[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12709-12716]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5672, SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE, 
        COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 890 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 890

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5672) making appropriations for Science, the 
     Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill for 
     failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived 
     except: beginning with the colon on page 15, line 18, through 
     page 16, line 4; page 24, lines 17 and 18; and section 607. 
     Where points of order are waived against part of a paragraph, 
     points of order against language in another part of such 
     paragraph may be made only against such other part and not 
     against the entire paragraph. During consideration of the 
     bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises 
     and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 
     that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, 
     to consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment 
     of the House and Senate during the month of July.
       Sec. 3. House Resolution 878 is laid upon the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 890 is an open rule, and it provides 1 hour of 
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. This 
resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
and provides that under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read 
for amendment by paragraph. This resolution waives points of order 
against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative 
provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the 
resolution.
  It authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members 
who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. This 
resolution provides that it shall be in order, any rule of the House to 
the contrary notwithstanding, to consider concurrent resolutions 
providing for adjournment of the House and Senate during the month of 
July and provides also that H. Res. 878 is laid on the table.

[[Page 12710]]

  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 890 and 
the underlying appropriations bill.
  H.R. 5672 will fund many of the priorities of this Nation, combating 
terrorism and crime, strengthening our economy, fostering diplomatic 
relations and, finally, advancing scientific growth and innovation 
throughout this country. Each of these priorities is essential to 
ensure a stronger and a more secure America, and this bill increases 
funding over last year for almost each and every one of these 
priorities.
  I should also add, to the credit of the committee, under the 
leadership of Chairman Wolf, that this bill also contains almost $200 
million in savings for our taxpayers. I want to thank Chairman Wolf for 
his stewardship of this bill.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 5672 provides $22.1 billion for the Department of 
Justice. That is almost $724 million above last year, and it is $1 
billion above the President's request.
  This $22 billion includes $6 billion for the FBI, as they develop and 
execute better ways to combat terrorism and fight various forms of 
crime, from child exploitation to gang violence. This increased funding 
means improved information technology, better counterintelligence 
capabilities, and a greater number of highly trained human assets on 
the ground.
  Additionally, because State and local law enforcement play a 
fundamental and a critical role in fighting crime, this bill includes 
$2.6 billion for their efforts. And that is an increase of $1.1 billion 
over the President's request.
  H.R. 5672 also includes $558 million for the Edward Byrne Justice 
Assistance Grants program. That is $147 million over last year, fiscal 
year 2006.

