[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 102 (Friday, July 28, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6030-H6038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5970, ESTATE TAX AND EXTENSION OF 
                         TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2006

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 966 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 966

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5970) 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. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
     one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways 
     and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order to consider 
     in the House the bill (H.R. 4) to provide economic security 
     for all Americans, and for other purposes. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided among 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  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 purpose 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 966 is a 
closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5970. The rule provides 
1 hour of general debate on H.R. 5970 in the House equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Ways and Means.
  It also waives all points of order against the consideration of H.R. 
5970 and provides one motion to recommit H.R. 5970.
  House Resolution 966 also provides for the consideration of H.R. 4 
under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4 in 
the House equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 4, 
and provides one motion to recommit.
  This rule allows for consideration, Mr. Speaker, of two very 
important measures. The first deals with protecting the pensions of 
American workers. Mr. Speaker, the recent financial troubles and 
pension terminations of several large companies underscore the need for 
fundamental pension reform. The underlying bill is an agreement struck 
between the House and the Senate conferees on H.R. 2830, the Pension 
Security and Transparency Act.
  The underlying bill will ensure that millions of hard-working 
Americans who rely on single and multi-employer pension benefits can 
continue to count on them. I would like to congratulate the majority 
leader, Mr. Boehner for his tireless efforts in bringing this 
conference report before the House today.
  Mr. Boehner has worked on legislation to better protect the pension 
of workers for over 5 years now, and I commend him for his hard work on 
this issue. It is vital, Mr. Speaker, that we modernize current pension 
laws by strengthening worker's retirement security and reduce----
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Dakota.

[[Page H6031]]

  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman say now, as well 
during the debate on the martial law rule, that the rule brings forward 
the conference report on the pension bill.
  Now, I was unaware that the pension bill had been reported out of the 
conference. And, indeed, I do not believe the conference report has 
ever been signed. If that is the case--
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would 
just tell my friend from North Dakota that that was the rule that we 
worked on. But there are three provisions. It was for the conference 
report, it was for the minimum wage bill, and it was for another bill. 
We are taking up the second two of those bills under that rule.
  In other words, the first portion that was provided in the rule, 
while it is provided, is not applicable to what we are taking up 
tonight.
  Mr. POMEROY. If gentleman would further yield. This would conclude my 
question. I will make a point on debate.
  In my understanding of how Congress works, there is no conference 
report until the report has been signed by the conferees representing 
agreement between the House and the Senate.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. Again, 
there was a conference report, my understanding was agreed by all but 
it was not signed. The gentleman is correct on that.
  The underlying bill that we are taking up is that bill that was 
agreed by all parties on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. That is what 
this rule provides for.
  Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we modernize the current pension laws 
by strengthening the workers' retirement and reducing the prospect of 
future multi-billion dollar tax bailouts.
  In recent years, we have seen participants mistakenly believe that 
their pension plans are well funded only to be surprised when their 
plan is abruptly terminated. This legislation is intended to end that.
  The underlying bill encourages workers to increase their personal 
savings by permanently extending several provisions to enhance pension 
participation and retirement savings that are set to expire in 2010.
  Mr. Speaker, without a comprehensive fix to our outdated Federal 
pension laws, more companies will default on their work and pension 
plans, and more will stop pension plans for workers entirely. Now is 
the time for Congress to act on this important legislation.
  The other measure, Mr. Speaker, that this rule will allow for will 
continue our ongoing commitment to American workers and taxpayers by 
providing economic security, enacting permanent estate tax relief, and 
extending numerous tax provisions that have passed the House in the 
past with bipartisan support.
  This bill includes extending the sales tax deductibility, research 
and development credits and higher education incentives.
  In 2001, Congress enacted, in a bipartisan fashion, to gradually 
phase out the death tax and fully eliminate it by 2010. However, if 
Congress does not extend this relief, in 2011, small business owners 
and family farmers will once again be assessed the full death tax up to 
a maximum 2001 rate of 55 percent.
  The House of Representatives has acted twice in this the 109th 
Congress to enact a permanent solution to this form of double taxation, 
but unfortunately, our efforts have been blocked by the other body. 
Today, the House of Representatives will once again act to help 
families suffering the loss of a loved one from having to worry about 
losing the family farm or business in order to pay the Internal Revenue 
Service.
  The expectation this time is that the other body will take up the 
bill and pass the bill. This legislation will provide estate and gift 
tax relief to America's small business owners and family farmers. 
Specifically, the bill would increase the exemption amount and index it 
for inflation, and would lower the amount of taxation on estates.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, I, along with 271 other Members of Congress, 
supported a measure that would permanently and fully eliminate the 
death tax. While permanent elimination of this tax is what I will 
continue to work with my colleagues on, this measure is a step, in my 
view, in the right direction.
  With permanent tax relief from this tax, many farmers and business 
owners will have a sense of security that they need to plan for the 
financial future of their business or their farm for their family.
  Another important provision in the underlying bill is an extension of 
the State and local sales tax deduction from the Federal income tax. My 
State of Washington is one of nine States that do not have a State 
income tax.
  For nearly 20 years, residents of these States have been unfairly 
disadvantaged by the IRS code which allows for Federal tax deductions 
for State income taxes, but not States that have sales tax deductions.
  In 2004, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and I fought to 
restore fairness to residents of States without an income tax by 
restoring the sales and local sales tax deduction.
  I would like to thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, 
Mr. Thomas, for his efforts to include a State and local sales tax 
extension, which allow every taxpayer that chooses to itemize 
deductions in the States with no income tax the opportunity to continue 
deducting sales tax from his or her Federal tax bill.

