[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 30 (Friday, February 16, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H1848-H1854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 161 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 161
Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of Friday, February 16, 2007, for the Speaker
to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules
relating to the bill (H.R. 976) to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to provide tax relief for small businesses, and
for other purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate purposes only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. ARCURI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 161 is a rule to provide
for consideration of H.R. 976, the Small Business Tax Relief Act, under
suspension of rules at any time on the legislative day of Friday,
February 16, 2007.
This rule is necessary because under clause 1(a) of rule XV, the
Speaker may entertain motions to suspend the rules only on Monday,
Tuesday, or Wednesday of each week. In order for suspensions to be
considered on other days, the Rules Committee must provide for
consideration of these motions.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how honored I am as a member of
the distinguished Rules Committee to manage the rule for consideration
of such an important piece of legislation that will provide $1.3
billion of tax relief for our Nation's small business.
This legislation, the Small Business Tax Relief Act, is strongly
supported by a host of business organizations, including the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the NFIB, the National Association of
Manufacturers and the National Restaurant Association.
Small businesses are the backbone of this Nation's economy. Every day
we as Americans utilize the services of small business owners, whether
it is dropping off our dry cleaning, grabbing a bite to eat at a local
diner or pizzeria, or waiting in line to pick up a prescription at a
local pharmacy. We depend on our small businesses.
{time} 1530
It is a constant struggle for most small businesses just to keep the
lights on. Utility costs continue to skyrocket, and larger companies
continue to expand services, pushing out the mom-and-pop stores in
cities and towns across the country. My constituents in Upstate New
York have experienced this loss of economic activity firsthand, but
that trend has continued.
The Small Business Tax Relief Act would help small businesses grow
and hire new workers by extending and expanding tax provisions that
encourage investment in new equipment and promote the hiring of
disadvantaged workers, and it does so in a fiscally responsible way
that meets the pay-as-you-go requirements. Small business owners have
to balance the books and stay on budget each month. It is only fitting
that we do as well.
Specifically, the bill would help small businesses invest in new
equipment by extending and expanding expensing options for 1 year and
increase both the amount small businesses can deduct from their taxes
and the number of small businesses that can take these deductions.
The bill would extend the work opportunity tax credit, which provides
incentives to employers to hire individuals that frequently experience
barriers to work for 1 year, and expand it to cover disabled veterans.
In other words, it helps those who need jobs by giving employers tax
credits for creating jobs.
It would enhance the current tip credit for small businesses by
maintaining the current tip credit that small businesses take for the
Social Security taxes they pay on their employees' tips, instead of
allowing it to drop with the long-overdue increase in the minimum wage
this legislation will help achieve.
The bill also contains a provision that would simplify tax-filing
requirements for businesses owned jointly by a husband and wife,
providing much-needed relief for the many small firms throughout this
country.
Right now, there is a glitch in the Social Security tax law which
only allows one spouse, most often the husband, to get credit for
paying into Social Security. This leaves women who work as equal
partners in an unfair situation. The Small Business Tax Relief Act
fixes this glaring inequality by ensuring that both partners, equal
members of the team, receive their justly deserved entitlement
benefits.
Moreover, this legislation does not only help small businesses. It is
a win-win, because passage of the Small Business Tax Relief Act is also
a critical step in finalizing an increase in the Federal minimum wage
for 13 million hardworking Americans.
I made a promise to my constituents that I would go to Washington to
fight for a long-overdue increase in the Federal minimum wage. Passage
of this measure takes us one step closer to fulfilling that promise.
I want to be clear. I support a stand-alone increase in the minimum
wage, like the legislation we passed a few weeks ago with overwhelming
bipartisan support. However, 10 years is too long for any hardworking
Americans to wait for a wage increase. Let's not force them to wait any
longer. The time to act is now.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank my friend from New York for the time, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 161 provides that it will be in order
at any time on the legislative day of today to consider H.R. 976, the
Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007, under a suspension of the rules.
The passage of these tax cuts for small businesses across the country
is very important. Small business, Mr. Speaker, is the engine that
drives our economy. Small businesses employ over half of all private-
sector workers and pay approximately 45 percent of all United States
private payroll.
