal the sunset 
     provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes, and 
     to extend expiring provisions, and for other purposes.
       (3) A bill to provide economic security for all Americans, 
     and for other purposes.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS OF WASHINGTON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 958 is a 
same-day rule waiving clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a two-thirds 
vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules 
Committee) against certain resolutions reported from the Rules 
Committee.
  This resolution applies a waiver to any special rule reported on the 
legislative day of July 28, 2006, providing for the consideration or 
disposition of any of the following measures:
  A conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2830) to amend the 
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to reform the pension funding rules, and for other 
purposes.
  A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the 
unified credit against the estate tax to an exclusion equivalent of $5 
million, to repeal the sunset provision for the estate and generation-
skipping taxes, and to extend expiring provisions, and for other 
purposes.
  A bill to provide economic security for all Americans, and for other 
purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the last week before Congress will recess for 
the month of August so that Members can return home and spend their 
time meeting and working with those they represent. As such, we will 
not be returning to Washington, D.C., to conduct legislative business 
until September 6. Currently, there are several pieces of legislation 
of vital importance to the American people that are being worked on and 
are near completion.
  It is imperative that we pass this same-day rule so that the House 
can consider these measures before the August recess. Once the House 
completes consideration, these measures can be sent to the Senate for 
deliberation before it recesses next week.
  These important measures include a conference report to accompany the 
Pension Protection Act and legislation providing permanent estate tax 
relief and extending several important tax provisions in order to allow 
workers and families to keep more of their hard-earned money.
  Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on Rules may meet later today to 
provide rules for the consideration of these measures once they are 
completed. House Resolution 958 will help facilitate the timely 
consideration of certain measures today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the same-day rule so 
that we can move forward to consideration of additional rules later 
today and eventually on the all important must-pass bills for the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend from 
Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I 
yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial law rule. 
For weeks and weeks and weeks, this House has wasted valuable time. We 
have spent short workdays during short workweeks passing meaningless 
legislation without doing a thing to actually help the American people.

                              {time}  1815

  Today, the day before the August recess, this Republican leadership 
is bringing to the floor legislation that will actually be harmful to 
America's working families.
  The martial law rule before us, passed last night by the Republicans 
in the Rules Committee, makes three bills in order: first, the pension 
conference report, which will lead to benefit cuts for millions of 
workers; second, a tax cut bill mostly for the rich, including an 
estate tax cut that affects only the very wealthiest in the country; 
and third, this is my favorite, ``a bill to provide economic security 
for all Americans, and for other purposes.'' Okay. Can anybody in this 
House tell me what that means? Of course not.
  Apparently, the Republican leadership will be presenting a minimum 
wage bill that will be loaded down with sweetheart tax deals for the 
wealthy and the corporate special interests, the same special interests 
that call the shots in the Republican House.
  So here we are voting on a rule to bring up bills that appeared 
literally just an hour ago which no one has read, 1,200 pages of 
legislation, Mr. Speaker, that the Members of this House have not had 
an opportunity to review, 1,200 pages.
  This is what passes for the legislative process in the House these 
days, and it would be laughable if it were not so sad.
  The Republican strategy is as apparent as it is cynical. They want to 
clutter the minimum wage bill with so many giveaways to the wealthiest 
Americans and to corporations that it will never actually become law. 
That way, the dozens and dozens of vulnerable Republican incumbents can 
claim that they voted to increase the minimum wage, while the corporate 
special interests can claim victory for killing it.
  Senate tax writes have already rejected, on a bipartisan basis, 
proposals that combine the estate tax with a tax extenders package, 
which is exactly what the House Republican leadership has put forward 
today as an attachment to the minimum wage.
  The losers in this mess are hardworking American families who deserve 
to make a wage that keeps them out of poverty.
  No wonder the American people are so sick and tired of politics as 
usual in Washington. For months, years even, a clear bipartisan 
majority has existed in the House to support an increase in the minimum 
wage with no strings attached. The Republican leadership has been 
dragged kicking and screaming to this point. It is an amazing thing to 
watch.
  I would ask my Republican colleagues, why is it so impossible for you 
to do anything good for working families? Why does it cause you such 
pain and anguish and hand-wringing?
  Congress has not raised the minimum wage since 1997. That is 9 years. 
During that same period, Congress has raised its own salary eight 
times. Now, that is what I call out of touch.
  A Republican House staffer told the Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch, ``Not 
too many people work at minimum wage anymore. I don't think it gets you 
anywhere politically.''
  Mr. Speaker, maybe I missed it and Columbus, Ohio, is on a different 
planet these days because nearly 15 million Americans will benefit from 
a minimum wage increase, 6.6 million directly and 8.3 million 
indirectly. Almost 60 percent of these workers are women; 40 percent 
are people of color.
  The average corporate CEO, who will benefit, of course, from the 
estate tax cut, earns more before lunchtime than a minimum wage worker 
earns all year.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it more plainly. The priorities of this 
Republican leadership are not the priorities of the American people. 
What the American people want and what they deserve is a clean up-or-
down vote on increasing the minimum wage, period. They will not be 
getting it today.
  I am sick and tired of the priorities of this Republican Congress 
being determined by who has the fattest checkbook, by who contributes 
the most money to their campaigns.
  Low-income workers do not have high-priced lobbyists. They do not 
contribute huge amounts of money to politicians or political parties, 
but these are the people who make this country work, Mr. Speaker. These 
are the people who do the hard labor, each and

