[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 775-798]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT OF 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 508 of House Resolution 
6, proceedings will now resume on the bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Fair 
Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase in the Federal 
minimum wage.

[[Page 776]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. When proceedings were postponed earlier 
today, 10 minutes of debate remained on the bill.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McKeon) each have 5 minutes remaining.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of time. I 
appreciate the debate. I appreciate the job that you have done as 
Speaker.
  This debate, Mr. Speaker, has been a good one, one marked by 
thoughtful dialogue on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, that 
thoughtful dialogue is limited to the last 3 hours, and only the last 3 
hours. We didn't have any dialogue in the Committee on Education and 
Labor, we didn't have any dialogue at the Rules Committee, and because 
of the unprecedented terms for today's debate, the dialogue that did 
take place here on the floor certainly won't lead to any improvements 
in this legislation, at least here in the House. However, I do hold out 
hope that in the weeks to come, as those on the other side of the 
Capitol take up this issue, we can build upon this unbalanced 
legislation and extend proper protections to small businesses and their 
workers.
  Nevertheless, the measure we are poised to vote on in a few minutes 
is marked more by what is not in the bill than what is in it. Small 
businesses are the backbone of our economy. They create two-thirds of 
our Nation's new jobs, and they represent 98 percent of the new 
businesses in the United States. What protection does this bill provide 
them? None whatsoever.
  The same small employers are looking for a more cost-effective way to 
offer health care benefits to their employees, just as large 
corporations and labor unions across our Nation can do because of 
economies of scale. What protections does this bill offer these same 
small employers? None whatsoever. They are the ones that are going to 
be providing these jobs that are going to be paying the higher wages, 
and they are getting no relief, no help. As a consequence, people, many 
people, one study says 1.6 million people, will end up losing their 
jobs as a result of this.
  Working families, many of whom would benefit from a minimum wage 
increase and many of whom depend upon small businesses, are looking to 
Congress for innovative solutions that would improve their access to 
affordable health care. What protections does this bill provide them? 
None whatsoever.
  My colleagues, we can do better. In the interest of sending the 
President a final measure that provides consideration for small 
businesses and their workers, the very men and women who are 
responsible for our economy's recent growth and strength, we must do 
better. And I believe, once Congress completes its work, we will do 
better. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to oppose this unbalanced 
legislation.
  As this debate continues in the weeks to come, I am hopeful that all 
of us will be mindful of the concerns and the sacrifices of small 
businesses in each and every one of our districts. If we do that and if 
we provide them the protections they need and deserve, I am confident 
that the final product we send to the President's desk will be far 
superior to the unbalanced and scaled-down measure that we are about to 
vote on.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending you for the job you did in 
the chair today and the manner in which you conducted the debate on 
this issue; and I appreciate the professionalism with which you handled 
the gavel.
  Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I want to thank all of our 
colleagues who participated in the debate today. We have our 
differences of opinions, but I thought that the debate was well 
conducted.
  We have waited for over 10 years to have this vote on the minimum 
wage, a clean vote on the minimum wage for the poorest workers in this 
country who have worked at a wage that is 10 years old.
  You know, very often Members of Congress will take the floor and they 
will harken back to the time in their youth when they worked at the 
minimum wage and they will talk about the different jobs they had. 
Well, let me share with you that I, too, share those experiences.
  I cleaned out oil tanks; I cleaned out ships; I drove trucks in the 
pear orchards; I picked fruit; I worked in the canneries; and sometimes 
I did two of those at the same time. I worked at night in the cannery 
and in the daytime in the oil refinery. I worked at the minimum wage. I 
wonder how I would have felt about that minimum wage if it had been 10 
years old. If I was working at the minimum wage and my wages were 10 
years into the past and everybody else working around me had current 
wages, I wonder how angry I would have been if I would have had to 
support a family--at one point I was supporting a family with those 
minimum wage jobs--I would have been very angry. I would have thought 
this was a very unfair system, that my wages were stuck 10 years in the 
past and everybody else's wages were current.
  Well, that is what has happened to these workers up until today. 
Today, we finally release them from being frozen in time, where their 
wages are from 10 years ago, but when they go to the supermarket, the 
food prices are higher; when they put gasoline in the car, the gasoline 
prices are higher; when they pay the utility bills, the utility bills 
are higher; when their kids get sick, the medical bills are higher. All 
of those things are higher. They are living in 2007, but in their wages 
they are living in 1997. There is something terribly, terribly wrong 
with that picture.
  That is why overwhelmingly throughout the country the people support 
this effort now to raise the minimum wage. Eighty-nine percent of the 
people believe that we should do this, and they basically believe it as 
a matter of economic fairness, of economic justice to these people who 
are working so hard at minimum wage, who, as we say over and over 
again, but remember what they are, they are the poorest paid workers in 
America today.
  And when they turn on the TV, when they watch it on their lunch 
break, they see a CEO walk away with $210 million and a golden 
handshake after that CEO took a good corporation and ran it into the 
ditch. They see people backdating stock options, they see people 
defrauding the corporation for extra compensation, and yet their wages 
are back in time.
  This is a question of economic fairness that the American public 
overwhelmingly responded to in this past election; and it is this issue 
of economic fairness that our new speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said would be 
the subject of this hundred hours, that we would begin by trying to 
make America a fairer place for those who go to work and for those who 
try to provide for their families. We would make America a fairer place 
and we would begin by increasing the minimum wage, and that is what we 
are going to do in the next few minutes, when we receive a strong and a 
bipartisan vote to increase the minimum wage for these workers.
  It is terribly important that we do this. It says something about us 
as a Nation. When it is questioned all over the world about the 
economic disparities in American society, the unfairness of it, we get 
a chance to begin that process to change that dynamic.

                              {time}  1600

  I think this is a wonderful moment for the House of Representatives, 
no matter what side of the aisle you sit on. We, the people's House, 
are going to address the needs of the people that we were elected to 
serve. They grant us, they grant us the authority and the ability and 
the honor to come to the Congress of the United States; and today, and 
today we are going to address their needs. Today, we are going to 
address the needs that have concerned them in their communities.
  If I have any time left, I want to thank the new majority leader for 
his

[[Page 777]]

efforts over these 10 years to try to bring this vote to the floor when 
time and time again he made that effort in the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman.
  We will celebrate Martin Luther King's birthday on Monday. I want to 
quote. He said this: ``Equality means dignity, and dignity demands a 
job and a paycheck that lasts through the week.''
  That is what this vote is about, and I thank the chairman for his 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, today, the United States House of Representatives, the 
people's House, demonstrated that we are committed to addressing the 
needs of all of our people--including those who struggle to make ends 
meet on the Federal minimum wage.
  Today, the House will pass legislation, on a bipartisan basis, to 
increase the Federal minimum wage by $2.10 per hour over the next 3 
years.
  The minimum wage, of course, has not been increased since September 
1, 1997, making this House action long overdue.
  Increasing the minimum wage is simply a matter of doing what's right, 
just and fair.
  Eighty-nine percent of the American people support such an increase, 
according to a Newsweek poll.
  President Bush has expressed his support.
  And a bipartisan majority of the Senate passed a minimum wage 
increase in June 2006.
  Now, we urge our colleagues in the Senate to hold a clean up-or-down 
vote on this issue as soon as possible.
  In the United States of America, the richest nation on earth, workers 
should not be relegated to poverty if they work hard and play by the 
rules.
  On Monday, we commemorate the life of a great American--Dr. Martin 
Luther King, Jr.
  And Dr. King once said: ``Equality means dignity. And dignity demands 
a job and a paycheck that lasts through the week.''
  Today, we heed those words.
  We must not ignore our citizens who are struggling.
  We must get the legislation to the President's desk without delay.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, today I proudly stand with our new 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and my Democratic colleagues as we live up to our 
promise to honor workers by passing the Fair Minimum Wage Act.
  Increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over 2 years 
is badly needed and long overdue.
  The previous Republican-led Congress passed tax cuts for the 
wealthiest and ignored the needs of hard working Americans earning the 
Federal minimum wage.
  The result has been that our Nation's Federal minimum wage workers 
have been forced to support themselves and their families for nine 
years on a mere $5.15 an hour, while at the same time the cost of 
living has continued to climb. The severity of a mere $5.15 hourly wage 
is highlighted by what is happening in my home State of California, 
where the State minimum wage is $7.50 an hour. This is more than two 
dollars an hour more than the current Federal minimum wage. Yet many 
Californians, including many in my own district, continue to live in 
poverty. How much greater a struggle for survival it must be for those 
in our country earning only $5.15 an hour.
  Who are the workers in our country earning the Federal minimum wage? 
Most are full time hard-working American adults. Most have not had the 
educational and career opportunities of higher wage earners. Many of 
these workers are minorities and nearly all of these workers provide 
essential services, often in jobs that are dangerous and unreliable, 
yet essential to our American economy. An hour's pay, $5.15, will not 
buy a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread. A day's wages will barely 
fill their car's tank with gasoline. And their monthly income may not 
be enough to cover their family's average monthly healthcare costs.
  It is unforgivable that thousands of hard working Americans in this 
country live $4,000 below the poverty line and struggle even to provide 
the basics of food and shelter for their families.
  The Fair Minimum Wage Act honors their hard work and significant 
contribution to our Nation's economy.
  Mr. Speaker, our consideration and approval of this bill as one of 
our first legislative actions is an important testament to this new 
Congress' commitment to hard-working low-income Americans who strive to 
provide for themselves and their families. The passage of this bill 
respects their work and their right to share in the American Dream.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Fair Minimum Wage Act.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, a 
bipartisan measure to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an 
hour over 2 years.
  I am proud to say that my home State of Michigan is ahead of the game 
on this issue. Governor Granholm and the State legislature have already 
passed legislation to increase the State minimum wage. A total of 28 
States and the District of Columbia have a State minimum wage above the 
current Federal level.
  I cannot understand why some of my colleagues are opposed to a 
measure that will directly benefit 5.7 million workers. Moreover, this 
measure clearly has the support of the American people. It is our job 
to represent the American people and I am proud that the new Democratic 
majority is getting the job done. We will succeed in raising the 
minimum wage during the first hundred hours of the 110th Congress--an 
accomplishment that the Republican majority could not--or shall I say 
cared not to--achieve in 10 years.
  It is wrong to have millions of Americans working full-time and year-
round and still living in poverty. At $5.15 an hour, a full-time 
minimum wage worker brings home $10,712 a year--nearly $6,000 below the 
poverty level for a family of three.
  Since 2000, America's families have seen their real income drop by 
almost $1,300, while the costs of health insurance, gasoline, and 
attending college have nearly doubled. Passing H.R. 2 would mean an 
additional $4,400 per year for a full-time worker supporting a family 
of three--equivalent to 15 months of groceries, or over 2 years of 
health care--helping them to keep up with rising costs.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is an important first step in a new 
direction for working families and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, after careful consideration of 
H.R. 2, it is with great regret that I announce my opposition to this 
version of a minimum wage increase.
  I believe an increase in the minimum wage should be accompanied by 
small business relief to offset the burden placed on U.S. employers, so 
these businesses can absorb the costs of an increase.
  Last year, I supported an increase in the minimum wage because it 
also included tax relief measures for employers to offset the cost of 
the proposed minimum wage increase. It is unfortunate that House 
leadership, rather than bring this balanced approach to the floor for a 
vote, instead introduced what basically amounts to an unfunded mandate 
on our Nation's small businesses.
  According to a 1999 study by the Small Business Administration, 
approximately 54 percent of our Nation's minimum wage earners are 
employed by firms who have less than 100 employees. This minimum wage 
increase will force our Nation's small businesses to make tough cost-
cutting decisions in order to stay in business. When coupled with 
health care cost increases they are already facing, which the National 
Federation of Independent Businesses estimates at 15-20 percent, many 
employers will be forced to either increase the costs of their products 
or lay-off lower skilled workers. Both options would have detrimental 
effects on the substantial progress our economy is making.
  This legislation also hurts job creation. Economists widely agree 
that an increase in the minimum wage without an offset for small 
business relief will result in much higher unemployment for workers. 
This is because an increase in the minimum wage also represents an 
increase in the costs faced by employers around the Nation. When our 
Nation's businesses face increases in their total cost per employee, 
they must often face the tough decision of either cutting jobs or 
reducing employee benefits such as health care, day care or vacation 
time as they struggle to pay for the new wage requirements.
  In short, it is essential that any increase in the minimum wage be 
accompanied by tax relief or health care savings for our Nation's small 
businesses. Because this legislation does not include any provisions 
that may offset the costs it levies on our Nation's employers, I cannot 
support it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong 
support for H.R. 2, which calls for an increase in the minimum wage to 
$7.25 per hour.
  Thirteen million of our Nation's lowest-paid workers have not had a 
pay raise for nearly 10 long years. It took the intervention of the 
voters to kick out the Republican do-nothing Congress, which loaded up 
past minimum wage legislation with special interest goodies, but today 
we are finally getting serious about helping this Nation's working 
people.