Over the last decade, small businesses have generated 60 to 80
percent of net new jobs each year. Hispanic small businesses now number
over 2 million, Mr. Speaker, and their number has been growing at three
times the average of non-Hispanic businesses.
[[Page H1849]]
But we must not take the extraordinary performance of small
businesses for granted. They still face considerable hurdles, so it is
appropriate that steps be taken to ensure that small businesses are
able to continue to grow and employ more and more Americans.
The Small Business Tax Relief Act will provide extraordinary savings
to small businesses in the United States through targeted tax cuts. The
bill increases the amount that small businesses will be able to deduct
for equipment purchases and extends the deduction to the year 2010. It
also extends the work opportunities tax credit for another year and
expands three categories of the eligible workers to encourage employers
to hire disabled veterans, high-risk youth, and individuals with
disabilities.
Under this legislation, Mr. Speaker, businesses will be able to use
their FICA tax tip credit against their regular and AMT liability,
saving small businesses over $500 million over 10 years.
The Small Business Tax Relief Act also allows spouses who operate a
business together to file as a sole proprietorship, without penalty. It
allows both spouses to claim Medicare and Social Security taxes. This
is an important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It will help our
small businesses continue their admirable growth and job creation.
I would like to commend the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee,
Mr. Rangel, and the ranking member, Mr. McCrery, and all of those who,
in a bipartisan manner, have worked to quickly bring this important
bill to the floor for debate.
I look forward to the debate on H.R. 976. However, Mr. Speaker, we
could have done more. On Wednesday, at the hearing of the Rules
Committee and the markup of this rule, Mr. Sessions, my dear colleague
from Texas, the gentleman from Texas, offered an amendment to the rule
that would have allowed us to consider H.R. 60 under suspension of the
rules today.
H.R. 60, authored by our colleague, Mr. Baird, a Democrat, would make
the local and State sales tax deduction permanent. This sales tax
deduction is set to expire at the end of this year. Without passage of
this bipartisan legislation to extend the deduction, millions of
individuals and States without an income tax, such as Texas,
Washington, Nevada, Tennessee, South Dakota, Wyoming and Florida, will
face an unnecessary and unfortunate tax increase. However, the majority
in the Committee on Rules voted against allowing us to debate and pass
this widely supported bipartisan piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Bean).
Ms. BEAN. I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 976, the Small Business
Tax Relief Act.
America's small and medium businesses are our Nation's stimulative
engine, employing roughly 80 percent of our domestic workforce. Too
often, our Tax Code is weighted in support of our large lobbying
interests, without consideration of those small businesses who are the
backbone of our communities and have vital economic impact there.
I am proud to join Chairwoman Velazquez, Chairman Rangel and other
colleagues in support of the Small Business Tax Relief Act, which
provides needed tax relief to our Nation's small businesses in support
of their growth and profitability. In particular, the Small Business
Tax Relief Act will provide incentives to businesses in my district and
around our country to continue to invest in the infrastructure
important to their growth.
In addition to extending deductions in plant material investments,
this bill also extends the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. This credit has
been successful in helping people move from welfare to work and gain
on-the-job experience by incentivizing employers to hire disadvantaged
workers, including returning veterans and the disabled.
As Chair of the Small Business Tax and Finance Subcommittee, I will
continue to champion initiatives that help our Nation's small
businesses prosper.
I urge my colleagues to support the Small Business Tax Relief Act as
part of that effort. As our small businesses grow stronger, so do the
communities in which they reside and the workers they employ.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I
yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Florida, who has
worked so hard to make the sales tax a deductible and who is obviously
extremely concerned about the fact that we cannot vote on it today, Ms.
Brown-Waite.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, the deductibility of sales tax is so important to so
many people. It makes a big difference.
There are those of us, long of tooth, who remember when you used to
be able to deduct both State and local sales tax on your Federal income
tax. I remember when I lived in the chairman's State, in New York, and
we could do that, where I would save up all those receipts. And I was
darn sure that I spent more money on purchases than what the maximum
amount deductible was.