                              {time}  1100

  And to fight this scourge of methamphetamines which sadly pervades so 
many of our communities, including those of my own, Georgia's 11th, 
this bill provides $1.75 billion for the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, the DEA.
  Unquestionably, this bill demonstrates the commitment of this 
Congress, working with the President, to continually reassess and 
strengthen our security and our law enforcement priorities, ensuring 
that threats at home and abroad are identified and neutralized.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 5672 also provides $22.7 billion to fund our 
Nation's scientific priorities, with $16.7 billion for NASA as well as 
$6 billion for the National Science Foundation. Having practiced as an 
OB-GYN for almost 30 years, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of 
encouraging scientific advancement in saving lives and improving our 
quality of life. Scientific innovation also captivates the minds of our 
children and other generations to come as they dream to develop 
technologies that will change the world of tomorrow.
  Madam Speaker, this bill also includes funding to further improve the 
world of today by providing $9.7 billion for the State Department. Of 
that, $1.7 billion goes to secure and replace our vulnerable embassies 
throughout the world.
  H.R. 5672 includes $5.95 billion for the Department of Commerce, $900 
million for the Securities and Exchange Commission, $294 million for 
the Federal Communications Commission, and $213 million for the Federal 
Trade Commission.
  Madam Speaker, these dollars are essential to not only building a 
stronger economy but also ensuring a fair and a level playing field for 
everyone who participates in this economy.
  Madam Speaker, last but not least, this bill also includes $643 
million for the SBA, the Small Business Administration, which will 
support business loans to help entrepreneurs across our great Nation 
access critical start-up capital for new businesses. Without question, 
our economy is driven by small businesses and the entrepreneurs who are 
willing to take a chance and turn a dream into a reality.
  In conclusion, this bill also makes provisions for three very 
important programs in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia. I 
want to mention these because they are so important.
  The Inner Harbor EXCEL Program in Rockmart, Georgia, in Polk County, 
provides quality services for at-risk youth and offers a viable 
alternative to incarceration. It funds the Douglas County Zero to Three 
Program which helps the county's juvenile courts to better address the 
needs of neglected and maltreated infants and toddlers.
  And, lastly, the National Association of Court Management, which aims 
to improve our courts and develop related educational programs.
  I want to again thank Chairman Wolf for his support of these programs 
which are so very important to the people of northwest Georgia.
  Madam Speaker, as we move forward with this debate, I want to 
encourage my colleagues to please support this rule and support the 
underlying bill as we stand together in support of funding our Nation's 
priorities.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, this morning, we are certainly on an important 
appropriations bill, but I would like to spend my time this morning 
talking about a portion of the bill that we were not able to get into 
the bill.
  Last week, the American people watched as the majority led the charge 
against the estate tax. Republicans argued they were doing it for the 
benefit of small businesses and independent farmers. But the majority 
could not provide even one concrete example that supported their claim. 
No farm has been found, no small business has been found that had to go 
under because of the estate tax.
  What the Republicans were really interested in was the 3/10ths of 1 
percent of Americans who pay the tax, super-rich families, 18 of whom 
have spent a combined $490 million over the last 10 years in their 
quest to make the estate tax disappear. Today, I would ask my friends 
in the majority to compare that sum, $490 million just in lobbying 
costs, to the amount of money a full-time minimum wage earner makes in 
an entire year, which is $10,712.
  The minimum wage has not been increased in 9 years. Because of 
inflation, it is effectively at its lowest level of purchasing power 
since 1955. And this majority wants to keep it that way.
  In fact, last night, in the Rules Committee, the majority refused to 
allow an amendment to this bill that would have increased the minimum 
wage, so we won't have the chance to debate it here today.
  Contrary to the claims of Republicans, minimum wage earners aren't 
just teenagers. Indeed, 46 percent of them are over the age of 25, and 
35 percent are the sole wage earners for their families, many of them 
working two and three minimum wage jobs to put some food on table.
  Despite what Republicans will say today, there is no empirical 
evidence to suggest that an increase in the minimum wage would either 
increase poverty or cost small-business jobs. In fact, the studies that 
are available show the opposite to be the case. Twenty States have 
higher minimum wage standards than are federally required. A Center for 
American Progress study found that, between 1998 and 2003, small 
business employment in those States grew at an average of 9.4 percent. 
In contrast, it grew at an average of only 6.6 percent everywhere else.
  There is also no established connection between increases in the 
minimum wage and an increase in poverty, contrary to the rhetoric. Once 
again, the opposite is true. Obviously, when you increase salaries in a 
way that does not decrease employment opportunities, the increase in 
the minimum wage helps people to rise out of poverty and gives them 
more spending power.
  Finally, consider that 81 percent of all the respondents in America 
to a January poll said raising the minimum wage was an important 
priority in their mind. If only 19 percent of Americans aren't thinking 
about it, that is overwhelming.
  And so, Madam Speaker, my Republican friends find themselves in a 
bind. In their steadfast and determined opposition to even a moderate 
increase in

[[Page 12711]]