[[Page 778]]

  The typical American worker earning $5.15 per hour has been forced to 
bear the brunt of rising costs and stagnant wages; since the last 
minimum wage increase, the cost of health insurance, gasoline, food, 
electricity, and education has risen, yet wages have remained frozen.
  Minimum wage today in Florida is $6.67 per hour. Yet, according to 
the Department of Labor in 2005, 117,000 Floridians earn at or below 
the $5.15 per hour Federal minimum wage. Too many Floridians are stuck 
in this poverty trap.
  I urge the Senate to move on this with the same speed and urgency 
that we have here in the House.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2, the Fair 
Minimum Wage Act. After the longest period since the enactment of this 
law without an increase--over 9 years--America's poorest working 
families must get the raise they need and deserve. During this period 
in which Congress has failed to act to raise the wage of America's 
poorest workers, CEO and top executive pay has soared: the average 
annual compensation for a CEO at a Standard & Poor's 500 company rose 
from $3.7 to $9.1 million. Meanwhile, 28 States have seen the light and 
raised their State minimum wage to a level higher than the current 
Federal minimum wage of $5.15.
  A full-time minimum wage worker in 2006 earns only $10,712 before 
taxes--nearly $6,000 below the Federal poverty line for a family of 
three. This situation is unacceptable and immoral, as the wealth of our 
Nation, the richest in the world, continues to be built on the backs of 
the working poor. Working families in America are struggling to meet 
the rising costs of health care, gas, and housing, and $5.15 an hour is 
simply not enough.
  It's time for Congress to stop turning a blind eye to the plight of 
those workers making minimum wage and to address their needs. That is 
why I supported increasing the minimum wage in the 109th Congress, and 
that is why I am an original co-sponsor of the Fair Minimum Wage Act in 
this the 110th Congress.
  H.R. 2 will increase the Federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour in 
three steps over 2 years. Sixty days after enactment of this 
legislation, the wage would rise from the current $5.15 per hour to 
$5.85 per hour. One year later, it would rise to $6.55. And a year 
after that, it would finally rise to $7.25 per hour.
  The minimum wage needs to be raised not just for the goods and 
services it enables a person to buy but for the self-esteem and self-
worth if affords. Wages must be adequate for workers to provide for 
themselves and their families with dignity.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
concerns about the substance of the legislation before us as well as 
the manner in which it is being considered.
  The bill before us will have virtually no impact on those living and 
working in the state of Florida. Florida voters 3 years ago approved a 
ballot initiative setting a minimum wage rate higher than the federal 
rate and indexing it for inflation. Assuming enactment of this bill 
later this spring, it is important to note that the federal rate is not 
likely to catch up to Florida's minimum wage until mid-2009 only to 
once again fall behind in January 2010.
  Just six months ago, I joined 230 of my colleagues, including 34 
Democrats, in passing a bill that increased the minimum wage to $7.25 
per hour while also providing important tax relief to help small 
businesses transition to the higher wage. Unfortunately, that bill was 
filibustered by Senate Democrats. This marrying of a minimum wage 
increase with small business tax relief was modeled on the successful 
approach we took in 1996 when a bipartisan coalition of 160 Republicans 
and 193 Democrats, including now Speaker Pelosi. I am pleased that 
Senate is pursing a bipartisan approach and building on this past 
success.
  Unfortunately, the Democrat leadership in the House has chosen to 
break with tradition, choosing partisanship over partnership, by 
bringing to the House floor a minimum wage bill that excludes tax 
relief to help small businesses transition to the higher wage. 
Congressional Quarterly lamented on January 8 that ``House Democrats 
have established rules for floor debate . . . that will block 
Republicans from offering any amendment. . . .'' The Congressional 
Budget Office puts cost of this bill at over $16 billion for small 
business and nearly $1 billion for the federal government. Once again, 
Democrats break their opening day promise by excluding this $1 billion 
from their ``pay-go'' promises.
  What has been absent from today's debate is a discussion about what 
the real downward pressure is on U.S. workers wages--illegal workers. 
After the Federal Government cracked down on illegal immigrants working 
at meat processing plants across the U.S., the company was forced to 
pay American workers a higher wage. Cracking down on illegal 
immigration, rather than granting amnesty to over 11 million illegal 
immigrants will do more to improve the wages of the working poor than a 
law increasing the minimum wage.
  Finally, some have suggested that raising the minimum wage is the 
best approach to helping those living in poverty. There are much better 
and more targeted approaches to assisting the working poor, a minimum 
wage increase is a very blunt tool in doing that. Consider these facts:
  The average minimum wage earner lives in a household with income 
above $50,000/year
  Less than 1 in 25 minimum wage earners are single parents who work 
full-time--very few families rely on minimum wage job to support a 
family.
  Only one in five minimum wage earners lives below the poverty level.
  The least skilled and most disadvantaged workers are the first ones 
to lose jobs when the minimum wage is increased.
  68 percent of Americans live in states that have a higher minimum 
wage.
  67 percent of minimum wage earners get a raise within the first year 
of employment.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the 
Fair Minimum Wage Act. Nearly 15 million Americans, almost two-thirds 
of them women, go to work every day caring for our children and frail 
old people, cleaning up our messes, serving us food in restaurants, and 
for their efforts receive $5.15 an hour, the Federal minimum wage. If 
they work 52 forty-hour weeks, their annual income adds up to $10,712--
$4,367 under the poverty level for a family of three.
  Other Americans--the CEOs of the Nation's top companies--made on 
average $10,712 in the first two hours of the first workday of new 
year. According to a report by Americans United for Change, those CEOs 
make $5,279 an hour, $10,982,000 a year, or 1,025 times more than their 
minimum wage employees.
  Those CEOs must really be special compared to the woman who changes 
their mothers' diapers or cleans their toilets. If she is a single mom 
with two children, she has to work 3 minimum wage jobs to provide for 
her family, according to Wider Opportunities for Women.
  It didn't surprise me that a Newsweek poll found that 68 percent of 
Americans believed ``increasing the minimum wage'' should be one of the 
top priorities for the new Democratic Congress. And it's no wonder that 
women around the country and in my district are signing petitions, 
calling, sending e-mails calling on us to raise the minimum wage.
  Leta of Chicago wrote that ``We need to increase the minimum wage,'' 
and Rebecca e-mailed to say that an increase ``is shamefully overdue.'' 
Jacqueline in Skokie asked me to ``Please restore a government which 
truly responds to the needs of the people.''
  It's hard to imagine any member of Congress objecting. After all, 
it's been 10 years, the longest span ever, since the minimum wage was 
raised. In that time, we members of Congress have received cost-of-
living increases that have raised our salaries over $30,000.
  Today is the day we stand up for our lowest paid workers. Today is 
the day we give 15 million Americans a raise. And when we pass this 
modest increase, we should think of it as a down-payment on our 
commitment to assure that every hardworking American receives a living 
wage.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H.R. 2, the 
Minimum Wage Increase Without Assistance for Small Business.
  In Southern Nevada, we are fortunate to experience an extraordinary 
situation in regard to wage earnings and job growth. Since the tragedy 
of September 11, 2001, our economy has undergone a massive rebound with 
unemployment far below the national average and wages far exceeding the 
current federal minimum wage. The primary engine of this economic 
growth has been our small business community.
  As a representative of a state who mandates a dollar above the 
federal minimum wage, the small business community in Nevada will feel 
the effects of this increase stronger than most states. The Republican 
alternative to H.R. 2 would provide the incentives our small businesses 
need to absorb the economic impact of a federally mandated increase in 
wages. Small businesses in my district, like Metro Pizza, operate on 
the smallest of profit margins. Sam Facchini, who has co-owned the 
business since 1987, had this to say about an additional increase to 
the minimum wage; ``Our business is still adjusting to the most recent 
minimum wage increase. Small businesses are the backbone of our 
economy. We cannot continue to face unprecedented labor costs and be 
expected to prosper.''

[[Page 779]]

  To meet an increased federal wage standard small businesses need the 
kinds of incentives for growth that the Republican alternative to H.R. 
2 provides. I would like to remind my colleagues that we can only 
create new jobs through growth in the private sector. To limit this 
growth for the sake of a sound bite is tempting, but will have a 
devastating impact on an economy.
  Certainly, our workers deserve the fairest compensation for their 
valuable labor. In Nevada, the State Constitution mandates that our 
minimum wage is one dollar above the federally prescribed level. 
Increases, however, must be carefully balanced with the ability of the 
business community to pay these increased wages. For these reasons, my 
voting record has remained clear, on July 29, 2006 I voted in favor of 
a similar bill that included a minimum wage increase as well as growth 
incentives for small businesses.
  While the vast majority of American workers deserve higher wages, we 
must ensure that no jobs are lost as a result. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose H.R. 2, the Minimum Wage Increase Without Assistance for Small 
Business.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, 
the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. This bill provides a long-awaited 
increase to the federal minimum wage by $2.10 over 2 years--from its 
present level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour.


                  women, families and the minimum wage

  I am pleased that, in 2007, my home state of Ohio has joined the 27 
states across the nation that have fully enacted a minimum wage above 
the federal level. Minimum wage female workers account for 60 percent 
of minimum wage workers in Ohio. Ohio Policy Matters reports that 
approximately 253,000 Ohio children have a parent who benefits from the 
states recently enacted increase. Even more will benefit 2 years from 
this bill's enactment, when the minimum wage is raised to $7.25.
  While opponents of increasing the minimum wage often claim that 
minimum-wage workers are largely middle-class teenagers, recent reports 
from the U.S. Census demonstrate that among those workers who would 
benefit from this legislation, nearly half (48 percent) are the 
household's chief breadwinner. The Economic Policy Institute reports 
that 1.4 million working mothers would receive a direct raise and three 
million working mothers could be positively impacted by the Fair 
Minimum Wage Act. Nearly 4 million parents would benefit from an 
increase, including an estimated 623,000 single moms who would receive 
a direct raise under this bill.
  According to the Center on Budget Policy Priorities, in 2006, the 
federal poverty line for a family of four was about $20,000, well below 
what most Americans would consider a decent standard of living to 
sustain a family. Currently, a family of four with one minimum-wage 
earner has a total income, including food stamps and the Earned Income 
Tax Credit, of only $18,950, $1,550 below the poverty line.


                          Historic Precedents

  The minimum wage has been frozen at its current level for more than 9 
years--the longest period without a minimum wage increase in U.S. 
history. Since its 1938 inception, there has been only one other period 
in which the minimum wage has remained unchanged for more than 9 years, 
from January 1981 until April 1990.
  History has proven that past increases in the minimum wage have not 
had a negative impact on the economy. In the four years after the last 
minimum wage increase, the economy enjoyed its strongest growth in more 
than three decades, adding nearly 11 million new jobs. Small business 
employment grew more in states with higher minimum wage rates than in 
states with the federal minimum wage states--9.4 percent versus 6.6 
percent.