But in the mid 1980s, they eliminated the deductibility of sales tax
on your Federal income tax. What did this do? What it meant was that
States that did not have an income tax were at a very distinct
disadvantage, citizens who lived in those States.
So a few years ago we remedied that by saying you could deduct either
the State and local sales tax on your Federal income tax or at the
State income tax, whichever was higher. So you had that opportunity.
It certainly doesn't put my colleague from New York and those people
who are still left in New York at a disadvantage because they can still
deduct the State income tax. States that don't have a State income tax
have been put at a disadvantage.
I know that the good gentleman from Florida did try to put this
amendment on, and it would make a lot of sense. It expires this year.
We need to continue to have the deductibility of the State and local
sales tax for residents of States that do not have an income tax.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
House Resolution 161 and the underlying bill, H.R. 976, the Small
Business Tax Relief Act of 2007, which I am proud to have cosponsored.
This important piece of legislation is much more than a tax cut for
America's small businesses. It is an investment in our Nation's
workers, especially those from economically disadvantaged areas, as
well as our veterans.
Specifically, the underlying bill extends the Work Opportunity Tax
Credit for 1 year. This important tax credit, originally enacted in
1996, has been an important component in an effort to move people from
welfare to work, while gaining on-the-job experience.
H.R. 976 also fosters entrepreneurship in our communities, an
important variable in keeping Americans competitive in a global economy
by making it more affordable to own and operate a small business. This
Congress and the individuals who have brought this bill to passage
today bring their ideas, ambitions and knowledge and support of
entrepreneurs and small business.
Finally, I applaud Chairman Rangel and the members of the Ways and
Means Committee for working within the House PAYGO rules to produce a
revenue-neutral tax bill. H.R. 976 is a bipartisan example of a
fiscally responsible tax measure that takes into account America's
values and priorities.
I urge my colleagues to adopt the rule and the underlying bill.
{time} 1545
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth).
Mr. ELLSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007 provides long overdue tax
relief for small businesses and their employees.
Small businesses form the backbone of the American economy. They
create hundreds of millions of new jobs each
[[Page H1850]]
year, and they drive the innovation that makes America great. The men
and women whose blood, sweat, and sometimes tears go into building
their small businesses are living examples of the American dream, and
they deserve our support.
There is no doubt that this bill is a win-win for Indiana. It is a
win for Hoosier small business owners who work hard, play by the rules,
and provide good jobs for thousands of hardworking people in south and
west Indiana.
It is also a win for Hoosier workers. Small businesses employ 1.2
million workers in Indiana. And that is why we must make every effort
to ensure that small businesses prosper in a progrowth economy. As
Congress works towards increasing the minimum wage for the American
workers, legislation like this is necessary to help small businesses
across the country stay competitive.
Mr. Speaker, the Small Business Tax Relief Act enjoys wide bipartisan
support for a reason. We know it is the right thing to do for America's
small businesses and for its workers. I am proud to be a cosponsor of
this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to give it their
full support. Let us come together and show that the path toward fiscal
responsibility can be both probusiness and proworker.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from North
Carolina (Mr. Shuler).
Mr. SHULER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, as an entrepreneur myself, I am proud to stand strong in
support of our Nation's small business owners. Western North Carolina
is blessed with thousands of small manufacturers, technology
entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, and restaurant owners. Small businesses are
the backbone of our Nation's economy.
Today's legislation will cut taxes and increase opportunities for our
small business communities. This is what happens when Democrats and
Republicans work together.
I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the
Committee on Ways and Means for their efforts on this bill. I look
forward to working with them in further addressing the needs of small
businesses and increasing opportunities for all Americans.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation.
One of the great successes for our country's economy, and we all say
it here as Members of Congress as we talk about the value of small
business, but it is important for us in Congress to look at effecting
public policy in a way that assists small business in making success,
in being competitive relative to the rest of the world in terms of
pursuing job creation.