                              {time}  1945

  By passing the underlying legislation, we will be restoring fairness 
for those who live, work, and raise families in those States. This will 
allow workers in Washington and others to keep more of their own money 
to spend and invest as they see fit.
  While continuing to work to fight to make the State and local sales 
tax deduction permanent, this extension for 2 years will provide 
billions of dollars of relief to taxpayers in Washington and those 
other States, and I think it is a step in the right direction.
  I am also pleased that this legislation creates a new 60 percent 
deduction for qualified timber capital gains through 2008. In my State 
of Washington, there are 8\1/2\ million acres of privately owned 
forests, and the forest products industry is the State's largest 
manufacturing sector. However, the current Tax Code puts our timber 
industry at a distinct disadvantage against international competition 
by subjecting corporate timber and forest product industries to a 
significantly higher income tax than their overseas competitors. 
Included in H.R. 5970 is a provision that lowers the timber tax and 
supports an industry that provides good jobs in many rural communities 
while strengthening its international competitiveness.
  Another key provision of this bill extends the research and 
experimentation tax credit for 2 years. Technological innovation is 
vital to America's continued economic prosperity and research, and 
research and development is the lifeblood of innovation. However, 
research and development activities are expensive, and businesses 
generally cannot capture all of the returns on their investments. The 
Federal Government must continue to encourage private businesses to 
innovate by extending and enhancing tax incentives. The underlying bill 
does just that.
  The underlying bill also extends several tax incentives to improve 
the affordability of higher education, including tax deferred education 
savings accounts and tax credits for post-secondary education. 
Specifically, it allows all taxpayers to deduct up to $4,000 of higher 
education expenses, which will help more students go to college.
  Mr. Speaker, with about one month left before school starts, teachers 
will begin preparing and purchasing classroom supplies. Unless Congress 
acts, an important above-the-line tax deduction that expired this year 
will not be available to teachers when they go back to school. This 
bill will help teachers contain the costs of out-of-pocket expenses 
like books, supplies, and computer equipment while allowing them to 
deduct $250 from their Federal tax bill.
  In an effort to encourage savings and stable retirement security, the 
underlying bill allows lower-income families that contribute to an 
individual retirement account and pension plans to continue receiving a 
Federal match in the form of an income tax credit for the first $2,000 
of annual contributions. This encourages families to save and plan for 
their own retirement.

[[Page H6032]]

  There is no question that allowing families to keep more of their 
hard-earned money spurs economic growth. Earlier this month, revised 
budget estimates projected that a recent surge in tax revenue will help 
shrink the Federal deficit more than previously expected. Not acting 
would raise taxes on millions of workers and families. We must continue 
the policy to grow our economy and keep our tax bills from rising.
  The House of Representatives has previously passed these tax 
provisions on a bipartisan basis, and last December the House of 
Representatives passed H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection Act, by a 
bipartisan vote of 294-132. I would encourage my colleagues to support 
House Resolution 966 and both underlying bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself 5 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been saying again and again and again and 
again the American people want and deserve a clean up-or-down vote on 
raising the minimum wage, and this rule does not provide for such a 
vote. Minimum-wage workers want and deserve a clean up-or-down vote. A 
clear bipartisan majority of this House wants and deserves a clean up-
or-down vote, not a cynical maneuver to provide political cover for 
certain vulnerable Republican Members, a maneuver that the majority 
knows full well will kill any chance of an increase in the minimum wage 
this year.
  Let me say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, maybe you 
can fool your constituents in August, but let me tell you, the American 
people will not be fooled in November.
  What the Republican leadership is presenting is a bill that clutters 
up the minimum-wage vote with, surprise, surprise, tax cuts for the 
wealthy. Actually, it isn't a surprise at all. The Republican answer to 
every problem is more tax cuts for the wealthy. Medicare prescription 
drugs? Tax cuts for the wealthy drug companies and HMOs. An energy 
bill? Tax cuts for the oil and gas industry, despite their record-
breaking profits. And, now, an increase in the minimum wage with estate 
tax cuts for the wealthiest few attached.
  The Republicans believe that low-wage workers don't deserve a raise 
unless Paris Hilton also gets a big tax cut. No wonder the American 
people are so sick and tired of politics as usual in Washington.
  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? Why can't you just do the right 
thing?
  Congress has not raised the minimum wage since 1997. That is 9 years. 
During that same period of time, Congress has raised its own salary 
eight times. Now, that is what I call out of touch. The congressional 
pay raise, just the amount of the pay raise in the last 9 years has 
been $30,000, almost triple what a minimum-wage worker earns in an 
entire year. 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. A Republican staffer told the Columbus Ohio 
Dispatcher: ``Not too many people work at minimum wage anymore. I don't 
think it gets you anywhere politically.''
  Mr. Speaker, politics aren't the point. The point is to make sure 
that people who work hard every day in this country have enough money 
to feed their families and pay their rent and fill up their gas tanks.
  Nearly 15 million Americans will benefit from a minimum-wage 
increase, 6.6 million directly and 8.3 million indirectly. Almost 60 
percent of those workers are women, 40 percent are people of color, 35 
percent of them are their family's sole wage earners. You want to talk 
about family values, about helping children? Just raise the minimum 
wage.
  Even worse, Mr. Speaker, the massive estate tax cut being tacked onto 
this bill will actually harm those hardworking families by adding 
millions of dollars to the national debt. The children of today's 
minimum-wage worker will have to pay that debt. They will have to deal 
with increased interest rates; they will have to deal with China and 
other countries controlling the debt of this country. They will have to 
deal with the cuts in education and health care. It is outrageous, Mr. 
Speaker.
  In addition, this rule makes in order a pension bill that not only 
misses an important opportunity to deal with this country's retirement 
security crisis; it also will lead to benefit cuts for millions of 
American workers.
  And let me again clarify it for the record so there is no mistake: 
this is not a conference report that we are voting on here tonight. I 
want to make it clear, because there is some misunderstanding. This is 
not the result of the conference negotiations that we have this bill 
before us tonight.
  The pension bill fails to encourage companies to keep offering 
traditional pensions to their workers, it fails companies from using 
bankruptcy to dump worker pension plans, and it fails to stop companies 
from awarding lavish retirement compensation packages to executives at 
the same time they cut workers' benefits.
  I can't say it any more plainly, Mr. Speaker, 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. We have voted on this issue 
in various procedural votes over and over and over and over. We want a 
clean vote. We want this to become the law of the land. We want to make 
sure that low-income wage earners get the raise that they deserve so 
they can get out of poverty. And what the American people also want and 
deserve is a pension bill that protects them. They won't be getting any 
of that today, Mr. Speaker, so I urge my colleagues to reject this 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the Republican conference Chair, the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Ms. Pryce).
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, my 
friend, for yielding.
  The agreement we have reached at long last tonight will benefit 
millions of hardworking Americans. This is a landmark achievement. We 
have attained unprecedented unity, and I am grateful for the hard work 
of the leadership and for our Members' commitment to getting this done 
for America.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle are already calling this 
political, but they are wrong. It is another example of House 
Republicans getting things done for the American people. The bill 
before us tonight will raise the minimum wage more than $2, to $7.25 an 
hour, a 41 percent increase, a provision that I am very proud to 
support.
  Ohio workers where I live deserve a raise, and tonight that is what 
we are giving them, and we are doing it in a way that won't stifle job 
creation; but more importantly, we are doing it in a way that will be 
able to pass and become law. A clean up-or-down vote would never get 
through the Senate, the other body, and would never become law.
  This legislation will also benefit family businesses by burying the 
death tax for good. Because of this crippling tax that has been on our 
books for so long, more than 70 percent of family businesses and family 
farms don't even make it through the second generation, and 87 percent 
don't even make it to the third. The death tax relief included in this 
bill will protect these businesses and allow them to continue to create 
jobs for hardworking Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will also support our Nation's teachers. 
Teachers often contribute more than their time and talent to educate 
our students, frequently dipping into their own pockets to provide 
essential classroom supplies. The Apples for Teachers provision which I 
introduced years ago is expiring, but today we will extend it and these 
expenses will continue to be tax deductible.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a vote for our teachers, for our families, for 
our small businesses, for our farmers, and for all hardworking 
Americans. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote 
in favor of it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the previous 
speaker, give me a break. The Republicans know