[[Page H6025]]

every day to keep this country running. They deserve a break. They 
deserve a raise. They deserve the ability to provide for their 
families.
  For once, just once, I urge my Republican colleagues to do the right 
thing. Reject this martial law rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is Keystone Cops legislation. I fully expect to see 
the Marx Brothers, Larry, Curly and Moe, as Members of Congress here 
today.
  Today, or tonight, we do not know if are going to vote on pension 
reform, associated health plans, repealing of the estate tax, tax 
extensions, or a minimum wage increase, or any combination or all of 
the above. It will be late on Friday night before we vote on any of 
these vital issues. Our constituents cannot be fooled by this late 
night flim-flam.
  We should have an up-and-down vote on a minimum wage increase, not a 
vote on minimum wage increase and the estate tax at the same time or 
pension reform or whatever else the leadership feels convenient to add 
to this bill.
  It is hard to hit a moving target, and rather than playing games, we 
should remember that there are people in this country who make $5.10 an 
hour. This is a real issue that impacts real people.
  We have not raised the minimum wage since 1997. When adjusted for 
inflation, the minimum wage is the lowest it has been in 50 years. When 
it takes a full day's pay to fill up your gas tank, something is wrong.
  A minimum wage earner makes only $10,700 a year. This is well below 
the poverty threshold for a family of three which is $16,600 a year.
  We need to lift these hardworking Americans out of poverty and have a 
true vote on the minimum wage.
  The estate tax may be part of the package. It is clear that my 
Republican colleagues do not really want to pass a minimum wage bill. 
The Senate has not been able to muster the 60 votes to pass the estate 
tax bill in years. I do not know why we want to create an illusion that 
we are passing the minimum wage law when we know that this law is going 
to fail in the Senate.
  Let us stop playing games with people's lives. Let us have a straight 
up-and-down vote on the minimum wage so hardworking Americans can see 
who stands with them and who stands against them.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this martial law legislation, 
but also against any flim-flam or Larry, Curly and Moe legislation that 
they may want to bring up in the middle of the night.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, in the bill that we will be considering later on that 
has the minimum wage provisions as my friend from Texas was talking 
about, it also has some very important tax, what we call tax extenders 
bills, that would otherwise expire.
  One of those extenders is something I know is very important to the 
citizens of Texas in that it allows sales tax deductibility for those 
States that do not have a State income tax. The Speaker pro tempore is 
one of those, my State is one of those, and my friend from Texas also 
has that.
  So I would hope that while we have the minimum wage in the same bill 
as the sales tax, it seems to me to be a pretty attractive package.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just respond to the gentleman. What is frustrating to us here 
tonight is the fact that for months and months and months we have been 
trying to get a straight up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. We think 
it is an absolute disgrace that the minimum wage has not been raised 
since 1997, 9 years, and in those 9 years, Congress has given itself 
eight pay raises. We think there is something wrong with that, and we 
want to see passed and enacted into law an increase in the Federal 
minimum wage.
  So we want a straight up-or-down vote because we think that is the 
best way you can get that.
  Instead, what you do, you bring a minimum wage bill to floor to 
provide some of your more vulnerable Members cover, and you bring it in 
a package that you know probably is not going to go anywhere in the 
Senate because the previous combination of the estate tax and the tax 
extenders package has not gone anywhere in the Senate.
  So this is about cover, political cover, and not about giving 
millions and millions of Americans, hardworking Americans who have been 
neglected by the Republican Congress for years, the raise that they 
deserve.
  The minimum wage has not been raised since 1997, and adjusted for 
inflation, the current minimum wage is at its lowest level in more than 
50 years. Minimum wage earners working 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per 
year, make $10,712. That is nearly $6,000 below the poverty line for a 
family of three. Thirty-five percent of those workers are their 
family's sole wage earners; 61 percent are women; and almost one-third 
of those women are raising children.
  The average annual cost of family health insurance is more than a 
minimum wage worker's income for a whole year, and given the cost of 
gasoline, it takes a full day's pay for a minimum wage earner to fill 
just one tank of gas.
  What we want is not political cover. What we want is to give these 
hardworking Americans, millions and millions and millions of Americans, 
who constantly get neglected by this Congress, who always get a cold 
shoulder when it comes to trying to provide them some help, what we 
want to do is give them a raise.
  If Members of the House deserve a raise, these low-income wage 
earners also deserve a raise.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for his leadership.
  Wars are raging on the borders of Israel and Lebanon; wars are raging 
in Iraq; our soldiers are being redeployed not once, not two times and 
three times. I met with a young lady just recently. She has relatives 
who have been redeployed three times or more. Funds for the war are 
increasing, and my good friends on the other side, rather than stay 
here and work on the issues of the day, will put forward legislation 
that will have no place and go nowhere in the other body.
  Frankly, the package that is being put through today under this 
martial rule will cost $800 billion. Right now, I filed legislation to 
provide humanitarian aid to Lebanon to help those who are noncombatants 
get out safely, to find a way to help Americans who are stranded in 
Lebanon to get safely home, and we are addressing legislation that 
makes no sense.
  I voted for a sales tax relief for the State of Texas. I am a Texan, 
and I sure believe in helping home and many other States that suffer 
under the burden of excessive taxes. But you cannot give an $800 
billion tax relief that no one is going to address, in the Senate, in 
regular order. It has to pass in the Senate and then the President 
signs it. And at the same time, we fail to entertain livable wages for 
Americans, a minimum wage increase for Americans, while we, of course, 
have increases.
  So when you look at this package and you see this, this is going 
nowhere. This is to put Members on the line to be embarrassed or to go 
home and say why did you vote against the sales tax. I voted for it 
many times. I want it to pass, but it is not going to pass this way. It 
is going to have to pass in negotiation between the House and the 
Senate because Texas does deserve relief, but so do the millions of 
those who are not being able to make ends meet.
  What about your soldiers that are on food stamps, the very soldiers 
who are on the front lines in Iraq? The privates are on food stamps, 
and we have got $800 billion in tax relief to the richest of Americans 
who do not even need it.
  That is what the problem is with this legislation. We waited here all 
day. I do not have a problem. We can be here all night. We can be here 
until tomorrow. We can pass H.R. 945, the Lebanon Humanitarian Relief, 
so we can protect