the minimum wage, they cannot claim to be speaking for the American 
people. They can't claim to be speaking on behalf of the available 
evidence, either, because that evidence indicates that an increase in 
the minimum wage will help American workers and the economy, not hurt 
them.
  Republicans can't really claim to be speaking for anyone, anyone 
except, that is, the small group of rich business groups who have 
dedicated a tremendous amount of time, energy and money to fighting a 
minimum wage increase. It should not come as a surprise, of course. 
Ultra-rich special interest groups were the reason that they worked so 
hard to overturn the estate tax last week, and we really shouldn't 
expect anything today that would be different.
  Madam Speaker, what we are seeing is a democracy that has been 
broken, par for the course from the party that recently tabled the 
renewal of the Voting Rights Act. Our elected officials are supposed to 
base their decisions on the will of the people, but this leadership 
cares only about the will of a few rich businessmen.
  We all know that our democracy was designed to keep this House 
responsive to the needs of the public, but history shows us that this 
leadership listens only to well-paid lobbyists and is willing to do 
almost anything to ensure their agenda is implemented. For years, they 
have repeatedly assaulted the process, abusing rules and the ethical 
standards of this Congress to get what they want, no matter the price.
  When Democrats opposed a repeal of the estate tax last week, we did 
so because we believe those who have benefited the most from our 
society have an obligation to give the most back. This week, I think we 
saw that, with a great gift of Warren Buffett, one of our richest 
persons and citizens, to help the people at large, not just in America 
but throughout the world.
  I ask my Republican colleagues, is that the American dream for you? 
Or is it one where people cannot get a raise in their minimum income to 
be able to take care of their families? Is working 40 hours a week for 
poverty wages the American dream for you? Or is it the belief that 
honest workers will be given an honest chance to build the life for 
themselves that they deserve?
  We have not forgotten that dream on our side. We are going to 
continue to stand united behind Americans as they pursue it. We also 
stand for an open and honest democratic government that will demand it. 
And we will not rest until we have made this House the People's House 
once more, because the citizens of this great Nation deserve no less.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, at this time, I want to yield as much 
time as he might consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Georgia for 
yielding and for his superb management of this very important 
appropriation bill that is coming forward. I also want to extend my 
appreciation to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for the hard 
work that he has put into this very important measure. It is a 
bipartisan bill that I know enjoys broad support.
  I know that the topic of discussion is the issue of increasing the 
minimum wage. I would like to say for the record, as I did in the Rules 
Committee last night, that I am a strong proponent of seeing the 
minimum wage increase. I want to see every American's opportunity 
increased, and I believe that the policies that we have put into place, 
not providing some sort of guarantee, I mean, States have minimum wage 
rates. My minimum wage rate in the State of California is substantially 
higher than the Federal minimum wage rate. There are some States that 
have a lower minimum wage, and I think it plays a role in the standard 
of living.
  But I am one who has traditionally been concerned about the notion of 
mandating from the Federal level an increase in the minimum wage. I 
know that that is the issue that is going to be talked about time and 
time again. An argument is propounded by many that we somehow are more 
interested in the rich than we are in those who are trying to get onto 
the first rung of the economic ladder. Nothing could be further from 
the case. We believe very strongly in ensuring opportunity for every 
single American.
  We want to make sure that there is opportunity out there, and there 
have been a wide range of empirical studies done, Madam Speaker, that 
show that if we look at the impact that it has on small businesses and 
on a wide range of other entities out there, it can be inflationary 
and, in fact, it can cost jobs.
  Now, I know a lot of people try to dispute that and say that it 
hasn't happened, but I think that realizing we have a 4.6 percent 
unemployment rate, as has been said time and time again by the 
President and others, it is lower than the average for the last four 
decades, we have a strong, growing economy today and I would not want 
to take any action whatsoever that could potentially impinge on the 
economic growth that we are enjoying.
  And we want to see everyone's wages increase. We want there to be 
greater opportunity for people to improve themselves. So, regardless of 
what arguments you might hear to the contrary, we are passionately 
committed to that. Some of us just have difficulty with having the 
Federal Government mandate it.
  I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Wolf, 
and Jerry Lewis, who chairs the full committee, for this work product; 
and I want to talk about one particular issue that has been very 
important to me for the last 12 years.
  Back in 1994, Madam Speaker, we established something known as SCAAP. 
That is kind of an intriguing acronym that is out there. It is known as 
the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. The idea behind that is 
the fact that the Federal Government has the responsibility for the 
security of our Nation's borders. We all know that. We have had a 
raging debate that has gone on in this body and in the other body.
  We are hoping very much that we are going to be able to come up with 
a measure that focuses first on border security, which is what we did 
in the House bill, but as we look at the things that were included in 
that measure, increasing border fencing, criminalizing those who would 
allow their property to be used for tunneling under the border, a wide 
range of things, we also have to recognize that there is a real problem 
that exists in this country today and that is there are many people 
here illegally who have committed crimes, and in light of the fact that 
they have committed these crimes, they have been incarcerated 
throughout the country.
  In my county alone of Los Angeles, and I represent both Los Angeles 
and San Bernardino Counties, the great sheriff, Lee Baca, who was just 
reelected a few weeks ago, he is in Los Angeles County, and Sheriff 
Gary Penrod in San Bernardino County, they have come to me regularly 
and said that it costs millions and millions and millions of dollars 
for the incarceration, of criminal justice of people who are in this 
country illegally who have committed crimes. In fact, Sheriff Baca has 
told me repeatedly that it costs $150 million a year in Los Angeles 
County alone.
  Now one of the things that we have done over the past 6 years, we 
have been able to provide roughly $1 billion to the State of California 
for the reimbursement. Again, we don't cover all the costs, but it is, 
I believe, important for us at the Federal level to step up to the 
plate and realize that security of our borders is a top priority, and 
if there are people who are in here illegally committing crimes and a 
cost is thrown onto the shoulders of State and local governments, we 
should provide this reimbursement.

                              {time}  1115

  Last year, I was privileged to work with our colleague, Jim Kolbe, 
and we coauthored an amendment that increased by $50 million the 
funding level for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program to $405 
million. What we have done this year, and I take my hat off to

[[Page 12712]]