[[Page H6033]]

that this is dead on arrival when it goes to the Senate. They know that 
there will be no increase in the minimum wage if this is the 
combination that goes before the United States Senate. They had to be 
dragged kicking and screaming here. The only reason why we are here 
right now is because the American people are demanding action on this 
issue, and they are trying to find political cover. This is beyond 
cynical. This is disgraceful what they are doing here on the House 
floor today.
  Mr. Speaker I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a 
distinguished member of the Rules Committee (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, before we begin this debate, I urge each Member to ask 
themselves, why did you first seek election to this House? It is my 
hope that it is similar to my reason: to represent my hometown, to 
craft laws and policies that will serve the best interests of the 
families and businesses of that community, and to ensure that the world 
we leave behind is better than the world you and I inherited. Of late, 
I think Congress has forgotten that.
  When I compare the laundry list of items important to my constituents 
and the American people to what Congress is doing, a disconnect is 
apparent. An overwhelming majority of Americans think it is long past 
due to increase the minimum wage. Over the past 6 years, this Congress 
has done little, if anything, to help those earning the minimum wage 
and the families who depend on them.
  The buying power of the minimum wage is now at its lowest point in 57 
years. At the same time, the cost of key necessities like health care, 
education, and gas have been rising faster than inflation. Yet during 
the past 8 years, Members of Congress have raised their own pay seven 
times by nearly $30,000. In those same years, minimum-wage workers have 
not gotten a single raise. They continue to earn an average of $10,700 
a year.
  Raising the minimum wage is a real tangible policy decision to 
significantly help 7.5 million Americans who this Congress has 
virtually ignored. We can make this choice only by allowing an up-or-
down vote on Congressman Miller's bipartisan bill. This bill would 
gradually raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour.