[[Page H6026]]

those noncombatants who are being bombed and who cannot even defend 
themselves. I am not concerned about protecting Hezbollah, but I am 
concerned about mothers and children and babies who cannot even get out 
because they are on the road and they are being bombed. We need a 
corridor that gives us that kind of separation.
  But Mr. Speaker, this is no explanation. Let us get an up-or-down 
vote on minimum wage. Let us try to address the crisis in the Mideast. 
Let us help by getting real pension reform. Let us speak to the 
American people. Let us not play jokes here in the Congress of the 
United States of America.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as a former welfare mom, I know what it is 
like to try to get by on a paycheck that is not enough to make ends 
meet.
  Today's minimum wage earner is trying to live on a wage that has not 
been raised for 9 years. Minimum wage has not been raised in 9 years, 
but you can be sure the cost of food has gone up over that period of 
time. The cost of health care has skyrocketed. The price of gas is 
higher than most people ever imagined it could be. Over 6 million 
people are trying to live in the year 2006 earning $1,997.
  So what is the Republican majority's solution to solving the problems 
for those who do not have enough?

                              {time}  1830

  They want to give more tax cuts to those who have more wealth than 
the average American can even imagine. They want to excuse the richest 
7,500 families in this country from contributing like they ought to. It 
is time we stand up for those who don't have enough. It is time we say 
no to those who want too much.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose creating an American aristocracy by 
repealing the estate tax. Vote ``no'' on this rule until we have a 
clean up-or-down vote on the minimum wage.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to state for the record, just so 
there is no question as to where the Republican majority is coming 
from, let me read to you a quote that appeared in a June 22 story of 
the Associated Press entitled ``GOP-Run Senate Kills Minimum Wage.'' 
This is a quotation from our House Majority Leader.
  He says, and I quote, ``I have been in this business for 25 years and 
I have never voted for an increase in the minimum wage. I am opposed to 
it, and I think a vast majority of our rank and file is opposed to 
it.''
  That is what the other side thinks about the minimum wage, and that 
is why we need to demand an up-or-down vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, 
our distinguished whip, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. I agree with 
what the gentleman has just said. The Republican leadership is opposed 
to raising the minimum wage, opposed to lifting 6.6 million people out 
of poverty. No Member of the House should harbor any illusions about 
what the Republican leadership is doing, therefore.
  Today, the Republican leadership is engaging in a political stunt, in 
my opinion; a cynical sham, a cruel ploy to undermine a long overdue 
increase in the Federal minimum wage, an increase that would benefit 
literally millions of American workers and their families. Democrats 
have continually fought for a clean up-or-down vote on increasing the 
minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour over 2 years, the first 
increase in 10 years.
  Hear me: Groceries have not been frozen in price. Gasoline hasn't 
been frozen in price. Rents haven't been frozen in price. But wages of 
minimum-wage workers have been frozen for 10 years, and we continue to 
fight today about this.
  The fact is, I believe a majority of the Members of this body support 
an increase in the minimum wage, even if the Speaker, the Majority 
Leader, and the majority of the House Republicans do not. But the will 
of the House will be thwarted today if this rule passes.
  On June 12, the Appropriations Committee adopted on a bipartisan vote 
an amendment to the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