                            closing remarks

  I am proud to support this bill. Its immediate consideration in these 
opening days of the 110th Congress is proof that when the Democrats 
have sway, working families have their way.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, today Democrats ae fulfilling a pledge to 
millions of working famllies who have struggled for too long to make 
ends meet with a minimum wage that has failed to keep pace with 
skyrocketing housing, health care, energy and other costs.
  President Franklin Roosevelt told us, ``The test of our progress is 
not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is 
whether we provide enough for those who have too little.''
  The federal minimum wage has remained unchanged for nearly 10 years, 
and its purchasing power has plummeted to the lowest level in more than 
half a century. It is unacceptable and immoral that millions of 
Americans have been working full-time and year-round while still being 
unable to afford the basic necessities of life.
  By increasing the federal minimum wage by $2.10--from $5.15 to $7.25 
an hour over 2 years--we are giving a long overdue pay raise to about 
13 million Americans, which amounts to an additional $4,400 per year 
for a family of three. I am proud that my home state of Massachusetts 
already has taken similar action, increasing the Commonwealth's minimum 
wage to $7.50 effective January 1, 2007. A total of twenty-eight states 
along with the District of Columbia have a state minimum wage above the 
current federal level. It is time for the Federal Government to catch 
up.
  Raising the minimum wage will make an important difference in the 
lives of hardworking Americans across the country. The Senate should 
quickly pass similar legislation and President Bush should sign into 
law this much-needed increase as soon as it reaches his desk.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud cosponsor of the 
Fair Minimum Wage Act (H.R. 2). This bill will bring a long-overdue 
measure of fairness to the paychecks of millions of hardworking 
Americans.
  We have now reached the longest period of time without an increase in 
the federal minimum wage since its creation in 1938. While the minimum 
wage remains stagnant, the cost of living for countless Americans 
continues to skyrocket.
  In my home state of Rhode Island, the average two-bedroom apartment 
costs over $1,147 per month. As a result, many people would need to 
obtain more than three full-time, minimum wage jobs just to afford a 
decent home, and that does not take into account other critical living 
expenses like food and medicine. This is an unacceptable reality that 
millions of hardworking Americans continue to face.
  Raising the minimum wage is a critical first step in Congress's 
efforts to strengthen the economic security of our Nation's families. 
The Fair Minimum Wage Act will increase the federal minimum wage from 
$5.15 to $7.25 incrementally over a 2-year period.
  Americans who work hard to make an honest living should not be forced 
to live in poverty, and by passing the Fair Minimum Wage Act, we will 
help ensure that all Americans have the ability to provide for their 
families and prosper. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the 
Fair Minimum Wage Act.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. I rise today to state my support for this 
legislation that would provide a long overdue increase in the minimum 
wage for millions of workers around the country. As many of my 
colleagues have stated today, Congress has failed to increase the 
minimum wage for more than 9 years. This is the longest period in the 
history of the minimum wage that it has not been increased. This is 
unacceptable and I am pleased we finally are taking action today to 
remedy this situation.
  America's families have seen their real income drop by almost $1,300 
since 2000, while the costs of health insurance, gasoline, home 
heating, and college attendance have increased by almost $5,000 
annually. America's families have been squeezed for far too long. 
Increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, which this legislation 
would do over the period of 2 years, is not a panacea for the hard 
working men and women who earn the minimum wage in our economy. 
However, everyone can agree that additional money in the pockets and 
savings accounts of these 13 million Americans will be of some help.
  I strongly support H.R. 2 and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act. I congratulate Speaker 
Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer and Chairman Miller for their recognition 
that this is a critical issue to our economy and for their success in 
making a real difference for families across America.
  The Fair Minimum Wage Act will raise the federal minimum wage from 
$5.15 to $7.25 over 2 years. This pay raise is the first in more than 9 
years and will affect 13 million Americans.
  This change is long overdue. Currently minimum wage employees working 
40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, earn only $10,700 a year--$6,000 
below the poverty line for a family of three. The inflation-adjusted 
value of the minimum wage is 31 percent lower today than it was in 
1979, and in real dollars a $5.15 an hour minimum wage is worth just 
$4.75. If the wage had just kept pace with inflation since 1968 when it 
was a $1.60 an hour, minimum wage would have been $8.46 last year.
  While in the Majority, Republicans repeatedly blocked this increase 
with the argument that fairness for our lowest paid workers will hurt 
small business. However, this summer, 650 economists, including 5 Nobel 
laureates, announced their support for increasing the

[[Page 780]]

minimum wage and their view that these arguments against such an 
increase are simply not valid.
  Mr. Speaker, while denying this needed wage increase, Members of 
Congress have received pay raises of over $30,000. In addition, a 
recent study estimated that CEOs of top companies make in 2 hours what 
a minimum wage worker makes in a year. This inequity is not only an 
economic issue--it is a moral issue. American full-time, full-year 
workers should not be forced to raise their families in poverty.
  A part of the hope and promise of America is that if you work hard, 
you will succeed. I am proud that the Democrats today are helping to 
make that dream a reality for millions of Americans.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 2, and in support of the Republican motion to recommit.
  Americans deserve a decent minimum wage, but we cannot simply ignore 
the fact that somebody has to pay for it. In many cases, small 
businesses are the ones who must bear these costs.
  The Democratic bill we consider today gives absolutely no 
consideration to small businesses at all. Small businesses are the 
backbone of our economy, providing two-thirds of new job creation. They 
cannot, however, simply create money out of thin air. A small business 
might have been struggling to pay health care premiums for its workers. 
With this resolution, they may well now be unable to do so.
  My Democratic colleagues frequently voice their strong support for 
small businesses. I don't understand why they cannot then acknowledge 
that this could be a burden and offer some help in the form of tax 
incentives.
  My vote for this motion to recommit and against the underlying bill 
is intended to send a message to the other body that a minimum wage 
increase is only half of the equation. I am confident the other body 
will work in more of a spirit of compromise and recognize the concerns 
I mention here today. Indeed, I look forward to considering legislation 
that does contain common sense provisions that will protect our small 
businesses' competitiveness.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit to and if 
necessary against final passage.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today, 13 million Ameicans are 
getting a raise.
  Later today, during the first 100 hours of the new Democratic 
Majority, we will vote to raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to 
$7.25 over the next 2 years.
  Nearly two-thirds of all minimum wage workers are women and women 
account for most of the full-time workers in some of the lowest paying 
jobs in our Nation.
  Including 87 percent of all housekeepers, 93 percent of all child 
careworkers, 75 percent of all cashiers and 66 percent of all food 
servers.
  Overall, women are twice as likely as men to work at the minimum 
wage.
  Nearly 75 percent of female minimum wage workers are over 20 and 35 
percent work full-time.
  With this raise in the minimum wage, 7.7 million women will get a 
raise, including 3.4 million parents and over a million single 
parents--who are overwhelmingly female.
  Raising the minimum wage would provide an additional $4,400/year for 
a family of three, equaling 15 months of groceries, or over 2 years of 
health care--helping them to keep up with rising costs.
  Raising the minimum wage is supported by 89 percent of the American 
public in a recent Newsweek poll. Another recent poll showed 72 percent 
of Republicans support the minimum wage increase.
  The minimum wage has not increased in more than 9 years--the longest 
period in the history of the law. The real value of the minimum wage 
has plummeted to its lowest level in 51 years.
  A minimum wage increase is particularly important at a time when 
America's families have seen their real income drop by almost $1,300 
since 2000, while the costs of health insurance, gasoline, home 
heating, and attending college have increased by almost $5,000 
annually.
  It is wrong to have millions of Americans working full-time and year-
round and still living in poverty. At $5.15 an hour, a full-time 
minimum wage worker brings home $10,712 a year--nearly $6,000 below the 
poverty level for a family of three.
  Passing an increase in the minimum wage is the right thing to do and 
I commend the work of Chairman George Miller and Speaker Pelosi for 
bringing this measure to the floor today.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this vital legislation.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, 
the Fair Minimum Wage Act.
  This much needed increase in the minimum wage is long overdue. During 
the last 9 years since the minimum wage was last increased, 28 states 
and the District of Columbia have come to the aid of their citizens and 
passed laws implementing a higher minimum wage rate than the federal 
standard.
  Increasing the federal minimum wage is not about giving high school 
students who work part-time a raise. It is about helping individuals 
and families meet their daily basic needs. Almost one-third of hourly 
workers earning less than $7.25 lived in families with incomes of 
$20,000 or less.
  As prices for energy, health care, and daily living expenses 
including child care and college tuition continue to increase, the 
minimum wage has remained the same. This increase in the minimum wage 
is necessary to help families pay for the rising cost of these goods 
and services.
  To understand what minimum wage earners are dealing with, imagine how 
much income you earned in 1997 and the cost of your daily expenses. For 
example, in Baltimore in January 1997, a gallon of whole milk was 
$2.87. In January 2006 a gallon of whole milk was $3.39, an increase of 
18 percent.
  Imagine now earning what you earned in 1997, but forced to pay at 
least 18 percent more for your daily living expenses. For many people, 
an increase of 18 percent over 9 years would not be noticed because 
typically job salaries would also increase. But for people earning 
minimum wage, any increase in the price of goods and services is 
noticed.
  For a more dramatic example, consider the cost of a gallon of 
gasoline. In January 1997 a gallon of gas cost $1.22 and in January 
2006, the same gallon cost $2.27, an increase of 94 percent. Increases 
of this magnitude impact the entire population but those who make the 
least will be hit the hardest.
  How can we expect people earning the current minimum wage to keep up 
with the increasing costs of everything?
  An increase in the minimum wage is essential to helping all Americans 
achieve economic security and for working adults to be able to meet the 
basic needs of their families. For this reason, I support H.R. 2 and 
raising the federal minimum wage.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the debate on H.R. 2, the ``Fair 
Minimum Wage Act of 2007,'' would benefit from a discussion of the 
facts.
  For example, increasing the minimum wage would not have a positive 
impact on all working and non-working Americans.
  The number of people who would benefit from raising the minimum wage 
is not nearly as large as some claim and those individuals who receive 
the minimum wage are not nearly as poor as some suggest.
  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2005 only 2.5 percent 
of all hourly-paid workers earned the minimum wage. More than a quarter 
of those workers are teenagers and half are under 25.
  Those who support a minimum wage increase should be forthright--some 
Americans will lose their jobs if the minimum wage is increased, 
especially youth and low-skilled workers. If the minimum wage is 
raised, businesses will incur additional costs and some will be forced 
to layoff employees.
  Also, most individuals who receive the minimum wage have other 
sources of income, such as food stamps, government allowances, or 
earned income tax credits.
  Still, we are confronted with the stark reality that over one million 
families must survive on little more than $1,000 a month. These 
families need food, clothes, housing, transportation, and hope.
  Frankly, any person who engages in honest labor deserves a worthy 
wage and a dignified life.
  Some say there are jobs Americans won't do. That demeans hard-working 
Americans who do work in every occupation. It especially demeans those 
who work at back-breaking and dangerous jobs for little pay. If we want 
more Americans to take those jobs, then let's pay them more.
  And today is a good time to start.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2 to increase the 
minimum wage for working Americans.
  After years of providing tax cuts to the richest people in our 
country, and raise after raise to Members of Congress, I am pleased to 
see that in the first 100 hours of Democratic control of Congress, 
Democrats are giving a raise to the working poor.
  I firmly believe that increasing the minimum wage is a necessity to 
help working people provide for their families. In 6 years of Bush-
onomics, gas prices have gone out of sight, college tuitions are 
unaffordable for millions of working families, and the price of 
homeownership is escaping far too many people.
  The lack of a basic wage increase has put an even greater hardship on 
the lives of many