                              {time}  2000

  Since February, nearly 200 Members have signed the petition that 
would force and up-or-down vote on this measure, and that is what we 
should have today.
  The only reason we have not had a vote on it is because of the 
Republican leadership. They resisted the will of the American people 
and a bipartisan coalition of Members.
  And now that the minimum wage increase will finally be debated by the 
House, it has once again been loaded down with poison pills. If the 
Republican leadership really cared about raising the minimum wage, they 
would not have waited until the eleventh hour before the House leaves 
for recess. This is a transparent election-year ploy. I am confident 
the American people will see it for what it is.
  When a party holds three votes to roll back the estate tax, but 
refuses to allow a clean vote on the minimum wage, it is clear where 
its priorities are.
  While raising the minimum wage will help millions of Americans, the 
estate measure will primarily benefit just 7,500 families.
  Looking at the majority's record, we should not be surprised.
  There is the series of tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest among us, 
the massively flawed Medicare prescription drug benefit and subsidies 
for oil and gas companies. But for those in the middle class and 
working families, there is not much to talk about, nothing to help get 
access to decent health care or build on the promise of stem cell 
research, or lower the price of gas or make college more affordable. At 
the end of today, the majority certainly cannot claim to have made a 
good faith effort to raise the minimum wage.
  And that is truly a shame, because you have squandered an opportunity 
to help the constituents that need your help the most.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), my 
colleague on the Rules Committee.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and 
gentleman from Washington for yielding me time, and I rise today in 
strong support of the rule and the underlying legislation.
  First, I would like to thank our leadership for having the foresight 
and leadership to bring this excellent compromise before the House. I 
am delighted to have been part of the 48 Republicans that have pushed 
through letters and meetings and other methods to ask our leadership to 
bring a vote on the minimum wage to this floor.
  I just heard a minute ago these words, ``just raise the minimum 
wage,'' well, guess what. That is what this bill does.
  Let me be clear, with the passage of this legislation, we will raise 
the minimum wage over the next 3 years to $7.25. This is real relief 
for those workers who are trying to support a family on a minimum wage 
job, bringing it closer to a true living wage. I have supported raising 
the minimum wage for years, and I am glad to see that on this day this 
vote is coming to the floor.
  I am also pleased that we are including death tax relief in this 
measure. Unlike some of my colleagues, I see this tax relief and 
minimum wage bill as complementary. The death tax is a punitive measure 
that unfairly burdens small business owners and farmers. The sustaining 
of small businesses by keeping their vital assets will allow those 
making the minimum wage to continue working and hopefully provide 
greater resources to bring them above the minimum wage.
  This is a jobs bill, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support 
this step forward for workers and the businesses that employ them.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  All we want is a clean up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. We want 
this to become law. We do not want to make a political statement. This 
is not about a press release.
  Why do we have to bog the minimum wage bill down with language to 
benefit the heirs of the Wal-Mart family, the Mars family? Or give 
Paris Hilton another tax cut? Why can we not just do what is right, 
which is to give low-wage income earners in this country the raise that 
they deserve?
  We are tired of the political posturing. We want action.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, if my colleague that just spoke on the 
other side of the aisle cared about the minimum wage, she would have 
signed the discharge petition so we could have had an up-or-down vote 
on the minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, if ever the American people needed evidence that the 
Republican Congress is putting politics before what is good for the 
American people, this is it. This is a cynical gimmick. It is designed 
to kill any increase in the minimum wage. It is an excuse for 
vulnerable Republicans to go home this August claiming they cast a vote 
in support of raising the minimum wage without actually impacting the 
life of a single family earning it.
  Mr. Speaker, why must we make this debate about an estate tax that 
the country cannot afford, one which would benefit 7,500 families 
nationwide? Only 7,500 families.
  What we want and what we need is an economy that produces a rising 
living standard for most American families, and right now, with rising 
interest rates, high gas prices, skyrocketing health care costs and a 
slowing housing market, it makes no sense whatsoever for the Congress 
to tether a modest increase in the minimum wage to billions of dollars 
in an estate tax cut for those who do not need them.
  This measure shows contempt for the public interest, especially when 
the minimum wage has not been raised since 1997, when its purchasing 
power stands at its lowest in a half century.
  Meanwhile, the Congress has voted to increase its own pay nine times 
since 1997. I cannot remember a single time

[[Page H6034]]

this body's attached its own pay increase to controversial legislation 
that the other party rejects outright, and I suspect it is not an 
accident.
  For Democrats, this is simple. If this Congress can get a raise, the 
American people ought to be able to get one as well, and we should be 
able to vote on that with a clear up-or-down vote, no attachments, no 
gimmicks. Oppose this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and of the 
underlying tax bill.
  Mr. Speaker, if I was listening to this debate at home, I would think 
that we were discussing something super controversial. I would wonder 
if we were putting a nuclear waste site on a school playground or 
something to that effect. Well, nothing could be further from the 
truth. A lot of the criticism we are hearing today is election-year 
demagoguery. Here is some straight talk.
  This legislation increases the minimum wage, expands the deductions 
for college tuition and repeals the death tax for most family-owned 
small businesses. That is it. That is the heart of this legislation, 
and let me be real specific.
  The minimum wage will go from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. College tuition 
will be expanded, and you can deduct up to $4,000 per year. The death 
tax will be repealed for those people with estates of $5 million or 
less. After that, it will be taxed at 15 percent.
  Now, most of the controversy, supposed controversy, is addressed 
towards this minimum wage increase being linked to the death tax repeal 
for most people. Now, why do we do that? Seventy percent of all new 
jobs in this country are created by small business people. If we are 
going to increase the minimum wage, we do not want these employees to 
be laid off. We do not want the small businessman to be forced with an 
increased payroll to have no choice but to lay folks off.
  We want, on the other hand, these small businesses to be successful 
and continue to operate. It always mystifies me why some people on the 
other side pretend to love jobs, yet they hate the employers who 
provide these jobs.
  Now, how does this help? One-third of family-owned small businesses 
are forced to liquidate because of the death tax. We want, on the other 
hand, these businesses to continue to operate from one generation to 
the next. This is the current law if we do nothing.
  In the year 2010, the death tax will be zero. In the year 2011, it 
will go back up to a 55 percent tax rate, 55 percent, even though the 
money has been taxed once at the income level. Unfortunately, the only 
family-owned business in America that knows for sure that their 
patriarch will die in 2010 is the Sopranos.
  Now, I have been listening to some other comments the other side has 
made. They said that we are fooling our constituents; that these are 
just tax cuts for the wealthy like Paris Hilton; that we must be in the 
hip pocket of the special interests. Well, let me tell you what they 
did not say. Forty-three Democrats voted for this same exact death tax 
repeal. Are those Democrats fooling their constituents? Are they only 
caring about tax cuts for Paris Hilton? Are they in the hip pocket of 
special interests? Or are they a few people that decided to stand up to 
the liberal leadership and say I am an American first and I want to do 
what is best for small businesspeople?
  We need less demagoguery, less political shenanigans, less pessimism, 
and what we need is more straight talk, more commonsense and more 
optimism.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the rule and ``yes'' for the 
bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let us have a little straight talk. My colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle are tying the minimum wage to all these special tax breaks 
and tax breaks for Paris Hilton absolutely. They are doing this for one 
reason, because they know it will be dead on arrival in the Senate. 
That is cynical, and this is politics at its worst.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this place a long time, but I 
do not remember even this close to an election seeing the type of 
hypocrisy that we see today.
  There is only one ship that they would like to see get on the waters, 
and that is the estate tax relief, and it is only going to provide 
relief for a fraction of 1 percent, of some 7,500 individuals in the 
country. That is the wealthiest of the wealthy. Most Americans cannot 
even dream about getting to the status that they are going to be liable 
for taxes, and why would they want this? They want this because if you 
want campaign contributions, you go where the money is, and believe me, 
this is the cream of the crop of the money that we have in the United 
States of America.
  They know the bill stinks to high heaven. That is why it is not on 
its own two feet. If this were a great thing for America and democracy, 
one, we would not wait until midnight to talk about it; and two, we 
would be so proud of it. The Star Spangled Banner would be here, the 
lights would be shining and we would talk about estate tax relief.
  But it stinks so heavy, they try to sweeten it up by putting other 
tax bills on it. There must be around 40 extenders here that do good 
work, and so they say if you want the extenders, you got to buy this 
stinking rule, but that is not enough. Whatever you do for the 
corporations or the rich folks, but why hold millions of Americans that 
cannot get an increase in minimum wage, why would you put them on top 
of this? Why would you hold them hostage?
  And whether or not the bill passes in the other House, do we not have 
any shame? Are not all of these issues important enough for this august 
body to take them up one by one?
  It is almost like having a child talk about I want so badly to 
increase the minimum wage for them, and then you put these concrete 
shoes on them, as you throw them into the ocean alone and not being 
able to swim.
  If you care about poor folks, act like it. Give them a day by 
themselves. Do not mix their problems up with the richest of the rich 
of this country. Hypocrisy, I have now seen it all.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my colleague from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and fellow 
Washingtonian for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill, 
specifically H.R. 5970. This legislation includes some tax provisions 
that are very important to Washington State, including an extension of 
the State and local sales tax deduction.
  The Internal Revenue Code has long allowed residents of States that 
have an income tax to deduct their income tax on their Federal return. 
However, for too long, the code penalized residents of States like 
mine, Washington State, which uses the sales tax as its revenue base. I 
am pleased that the authors of this bill have included an extension of 
the deductibility of State and local sales tax.
  Additionally, the timber tax provision is of great importance to 
companies like Weyerhaeuser in Washington State.
  I also rise to express my strong support for the provision in this 
bill which extends the research and development tax credit, which is so 
important to our Nation's high-tech industry and to all companies that 
innovate, companies in my district like Microsoft and Ramgen, which is 
a company conducting alternative energy research and creating cutting 
edge technology and products, which in turn creates jobs.
  As we all know, in the 21st century the United States is competing in 
a global economic environment. We as a Congress must take all 
reasonable steps to enable American businesses to compete. Also, the 
kind of jobs produced in the research-driven economy are often high-
paying jobs. Consumers are the beneficiaries of new and improved 
products.
  While I support legislation to make this credit permanent, short of 
that, I