appropriation bill that would increase the minimum wage by $2.10 per 
hour over 2 years. That bill has been languishing unconsidered for the 
last 2 months. In response, the Republican leadership has refused to 
bring that appropriation bill up for a vote.
  On July 13, 64 Republicans joined all Democrats in indicating their 
support for an increase in the minimum wage by voting for a Democratic 
motion to instruct on the vocational education bill. But instead of 
providing for a fair up-and-down vote on the minimum wage, the 
Republican leadership today has combined an increase in the hourly rate 
with an estate tax cut that will benefit the heirs of the wealthiest 
estates in America and drive our Nation hundreds of billions, 
approximately $800 billion further into debt.
  If nothing else, Mr. Speaker, this bill certainly tells the American 
people precisely where the Republican priorities lie. Their priorities 
lie with Paris Hilton and other heirs of the super wealthy, not the 
hard-working Americans who work 40 hours a week earning a minimum wage 
and are living in poverty in the richest Nation on the face of the 
earth.
  Mr. Speaker, this Republican bill wreaks of cynicism. It is a 
political stunt designed to give vulnerable Republicans in tough 
elections the opportunity to say they voted to raise the minimum wage, 
even though they know this bill is a shell game. We will give with one 
hand and take with the other.
  The estate tax will not pass. It has not passed. We have already 
passed it. We don't need to pass it again. But it is put on this bill 
as a poison pill to kill it because the Republican leadership opposes 
raising the minimum wage. What a shame.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have served here 26 years. 
Eight years before that I was in the State legislature. And before 
that, I studied legislatures. They are a subject of fascination to me 
because I believe deeply in democracy. I have never seen democracy so 
degraded in a purportedly legitimate institution as by this bill today.
  It is solely intended to allow Members of your party, Mr. Speaker, to 
pretend to be for an increase in the minimum wage to get them safely 
past an election. There are plenty of ways, if they were really for 
increasing the minimum wage, they could join and give us the majority 
to do it. But you are allowing them to be dishonest.
  This proposal that links the estate tax and the minimum wage in a 
bill that you know is not going to pass the Senate is the most 
ethically repugnant, intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt ploy I 
have ever seen in a legislative body. For you, Mr. Speaker, and your 
party to perpetrate this conscious, deliberate deception, not just on 
the American people, but particularly on the poorest and hardest 
working among them, is something I would have thought previously even 
you would have been ashamed to do.
  Apparently, shame has become entirely irrelevant to you and your 
party.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I feel a great deal of 
respect for my friend that just spoke, and I want to go on record as 
saying that I am one of those that is not in favor of raising the 
minimum wage. I have never voted for that. And my State, by the way, 
has, if not the highest, one of the highest minimum wages in the 
country.
  But I am going to vote for this bill. And I am going to vote for this 
bill not because I embrace the minimum wage, I am going to vote for 
this bill because it has the estate tax provision in there. I am going 
to vote for this bill because it has the sales tax deduction for 
Washington State and other States that don't have sales tax 
deductibility. And my expectation is, my expectation is that the other 
body will vote accordingly and pass the bill, therefore, we will have 
the minimum wage increase that my friend from Massachusetts talked 
about.
  It seems to me it is the best of all worlds in the give and take of 
the legislative process as we near a recess.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for his honesty.