the distinguished members of the Appropriations Committee who have 
worked so hard on this, we have actually seen the committee itself come 
up with a level of $405 million. Again, that is not enough, Madam 
Speaker, but it is, I believe, a very important step to say to those 
who are taking on this responsibility at the State and local levels 
that they should be reimbursed.
  We have to secure our borders. We have to do everything that we 
possibly can to bring an end to the problem of illegal immigration. As 
we continue to work on that, it is absolutely imperative that we do all 
that we can to make sure that the Federal Government takes its 
responsibility.
  So this is an open rule that we have, and I believe it is very 
appropriate. It has funding for important measures.
  Another issue that is very important to me is the fact that when it 
comes to space research, we have been able to improve the quality of 
life for people all over this country and around the world. One of the 
greatest centers of that operation happens to be the Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory, which is part of the California Institute of Technology. 
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is in Pasadena.
  I am proud to say the Jet Propulsion Laboratory is in La Canada-
Flintridge. I jointly represent that area with our colleague Adam 
Schiff. When I look at this bill, I am very pleased that recognition of 
the importance of that facility and the programs there is included in 
it.
  So this is a good bill. I am strongly supportive of it and believe 
the rule will allow for a wide-ranging debate.
  Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I am urging every Member to vote ``no'' on 
the rule as a protest against the Rules Committee action in refusing to 
allow a minimum-wage increase amendment to be attached to this bill.
  I know that there are some people that say it shouldn't be on this 
bill; but the fact is, Mr. Hoyer and I and several others tried to have 
it attached to the Labor-Health-Education appropriations bill, and 
after we won, with the help of seven Republicans and 1 Democrat, the 
House Republican leadership decided to prevent that bill from coming to 
the floor of the House. So now we are trying to attach it to this bill.
  I make no apology for that. The majority leader of the Senate 
attached 40 pages of unrelated language to the defense bill last year, 
language which insulated the pharmaceutical industry from lawsuits.
  This issue is not about committee jurisdiction. This issue is about 
whose side are you on. For more than 9 years, we have seen no increase 
in the minimum wage. I take that problem personally, because after my 
parents were divorced, my mother worked for the minimum wage, and I can 
tell you how it feels to see a woman work 40 hours and come home with 
less than $40 in the check. It doesn't feel very good.
  I can tell you how it feels to see you run out of money before you 
run out of days of the month, so at the end of every month, you have to 
take a household item, a table or a lamp or a radio, down to Etzkins' 
Pawn Shop to get a little money to get through the month. And the 
outrageous fact is that today, the minimum wage buys less than it did 
when my mother was earning it a number of years ago.
  This Congress has an obligation to do something about that, but it 
hasn't. In the meantime, food prices have gone up by 20 percent, 
housing costs have gone up by 25 percent, medical expenses have gone up 
by 40 percent, and gas prices have doubled.
  Last week, this institution voted to take no action to block a cost-
of-living increase for Members of Congress. It takes a woman working at 
the minimum wage 4 months to earn the equivalent of that congressional 
COLA. Four months. What is the matter with people in this institution 
if they can justify a COLA increase for Members of Congress at the same 
time that they have been blocking a minimum-wage increase for 9 years? 
I find it outrageous.
  I don't want to hear this baloney about, ``Oh, President Clinton 
warned that he would veto the minimum wage a few years ago.'' President 
Clinton was a strong proponent of the minimum-wage increase. He was 
forced to warn the Congress that he would find a bill fiscally 
irresponsible if the Congress took the minimum wage and attached it to 
over $200 billion in tax giveaways and tax cuts that were paid for 
totally with borrowed money.
  So let's not have any nonsense on this floor about how President 
Clinton, after all, resisted the minimum wage. What President Clinton 
did was to resist the taking of the minimum wage hostage to the tax 
writing, borrow-to-pay-for-tax-cut schemes of the majority party.
  So, Madam Speaker, this, to me, is a matter of elemental decency. It 
is a matter of equity. A Congress that does nothing to stand in the way 
of a cost-of-living increase for itself is a Congress that certainly 
ought to have the decency to pass a minimum-wage increase for the 
people we are talking about.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, in regard to some of the minimum-wage arguments the 
gentleman from Wisconsin is making, I want to point out, and these are 
not my statistics, but these are accurate statistics, that one-third of 
minimum-wage workers are children of the head of a household. Over 
half, 52 percent, actually of minimum-wage workers are under 25 years 
old. Less than 1 percent of minimum-wage workers are in households with 
a total income of $20,000 or less.
  The big concern, of course, Madam Speaker, in regard to minimum wage, 
and I am certainly not suggesting that that issue might not be 
considered by this Congress in a more appropriate setting than this 
appropriations bill, indeed it might, and indeed we may need to raise 
that minimum wage somewhat, but we have to be very, very careful that 
in the process we don't destroy some of these jobs.
  The gentleman talked about a situation with his own mom, and there 
are plenty of people in those situations. But if we raise the minimum 
wage to too high a level, then they won't have any job at all to come 
home from.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Sweeney), a hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation. Let me point out that I think Chairman Wolf and Ranking 
Member Mollohan have done a spectacular job in very tight circumstances 
with this bill. Having been on the committee in the past, I am very 
proud of this work product.
  As my friend from Georgia pointed out, this bill has a multiple of 
purposes, and one of them is to help fund the efforts of the State 
Department to establish diplomatic relations throughout the world.
  Twenty years ago in West Berlin the La Belle Discotheque was bombed 
by the Libyan Government. Eighteen years ago, over Lockerbie, Scotland, 
Pan Am Flight 103 was shot down by the Libyan Government.
  Madam Speaker, that was at the beginning of, the early part of, the 
war on terror and terrorism. Lockerbie had an incredible toll, 270 
murdered victims, with 189 Americans part of that. La Belle had two GIs 
murdered in that bombing and 50 permanently injured American citizens.
  In 2002, Libya agreed to pay compensation to the families of 
Lockerbie in order to avoid a criminal trial, avoid a criminal trial. 
In 2004, they agreed to pay $35 million to the victims of the La Belle 
Discotheque.
  During the full Appropriations Committee markup, I passed an 
amendment, Madam Speaker, that prohibits the State Department from 
fully establishing diplomatic ties with Libya and accepting a Libyan 
ambassador until the Libyan Government makes full