[[Page H6035]]

applaud the authors of this bill for extending the credit for 2 years.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. LEVIN. They say legislation is like making sausages. You have 
heard that. This legislation is worse, because as far as I know, 
sausages do not have poison pills in them. This legislation does.
  It links action to help struggling families, working families with 
tax breaks for the very wealthy. And why the linkage? It is clear. 
Because the estate tax provisions can't pass on their own.
  Secondly, contrary to what has been said here, a clean bill on 
minimum wages would be passed by the House and Senate; but when you 
link it, it won't happen. And that is what the majority party in this 
House wants, no increase in minimum wages.
  And just let us think about fiscal responsibility. The estate tax 
change, and these are the estimates. You bring this up at the last 
minute, it is a little hard to have exact dollar estimates, but here 
they are. Over 10 years the estate tax change would cost $270 billion, 
and over a full 10 years, when fully into effect, $700 billion.
  And, look, what would happen is not only would it be $10 million 
joint filers would have no estate tax, but a major break for estates 
between $5 million and $25 million, $10 million and $50 million for 
joint filers, and those above that; they still get a break. So what 
this does is eat up hundreds of billions of dollars, and not for family 
farmers and not for small businesses. Ninety-nine percent of the 
estates would be exempted under present law.
  No, this is for the very, very wealthy. But I say this: the desperate 
Republicans are not going to be saved by these maneuvers. The public, 
fellow and sister Republicans, will not be fooled by your antics this 
night.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman from Washington 
has 11 minutes and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 13\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise to oppose this rule. It is, on its very face, absurd.
  The bills this rule would allow to the floor include the obscene 
proposition that Congress must allow a massive tax break for the 
wealthiest few multi-millionaire families in this country in order to 
get an increase in the $5.15 per hour minimum wage paid to the lowest-
income workers in this country.
  The rule also allows to the floor a pension bill which has been 
falsely labeled as the conference report between the House and the 
Senate. Twenty million Americans in the workforce today have pensions. 
They are counting on a pension check to sustain them in old age, yet 
month after month of nontransparent legislative wheeling and dealing 
and the pension bill now in conference committee is stuck.
  It has been an ugly process. The debate has been hot. The games 
played have been silly, and the differences have been personal and 
intense. And that is just within the Republican Party. Let me read to 
you from today's edition of CQ a description of last night's conference 
committee action:
  ``Anger Erupts As House GOP Snubs Pension Vote: After days of tense 
negotiation over pension legislation, tempers flared Thursday night 
when House Republicans boycotted a vote on a conference report 
proposal, provoking the scorn of their Senate counterparts and leaving 
the bill in jeopardy.
  `` `I wonder why you wouldn't have guts enough to come forward and 
vote,' said an emotional Senator.''
  Have you ever seen such foolishness? The fate of workers' pensions 
hangs in the balance and our House Republicans stage a walkout on the 
conference and refuse even to vote. They didn't vote ``yes''; they 
didn't vote ``no.'' Basically, they thumbed their nose at America's 
workers and they thumbed their noses at the United States Senate.
  And tonight they bring a new bill on pensions, a bill never voted on 
in the House, never voted on in the Senate, never seen any legislative 
committee markup, and they have the brazen gall to call it the 
conference report.
  Our workers counting on their pensions deserve so much better than 
this rancorous game of legislative brinksmanship. Some may be inclined 
to write this whole evening off as the frantic egocentric last throes 
of a powerful chairman about to lose his power in retirement. But that 
is no justification for this nonsense.
  My colleagues, let the games stop and stop right now. Reject this 
rule and get that conference committee on pensions back to work and 
let's pass a minimum wage for the lowest paid workers without being 
held to ransom in giving massive tax relief to the wealthiest multi-
millionaire families in this country.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).
  (Mr. AL GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is written that ye shall know 
the truth and the truth shall set you free.
  The truth is that this bill is not about raising the minimum wage; it 
is really about an inheritance tax break of around $800 billion for the 
wealthiest. It is not about those who work at $5.15 an hour, who work 
through Easter, work through Thanksgiving, work through Christmas, and 
at the end of the year make $10,712. It is not really about them. It is 
not about the least, the last, and the lost. It is about the well-off, 
the well-heeled, and the well-to-do.
  In this country, one out of every 110 persons is a millionaire. In 
this country, we spend $177 million per day on the war, yet we haven't 
raised the minimum wage since 1997. It is not time to raise it; it is 
past time to raise it. And it is time to do it without tagging it to an 
inheritance tax break for the wealthiest.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, what a fraud, what a sham. I am embarrassed 
to be part of a House where they spring on us a bill that neither the 
American people nor few of my colleagues have had a chance to review.
  American workers and their families have been waiting 9 long years 
for an increase in the minimum wage. I represent those people. Maybe 
you don't. The real inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage is at 
its lowest point in 50 years.
  Democrats have been desperately trying for years to bring an increase 
in the minimum wage to the floor, but the Republican leadership has 
sought to block it at every turn. While working families have seen 
their wages fall, the U.S. Congress has received nine wage raises.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result, this bill will not become law and, hence, 
we will not help any of the almost 15 million minimum-wage earners in 
the United States. What a fraud. Shame on us.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. This rule and the 
underlying bill are the kind of cynical ploy that unfortunately make 
Americans lose faith in their government.
  Americans know that Democrats have pushed for years to increase the 
minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25, a wage that has not been raised since 
1996. Yet in the last 10 years, the Republican leadership has never 
allowed an up-or-down vote on that simple proposition, and tonight they 
still don't have the guts to do it.
  Here is what they say to the American people: in order for American 
families who work at the minimum wage and earn $10,000 a year to get a 
small wage increase, you have got to give the 7,500 American families 
with estates over $7 million a big tax break.
  Now, who are the losers tonight? Well, the big losers are everybody 
else.