[[Page H6027]]

He is against the minimum wage, so he is going to vote for this bill. I 
would simply point out that I am for the minimum wage so I am going to 
vote against this sham.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Well, reclaiming my time, I am glad the 
gentleman told me that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. We are mixing our symbols here. You have heard of 
Christmas in July and you heard the gentleman before me. This is truly 
Christmas in July for the wealthiest among us, those who have estates 
worth more than $10 million, so they won't have to carry a share of the 
burden of paying for our country.
  But this is really more of an April Fools in July. The calendar lies 
to us. Because the Republicans are saying that there is some 
equivalence between raising the minimum wage, something in 10 years of 
Republican rule that has never been raised, from $5.15 an hour. Three 
million kids are dependent upon sole wage earners who earn the minimum 
wage, living in abject poverty at $10,000 a year.
  Some of them are pumping gas into the limousine of Lee Raymond. Who 
is Lee Raymond? He is the guy who just retired from ExxonMobil with a 
$400 million pension extorted from the American people by gouging at 
the gas pump. Guess how much this bill would be worth to Mr. Raymond's 
heirs if he died next year? $128 million. A $128 million tax savings 
for one individual in this proposal, which will be financed on the 
backs of working Americans for the next 30 years.
  Because, guess what, we are running a deficit. So if we are going to 
give Mr. Raymond's heirs a $128 million tax break, then we are going to 
have to borrow the money to do it. We would borrow $80 billion a year 
to give the Paris Hiltons and, yes, the Lee Raymonds, and the others 
who have estates worth more than $10 million a bye. And they say that 
is a trade-off for after 10 years of delay and disassembling to give a 
tiny increase that still won't bring 6 million Americans up to the 
poverty level who are earning the minimum wage.
  Shame on you for Christmas for the wealthiest among us in July and 
shame on you for April Fools on working Americans.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And as I listened 
to my friend from Oregon, I was thinking that we are helping the 
wealthiest of Americans by borrowing from China, by borrowing from 
China to subsidize that tax cut and further adding to the deficit.
  But, Mr. Speaker, by the time I am finished speaking, Exxon will have 
made $158,160 in profits, as opposed to 17 cents earned for the 2 
minutes worked by the gas station attendant. In the hour allotted to 
the debate, Exxon will have made over $4,744,800. And if you are 
currently paid the minimum wage, you will have made $5.15. In a 40-hour 
week, Exxon will make a staggering $189,792,000 compared to the $206 
earned by someone on minimum wage. Of course that is before taxes. 
Welcome to Wonderland, Alice.
  It has been 10 years since the Federal minimum wage was last 
adjusted, the longest period of time in which Congress has refused an 
increase. During that time, the price for gas has skyrocketed a 
whopping 136 percent, health care costs for working families have 
jumped 97 percent, college tuition has ballooned 77 percent, and the 
price of bread and milk has risen 25 percent.
  Far too many families are struggling to make ends meet, living 
paycheck to paycheck and going deeper and deeper into debt. It is not 
about paying at the pump any more, now working families are feeling it 
in the aisles of the local supermarket or when they visit the 
drugstore.
  We will not have a straight up-or-down vote on a clean minimum wage 
bill to help our working families, many of whom face a bleak future 
thanks to the Draconian budget cuts proposed by the administration and 
passed by this Congress. Instead, if we want to see the minimum wage 
addressed in this session of Congress, we are being forced to approve 
tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest among us and the Nation's 
corporations. That is just wrong.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 25 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 5\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, a number of Members have come to this 
floor and have wondered why there isn't moral outrage. Well, when you 
have a President who leads you into war on all kinds of 
misrepresentations, when we have now lost 2,500 Americans, and when we 
have spent $400 billion with no moral outrage about that, who would 
expect there to be moral outrage about the fact that somebody is making 
$5.15 an hour in this country?