[[Page 781]]

of my constituents--people who are actually working every day and 
playing by the rules.
  Just the other day a constituent of mine from Jackson Heights stated 
the obvious in support of a minimum wage increase--an honest day's pay 
for an honest day's work.
  I completely agree with him.
  In fact, 90 percent of minimum wage workers in New York City are 
adults, and two-thirds of them work full-time. Over four out of five 
New York City minimum wage workers are people of color: 41 percent are 
Hispanic, 25 percent are Black non-Hispanic, and 16 percent are Asian.
  Additionally, while women represent 49 percent of New York City 
workers, they are 59 percent of minimum wage workers. It's clear 
minimum wage earnings are vital to many low-income households in New 
York City. In fact, 60 percent of increased minimum wage earnings would 
go to the lowest-earning 40 percent of New York City households.
  Furthermore, with 15.5 percent of my constituents living below 
poverty, it's long past due to raise the wages of working people.
  After raise after raise for Congress and the White House, it is 
amazing to me that the Republicans do not think that people who 
actually work 5 days a week do not deserve a raise.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2.
  Under the Democrats America really is going in a new direction--and 
that direction is forward.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2--
increasing the minimum wage. This is an important piece of legislation 
and one that has been over due for many years. The Federal minimum wage 
has not been increased in 10 years and the buying power of the Federal 
minimum wage is at its lowest level in 51 years.
  I am proud to say that my district, the U.S. Virgin Islands, has been 
ahead of the game by increasing the minimum wage to $6.15 an hour last 
year--the second increase in 2 years--affecting more than 14,000 
workers in the territory. This increase was supported by private sector 
leaders, who indicated that they were prepared to take on the wage 
increase, acknowledging that while the increase does impact business, 
it was manageable--purporting the true American spirit of prosperity 
for all.
  Minimum wage increase is important to all Americans but impacts women 
by greater proportions. Two-thirds of workers over age 16 who work at 
or below the minimum wage are women. Studies of low-wage workers show 
that the main beneficiaries of this increase would be working women, 
almost 1 million of who are single mothers. The minimum wage increase 
would help to reduce the overall pay gap between women and men.
  Mr. Speaker, raising the minimum wage will help to raise the income 
of many low-income families, especially those headed by single mothers. 
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2 and pass this long overdue 
increase in our national wages.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand before you today in 
support of H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. It is essential 
that we ensure that all Americans are able to maintain a decent 
standard of living, guaranteed in part by real living wages that 
reflect today's economic realities.
  With rising health care, energy, and education costs, America's 
hardworking families are being forced to do more with less. While 
Congress has failed to raise the minimum wage over the past 10 years, 
it hasn't failed to raise its own pay. Since 1997, congressional pay 
has increased $31,600. This is simply unjustifiable.
  America is the most prosperous nation in the world. It is 
unconscionable that someone can work full-time and still live in 
poverty. Working full-time, a minimum wage earner will only bring home 
$10,712 this year. This is $6,000 below the poverty level for a family 
of three. More than 125,000 Wisconsin workers would directly benefit 
from this legislation.
  While it is vital that we help the most vulnerable in our society, we 
must also ensure the livelihood of main street America's small 
businesses. These small businesses form the cornerstone of our economy 
and are essential to the well-being of our communities. That is why it 
is important that any increase in the minimum wage be implemented 
gradually.
  I believe H.R. 2 accomplishes that by raising the minimum wage in a 
manner that will help the least fortunate while simultaneously 
protecting small business owners from sharp payroll increases. Sixty 
days after this legislation is enacted, the minimum wage would increase 
to $5.85 per hour. One year later, it would rise to $6.55 per hour and 
reach $7.25 a year after that.
  The American public supports raising the minimum wage. In November, 
six States passed minimum wage ballot measures. Currently, 28 States, 
including Wisconsin, have minimum wages above the Federal level. The 
time has come for Congress to listen to the States and the public and 
pass this important and overdue legislation.
  I thank you Mr. Speaker, and urge all of my colleagues to do the 
right thing and give America's minimum wage earners a well-deserved 
raise.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2, 
the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007.
  The minimum wage has not been increased in nearly 10 years and its 
purchasing power is the lowest it has been in 50 years.
  A full-time minimum wage worker earns just $10,700 per year, which is 
$6,000 below the Federal poverty level for a family of three.
  The bill we consider today will benefit nearly 7.4 million workers 
directly, and another 5.6 million workers indirectly.
  America's poorest working families must get the raise they need and 
deserve.
  This bill is especially important given the fact that America's 
families have seen their real income drop by $1,300 over the past 6 
years.
  At the same time, the costs of health insurance, gasoline, home 
heating and attending college have increased enormously.
  Increasing the minimum wage demonstrates our commitment to workers 
everywhere and exemplifies the value we place on a hard day's work.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the announced purpose of H.R. 2 is to raise 
living standards for all Americans. This is certainly an admirable 
goal, however, to believe that Congress can raise the standard of 
living for working Americans by simply forcing employers to pay their 
employees a higher wage is equivalent to claiming that Congress can 
repeal gravity by passing a law saying humans shall have the ability to 
fly.
  Economic principles dictate that when government imposes a minimum 
wage rate above the market wage rate, it creates a surplus ``wedge'' 
between the supply of labor and the demand for labor, leading to an 
increase in unemployment. Employers cannot simply begin paying more to 
workers whose marginal productivity does not meet or exceed the law-
imposed wage. The only course of action available to the employer is to 
mechanize operations or employ a higher-skilled worker whose output 
meets or exceeds the ``minimum wage.'' This, of course, has the 
advantage of giving the skilled worker an additional (and government-
enforced) advantage over the unskilled worker. For example, where 
formerly an employer had the option of hiring three unskilled workers 
at $5 per hour or one skilled worker at $16 per hour, a minimum wage of 
$6 suddenly leaves the employer only the choice of the skilled worker 
at an additional cost of $1 per hour. I would ask my colleagues, if the 
minimum wage is the means to prosperity, why stop at $6.65--why not 
$50, $75, or $100 per hour?
  Those who are denied employment opportunities as a result of the 
minimum wage are often young people at the lower end of the income 
scale who are seeking entry-level employment. Their inability to find 
an entry-level job will limit their employment prospects for years to 
come. Thus, raising the minimum wage actually lowers the employment 
opportunities and standard of living of the very people proponents of 
the minimum wage claim will benefit from government intervention in the 
economy.
  Furthermore, interfering in the voluntary transactions of employers 
and employees in the name of making things better for low wage earners 
violates citizens' rights of association and freedom of contract as if 
to say to citizens ``you are incapable of making employment decisions 
for yourself in the marketplace.''
  Mr. Speaker, I do not wish my opposition to this bill to be 
misconstrued as counseling inaction. Quite the contrary, Congress must 
enact an ambitious program of tax cuts and regulatory reform to remove 
government-created obstacles to job growth. However, Mr. Speaker, 
opponents of H.R. 2 should not fool themselves into believing that 
adding a package of tax cuts to the bill will compensate for the damage 
inflicted on small businesses and their employees by the minimum wage 
increase. Saying that an increase in the minimum wage is acceptable if 
combined with tax cuts assumes that Congress is omnipotent and thus can 
strike a perfect balance between tax cuts and regulations so that no 
firm, or worker, in the country is adversely affected by Federal 
policies. If the 20th Century taught us anything it was that any and 
all attempts to centrally plan an economy, especially one as large and 
diverse as America's, are doomed to fail.

[[Page 782]]

  In conclusion, I would remind my colleagues that while it may make 
them feel good to raise the Federal minimum wage, the real life 
consequences of this bill will be vested upon those who can least 
afford to be deprived of work opportunities. Therefore, rather than 
pretend that Congress can repeal the economic principles, I urge my 
colleagues to reject this legislation and instead embrace a program of 
tax cuts and regulatory reform to strengthen the greatest producer of 
jobs and prosperity in human history: the free market.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, after a decade of inaction by the 
Republican majority, we stand to vote today on one of the most critical 
issues facing working Americans.
  For years, the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. 
Miller, led our efforts to bring the minimum wage more in line with 
this country's growing cost of living. We pushed for a clean, up or 
down vote. But instead, as the 109th Congress winded down, we were 
presented with a muddled package of bills, and once again, the will of 
the American people was pushed aside to accommodate corporate 
interests.
  So, I must commend Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer for 
including this minimum wage increase in our first 100 hour commitment 
to working Americans. For the 6.5 million minimum wage earners 
throughout the country, this bill amounts to an additional $4,400 each 
year. That alone would cover: 15 months of groceries; over two years of 
health care; and two and a half years of college tuition at a public, 2 
year college.
  Ultimately, up to 13 million low-wage workers will be helped by this 
increase.
  Right now the average CEO of a Fortune 500 Company earns $10,712 in 1 
hour and 16 minutes. It takes the average minimum wage worker 52 40-
hour weeks--an entire year to earn the same $10,712. That's wrong, and 
we're going to fix it.
  And, let's be clear, there is no evidence to support the Republican 
claim that an increase in minimum wage leads to job loss. For proof, we 
only need to look at the twenty-eight states and the District of 
Columbia that have set minimum wages that are higher than the federal 
minimum wage. In fact, a May 2006 study released by the Center for 
American Progress and Policy Matters found that employment in small 
businesses grew more than 9.4 percent in states with higher minimum 
wage; and inflation-adjusted business payroll growth was over 5 percent 
stronger in high minimum wage states. A 1998 study by the Economic 
Policy Institute found that unemployment and poverty rates actually 
dropped after the last increase in the federal minimum wage in 1997.
  Working Americans are the backbone of our nation, and this increase 
is long overdue. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum 
Wage Act.
  The time is past due for a raise in the Federal minimum wage, which 
was last increased in 1996. Today, workers making the least should be 
heartened that this legislation will raise their wages by $2.10 an hour 
over two years to $7.25.
  Some argue that raising the minimum wage increases unemployment and 
prices. This is true only if the minimum wage is set too high or phased 
in too quickly. If done properly, there should be little to no impact 
on employment or prices.
  Several economic analyses point to an important dynamic that I 
believe is at work: When the minimum wage is increased, people have 
more of an incentive to work, and less of an incentive to collect 
welfare or remain idle.
  It is clear to me that increasing the minimum wage is a vital step 
toward ensuring work is more attractive than welfare.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of this legislation.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
bill before us that increases the federal minimum wage without 
providing tax relief to America's small businesses.
  I support a raise in the federal minimum wage. But, raising the 
minimum wage alone is missed opportunity to help American workers. 
Minimum wage legislation should include tax benefits for small business 
owners. The Democrat's bill increases the federal minimum wage from 
$5.15-per-hour to $7.25-per-hour over 2 years. This increase amounts to 
a 41 percent increase to employers. The Democrat bill does nothing to 
help these employers offset this huge increase--forcing employers to 
either reduce the number of people they employ or pass on the cost to 
consumers by raising their prices.
  According to the most recent data from the Small Business 
Administration, an estimated 822,000 small businesses operate in my 
home state of Michigan. Under the Democrat's bill, 822,000 small 
business owners in Michigan can expect to pay 41 percent more over the 
next 2 years. In Michigan, where the unemployment rate is tops in the 
nation, workers and employers cannot afford higher taxes and added 
layoffs.
  Instead of H.R. 2, I support and am a cosponsor of H.R. 324, the 
Working Families Wage & Access to Health Care Act. This bill, authored 
by my colleagues Mr. McKeon and Mr. McCrery, offers a balanced mix of 
provisions that will raise the wage while softening the financial 
impact on small businesses who hire minimum wage workers.
  The Working Families Wage & Access to Health Care Act includes 
incentives for new restaurant construction, eliminates the 0.2 percent 
federal unemployment surtax on small business owners, and extends 
important small business expensing provisions Republicans enacted in 
2003. Greater expensing limits mean that business owners will have more 
capital to expand, employ more workers, and invest more in their 
communities. The bill will also provide better health care coverage for 
workers. H.R. 324 establishes Small Business Health Plans that allow 
small businesses to band together through associations and purchase 
quality health care for workers and their families at a lower cost.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2 and instead support 
legislation that protects America's workers and promotes continued 
economic growth.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congressman George 
Miller for introducing this important legislation, and the 213 members 
who have joined me as original co-sponsors.
  I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 
2007, which would gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 per 
hour over two years.
  As you know, it has been ten years since we last increased the 
federal minimum wage, and when adjusted for inflation it is currently 
at its lowest level in 50 years.
  Every single American who commutes to work has felt the financial 
pinch of the rising cost of gasoline, and none more so than those 
making minimum wage. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, when 
Congress last passed legislation raising the minimum wage, the national 
average price for gasoline was $1.32 per gallon. Today, the average 
price of gasoline is $2.39 per gallon, and millions of hard-working 
Americans are struggling to make ends meet at a wage of $5.15 per hour. 
The majority of these workers are adults over the age of 20 and over 6 
million kids are children of workers who will be helped by this bill.
  This proposed increase in the minimum wage would directly affect 
approximately 863,000 employees in Texas and at least 68,000, or more 
than 30 percent, of the workforce in my district of El Paso.
  I know of many exceptional businesses in El Paso that have taken the 
initiative to pay their employees more than the proposed new minimum 
wage. I applaud them for their leadership, but we can and should do 
more by passing legislation to set the standard minimum wage of $7.25 
per hour, so we can move closer to ensuring that all workers earn a 
living wage for themselves and their families.
  I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting our Nation's working 
families by voting in favor of H.R. 2.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2, the 
Fair Minimum Wage Act. For far too long, working class Americans have 
been struggling to make ends meet at $5.15 an hour, a wage that leaves 
a family of three more than $6,000 below the poverty line. Today we can 
make a real difference in the lives of millions of Americans by 
increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour.
  In 1997, the last time the minimum wage was raised, $5.15 went a lot 
further than it does today. A gallon of gas cost $1.27 and a loaf of 
bread was only $0.88. It may not seem to most like $2.29 for a gallon 
of gas or $1.14 for a loaf of bread is too much, but tell that to the 
minimum wage worker with gross weekly income of only $206. They still 
have to drive to work and put food on the table, which is nearly 
impossible at $5.15 an hour without multiple incomes or a second job.
  For years, states have responded to the inadequacy of the federal 
minimum wage by passing higher minimum wages. Those states haven't lost 
employers or faced higher than normal unemployment because of higher 
minimum wages. Small businesses in California, for example, haven't 
gone broke because of the high state minimum wage. The argument that 
small businesses can't afford to pay the minimum wage is fallacy. 
Organizations making that argument are probably paying a lot more than 
$7.25 an hour to their snake oil salesmen.
  Some argue that increasing the minimum wage is paramount to the 
government engaging in class warfare. One of the richest men in