[[Page 12713]]

compensation payments to the victims of these two horrendous terrorist 
acts. You may ask why I did that and why that was appropriated in this 
bill. Well, it is about timing.
  On May 15, the State Department proposed the removal of Libya from 
the list of state-sponsored terrorist nations. Congress has 45 days 
under the law to review that removal. That 45 days will be up this 
Thursday. I fear very much so, and that is why we incorporated it into 
this bill, that this is the last opportunity that this government has 
to do the right thing for the people, for American citizens who have 
been victimized by terrorist attacks.
  Without the language that was put into the full appropriations markup 
and protected by the Rules Committee, this Congress, this government, 
might not be there to stand and do the right thing, which, 
unfortunately, over the last 20 years it has shown it has not been all 
that willing to do for the victims of these vicious attacks.
  So I want to thank Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee and I want 
to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos of the International 
Relations Committee for agreeing that it is important that we go 
forward and ensure that the full compensation, the reparations, if you 
will, to these families, is maintained.
  Madam Speaker, in 2002, Libya agreed to pay compensation to the 
families, in order to avoid a criminal trial. While 80 percent of that 
agreement has been met, the remaining 20 percent was held back by Libya 
as long as they remained on the U.S. list of state sponsors of 
terrorism.
  Libya has now been removed from that list, and must now follow 
through on its agreements. The State Department removed Libya from the 
list on May 15th. Congress has 45 days to review the removal of Libya. 
That 45-day window is up on Thursday. We need to send a strong signal 
to Libya that they must live up to their deal.
  Some of my constituents experienced this act of terror very 
personally. Glendon and Margaret Rafferty, of Ticonderoga in my 
Congressional District, lost four family members-- their daughter 
Bonnie Leigh Williams, son-in-law Eric, and granddaughters Stephanie 
and Brittany. Joan and Tom Dater, of Pittstown in my Congressional 
District, lost their daughter, Gretchen.
  Despite Libya's pending removal from the state sponsors of terror 
list, Libya publicly stated yesterday they are no longer obliged to pay 
the final installment of these reparations to the families. This is 
unacceptable.
  I will point out to my colleagues, if they don't think it is serious, 
the Libyan Government indicated yesterday that they don't intend to 
meet the full obligations under this agreement, just as they have for 
20 years stonewalled efforts by those families to reach some reward; 
and I don't know if we can call it a just reward, because it really 
isn't. Money is not going to replace their loved ones or their children 
murdered here, but at least some branch of this government is going to 
step up and say that it is wrong that that happened, that we not going 
to let it happen, and you don't just get a free pass back in once you 
have committed those kinds of horrendous, awful terrorist acts.
  I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for joining with 
me on this. I want to let the families of these attacks know that we 
are with them.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 seconds simply to say 
that the workers who need it most, 57 percent of the benefits of the 
wage increase will go to families with working adults in the bottom 40 
percent of the income scale. It is true that people are trying to raise 
families on the minimum wage.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I regret that this rule does not make in order two 
amendments that were offered during full committee.
  First, I offered an amendment that would provide $600 million 
additional money to this bill to protect our communities, invest in 
economic development, especially in rural areas, provide critical legal 
assistance to low-income families and respond to concerns by Members 
about the Federal investment in science and education funding. All of 
this, Madam Speaker, would have been accomplished by just nicking by 
about $1,657 the tax cut received by the wealthiest people in this 
country, those who make over $1 million a year.
  Under this amendment, those who make over $1 million a year, instead 
of an average tax break of $114,172, under this amendment, which would 
have allowed us to put $600 million more into this bill for those 
worthy causes, they would have received an average of $112,515. All of 
that could have been paid for, and certainly they would not have been 
hurt at all.
  Well, we had a good debate in full committee, an hour and a half 
long, touching on the budget policy of the past few administrations, 
the budget resolution that resulted in this bill's tight allocation and 
the tax cuts that I believe are evidence that the Bush administration 
is not serious about balancing this budget.
  This discussion was important because it was a reminder of our 
different priorities. My amendment is a reflection of the Democratic 
priorities that, with more funding, could be reflected in this bill, 
and I regret that that amendment was not made in order today.
  I also was concerned that the rule does not make in order an 
amendment that I was proud to cosponsor with Representatives Hoyer and 
Obey that would have raised the minimum wage, which has not been 
increased since 1997, from $5.15 to $7.25 by January 1, 2009.