[[Page H6036]]

If you earn more than $10,000 a year, but you don't come from one of 
the 7,500 families with $7 million estates, you're a loser. And that is 
most of America. Why are you a loser? Because you are going to be 
paying billions of dollars on the interest by this additional 
borrowing.
  And here is the double standard: every year since 1996, this 
Republican leadership has had an up-or-down vote on congressional pay 
raises. They have never held their pay raise hostage to another piece 
of legislation. But when it comes to increasing the wages for working 
Americans, families earning $10,000 a year, oh, they are different from 
us Members of Congress. When it comes to giving them a pay raise, we 
are going to hold it hostage. We are going to hold it hostage to giving 
7,500 American families with $7 million estates a tax break.
  That is unconscionable, it is shameful, and the American people 
understand what is going on. The game is up. Shame on the Republican 
leadership.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, you have to ask why Members of the U.S. 
Congress would hold working families ransom for a very modest increase 
in the minimum wage after so much time has passed. Why would Members of 
Congress do that? How could they possibly deny people who work in our 
nursing homes and care for our families, people who work cleaning up 
our schools, people who work laboring under the hot sun on various 
sites, how could Members of the U.S. Congress hold them hostage? To get 
what their special interests, the wealthiest among us, what they want: 
these million dollar tax breaks.
  How could they possibly do that? Well, the best explanation I can 
come up with is that those same Members who are holding these working 
families hostage tonight have had over $30,000 pay raises in the last 
several years themselves. Eight times they have received pay raises. 
Eight times their families have been well clothed and well fed. Eight 
times they have gone on trips on airplanes. Eight times they have had 
their health care needs met without worrying how they are going to pay 
for their kids' appendectomy. They are conditioned to be able to allow 
their families, the working families of this country, to tell them to 
go fish.
  It is a moral outrage to tell the working families of this country 
tonight, in the darkness of night, where evil is traditionally done in 
human affairs, that you can tell these families that they can just go 
fish and not get a tiny little raise in the minimum wage unless these, 
the well-heeled, the special interests, those who have influence in 
here get their piece of the action.
  Well, let me tell you, there is something in the Good Book that says 
by their acts ye shall know them. And by your votes you shall know 
them. There is a group here in Congress that thinks there is only a 
special group that counts in this country, and that our genius is only 
the wealthy.
  We are the group who believes that working people are just as 
entitled to the respect of this Congress as those who are well off. 
Reject this rule and pass the minimum wage as we should.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on 
both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 11 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I continue to reserve my time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
  I heard my friend from Puget Sound in Washington talk about how this 
was a good deal. You have heard speaker after speaker after speaker 
talk about how this is a sham, that it is not a direct vote to be able 
to deal with the minimum wage; but it is worse than that, because those 
people in Puget Sound who are tipped employees, who work for the 
minimum wage are going to see a $2.48 an hour cut under the Republican 
bill intent.
  In the State of Oregon, where we have indexed the minimum wage, our 
people are going to see a $1.75 an hour reduction. The Republican bill 
cuts the wages of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of workers 
in the States of Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, 
Oregon, and Washington by preempting the State minimum-wage laws where 
a State has disallowed the employer tip tax credit.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my 
friend from Tennessee, I would remind my friend from Oregon that the 
minimum wage in Washington State is, if not the highest, is the second 
highest in the country. It is $7.63.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Tennessee (Mr. 
Wamp).