[[Page 783]]

the world, Warren Buffet, doesn't see it that way. ``There's class 
warfare, all right,'' Mr. Buffett said, ``but it's my class, the rich 
class, that's making war, and we're winning.'' Failure to pass a 
minimum wage increase would be a huge victory in the class warfare by 
the wealthy against hard working Americans.
  Since 1997, Members of Congress have increased our salaries by 24 
percent. We can't look our hard working constituents in the eye and 
honestly say we deserve big pay raises and they don't. Today we can 
give a raise to someone other than ourselves for a change and have a 
positive impact on millions of working poor in this country. I strongly 
urge all my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 2.
  Mr. Speaker, I'd also ask that the following article from the January 
10 edition of the Washington Post be printed in the Record.

                       Minimum Wage, Maximum Myth

                         (By Steven Pearlstein)

       With Wall Street hot shots and corporate chiefs raking in 
     obscene amounts of money, and with pay in the bottom half of 
     the workforce barely keeping up with inflation, you'd think 
     raising the minimum wage for the first time in a decade would 
     be a political and economic no-brainer for the new Democratic 
     Congress.
       But you'd be forgetting about Max Baucus.
       Baucus is a Democratic senator from the Republican-leaning 
     state of Montana, which means he is on the political 
     equivalent of the endangered-species list. So you can 
     understand Baucus's need to vote with his constituents on 
     things like sugar subsidies and gun control and grazing fees 
     on public lands.
       But while Baucus is surely entitled to his opinions, and 
     entitled to do what is necessary to assure his own political 
     survival, he is not entitled to be chairman of the Senate 
     Finance Committee, which handles such key Democratic issues 
     as health care, trade and tax policy. That position ought to 
     be reserved for a statesman with enough political confidence 
     and backbone that he isn't constantly sacrificing the 
     interests of his party and his country to the narrow 
     interests of his subsidy-addicted constituents.
       You'd think Baucus would have learned his lesson in 2001, 
     when he won the enmity of Democrats everywhere by striking 
     the deal that led to passage of the Bush tax cuts, including 
     the phase-out of the estate tax. Apparently not. For on the 
     very day the new Democratic House is set to push through a 
     long-overdue minimum-wage increase, over in the Senate, 
     Baucus has called a hearing on how to offset the ``economic 
     hardship'' caused by the higher minimum wage with yet another 
     round of business tax breaks.
       Consider, for a moment, the economic logic that lies behind 
     Baucus's hearing this morning, when senators will hear from a 
     panel of witnesses that includes Dave Ratner, owner of Dave's 
     Soda & Pet City in Agawam, Mass.
       No doubt Ratner and the others will point out that workers 
     making at or near the federal minimum wage are nearly all 
     employed by small businesses. We will hear all the sob 
     stories about how struggling small businesses with thin 
     margins will be forced to cut back on hiring, pull back on 
     expansion plans and, in some instances, close their doors. 
     Moreover, this won't be a tragedy just for small-business 
     owners and employees but for the economy as a whole, since 
     everybody knows that small business creates virtually all new 
     jobs. Only another round of tax breaks can keep the great 
     American jobs machine humming.
       And here's the thing: Most of it is nonsense.
       To begin, both economic theory and history suggest that 
     small business will, in time, pass on its increased costs to 
     its consumers. Small businesses that pay low wages tend to 
     compete with other small businesses that pay low wages, so 
     they will all face the same cost pressures and respond in 
     similar fashion. The worst that can be said is that a higher 
     minimum wage will add, very modestly, to overall inflation.
       There is also general agreement among economists that a 
     higher minimum wage, at the levels we are talking about, will 
     have a minimal impact on adult employment. Slightly higher 
     prices might reduce, slightly, the demand for Wendy's 
     hamburgers, cheap hotel rooms and dog-walking services. But 
     largely offsetting those effects will be the increased demand 
     for goods and services by tens of millions of Americans who 
     will finally be getting a raise. A higher minimum wage 
     doesn't lower economic activity so much as rearrange it 
     slightly.
       The biggest lie of all is that small businesses have 
     created most of the new jobs in America. This canard, 
     perpetrated by the small-business lobby and embraced by 
     politicians of both parties, has been used for decades to 
     justify all manner of special subsidies for small business. 
     But as economist Veronique de Rugy of the American Enterprise 
     Institute reported in a paper last year, new jobs have been 
     created by both large and small businesses in roughly the 
     same proportion.
       In truth, the bulk of new jobs have always been created by 
     a relatively small number of new firms that grow fast and get 
     quite big--think of companies like Southwest Airlines, 
     Google, CarMax. Most have little in common with the small-
     business lobby in Washington or fast-food restaurant chains 
     or the members of the Kiwanis Club in Helena, Mont. As a 
     rule, companies like these couldn't care less about the 
     minimum wage or special tax breaks to offset it.
       Linking the minimum wage to small-business tax breaks is 
     specious for other reasons, as well.
       During the last decade, when inflation-adjusted pay of 
     minimum-wage workers was declining, tax rates for small 
     businesses were also declining, thanks largely to the Bush 
     cuts. If it is now imperative to reduce business taxes when 
     the pay of minimum-wage workers is rising, you have to wonder 
     if there will ever be a time when the small-business lobby 
     thinks it doesn't deserve a tax cut.
       It's also worth noting that, according to the Internal 
     Revenue Service, small-business owners, sole proprietors and 
     the self-employed are, as a group, the biggest tax cheats in 
     America, responsible for $153 billion of the estimated $345 
     billion tax gap in 2001. What these folks deserve are more 
     frequent visits from IRS auditors, not more tax breaks.
       Real Democrats know that raising the minimum wage is the 
     right thing to do--economically, politically, morally. The 
     question is why they have chosen a Senate Finance chairman 
     who can't articulate that position without equivocation or 
     apology even before the first vote is cast.

  Ms. EDDIE-BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today 
alongside my colleagues from the Women's Caucus to support this 
increase to the federal minimum wage.
  Nearly two-thirds of all minimum wage workers are women.
  And it's women that represent the majority of working poor in this 
country.
  The working poor are Americans who work 40 hours or more a week, but 
can't afford basic necessities.
  Each day, the working poor are faced with the decision of having to 
choose between: food, clothing, shelter, medicine, and utility bills.
  No American who works hard for a living should have to make these 
types of choices.
  Mr. Speaker, more than 9 million women will benefit from this 
proposed increase to the minimum wage.
  These aren't just teenagers working part-time either.
  Most of these workers are actually hard-working disadvantaged adults. 
Four million are parents.
  This isn't simply an economic issue, it's an ethical and moral issue.
  We cannot continue to look away while hard working Americans linger 
in poverty.
  I urge my colleagues to support these hardworking women and men by 
raising the federal minimum wage.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share my strong support for 
raising the federal minimum wage. Today's legislation would increase 
the existing minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over two years.
  The minimum wage has not increased in more than nine years which is 
the longest period in the history of the law. The real value of the 
minimum wage has plummeted to its lowest level in 51 years.
  At the current rate of $5.15 an hour, a full-time minimum wage worker 
brings home $10,712 a year--nearly $6,000 below the poverty level for a 
family of three. Increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour would 
benefit up to 13 million Americans who struggle to raise a family.
  Last year the state of Arkansas, along with varying other states, 
realized the need for raising the minimum wage and did so. Now it is 
time for the Congress to accept this plan and move forward with passage 
of this important legislation, which can make a real difference in the 
lives of working families across this country.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, an 
increase in the minimum wage. It has now been a decade (i.e., 1996) 
since the minimum wage was last adjusted for inflation. The issue 
absorbed a considerable amount of attention during the 109th Congress--
but no new legislation was adopted. Over 25 states (including the 
District of Columbia) have adopted a minimum wage in excess of the 
federal rate.
  The current Federal minimum wage rate leaves full-time workers in 
poverty. Thirty-seven million Americans live in poverty today--an 
increase of 5.4 million since 2001. Many of these individuals are full-
time, full-year hard working Americans who are unable to lift 
themselves out of poverty because of the declining value of the federal 
minimum wage. Minimum wage earners working 40 hours per week, 52 weeks 
per year make $10,712--nearly $6,000 below the poverty line for a 
family of three.
  Today, the value of minimum wage as a percentage of poverty has 
fallen to its lowest level on record--going way back to 1959. Earnings 
for full-year, full-time minimum wage