                              {time}  1130

  The increase would occur in three increments, 70 cents each on 
January 1, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Such a small amount of money would have 
huge meaning to working families.
  There are 7 million low-wage workers that would receive an increase 
in their hourly wage rate and increase their standard of living if the 
minimum wage were increased.
  While I am pleased that the rule does provide protection for an ill-
advised tax on commercial explosives which was proposed by President 
Bush, this rule does not protect this ill-advised tax the President's 
fiscal year 2007 budget contained for the second year in a row, a tax 
on the users of explosives. My State, due to its extraction industry, 
would bear the largest share of the burden associated with this tax. At 
an appropriate point in this bill, I intend to make a point of order 
against the tax.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The gentleman is talking about how he would pay for his amendment 
that would cost $600 million. Madam Speaker, I think it is important 
that we point out that they always say how much of a tax break people 
making more than a million dollars, and they talk about a $114,000 tax 
break, and we are going to cut that down to $112,000, but they never 
say, the gentleman from West Virginia certainly did not say, how much 
these people with an adjusted gross income of over $1 million are 
actually paying in taxes every year. It is a huge number, and they do 
not want to share that with the fellow Members.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule 
because it precludes the consideration of an increase in the minimum 
wage which has not been increased in 8 years.
  In regard to the underlying bill, I do appreciate the work of the 
chairman and the ranking member in funding valuable programs within 
this year's utterly inadequate allocation. I am pleased that this bill 
contains funding for SBA's Microloan program.
  For the past 3 years, the President has recommended eliminating this 
program, but this Congress has funded SBA Microloans every year since 
the program was established in 1992 by the first President Brush.
  Last week, on a bipartisan basis, the Appropriations Committee 
restored funding for SBA's Microloan program for fiscal year 2007. 
These Microloans

[[Page 12714]]