And I really want to applaud the leadership of our caucus for moving
ahead this early in this Congress with the small business tax relief
package. I think that is a real important statement. I hope everyone is
paying attention to that. It is certainly something that a lot of us in
this caucus have advocated for, and I think it is a great step to be
taking today.
I also want to acknowledge the fact that this is a bipartisan piece
of legislation. I want to thank Chairman Rangel for doing such an
excellent job in the Ways and Means Committee in working in this
bipartisan fashion to come up with this very well-crafted bill. I think
this is a great moment for this Congress to work in a bipartisan way to
help our economy move forward. I encourage all of us to vote for this
legislation.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure
of yielding 5 minutes to my colleague, who, in the Rules Committee,
made the motion for us to debate today the sales tax deduction to allow
us to consider legislation by Mr. Baird, a Democrat. Unfortunately, the
majority of the Rules Committee did not allow that motion to go
forward, voted it down, that amendment.
But it is my pleasure to recognize for 5 minutes not only a
distinguished member of the Rules Committee, but a great leader in this
House whom I am honored to serve with, Mr. Sessions.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from the Rules
Committee from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday evening at the Rules Committee, we met to
bypass regular order once again, which seems to be a new regular order
for the 10th time under the new Democrat leadership. I brought forth
the ability to discuss a small tax item with the germaneness to the tax
bill that we are debating here today. I wish that we were considering
this rule under regular order that the Democrat candidates, out on the
campaign trails, promised voters this last election cycle. I believe
that the tax bill will end up enjoying bipartisan support on the House
floor today. So since we are already bypassing regular order to
consider this legislation, I offered an amendment to bring another tax
bill to the floor that would enjoy also broad bipartisan support,
making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent for residents
of non-income-tax States.
This issue is a matter of fairness. It is quite simple in its
honesty. It enjoys support from a huge number of Democrats and
Republicans and would allow taxpayers a deduction for sales tax in lieu
of income tax for taxpayers in States that do not have a State income
tax.
Nine States currently have no income tax: Texas, Florida, Washington,
South Dakota, Tennessee, Nevada, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Alaska.
The 1986 Tax Reform Act eliminated the sales tax deduction from the
Federal Tax Code but maintained the State income tax deduction. That
change has a disproportionate impact on States that do not use a State
income tax.
A 2-year sales tax deductibility provision was signed into law as
part of the American Jobs Creation Act. This law restored fairness to
those in States with no State income tax for the first time in nearly
20 years and kept an estimated $3.6 billion in the hands of taxpayers
that choose to deduct State sales tax in all nine affected States. This
critical tax relief is said to expire at the end of this year and must
be extended, or my constituents in Texas and taxpayers from eight other
States will see a massive, unavoidable tax increase.
H.R. 60 would permanently restore fairness to taxpayers in the nine
affected States. I am disappointed that the amendments did not include
this one and it was defeated by the Rules Committee Democrats along a
party-line vote.
While I support the legislation for continued tax fairness for small
businesses that we are about to consider, I am sorry that we were not
allowed to have this amendment on the House floor today as a golden
opportunity for taxpayers to finally find this tax disparity and this
loophole closed for good.
I appreciate the gentleman's extending the time to me. He also is
from the State of Florida, which is hugely affected by this unwelcomed
tax.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the hardworking
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Donnelly).
Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 976, the
Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007, because small businesses play
such a vital role in Indiana's economy and in our country's economy.
Small businesses are the engine and account for half of all jobs in my
State's economy.
I want to thank Chairman Rangel for his leadership in introducing
this fiscally responsible tax relief for America's small businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the challenges our entrepreneurs and small
business owners face while training to remain competitive and
profitable in today's global economy. I have seen firsthand the impact
that rising costs of health care and new technologies and growing
competitions from overseas can have on our local businesses.
Today's legislation provides crucial, bipartisan tax relief so that
our local small businesses can invest in the equipment and technology
they need to remain successful. Perhaps more importantly, these tax
cuts allow our local business leaders to reinvest in Indiana's economy,
creating new jobs and sharing today and tomorrow's prosperity.
[[Page H1851]]
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take this opportunity to commend
this Congress for passing important commonsense tax relief without
contributing to our mounting national debt. This bill proves that we
can provide tax relief to our business community without increasing the
burden on our children and grandchildren.