[[Page 784]]

work now equal less than 70 percent of the poverty level for a family 
of three.
  Increasing the federal minimum wage would also raise the wages of 
low-income working families in general, not just those who fall below 
the official poverty line. Many families move in and out of poverty, 
and near-poor families are also important beneficiaries of minimum wage 
increases. In addition, raising the minimum wage will have a positive 
effect on lives of women and other minorities in this country.
  Over one-half of workers paid less than $7.25 an hour lived in 
families with incomes of $40,000 or less. According to CRS estimates of 
low-wage workers in families with incomes of $40,000 or less were 
spouses in married-couple families (with or without children). Some 
13.4 percent were single parents. Another 11.9 percent were teenagers. 
Hourly workers who earned less than $7.25 an hour in 2005 were more 
likely to live in poor families compared to workers paid at least $7.25 
an hour (18.1 percent versus 6.0 percent).
  Women were overrepresented among low-wage workers in 2005: almost 7 
million of the more than 11 million hourly workers who earned under 
$7.25 an hour were women (60.1 percent); in contrast, women accounted 
for a smaller share of all hourly workers (50.2 percent). Further, 
Hispanic women were two times as likely as Hispanic men to earn $5.15 
per hour or less.
  It also appears that relatively more working women than men might 
gain from a higher federal minimum wage. An increase in the minimum 
wage would greatly benefit about 33 percent of African-American or 
Hispanic women.
  Over the last five years, the number of African Americans living in 
poverty has grown by 1.5 million, and the real median household income 
of African American families is down $2,676. Increasing the minimum 
wage to $7.25 an hour would affect more than 2.1 million hardworking 
African Americans in the minimum wage.
  Over the last five years, the number of Hispanic Americans living in 
poverty has grown by more than 1.6 million and the real median 
household income of Hispanic American families is down $1,631. Over 2.3 
million out of 12.5 million Hispanics employed on an hourly basis--or 
almost one in five earned less than $7.25 an hour in 2005. Hispanics 
comprised the largest share of workers paid below $7.25 an hour than 
they did of all hourly workers in 2005. Raising the minimum wage to 
$7.25 an hour would have a positive effect on the lives of more than 
2.3 million hardworking Hispanic Americans.
  Over the last five years, the number of Asian American/Pacific 
Islanders living in poverty has grown by 243,000 and the real median 
household income of Asian American/Pacific Islander families is down 
$2,157. Lifting the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour would have a positive 
effect on the lives of an estimated 280,000 hardworking Asian American 
workers.
  Over one-half of hourly workers paid below the proposed federal 
minimum wage were between 16 and 24 years old. A substantial percentage 
of young workers might be affected directly if the minimum wage 
increases. Nearly three out of five teenagers paid an hourly wage might 
see their earnings increase if the federal standard goes to $7.25 per 
hour.
  We must do more to support families living in poverty and those who 
are vulnerable to falling into poverty. Increasing the wages is an 
important step toward reducing the high levels of poverty in this 
Nation.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 2, legislation that will fulfill our promise to 
America's working families by providing a long awaited increase in the 
federal minimum wage.
  Passage of this bill today will increase the minimum wage for the 
first time in nearly a decade, from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour over 2 
years. Inflation and increased demands on the wallets of American 
families have steadily chipped away at the purchasing power of our 
Nation's minimum wage earners, and the failure of the previous Congress 
to take action has left the federal minimum wage at its lowest value in 
more than half a century.
  This legislation is critical at a time when America's families have 
seen their real income drop by almost $1,300 since 2000, while the 
costs of health insurance, gasoline, home heating, and attending 
college have increased by almost $5,000 annually. At the current level, 
a full-time minimum wage worker will make only $10,712 a year, nearly 
$6,000 below the poverty level for a family of three. While some 
States, such as Connecticut, have already taken action to raise their 
minimum wage, many more States still fall short of providing our 
hardest working Americans with the income they need to make ends meet.
  In a Nation of abundant wealth and prosperity, we simply cannot be 
indifferent to the challenges faced by those struggling to make ends 
meet. This vote today sends the clear message that this Congress will 
be committed to America's working families. Passage of H.R. 2 is a 
critical step towards ensuring that every American is able to earn a 
real living wage.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the 
Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, which proposes to increase the national 
minimum wage by a modest, but significant $2.10 over the course of 
roughly 2 years. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
legislation for three basic and important reasons.
  First, an increase in the national minimum wage will help bring a 
sense of dignity in the lives of the lowest wage earners and their 
families in our country. American workers deserve to earn fair, decent, 
and livable wages for their hard and honest labor. They deserve to earn 
wages that enable them to cope with the costs of the basic necessities 
in life. National labor statistics reveal that income levels for 
millions of American workers and their families across every State and 
territory in the country have not kept pace with rising costs of home 
ownership, food, health insurance, gasoline, home heating, and college 
tuition. Setting a national minimum wage that reflects this reality and 
that will give families an income from which they can afford the basic 
necessities in life is a national priority that this Congress will act 
on today. The current national minimum wage of $5.15 does not measure 
up to the principle of ensuring hardworking Americans receive a livable 
wage.
  Second, an increase in the national minimum wage is overdue. The last 
increase was over 9 years ago in September 1997. The time that has 
passed since this last increase represents the longest period in 
American history in which the national minimum wage has remained 
stagnant. Passage of this legislation today would be timely in the fact 
that it would set forth incremental increases over a 26-month period to 
raise the national minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25.
  Last, raising the national minimum wage not only enjoys broad, 
bipartisan support in Congress, but also enjoys support from among 
average Americans. A majority of voters in six States agreed to 
measures on their ballots in November 2006 that raised the minimum wage 
in their State, for instance. Also, workers in 28 States and the 
District of Columbia earn a minimum wage that is above the current 
minimum wage provided for by Federal law. An effort to raising the 
minimum wage earned by American workers, moreover, is supported by many 
labor, religious, and civil rights organizations from across the 
country. Support for increasing the national minimum wage can also be 
found in my community on Guam. A resolution was introduced in the 29th 
Guam Legislature this week, which carries the support of all Democratic 
members of the Guam Legislature, in support of this legislation.
  I am especially encouraged by the fact that the legislation we are 
considering on the floor today, H.R. 2, does not preempt Guam law for 
tipped employees as minimum wage increase legislation that was 
considered on this floor in the last Congress proposed. Current Guam 
law requires employers to pay their employees the local minimum wage 
and, on top of that, to allow them to keep the tips they receive from 
customers. Deferring to local Guam law that sets a standard minimum 
wage on our island and that applies to all wage earners, whether or not 
they are working in a traditionally tipped field, is important to our 
workforce and especially important to the employees of our visitor 
industry.
  On July 18, 2006, local legislation was enacted on Guam to increase 
the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $5.75 per hour by July 1, 2007. 
The legislation on the floor today would effectively raise this minimum 
wage by another 10 cents within 60 days after its enactment. Over 1,600 
workers would receive an immediate and direct boost in their wages as a 
result of this increase according to local wage statistics compiled by 
the Guam Department of Labor. Passage of this legislation will allow 
our island's workforce, especially those earning the minimum wage, to 
better meet their families' needs.
  One's work is something of which one should be proud. It is also 
something for which one should be fairly compensated. The effort to 
raise the federal minimum wage requirement is a strong signal of our 
support and recognition of those workers who earn the minimum wage and 
the contributions their work has for our society. Congress is overdue 
in fulfilling this responsibility to America's workers. I encourage 
continued bipartisan support for this effort to improve the economic 
prospects of and livelihoods for America's workforce.

[[Page 785]]

  I also encourage continued review and consultation with local 
government on one particular aspect of this legislation as it is 
considered in the remaining steps of the legislative process. I note 
that the legislation on the floor today proposes to apply the national 
minimum wage, for the first time in its history, to the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), which neighbors Guam. This is a 
significant proposal that should be carefully evaluated, especially in 
terms of its implementation and consequences for the economy in the 
CNMI and the economy on Guam. The bill proposes to increase the current 
minimum wage in the CNMI from $3.05 to $7.25 through eight individual 
incremental increases of fifty cents made over the course of four 
years.
  The economy in the CNMI is interlinked with the economy on Guam. 
There will be unique challenges associated with implementing the 
ambitious schedule of increases to the minimum wage in the CNMI. A 
possible rise in unemployment and subsequent possible enrollment 
increases for social services and corresponding budgetary impacts for 
the Government of the CNMI and the Government of Guam as a result of a 
federally mandated, aggressive rise in the minimum wage in the CNMI are 
of concern to me and to local officials. I share in the belief that the 
workers in the CNMI deserve a fair wage. I, however, also believe that 
more coordination with local officials in the CNMI on specific 
provision should be undertaken.
  The Resident Representative of CNMI, the Honorable Pedro A. Tenorio, 
and other locally elected officials of the CNMI have asked Congress to 
consider other options that may include a more realistic schedule of 
increments or a federal wage review board to determine the timing and 
levels of incremental increases to the minimum wage in the CNMI. These 
proposals are designed to take into account the consequences for the 
economy of the CNMI of increasing the minimum wage. It is important to 
consider the economic stability that is needed to support jobs and job 
growth overall in the territory. I support alternatives that would help 
to mitigate the adverse impact that may occur with the implementation 
of the federal minimum wage in the CNMI and I hope that this issue 
could be reviewed in conference on this legislation.
  I take this opportunity to note the continued absence of 
representation in this body for the American citizens of the CNMI, and 
to call attention to the need for such representation. Legislation to 
grant the people of the CNMI a representative in this House has been 
introduced in this body in each of the last six Congresses.
  The House considers difficult issues regarding the CNMI, such as 
presented in the legislation before us today. This is precisely an 
example of why both this House and the people of the CNMI would benefit 
greatly from having a representative from the CNMI seated in this body. 
There are many issues with regard to the CNMI that deserve to be 
addressed by this Congress, and that inevitably will be taken up in the 
weeks and months ahead in committee and on the floor of this body. 
These issues and the need to address them, when taken together, point 
to the need for a Delegate in Congress from the CNMI to represent the 
people of the CNMI during these important deliberations.
  I strongly believe that Congress should provide the CNMI a seat in 
this body. Representation should not be contingent upon good behavior 
by former or current elected officials. Representation also should not 
be contingent upon the specific policy positions held by former or 
current elected officials. Rather, representation for Americans in this 
House has, and should remain, based upon the traditions of American 
democracy and fairness. Representation in American democracy is an 
inalienable right for American citizens and not one that is contingent 
upon a litmus test. Unfortunately, today, this House will vote on this 
legislation without the people of the CNMI having been afforded the 
democratic right of representation in this body to represent them and 
their views.
  Inevitably, the challenges associated with these difficult issues and 
that relate to the applicability of federal law to the CNMI will never 
be overcome in a fair and equitable manner until such time as the 
Congress affords the people of the CNMI a voice in the legislative 
process. I urge this House to adopt H.R. 2, to continue to examine 
carefully in the legislative process its consequences for the economies 
of the CNMI and Guam, and to move in the near future to adopt 
legislation that would allow for a Delegate from the CNMI to be seated 
in this body.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, today is a day that is long overdue.
  Despite the fact that 4 out of 5 Americans support a minimum wage 
increase, the last Congress did not bring up a clean minimum wage bill.
  For more than 9 years, the minimum wage has been frozen. Its value 
today is at its lowest level since 1955--when Eisenhower was President.
  This Congressional neglect--again, 9 years since the last increase--
is the longest since the minimum wage was created. The results have 
been devastating.
  A full-time minimum wage worker earns only $10,712 per year--almost 
$6,000 under the poverty line for a family of three.
  Furthermore, this low wage is often the only wage of the house--
nearly half of all minimum wage workers are the sole breadwinner in 
their households.
  Today, we will change that and millions of workers will benefit. This 
extra money--nearly $4,000 for a full-time minimum wage earner--means 
that they won't have to choose between buying drugs for their children, 
and putting food on the family dinner table.
  It is unacceptable for a person working a full-time job in the 
richest country in the world to live in poverty.
  Mr. Speaker, it is high time that we pay American workers what they 
deserve: a fair day's wage for a day's work.
  Raising the minimum wage is the right thing to do, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, this week presents Congress the chance to deal with some 
long overdue business.
  It's been more than nine years since the Minimum Wage was increased. 
It's been nearly six years since the President cut off federal funding 
for stem cell research. And, it's been nearly two and a half years 
since the 9/11 Commission released its recommendations.
  Its recommendations were a clear road map to what the Government 
needed to do to reduce the chances of another terrorist attack and 
prepare if we were to be attacked again. But many of the 
recommendations went unheeded.
  In December 2005, the Commission gave the government a shameful 
report card--17 D's and F's. An F because our first responders still 
can't communicate with each other. An F for failing to screen airline 
passengers. And an F for basing Homeland Security funding on politics 
instead of risk.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we will turn these F's to A's--from failure to 
action.
  The bill before us is a strong first step for this Congress towards 
securing our country and preventing another 9/11. I am proud to say 
that this bill includes a provision to create a director of non-
proliferation within the White House to coordinate efforts at the 
Departments of Defense, Energy and State.
  This provision was introduced in the 108th Congress, and again in the 
109th Congress, by myself, Mrs. Tauscher and Mr. Spratt, and believe 
that it is crucial to our efforts to create a comprehensive strategy to 
deal with the threats of Weapons of Mass Destruction. I was proud to 
work with both Mrs. Tauscher and Mr. Spratt on this provision and I 
thank them for their leadership on this issue.
  After today, America will be a safer place. 9/11 must never happen 
again. I strongly encourage members to vote in favor of it.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of lifting 
people out of poverty by giving them the means to succeed. I rise today 
to speak against the Democrat's raise in the minimum wage.
  No American wants to see their fellow person live in poverty. There 
are ways to continue to help Americans have all the means necessary to 
not only survive, but to thrive. However, the Democrat's bill to raise 
the minimum wage is nothing more than a Band-Aid on a broken little 
toe. While their intentions may be good, and I believe they are, their 
philosophical approach is economically and socially flawed. In reality, 
this plan will create an economic hardship for the employers who 
provide millions of Americans the opportunity to participate in our 
economy.
  Some of my colleagues would have you believe that the right thing to 
do is mandate unto all businesses, small, family-owned, and corporate 
alike, that the business cannot determine the wage worth of an 
employee. They would have you believe it is the job of the government 
to do so. I believe in a market system without an intrusive, dictating 
government that will likely minimize potential employment opportunities 
for lower skilled workers.
  I and many of my fellow free-market thinking colleagues believe that 
the correct action to take to help these individuals is two-fold.
  First, on the macro-level, we must have a strong, growing economy 
from which highpaying jobs are available and competition for employees. 
Facts show that lowering taxes is an economic motivator. In the past 5 
years, Congress has passed and or extended the following tax cuts: 
marriage penalty relief, accelerated the increase in the child credit, 
accelerated the expansion of the 15 percent rate