go to people with viable businesses who have limited credit history, 
limited collateral, and limited or no business experience. They go to 
low-income individuals, women and minority owners that have faced 
obstacles in securing capital, and they are a significant source of new 
jobs in rural areas.
  Through the Microloan program, intermediaries have provided 23,500 
loans totaling more than $282 million, averaging only $12,500 per loan, 
a small amount of funding each year. This program has created over 
64,000 jobs during its existence. In my district, the Western 
Massachusetts Enterprise Fund has issued 92 loans, for a total of $1.5 
million and created 180 jobs.
  Businesses that use the Microloan program receive more than just 
financial backing. Lender intermediaries offer technical assistance and 
support to these small business owners as their companies develop. The 
assistance component of the program lasts throughout the life of the 
loan and ensures a high success rate.
  Intermediaries like the Western Mass Enterprise Fund respond to the 
needs of owners at each step in the business growth.
  As we all know, small businesses are the lifeblood of the American 
economy. The greatest job growth in the economy comes from the growth 
of successful small businesses.
  With that, I again, Madam Speaker, urge, in spite of good features in 
the underlying bill, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, at this time I have no additional 
requests for time, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, for the last 5 years Republicans have 
stood by as the compensation of chief executive officers of major 
corporations has soared. At the same time, the salaries of middle-class 
Americans have stood absolutely still.
  The minimum wage has not been raised since 1997, almost a decade. In 
that time, Congress has voted to increase its own pay nine times. If 
this Congress can get a raise, the American people ought to be able to 
get a raise. Had it been merely adjusted just for inflation from its 
level in 1968, those earning minimum wage would be making $9.05 instead 
of $5.15. Instead, its purchasing power remains at its lowest level in 
half a century.
  Madam Speaker, millions of full-time minimum wage workers and their 
families live in poverty. Sixty percent of minimum wage workers are 
women. They are adults over 20 years old. On average, minimum wage 
workers contribute over half of their total family's income. Who can 
live, much less raise a family, on $10,700 a year?
  It is not just the cost of milk and bread that has increased by 25 
percent since it was last raised, Madam Speaker. Four-year public 
college tuition has increased 77 percent, health insurance 97 percent, 
gasoline 136 percent. Today, it takes a full day's pay for a minimum 
wage worker to pay for a single tank of gas.
  Is there any clearer indication that the quality of life for those 
earning minimum wage in this country has decreased? Is there any more 
obvious sign that these families are headed in a downward spiral? The 
cost of everything is going up, while their wages are spiraling down.
  For Democrats, this is a moral issue. We believe we should be raising 
the minimum wage, one of the best tools we have to keep families from 
falling off an economic cliff in this country. Even more than that, we 
believe something very elemental, that people who work full time in 
America should not be poor. We believe that their families should not 
be poor.
  The fact is that despite the fact the economy grew 4.2 percent last 
year, its best statistical performance since 1999, very little of this 
growth is reaching many families. Indeed, over the past 5 years, 
productivity as measured by real GDP per hour worked has risen by about 
14 percent, as the real wages of non-managerial workers have risen less 
than 2 percent. Who is getting the 12 percent?
  So when people look at the statistics like that and wonder where is 
the rest of the money going, all they need to do is to look at their 
Congress emptying the Treasury by passing massive estate tax cuts for 
the likes of millionaires and billionaires.
  Madam Speaker, by raising the minimum wage to $7.25, this Congress 
can say that hardworking families have a right to share in some of this 
economic growth, that this country is not about the survival of the 
fittest but about opportunity and opportunity for all.
  Lastly, Madam Speaker, there is a direct corollary between small 
business growth and the minimum wage. I think the findings would 
surprise many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  Between 1997 and 2003, small business employment grew more in States 
with a higher minimum wage, 9.4 percent, than in the Federal minimum 
wage States where it only grew 6.6 percent. That tells us that raising 
the minimum wage is not only a matter of economic security for families 
but for businesses and for our economy as well.
  So, Madam Speaker, I will oppose this rule, because I believe the 
American people need to know where their Representatives in this 
Congress stand when it comes to the minimum wage. They need to know, 
are you for economic security for families or are you against it? Do 
you stand with America's families or do you stand against them? That is 
the choice before this Congress today. I oppose the rule.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, in response to some of the comments the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut was making, and the gentleman from Wisconsin earlier 
said in his remarks that they wanted an opportunity, and was taking an 
opportunity on this bill, to discuss the minimum wage issue even though 
it was not the appropriate format, and I agree with that, I think that 
the discussion of this issue certainly would be more appropriate for 
the next appropriations bill that we will be considering, Labor-HHS. Or 
maybe it will come up even as a stand-alone measure. I do not know.
  But it just seems to me that on this appropriation bill, Science, 
State, Justice and Commerce Appropriations Act, that this is not the 
right format to bring up the issue.
  I do not question the gentleman's right or any of the Members on the 
other side of the aisle who have spoken during this rule time about the 
minimum wage issue. But this is not something that this is the last 
opportunity to get this done.
  I want to say, Madam Speaker, too, in regard to this issue, listen to 
this, minimum wage hikes pit low-skilled adults against teenagers from 
higher income families. This was an article in a newspaper May 13, 
2004.
  Employers react to minimum wage hikes by replacing low-skilled adults 
with teenagers from high-income families who are drawn into the job 
market by better pay. Decades of research confirmed what President 
Roosevelt's Department of Labor found just 1 year after the minimum 
wage made its debut in 1938.
  In a number of instances there have been reports that workers who 
have been receiving less than the minimum wage have been laid off and 
replaced by more efficient workers. Minimum wage hikes can destroy jobs 
and destroy them permanently. When jobs are destroyed by minimum wage 
hikes, those jobs often never come back.
  Again, this is a newspaper article from May 13, 2004. Following 
minimum wage increases, employers often replace less skilled employees 
with machines or simply reduce the level of service to customers. 
Businesses automate their telephone reception. Fast food diners bus 
their own tables. Gas stations go self-service. Shoppers scan and bag 
their own groceries.
  The point I am making, Madam Speaker, is that you have to be, and I 
know the gentleman from Wisconsin certainly understands these issues as 
well as anybody, but the concern is that you do not want to destroy 
jobs by raising the minimum wage to a level, that this in fact happens, 
as I quoted

[[Page 12715]]

from some of these articles in past statistics.
  I do not think that this side of the aisle is opposed to looking at 
this issue, and, again, whether it is on the Labor-HHS bill or whether 
it is on a stand-alone situation, but I do not think this is the 
appropriate time to have this debate.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, the gentleman says that this is an 
inappropriate bill to which to attach the minimum wage. The majority 
party has routinely attached gigantic pieces of legislation to 
appropriation bills.
  The Senate majority leader did that, as I just recited a few minutes 
ago, on an outrageous special interest provision insulating the drug 
companies from legal suit just a few months ago.
  Let me tell you what is inappropriate. What is inappropriate is to 
have a bunch of guys wearing suits in this Chamber sit on their duffs 
for 9 years and not find a way to increase the minimum wage for the 
lowest paid workers in this country. That is what is inappropriate.