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I had no intention of 
speaking, but I do think that some balance and reason needs to set in 
here. I hate to see people I respect on the other side of the aisle say 
things that have really dumbed down this entire debate because I will 
tell you what this rule and the underlying legislation actually 
represents. It represents a responsible way for us to address real 
problems in this economy when wages haven't gone up from the bottom in 
9 years, with a strong economy.
  I went to my conference this week, and I said to our conference that 
corporate leaders haven't been responsible enough and the economy is 
strong. And I will tell you one reason it's strong is because our tax 
policy has been good for America and the economy is growing. Just this 
week in my home city, record construction, strong economy, low 
unemployment. And so this is something we want to address.
  The other side says all the time, Well, you run this place. You've 
got majorities in the House and the Senate. And I want to remind them 
that we do. And if we didn't want to do this, we wouldn't do it. But we 
are doing it this way because this is the better way to do it. Because 
the small businesspeople and the family farmers need certainty in terms 
of this estate tax. We eliminated it, but it comes back. It is an 
onerous tax, it is an unfair tax, and when you raise wages, which is a 
fixed cost in business, you have to compensate that with smart business 
investments through tax policy.
  Our tax policy has been good for America. Our economic policy is good 
for America. And frankly this wage increase is a savvy way to put it 
all together and make this medicine for America go down smooth and keep 
our economy strong. Because this will force some fixed costs up in 
small business and you can't just throw it on them without some people 
losing their jobs, and this is a fair and responsible way to do it.
  I know why you are so mad and why you say things you don't really 
mean, because you have seen us really outfox you on this issue tonight. 
That is what we are doing today, is bringing a very crafty, smart, 
good-for-America, good-for-the-economy package and still allow the 
minimum wage to go up.
  I hope it passes this body, the other body, because it is going to be 
good for America in the aggregate, not individual pieces. Right now 
would be an excellent time to actually put this package forward 
together, and I believe the country will be much better off.
  I am proud of this majority that we figured out the best way to do 
this and do it right now. It is an excellent time. I thank our 
leadership for bringing this to the floor tonight. And it is not in the 
middle of the night. As a matter of fact, it is broad daylight here in 
Washington, and it is going to be that way through this entire debate 
across most of America.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Let me say to my friend from Tennessee, I mean every 
word I say.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. With all due respect to my good friend from the State 
of Washington, what I said was because your bill intends to take away 
the tip credit provisions, you are going to cut the minimum wage for 
thousands and thousands and thousands of Washington employees who are 
minimum wage who, because of the tip credit provision, you are going to 
cut it $1.75 an

[[Page H6037]]

hour immediately upon effect. And that is wrong.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 3\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. This is a sham procedure. A 1,000-page bill. No time to 
read it. It is an insulting bill. In order to provide a tiny increase 
in the minimum wage, we have to give billions of dollars of tax cuts to 
those who are inheriting from families with over a $7 million estate.
  But there is a special hypocrisy here. You see, this minimum-wage 
bill has a poison pill. They know it won't pass the Senate. There is 
only one pay-increase bill that is supposed to become law. That is the 
one that includes our pay raise. Our pay raise went through on a clean 
bill. They knew it would pass the Senate. The minimum-wage increase 
goes with a poison pill that is dead on arrival in the Senate. We know 
which pay raise they want, and which pay raise they don't want.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished 
Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for 
his leadership on these very important issues before us that affect the 
lives of America's working families, the minimum wage, the pension 
bill, that are part of this rule. I also thank him for meaning what he 
says on the floor of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us this evening is an insult to the 
intelligence of the American people. It is also an insult to the over 7 
million Americans who depend on an increase in the minimum wage to live 
from paycheck to paycheck. It is a political stunt. It isn't a sincere 
effort to give an increase in the minimum wage. Republicans boast that 
they have held out for 9 years to keep the minimum wage at $5.15 an 
hour. That is their proud boast. Don't take it from me. Look at the 
public record. And so for them to come to this floor to try to give the 
illusion that they are sincerely trying to raise the minimum wage when 
they know that this bill is dead on arrival at the United States Senate 
is, again, an insult to the intelligence of the American people and the 
hard work of the American people as well.
  Just think of what it is to have a bill that says to minimum-wage 
workers, we'll raise your minimum wage, but only if we can give an 
estate tax cut to the 7,500 wealthiest families in America. This isn't 
about wealth. This is about super, superwealth. The only way you will 
get an increase in the minimum wage is if they can get a tax cut.
  If there has ever been a values debate on the floor of the Congress, 
this certainly must be it. This should be part of the values agenda of 
Congress, to reward work, to pay a decent wage to people so that they 
can raise their families.
  Democrats have a better idea. In our new direction for America, a new 
direction for all Americans, not just the privileged few, we make 
raising the minimum wage a key part of that. In addition to that, we 
also repeal what the Republicans have in place, which is an incentive 
for companies to send jobs overseas.
  But back to the minimum wage. A working family, two wage-earners 
working full time making $5.15 an hour bring home the sum total of 
$20,000 a year. They are below the poverty line. I almost hope that no 
children are listening to this tonight, because we tell children about 
the work ethic, that it is important to work hard, it is important in 
their lives, it is important to our country's competitiveness, it is an 
important strength, that the middle class is a part of our democracy in 
our country and that the middle class must grow and be expanded instead 
of having a lid on what some people can aspire to in our country.
  Our better idea also includes what the gentleman from North Dakota 
(Mr. Pomeroy) offered a few weeks ago on the floor of the House. He 
wasn't allowed to put it in motion here, they wouldn't even allow it to 
be heard, but we insisted on some of the debate, anyway. And that was a 
cut in the estate tax that affected 99.7 percent of all Americans who 
file the estate tax; 99.7 percent of all filers. This .3 percent, the 
7,500 wealthiest families in America, must have done something quite 
wonderful for the Republicans that they wouldn't even allow that to be 
debated on the floor and that they hook it on to this increase in the 
minimum wage.
  Again, it is a political ploy. It's a joke. It's a hoax. It's a sham. 
It doesn't even rise to the level of that, so low is it in its 
intention.
  A couple of times in the past couple of months, I have quoted from 
the latest papal encyclical, ``God is Love.'' It was released April 
2006 by Pope Benedict. I am just drawn to it all of the time because it 
talks about justice, and it talks about justice in a way that affects 
elected officials.
  In this encyclical, Pope Benedict says: ``St. Augustine wrote, `A 
state which is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch 
of thieves.''' That is a pope quoting a saint. A saint: ``A state which 
is not governed according to justice would be just a bunch of 
thieves.''
  The Pope goes on to write, and in this part of the encyclical he is 
talking about the responsibility of elected officials and those 
responsible for governing, he says, ``How do you define justice? What 
is justice?'' He warns of the danger, this is the Pope, warns of the 
danger of the ethical blindness caused by the dazzling effect of power 
and special interests. The dazzling effect of power and special 
interests and the ethical blindness that that causes.
  Does that sound familiar, my colleagues? Can you relate to that in 
this body? Is that not at work here tonight? One of our colleagues 
said, this is about truth. I think many of our colleagues have. Yes, 
this is a moment of truth. With all of these votes of this kind, we 
define ourselves as a Congress. We define ourselves as a country. When 
the American people listen in to this debate, we are either relevant to 
their lives or we are not. And I think no place, well, the competition 
for this honor is so keen that it is hard to tell which is the worst 
piece of legislation the Republicans have brought to the floor, but 
this certainly ranks right up there, to prove how out of touch the 
Republicans are with the American people, how out of touch they are 
with people, the middle class, who are sweating it out this summer in 
more ways than one.
  Sweating out the price of gasoline at the pump, a bill born of 
corruption in this body.
  Seniors sweating it out in terms of paying for prescription drugs at 
the pharmacy where middle-income seniors are paying more for their 
prescription drugs.
  Sweating it out in terms of the college tuition that they are going 
to have to paste together to send their children to college while the 
Republicans pass legislation that gives tax breaks to the 7,500 
wealthiest families in America and freezes Pell Grants and also cuts 
billions of dollars out of the student loan program. Paycheck to 
paycheck, trying to make ends meet, to make the future better for their 
children. But this Congress proves over and over again it has no 
relationship to that challenge. None.
  And so I hope my colleagues in this moment of truth will remember the 
words of His Holiness when he quoted a saint, St. Augustine, who many 
years ago said: ``Unless government promotes justice, you're just a 
bunch of thieves.'' I can't think of a more appropriate analogy than 
that for what is happening here today. We are robbing the future of 
America's families who are struggling for a better future for their 
children in order to give a tax cut of $800 billion. Not only is this a 
burden to these low-income families; they are saying to them, your 
children and future generations and everyone alive and paying taxes 
today will be paying for $800 billion added to our national debt.
  Values? Foisting that onto our children and onto the American 
taxpayer. Values? Putting a sham bill together to give political cover 
for the cowards who won't stand up and bring a clean bill to this floor 
to see where the choice would be? I have no doubt that there are some 
right-thinking Republicans who would support a clean increase in the 
minimum wage. But we will soon find out when the motion to recommit is 
brought to the floor later this evening which will have a clean 
increase in the minimum wage and will also have the extenders.