[[Page 786]]

bracket for married couples, reduction in individual income tax rates, 
reduction of other regular tax rates, increased the alternative minimum 
tax exemption, reduce individual capital gains rates, and accelerated 
depreciation.
  These tax cuts have helped grow our economy here in the U.S. to the 
point where we are now in a time of economic prosperity with Americans 
enjoying the benefits. Since August 2003, when the 2001 tax extensions 
were passed, the American economy has added over 7 million new jobs--
this is more than all other major industrialized nations combined--and 
posted job gains for 39 straight months. We have also attained an 
impressive 4.5 percent unemployment rate. This economy is most 
conducive to producing higher paying jobs.
  Secondly, on the micro-level, these individuals who are making 
minimum wage most importantly need advancement in skills and education. 
I have had many conversations with a gentleman named Fernando ``Butch'' 
Lecuona III. Butch is the commissioner of Labor for the Nebraska 
Department of Labor and is the head of the Department of Labor in 
Nebraska. Butch also adheres to the philosophy and will be the first 
one to say that education is the key to lifting people from poverty.
  In December of 2006, we in the House passed a tax credit for 
businesses who hired individuals in the Welfare to Work program, which 
provided a tax credit to employers when they hire individuals who have 
received public assistance for 18 months or who have exhausted their 
benefits. In addition to the Welfare to Work program I also supported 
the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, WOTC, when employers hire individuals 
from eight ``target'' groups--such as families receiving public 
assistance, high-risk youths, ex-felons, qualified veterans, and food 
stamp recipients under the age of 35. This is an example of the proper 
roll of government to help individuals succeed.
  While doing my research for this vote, I attempted to find the number 
of people that are the bread-winners for their families working at or 
below minimum wage. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Nebraska 
has roughly 1 million people in our workforce pool. Nearly 60 percent 
of our workers work for an hourly wage. In the United States, 1.5 
percent of hourly workers aged 25 and above make at or below minimum 
wage; 1.5 percent of our hourly workers in Nebraska equals about 8,000 
people. Of the total 17,000 minimum wage workers in Nebraska, more than 
half of those are aged 16-24. These are not typically the breadwinners 
of the family.
  The best tool to battle poverty is a free market with an educated 
workforce. We have the tools in this Nation to continue to provide 
Americans with the opportunities for which we are known. Increasing the 
minimum wage does nothing to help an individual better themselves, 
their family, or their community.
  This is why I will not be supporting the minimum wage increase and I 
urge my colleagues to join me.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the name of fairness and 
justice. American families who rely on the Federal minimum wage are 
struggling to make ends meet. Over the last decade, our poorest-paid 
workers have faced rapidly rising costs in health care, energy, and 
college while the minimum wage has remained the same.
  H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, would increase the Federal 
minimum to $7.25 an hour. At $5.15 per hour, the current Federal 
minimum, a person working 40 hours per week makes $10,712 per year, 
about $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. I ask you, 
can you imagine taking care of your family much less yourself with 
that? In addition, millions of workers paid just a dollar or two more 
than the minimum also live in poverty. An increase to $7.25 will have a 
spillover effect that could raise wages for many of those workers. 
Ladies and gentlemen, the time for an increase is long overdue.
  Critics claim that increasing the minimum wage will have a negative 
effect on the economy, but after the last minimum wage increase in 
1997, the economy enjoyed its strongest growth in more than three 
decades. This Congress was elected in a large part because our economy 
has not benefited the working poor as much as those at the high end of 
the pay scale. H.R. 2 is a first step and I encourage my colleagues to 
support the bill.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
pleasure that the House has passed H.R. 2, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 
2007. Nearly nine out of ten Americans believe that it is time to 
increase the minimum wage, and I could not agree more.
  An increase in the minimum wage is long overdue. The minimum wage has 
not been increased in almost 10 years. This is the longest Americans 
have had to wait for an increase in the minimum wage since the original 
law was enacted in 1938.
  While Americans have been waiting for an increase in the minimum 
wage, the cost of most necessities has risen. The fact is, the real 
value of the current minimum wage is the lowest it has been in over 50 
years. Meanwhile, the costs of health care, gasoline and a college 
education are rising, and families in my District are finding it harder 
and harder to make ends meet.
  An increase in the minimum wage will have a particularly beneficial 
impact on women, especially single mothers. The majority of minimum 
wage earners are women and common sense tells us that a single mother 
cannot effectively provide for her children on $10,000 a year. Because 
many of these mothers are forced to work extra hours or a second job to 
afford food and rent, their children end up spending most of their time 
without a parent at home to raise them.
  If America is indeed the Land of Opportunity, we must reward those 
who pay their dues. A parent working full-time at the current minimum 
wage of $5.15 an hour is likely living below the federal poverty level, 
and is often unable to afford what their children deserve: rent in a 
safe neighborhood, decent child care, and enough food on the table.
  The minimum wage issue is ultimately a question about our fundamental 
values as Americans. Do we value hard work? Do we believe that people 
who work full-time should be able to support themselves? To support 
their families? Isn't it our job to support those who want a hand up, 
and not a hand out?
  I believe the answer to these questions is yes, and I believe that 
most Americans agree with me.
  I am pleased that the House of Representatives, under the leadership 
of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, brought this bill to the Floor during the 
first 100 hours of the 110th Congress. The priorities of working 
Americans are truly the priorities of this House of Representatives.
  I am hopeful that the United States Senate will also make a minimum 
wage hike a priority and pass this bill as soon as possible. I am 
encouraged by the President's recently expressed willingness to 
cooperate with Democrats on this issue. The President's signature 
cannot come soon enough; the bill's initial 70 cent increase does not 
take place until 60 days after H.R. 2 becomes law. Mr. Speaker, nearly 
13 million hard-working Americans have waited long enough.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest measures of our success 
as elected representatives will be the impact our actions have on the 
silent majority of working class poor in America.
  This Congress, to its shame, has ignored these Americans for over a 
decade now in favor of an embarrassing collection of legislative excess 
that favored the connected few.
  Today, we put an end to it.
  During the course of the campaign that ended just a few months ago, I 
met a woman whose story I have carried with me all the way to Congress.
  She was working at the snack bar at the local bowling alley and she 
was working her heart out.
  As she shared her story with me, it became terribly apparent that 
despite valiant efforts, she was struggling mightily to make ends meet 
for her family.
  This fine woman you see was a single mother who had a teenage 
daughter at home, a daughter she worried about because she just had too 
little time to spend with her because she worked so much.
  And this fine woman also had a son who had recently graduated from 
high school, a son who intended to join the military to serve his 
country and hopefully find a way to a higher education and a brighter 
future.
  The problem was her son had a medical condition which precluded him 
from military service. And by the way, as hard as she worked, this fine 
woman did not have any health insurance.
  As this proud woman and mother told me of her struggles to build a 
future for her family, her exhaustion grew and her strength diminished 
as she tried to think of a phone number where she could be reached.
  You see, this fine woman not only worked at the local bowling alley, 
she also worked two other jobs where she earned minimum wage.
  As she talked, her dilemma was apparent--she worried that her jobs 
were robbing her of the time her kids needed to spend with her but she 
knew that she needed to work all three minimum wage jobs just to 
provide for them.
  This is not a choice that any woman or man should have to make and 
our Congress over the last decade should be ashamed for not helping 
this fine woman and tens of millions more hard working Americans.
  As you can see from this very real and personal story, raising the 
minimum wage is not

[[Page 787]]

about politics, it's about traditional American values, it's about 
fairness and opportunity, it's about changing the way we treat our 
working men and women.
  It's about paying rent, putting food on the table and paying for our 
children to go to college.
  That is why today's vote to increase the minimum wage is so 
important, not just for our Nation's working families, not just for 
that proud woman and mother working at the bowling alley, but for her 
children, for our future.
  Today with Americans supporting us, we start fighting for those who 
have been for far too long neglected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to section 508 of House Resolution 6, the bill is considered 
read and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. McKeon

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. McKEON. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. McKeon moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 2) to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor with instructions to report 
     the bill back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:

       Strike section 1 and insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Working 
     Families Wage and Access to Health Care Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                         TITLE I--MINIMUM WAGE

Sec. 101. Minimum wage.
Sec. 102. Applicability of minimum wage to the Commonwealth of the 
              Northern Mariana Islands.

                   TITLE II--ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS

Sec. 201. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 202. Rules governing association health plans.
Sec. 203. Clarification of treatment of single employer arrangements.
Sec. 204. Enforcement provisions relating to association health plans.
Sec. 205. Cooperation between Federal and State authorities.
Sec. 206. Effective date and transitional and other rules.

              TITLE III--TAX INCENTIVES FOR SMALL BUSINESS

Sec. 301. Increased expensing for small business.
Sec. 302. Depreciable restaurant property to include new construction.
Sec. 303. Repeal of Federal Unemployment Surtax.

       Redesignate sections 2 and 3 as sections 101 and 102, 
     respectively, and insert before such sections the following:

                         TITLE I--MINIMUM WAGE

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

                   TITLE II--ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the ``Small 
     Business Health Fairness Act of 2007''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this 
     title is as follows:

Sec. 201. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 202. Rules governing association health plans.
Sec. 203. Clarification of treatment of single employer arrangements.
Sec. 204. Enforcement provisions relating to association health plans.
Sec. 205. Cooperation between Federal and State authorities.
Sec. 206. Effective date and transitional and other rules.

     SEC. 202. RULES GOVERNING ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle B of title I of the Employee 
     Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is amended by adding 
     after part 7 the following new part:

           ``PART 8--RULES GOVERNING ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS

     ``SEC. 801. ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS.

       ``(a) In General.--For purposes of this part, the term 
     `association health plan' means a group health plan whose 
     sponsor is (or is deemed under this part to be) described in 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Sponsorship.--The sponsor of a group health plan is 
     described in this subsection if such sponsor--
       ``(1) is organized and maintained in good faith, with a 
     constitution and bylaws specifically stating its purpose and 
     providing for periodic meetings on at least an annual basis, 
     as a bona fide trade association, a bona fide industry 
     association (including a rural electric cooperative 
     association or a rural telephone cooperative association), a 
     bona fide professional association, or a bona fide chamber of 
     commerce (or similar bona fide business association, 
     including a corporation or similar organization that operates 
     on a cooperative basis (within the meaning of section 1381 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)), for substantial purposes 
     other than that of obtaining or providing medical care;
       ``(2) is established as a permanent entity which receives 
     the active support of its members and requires for membership 
     payment on a periodic basis of dues or payments necessary to 
     maintain eligibility for membership in the sponsor; and
       ``(3) does not condition membership, such dues or payments, 
     or coverage under the plan on the basis of health status-
     related factors with respect to the employees of its members 
     (or affiliated members), or the dependents of such employees, 
     and does not condition such dues or payments on the basis of 
     group health plan participation.
     Any sponsor consisting of an association of entities which 
     meet the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) shall 
     be deemed to be a sponsor described in this subsection.