I urge all my colleagues to pass H.R. 976 and reduce the tax burden
for our small business owners.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from New
York (Ms. Velazquez), the chairwoman of the Committee on Small
Business.
(Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this
bipartisan legislation that will provide tax relief and simplification
for this Nation's entrepreneurs.
As the Chair of the House Small Business Committee, I believe
economic policies in Washington must address the needs of our small
businesses. Today's bill will not only provide tax relief but will also
provide simplicity to the Tax Code for entrepreneurs.
One of the most critical portions of this bill is the extension of
section 179, expensing. This is a provision that encourages investment
while simplifying recordkeeping requirements. This legislation will
also make more entrepreneurs eligible to use section 179 expensing.
For small businesses it can often be difficult to make expensive
investments or purchases because of the upfront costs. Expensing helps
them defray some of these costs while also reducing paperwork burdens
associated with depreciation schedules. This proposal is a win for
small businesses, the job creators, and our economy. After all, they
are the ones who create 80 percent of all new jobs in this economy. And
it is a win-win for our Nation's economy.
There are many other good elements of this bill that will help small
businesses, and I want to thank the chairman of the Ways and Means and
the ranking member's efforts in moving this quickly.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
member of the Rules Committee for yielding.
I rise to finally say we have relief. I thank the chairman of the
Ways and Means Committee and the chairwoman of the Small Business
Committee because without you, we wouldn't be here today being able to
finally move forward not only tax relief for small businesses but
getting a vote for the minimum wage. Thank you very much.
And I thank you for working it out with the ranking members. Finally
we will be able to move in the other body that would not give us an up-
or-down vote on the minimum wage. But we have good news because we
extend the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. We help small businesses invest
in new equipment, which is so very important. And, third, and what is
certainly not least, we win the support, as I said, of the Senate to
move forward on the minimum wage.
But it is important to note that this WOTC will help veterans, ex-
felons, high-risk youth, and welfare recipients, individuals who create
the engine of our economy who are trying for a second chance. So this
is the right kind of mixture, giving relief to small businesses, which
I have always said, are the backbone of the economy of America. I am
grateful to say that the small businesses in the 18th Congressional
District, which have created an economic engine in our community, will
now have the right kind of tax relief to create opportunities for them
to reinvest in their own businesses to buy more equipment, because
every one of us go home to the churning of small businesses. Every day
small businesses open their doors and create jobs for one and two and
three and four and five and six and seven and eight and nine and ten
employees. So this will be the right message that we will send.
Then, of course, we will give the opportunity for training for our
welfare-to-work mothers. We will give training for our veterans. We
will give training for high-risk youth. And, yes, we will help those
who are trying to reenter to be able to create an opportunity for their
families.
Finally, of course, I am gratified that we will have the opportunity
now in 10 years to provide the opportunity for those on minimum wage.
And in the State of Texas this will create a $4,000 increase for our
working families with a minimum wage increase.
Let me thank the proponents of this bill. I ask for a vote in support
of H.R. 976.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 976, the ``Small Business Tax
Relief Act of 2007.'' I support the bill for several reasons. First,
H.R. 976 extends the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC)--which provides
incentives to employers to hire individuals from targeted groups that
frequently experience barriers to work--for one year and expands it to
cover disabled veterans.
Second, H.R. 976 helps small businesses invest in new equipment and
more easily afford large capital expenses. It extends small business
expensing (Section 179) for one year--increasing both the amount small
businesses can deduct from their taxes (from $112,000 to $125,000) and
the number of small businesses that can take these deductions (by
increasing the income limits for businesses taking the deduction from
$450,000 to $500,000).
Third, and not least important, passage of H.R. 976 is necessary to
win the support of the Senate and signature of the President on the
legislation passed earlier by this House to raise the minimum wage for
millions of hard-working, low-wage workers by $2.10 per hour to $7.25.