                              {time}  1845

  Now, we have Members of Congress, of course, who have indexed their 
salary to inflation. And this year we are all going to pick up $3,300. 
Nobody is going to blink. That is a third of what a minimum-wage worker 
makes working all year.
  If we had indexed the minimum wage to inflation, they would be making 
almost $13 an hour. But, of course, we can't think of doing something 
like that. That would be humane to the people that we have kicked off 
welfare and all the other things we have done in this society.
  We have taken away pensions. We have put companies in bankruptcy. We 
have shifted jobs overseas, and the few that are working in this 
country, we want them working for as little as possible.
  Well, the Republicans found a cure for that. They waited till after 
the news had closed for Friday. In the darkness of the night, on a 
Friday, they are going to pass a bill that they are going to use for 
their press releases on Monday when they get home to their districts: I 
voted to raise the minimum wage. I care about the working people of my 
district, they will proclaim in loud voices.
  But the fact is, they know this bill isn't going to pass. And what is 
going to pass, they hope, is the $300 billion for the richest among us, 
those poor rich people who can hardly get by. Their hearts are 
bleeding, but the Republicans are taking care of it. Don't worry, you 
rich folks. They have got you in mind. They don't care what happens to 
the poor.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a sham concealing an insult 
hiding a hypocrisy. It is a sham legislative process to bring a bill of 
thousands of pages, which has yet to be distributed to any of us, for a 
midnight vote.
  It is an insult to turn to the hardworking people working for $5.15 
an hour and tell them that, first, you will get a little bit more, but 
it still will be less purchasing power than you had decades ago. But 
second, you will get it only if it is tied to relief for those who pay 
the estate tax.
  You know, people have misnamed the estate tax the death tax. It is 
really and literally the millionaire's tax. The tax falls only on those 
who are heirs. It reduces the amount they will inherit, and only on 
those who are heirs to estates of over $7 million a family.
  We Democrats have proposed that we permanently lift the estate tax on 
all families on the first $7 million. That would cost about $22 billion 
a year.
  This bill has provisions virtually abolishing the millionaire's tax 
and, therefore, will cost this country, when fully phased in, $66 
billion a year.
  So a few quarters an hour to those who are earning the minimum wage, 
and $44 billion a year to those who are heirs of estates above $7 
million a family.