[[Page H6038]]

                              {time}  2045

  Interesting about the extenders. The Republicans are using them as an 
excuse to get votes for their political ploy they have here tonight. 
They have been expired for 6 months. They have needed to be extended 
for 6 months. But the Republicans always want to wheel them out so they 
can attract votes to, as Mr. Rangel called, their stinkeroo of a bill.
  But, my colleagues, this is deadly serious. We are here to get the 
job done for the American people. We are not here to give money, a 
transfer of wealth, a transfer of wealth, to the wealthiest people in 
America. And who pays the price? The middle class. Well, if we are 
going to survive as a democracy, a healthy democracy which is a model 
to the world, it is about time we understood that central to that 
democracy is a thriving, expanding middle class whose job we are here 
to do. Let us have tax cuts for them, not for the wealthiest people in 
the country and send the tax bill to the middle class.
  Let us remember the words of His Holiness, ``promote justice.'' 
Oppose this rule. Oppose this bill. And let us get serious about 
helping the American people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, people in this country are tired of politics as usual, 
and what is before us today is politics as usual. It is cynical and it 
is wrong. This is a press release. This is a political stunt. My 
friends on the other side of the aisle know that there will be no 
minimum wage increase when you tie it to tax cuts for Paris Hilton. It 
is just not going to happen. The Senate has already said that this is 
going nowhere. You know that.
  To my Republican friends who have taken to the floor today to say 
that they support the minimum wage, to the 20 Republicans who signed a 
letter to their leader asking that we bring the minimum wage to the 
floor, let me say that it is not enough to go through the motions. If 
you really believe that we should have an increase in the minimum wage, 
which has been stuck at $5.15 for 9 years, then you need to demand 
action. And what we are doing today is not demanding action.
  Mr. Speaker, during those 9 years since we last raised the minimum 
wage, this Congress has given itself eight pay raises. There is 
something fundamentally wrong when we can give ourselves pay raise 
after pay raise, but we cannot raise the minimum wage for those who are 
making $5.15 an hour. These families work hard. They are working every 
day. They are living in poverty.
  Mr. Speaker, do the right thing. Let us have a clean up-or-down vote 
on the minimum wage. Vote against this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of two very 
important bills. One bill is a pension reform bill that has been worked 
on for over 5 years on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. It is a very 
important piece of legislation and it needs to pass. The other bill is 
a bill that has two very important provisions: tax provisions dealing 
with the death tax and raising the minimum wage.
  And I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I am curious by hearing the debate. I 
kept hearing on the other side of the aisle their talking about ``just 
give us an up-or-down vote.'' Well, I think we are sent here by our 
constituents to do more than vote. We are here to enact legislation. 
And the expectation, the expectation is that the second dealing with 
the tax provisions and the minimum wage will pass not only this body, 
but will pass the other body and become law.
  I think that is much, much better service to our constituents rather 
than just saying give us a vote up or down and knowing that it may not 
pass both bodies. This will pass both bodies.
  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 noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. 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.

                          ____________________