It has been more than nine years since the minimum wage was last
increased, the longest period in the history of the law. In contrast,
during this time period Indeed, Mr. Speaker, that it removes the last
major hurdle between low-wage workers and the long-overdue pay raise
they desperately need, is reason enough for me to support the bill
before us.
But evaluated on its merits, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit included
in the bill before us is a good and useful measure. The Work
Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) is a successful federal tax credit that
encourages employers to hire eight persons belonging to one or more of
eight targeted groups of job seekers by reducing employers' federal tax
liability. The credit limit is $2,400, and the targeted groups include
veterans, ex-felons, high-risk youth, and welfare recipients.
Mr. Speaker, government data show that 7 out of 10 welfare recipients
who obtain jobs in the private sector are using WOTC, and that placing
workers in private employment is highly cost-effective compared to
State-funded public service jobs. Under the WOTC, employers pay the
bulk of job costs, so the average cost to the Government is about $900
per job per quarter (with a ceiling of $1,560 annually) while the cost
of a State-funded public service job at $7 per hour averages $3,700 per
quarter with no ceiling. Thus, WOTC enables States to economize their
welfare and training block grants and saves money that can be used for
child care and transportation.
And what are the benefits to the less-skilled and disabled workers
WOTC is intended to help? Virtually every study of jobs credits by the
Government Accountability Office and independent evaluations funded by
the Department of Labor have shown that employment and skills of these
workers are increased. In fact, in one study, GAO reported that WOTC
workers achieve gains in real wages as a result of their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, the WOTC provides a market incentlve to employers to
hire and train less-skilled and disabled workers. To continue this
human capital investment in workers who might otherwise be left out of
the job market--some 20 million high school dropouts, less-skilled high
school graduates, single parents on welfare, disabled workers, and
returning combat veterans--we need to extend the WOTC. By extending the
WOTC, many more employers, especially small businesses, will have an
incentive to look for and offer jobs to people who at first glance may
not appear to be good job prospects.
Mr. Speaker, the job site is the place where the most effective
learning occurs for a young worker or slow-starter. Because the growth
of the nation's labor force is slowing, future economic growth will
depend on raising productivity by upgrading skills and making every
worker count. Extending the authorization for WOTC will advance this
goal. That is why the legislation before us, H.R. 976 is worthy of our
support.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let us also remember how important that the
minimum wage be increased. Today's minimum wage of $5.15
[[Page H1852]]
today is the equivalent of only $4.23 in 1995, which is even lower than
the $4.25 minimum wage level before the 1996-97 increase. It is
scandalous, Mr. Speaker, that a person can work full-time, 40 hours per
week, for 52 weeks, earning the minimum wage and would gross just
$10,700, which is $5,888 below the $16,000 needed to lift a family of
three out of poverty.
Mr. Speaker, since 2000 the cost of college tuition has risen 57
percent, which is only slightly less than the increase in the cost of
gasoline. Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed by 73 percent and
inflation is up 13.4 percent. But during that time, the minimum wage
has not increased one cent. That is unconscionable and downright un-
American.
Mr. Speaker, today more than ever America's hard-working families are
feeling squeezed, living paycheck to paycheck. I can tell you Mr.
Speaker that record prices at the pump, skyrocketing health care costs
and the rising cost of college in the face of falling or flat wages,
are squeezing hard-working Texans in my Houston-based Congressional
District as they struggle to make ends meet. That is why ensuring that
the minimum wage is increased to $7.25 per hour is one of the nation's
highest priorities.
For Texas workers the basic cost of living is rising; it is only fair
that the pay for hard-working Texans does too. Nearly 890,000 hard-
working Texans would directly benefit from raising the federal minimum
wage to $7.25 an hour, and 1,774,000 more Texans would likely benefit
from the raise.
Raising the minimum wage is vital for Texas families. At $5.15 an
hour, a full-time minimum wage worker in Texas brings home $10,712 a
year--nearly $6,000 below the poverty level for a family of three. An
increase of $2.10 an hour would give these families a much needed
additional $4,400 a year to meet critical needs such as rent, health
care, food and child care. The increase in the minimum wage before us
today will not allow workers to live as large as the typical CEO, who
now earns 821 times more than a minimum wage worker, but at least it
will allow these low-wage workers to make a little better life for
themselves and their families.