[[Page H6028]]

  That would be an insult. But don't worry about it, because it is 
shrouded in a hypocrisy. You see, this bill isn't designed to go 
anywhere. It is designed to come to the floor, we vote on it at 
midnight, then the Senate won't pass it.
  If you have voted against raising the minimum wage a dozen times, as 
most of the Republicans in this House have, don't think you can get 
well by voting for this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, if 
the gentleman is prepared to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me urge all my colleagues, both Republican and 
Democrat, to oppose this rule. This is a martial law rule. There are 
1,200 pages of legislation that nobody has read. This is not the way 
this House should be run.
  People who are watching this on TV are scratching their heads and 
wondering how in the world can Members of Congress vote on legislation 
that they have never seen, that they haven't had a chance to read. But 
that is exactly what we are being asked to do tonight, and that is 
wrong.
  What is happening right now is a deliberate attempt to, essentially, 
give people cover on the minimum wage, on a bill that will die.
  This is not going to be enacted into law. We know that because the 
Senate has already made it clear that they are not going to support 
this legislation. And so this is political cover for Republicans who 
are afraid that they are going to be criticized for not voting for the 
minimum wage.
  If you want a minimum wage, then vote for it up or down. Don't 
clutter it up with tax breaks for millionaires and for special 
corporate interests.
  The fact of the matter is that it takes a full day's pay for a 
minimum-wage earner to fill just one tank of gas. The average CEO earns 
821 times more than a minimum-wage worker. The average CEO earns more 
before lunchtime than a minimum-wage worker earns all year.
  Let's not be cynical. Let's defeat this martial law rule. Let's give 
the Members of this House an opportunity to vote on the minimum wage up 
or down. That is what the American people deserve. Vote ``no'' on this 
martial law rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of time.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for consideration of two very important 
bills, bills that have been worked on extremely hard on both sides of 
the aisle and on both sides of the rotunda. One of them is the pension 
reform bill that has been worked on by the respective committees for 5 
or 6 years on a bipartisan basis. The bill that we will take up later 
on pension reform is the conference report. But because of the timing 
and some logistics, this is the best way to address this issue is to 
take the bill up and pass it so that the Senate can act on it next 
week.
  The other bill is a minimum-wage increase bill. I don't know how many 
times this body, in the last several months, has had procedural motions 
regarding the minimum wage. So we are going to have a minimum-wage bill 
before us later on tonight. And with that bill, with the expectation 
that the other body will talk about it and will pass it favorably, will 
be something that this body has addressed several times.
  The estate tax, or the death tax, has been addressed by this Congress 
on two occasions. The first occasion was to totally eliminate it. And 
it passed this body on a bipartisan basis. The second time was a cap 
that we will take up, very similar to what we will take up later on. It 
also passed on a bipartisan basis. So the issues that we are taking up 
and allowing to take up with this rule aren't new to this body.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for this same-day rule and to vote, 
later on, for the rule that will allow consideration of these two 
measures that I just talked about. They are important to our 
constituents; and the sooner we do it, the better off we will be.
  And I must say too, Mr. Speaker, the expectation is that both of 
these measures that we will take up later on tonight will be passed by 
the other body next week and they will become law. And amongst that is 
the minimum-wage increase that my friends on the other side of the 
aisle have been talking about.
  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. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 217, 
nays 192, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 418]

                               YEAS--217

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--192

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin

[[Page H6029]]


     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Baca
     Bilirakis
     Boehlert
     Buyer
     Coble
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Evans
     Gohmert
     Istook
     Jones (NC)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Oxley
     Payne
     Platts
     Salazar
     Stark

                              {time}  1929

  Messrs. CARDOZA, AL GREEN of Texas and BARROW changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, on the legislative day of Friday, July 28, 
2006, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to cast a vote on 
rollcall vote No. 418. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' 
on this vote.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 28, 2006--On Page H6029 under vote changes Stated for: Mr. 
NUNES. Mr. Speaker on the legislative day of Friday, June 28, 
2006, I was...
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. NUNES. Mr. 
Speaker on the legislative day of Friday, July 28, 2006, I was...


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


                          ____________________