                              {time}  1145

  This is what is outrageous, and that is why the ranking of this 
Congress is less than 23 percent in the public opinion polls. I would 
like to find somebody in that 23 percent. I cannot believe there are 23 
percent of the people who think this Congress has lived up to its 
obligations to middle-income workers and the middle class.
  The fact is, you can either help raise the minimum wage or you can 
stand as an obstacle to it. So far, the Rules Committee has stood as an 
obstacle to it. The Republican leadership of this House has stood as an 
obstacle to it. When we did attach it to the most appropriate 
appropriations bill, your leadership blocked that bill from coming 
forward.
  So give me a break. It is not that you do not think this is the 
appropriate vehicle. It says your party, by a 2-1 ratio, in this House 
is really against the minimum wage increase; and that is outrageous 
after you have just voted to give yourself a COLA.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to make sure that the gentleman from Wisconsin knows that 
this Member voted against giving himself a COLA and has consistently 
done that in the two terms that I have served.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGREY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I wish more Members would join him and me.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I have no further requests for time, and I will close with an urge to 
my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule as a protest against not 
being able to raise the minimum wage. The idea that if we were to raise 
that 50 cents would cause such inflationary spirals in this country is 
so laughable that I am surprised anybody would even try to contemplate 
such a thing, or that in order to have to pay somebody an extra dollar 
an hour you would go out and buy a many thousand dollar machine. I 
cannot imagine any businessperson in the country to be that incredibly 
dumb.
  The fact of the matter is that we simply have got our foot on the 
necks of those people, and we cannot worry about them because the 
concerns of this Congress are for the rich and not for those who are 
struggling to make it.
  Even if there are young people trying to pay their way through 
college, for heaven's sake, give them a better break. The college 
tuition costs have gone up higher than almost any other thing in the 
country. That is one of the reasons it always breaks my heart on the 
death rate and wounding rate in Iraq, because so many of the young and 
men and women who went into the Guard and Reserve did so in order to be 
able to get an education.
  I think it is deplorable that this country cannot provide better 
education opportunities for its students without having them to put 
their lives on the line, but that is the circumstances we find 
ourselves in.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I would simply like to point out small 
business employment between 1997 and 2003 grew at a faster rate in 
States with a higher minimum wage than it did in Federal minimum wage 
States, 9.4 percent versus 6.6 percent.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. The gentleman is correct, and I believe 43 States have 
had the wisdom to try to raise the minimum wage because we simply 
cannot get it done here.
  It should not be the luck of the draw where you are living whether 
the minimum wage is going to be raised or not. It is a responsibility 
we have and a responsibility, frankly, most people are tired of 
watching us shirk.
  With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule because of the minimum 
wage.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, in regard to minimum wage increases and the hope, the 
fact is that as minimum wage increases, hope for job seekers decrease. 
A Duke University economist found recently that for every 10 percent 
increase in mandated wages, the probability of job seekers finding a 
job decreased by nearly 3 percent, according to the Employment Policies 
Institute.
  Other top researchers found similar results. This one, a Boston 
University study, noted that low-skilled adults in States that raise 
their minimum wage are often crowded out of the job market by teens and 
students.
  Research from Michigan State University echoed this conclusion, 
finding that high-skilled teens are those who are perceived as 
desirable employees often displace low-skilled employees in a minimum 
wage job after a mandated wage hike.
  Madam Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in 
recognition of the importance of this underlying bill.
  H.R. 5672 funds the critical operations of our government from the 
diplomatic affairs of the State Department to the law enforcement 
activities of the Justice Department.
  Additionally, it provides funds for the various watchdog agencies 
that ensure a free and fair economic playing field for businesses and 
consumers alike.
  This bill has substantial funding for sciences, to make sure that 
America stays on the forefront of medical and technological innovation 
as we continue to reach for the stars, both literally and figuratively.
  While some critics may call for more funding of this program or that 
program, they not only fail to realize the limited funds available in 
this Federal budget but also fail to fully appreciate the hard work of 
the subcommittee in balancing our funding needs with the need to 
respect the taxpayer dollar.
  Madam Speaker, while this bill may not be perfect, no bill is, it is 
a good bill that sets priorities and it sets a solid vision for the 
future on multiple fronts.
  So, in conclusion, I again want to thank subcommittee Chairman Wolf, 
Ranking Member Mollohan, full committee Chairman Lewis and for all of 
the hard work and the time that went into this bill before us today.
  I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mrs. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I oppose the Rule, because it prevents 
an amendment offered by Representatives Obey, Hoyer and Mollohan to 
phase in over two years an

[[Page 12716]]

increase in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour.
  Madam Speaker, millions of hard working Americans are barely earning 
enough to support their families on the wages they are being paid. Some 
of these people are single mothers, and some are working several jobs 
just to make ends meet.
  Madam Speaker, the proposal to raise the minimum wage is a modest one 
and it is phased in over time.
  Department of Labor figures show that the minimum wage was at its 
most valuable in 1968, and since then its value has fluctuated, but it 
has never been lower than it is now.
  In January 2006, it would have needed to be increased to $9.05 to 
equal the purchasing power of the statutory minimum wage in 1968.
  There has been no raise in the minimum wage in almost ten years, and 
minimum wage increases over the years have not kept up with increased 
prices.
  I have always, and will continue always to support a reasonable 
increase in the minimum wage, and since the Rule sought to prohibit an 
amendment to do this, I oppose this Rule.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________