Mr. Speaker, 89 percent of Americans favor raising the minimum wage.
Americans know that the minimum wage must be increased. They know low-
wage workers, many of whom live in your district and mine, badly need
the money and have been waiting for it for too long. That is why I urge
all members to support H.R. 976, which is inextricably linked to the
minimum wage increase.
{time} 1600
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank everybody who participated in this debate and all of those who
worked so hard to bring forth this legislation in a bipartisan fashion.
I will be asking for a ``no'' vote, Mr. Speaker, on the previous
question, so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to
consider H.R. 60, a bill by our colleague, Mr. Baird, under suspension
of the rules.
As I stated before, Mr. Speaker, Congress passed last year the Tax
Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, which included State and local
sales tax deductions.
Over the last 2 years, the sales tax deduction has resulted in
billions of dollars in tax savings to millions of hardworking taxpayers
throughout the United States. These tax savings have meant a boost to
the economy of seven important States affected by the deduction:
Washington, Texas, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, South Dakota and
Wyoming. However, that important tax deduction will expire at the end
of this year. Failure to extend the sales tax deduction will mean that
our constituents may face an unfortunate tax increase.
By defeating the previous question, we will give Members the ability
to vote on H.R. 60. Without passage of this important legislation that
extends the sales tax deduction, millions in States without an income
tax, Washington, Texas, Florida, Nevada, Tennessee, South Dakota and
Wyoming, will face a tax increase.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I first of all would like to thank my fellow
New Yorker and the dean of our delegation, Chairman Rangel, for his
very hard work in bringing this very important bipartisan bill to the
floor. I think it shows the depth of his knowledge and understanding of
the issues, and I think it is very critical that we address this bill
today.
Mr. Speaker, $1.3 billion in tax relief for our small business owners
is the kind of sensible, responsible tax relief I am proud to support.
Let's help small businesses do what they do best, and that is create
jobs and strengthen our economy.
During the debate at the Rules hearing, some of my colleagues were
asking the question why we had to move so quickly on this bill, why we
couldn't wait until Congress came back in session.
I couldn't help but think of the old adage, why put off until
tomorrow what you can do today. People who earn $5.15 who want the
minimum wage raised have been waiting for 10 years. People in small
business who pay more than they need to want tax breaks. It is the
sensible thing to do, and it is the sensible thing to do right now.
As I said earlier, this is a win-win scenario, because passage of
this bipartisan fiscally responsible legislation will also clear the
way for a much-needed and well-deserved increase in the minimum wage.
America's workers have been waiting far too long for a pay raise. Let's
not make them wait any longer.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and on the previous question,
because our small business owners need some relief and American workers
deserve a raise.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 161 Offered by Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida
On page 1, line 6, strike the period and insert ``, and the
bill (H.R. 60) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
make permanent the deduction of State and local general sales
taxes.''.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's American
Congressional Dictionary: ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled Amending Special Rules states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion
[[Page H1853]]
and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adopting the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 188, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 100]
YEAS--218
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--188
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--28
Baird
Berman
Boustany
Calvert
Costello
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
Everett
Flake
Gallegly
Gohmert
Goode
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastert
Hulshof
Kaptur
LaHood
Latham
LoBiondo
Lowey
Miller, Gary
Murphy, Tim
Nadler
Smith (TX)
Stark
Wicker
{time} 1628
Messrs. THORNBERRY, BILBRAY, HALL of Texas, COOPER, GORDON of
Tennessee, EDWARDS, ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, TANNER and SHAYS changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WYNN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220,
noes 184, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 101]
AYES--220
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
[[Page H1854]]
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--184
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--29
Baird
Berman
Boustany
Calvert
Costello
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
Everett
Flake
Gallegly
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastert
Hulshof
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LoBiondo
Lowey
Miller, Gary
Murphy, Tim
Nadler
Pence
Roybal-Allard
Smith (TX)
Stark
Towns
Wicker
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1636
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 against:
Mr. KUHL of New York. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 101 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________