     ``SEC. 802. CERTIFICATION OF ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS.

       ``(a) In General.--The applicable authority shall prescribe 
     by regulation a procedure under which, subject to subsection 
     (b), the applicable authority shall certify association 
     health plans which apply for certification as meeting the 
     requirements of this part.
       ``(b) Standards.--Under the procedure prescribed pursuant 
     to subsection (a), in the case of an association health plan 
     that provides at least one benefit option which does not 
     consist of health insurance coverage, the applicable 
     authority shall certify such plan as meeting the requirements 
     of this part only if the applicable authority is satisfied 
     that the applicable requirements of this part are met (or, 
     upon the date on which the plan is to commence operations, 
     will be met) with respect to the plan.
       ``(c) Requirements Applicable to Certified Plans.--An 
     association health plan with respect to which certification 
     under this part is in effect shall meet the applicable 
     requirements of this part, effective on the date of 
     certification (or, if later, on the date on which the plan is 
     to commence operations).
       ``(d) Requirements for Continued Certification.--The 
     applicable authority may provide by regulation for continued 
     certification of association health plans under this part.
       ``(e) Class Certification for Fully Insured Plans.--The 
     applicable authority shall establish a class certification 
     procedure for association health plans under which all 
     benefits consist of health insurance coverage. Under such 
     procedure, the applicable authority shall provide for the 
     granting of certification under this part to the plans in 
     each class of such association health plans upon appropriate 
     filing under such procedure in connection with plans in such 
     class and payment of the prescribed fee under section 807(a).
       ``(f) Certification of Self-Insured Association Health 
     Plans.--An association health plan which offers one or more 
     benefit options which do not consist of health insurance 
     coverage may be certified under this part only if such plan 
     consists of any of the following:
       ``(1) a plan which offered such coverage on the date of the 
     enactment of the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2007,
       ``(2) a plan under which the sponsor does not restrict 
     membership to one or more trades and businesses or industries 
     and whose eligible participating employers represent a broad 
     cross-section of trades and businesses or industries, or
       ``(3) a plan whose eligible participating employers 
     represent one or more trades or businesses, or one or more 
     industries, consisting of any of the following: agriculture; 
     equipment and automobile dealerships; barbering and 
     cosmetology; certified public accounting practices; child 
     care; construction; dance, theatrical and orchestra 
     productions; disinfecting and pest control; financial 
     services; fishing; food service establishments; hospitals; 
     labor organizations; logging; manufacturing (metals); mining; 
     medical and dental practices; medical laboratories; 
     professional consulting services; sanitary services; 
     transportation (local and freight); warehousing; wholesaling/
     distributing; or any other trade or business or industry 
     which has been indicated as having average or above-average 
     risk or health claims experience by reason of State rate 
     filings, denials of coverage, proposed premium rate levels, 
     or other means demonstrated by such plan in accordance with 
     regulations.

     ``SEC. 803. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO SPONSORS AND BOARDS OF 
                   TRUSTEES.

       ``(a) Sponsor.--The requirements of this subsection are met 
     with respect to an association health plan if the sponsor has 
     met (or is deemed under this part to have met) the 
     requirements of section 801(b) for a continuous period of not 
     less than 3 years ending with the date of the application for 
     certification under this part.
       ``(b) Board of Trustees.--The requirements of this 
     subsection are met with respect to an association health plan 
     if the following requirements are met:

[[Page 788]]

       ``(1) Fiscal control.--The plan is operated, pursuant to a 
     trust agreement, by a board of trustees which has complete 
     fiscal control over the plan and which is responsible for all 
     operations of the plan.
       ``(2) Rules of operation and financial controls.--The board 
     of trustees has in effect rules of operation and financial 
     controls, based on a 3-year plan of operation, adequate to 
     carry out the terms of the plan and to meet all requirements 
     of this title applicable to the plan.
       ``(3) Rules governing relationship to participating 
     employers and to contractors.--
       ``(A) Board membership.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clauses (ii) and 
     (iii), the members of the board of trustees are individuals 
     selected from individuals who are the owners, officers, 
     directors, or employees of the participating employers or who 
     are partners in the participating employers and actively 
     participate in the business.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--

       ``(I) General rule.--Except as provided in subclauses (II) 
     and (III), no such member is an owner, officer, director, or 
     employee of, or partner in, a contract administrator or other 
     service provider to the plan.
       ``(II) Limited exception for providers of services solely 
     on behalf of the sponsor.--Officers or employees of a sponsor 
     which is a service provider (other than a contract 
     administrator) to the plan may be members of the board if 
     they constitute not more than 25 percent of the membership of 
     the board and they do not provide services to the plan other 
     than on behalf of the sponsor.
       ``(III) Treatment of providers of medical care.--In the 
     case of a sponsor which is an association whose membership 
     consists primarily of providers of medical care, subclause 
     (I) shall not apply in the case of any service provider 
     described in subclause (I) who is a provider of medical care 
     under the plan.

       ``(iii) Certain plans excluded.--Clause (i) shall not apply 
     to an association health plan which is in existence on the 
     date of the enactment of the Small Business Health Fairness 
     Act of 2007.
       ``(B) Sole authority.--The board has sole authority under 
     the plan to approve applications for participation in the 
     plan and to contract with a service provider to administer 
     the day-to-day affairs of the plan.
       ``(c) Treatment of Franchise Networks.--In the case of a 
     group health plan which is established and maintained by a 
     franchiser for a franchise network consisting of its 
     franchisees--
       ``(1) the requirements of subsection (a) and section 801(a) 
     shall be deemed met if such requirements would otherwise be 
     met if the franchiser were deemed to be the sponsor referred 
     to in section 801(b), such network were deemed to be an 
     association described in section 801(b), and each franchisee 
     were deemed to be a member (of the association and the 
     sponsor) referred to in section 801(b); and
       ``(2) the requirements of section 804(a)(1) shall be deemed 
     met.

     The Secretary may by regulation define for purposes of this 
     subsection the terms `franchiser', `franchise network', and 
     `franchisee'.

     ``SEC. 804. PARTICIPATION AND COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Covered Employers and Individuals.--The requirements 
     of this subsection are met with respect to an association 
     health plan if, under the terms of the plan--
       ``(1) each participating employer must be--
       ``(A) a member of the sponsor,
       ``(B) the sponsor, or
       ``(C) an affiliated member of the sponsor with respect to 
     which the requirements of subsection (b) are met,

     except that, in the case of a sponsor which is a professional 
     association or other individual-based association, if at 
     least one of the officers, directors, or employees of an 
     employer, or at least one of the individuals who are partners 
     in an employer and who actively participates in the business, 
     is a member or such an affiliated member of the sponsor, 
     participating employers may also include such employer; and
       ``(2) all individuals commencing coverage under the plan 
     after certification under this part must be--
       ``(A) active or retired owners (including self-employed 
     individuals), officers, directors, or employees of, or 
     partners in, participating employers; or
       ``(B) the beneficiaries of individuals described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(b) Coverage of Previously Uninsured Employees.--In the 
     case of an association health plan in existence on the date 
     of the enactment of the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 
     2007, an affiliated member of the sponsor of the plan may be 
     offered coverage under the plan as a participating employer 
     only if--
       ``(1) the affiliated member was an affiliated member on the 
     date of certification under this part; or
       ``(2) during the 12-month period preceding the date of the 
     offering of such coverage, the affiliated member has not 
     maintained or contributed to a group health plan with respect 
     to any of its employees who would otherwise be eligible to 
     participate in such association health plan.
       ``(c) Individual Market Unaffected.--The requirements of 
     this subsection are met with respect to an association health 
     plan if, under the terms of the plan, no participating 
     employer may provide health insurance coverage in the 
     individual market for any employee not covered under the plan 
     which is similar to the coverage contemporaneously provided 
     to employees of the employer under the plan, if such 
     exclusion of the employee from coverage under the plan is 
     based on a health status-related factor with respect to the 
     employee and such employee would, but for such exclusion on 
     such basis, be eligible for coverage under the plan.
       ``(d) Prohibition of Discrimination Against Employers and 
     Employees Eligible to Participate.--The requirements of this 
     subsection are met with respect to an association health plan 
     if--
       ``(1) under the terms of the plan, all employers meeting 
     the preceding requirements of this section are eligible to 
     qualify as participating employers for all geographically 
     available coverage options, unless, in the case of any such 
     employer, participation or contribution requirements of the 
     type referred to in section 2711 of the Public Health Service 
     Act are not met;
       ``(2) upon request, any employer eligible to participate is 
     furnished information regarding all coverage options 
     available under the plan; and
       ``(3) the applicable requirements of sections 701, 702, and 
     703 are met with respect to the plan.

     ``SEC. 805. OTHER REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO PLAN DOCUMENTS, 
                   CONTRIBUTION RATES, AND BENEFIT OPTIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--The requirements of this section are met 
     with respect to an association health plan if the following 
     requirements are met:
       ``(1) Contents of governing instruments.--The instruments 
     governing the plan include a written instrument, meeting the 
     requirements of an instrument required under section 
     402(a)(1), which--
       ``(A) provides that the board of trustees serves as the 
     named fiduciary required for plans under section 402(a)(1) 
     and serves in the capacity of a plan administrator (referred 
     to in section 3(16)(A));
       ``(B) provides that the sponsor of the plan is to serve as 
     plan sponsor (referred to in section 3(16)(B)); and
       ``(C) incorporates the requirements of section 806.
       ``(2) Contribution rates must be nondiscriminatory.--
       ``(A) The contribution rates for any participating small 
     employer do not vary on the basis of any health status-
     related factor in relation to employees of such employer or 
     their beneficiaries and do not vary on the basis of the type 
     of business or industry in which such employer is engaged.
       ``(B) Nothing in this title or any other provision of law 
     shall be construed to preclude an association health plan, or 
     a health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage 
     in connection with an association health plan, from--
       ``(i) setting contribution rates based on the claims 
     experience of the plan; or
       ``(ii) varying contribution rates for small employers in a 
     State to the extent that such rates could vary using the same 
     methodology employed in such State for regulating premium 
     rates in the small group market with respect to health 
     insurance coverage offered in connection with bona fide 
     associations (within the meaning of section 2791(d)(3) of the 
     Public Health Service Act),
     subject to the requirements of section 702(b) relating to 
     contribution rates.
       ``(3) Floor for number of covered individuals with respect 
     to certain plans.--If any benefit option under the plan does 
     not consist of health insurance coverage, the plan has as of 
     the beginning of the plan year not fewer than 1,000 
     participants and beneficiaries.
       ``(4) Marketing requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--If a benefit option which consists of 
     health insurance coverage is offered under the plan, State-
     licensed insurance agents shall be used to distribute to 
     small employers coverage which does not consist of health 
     insurance coverage in a manner comparable to the manner in 
     which such agents are used to distribute health insurance 
     coverage.
       ``(B) State-licensed insurance agents.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A), the term `State-licensed insurance agents' 
     means one or more agents who are licensed in a State and are 
     subject to the laws of such State relating to licensure, 
     qualification, testing, examination, and continuing education 
     of persons authorized to offer, sell, or solicit health 
     insurance coverage in such State.
       ``(5) Regulatory requirements.--Such other requirements as 
     the applicable authority determines are necessary to carry 
     out the purposes of this part, which shall be prescribed by 
     the applicable authority by regulation.
       ``(b) Ability of Association Health Plans to Design Benefit 
     Options.--Subject to section 514(d), nothing in this part or 
     any provision of State law (as defined in section 514(c)(1)) 
     shall be construed to preclude an association health plan, or 
     a health insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage 
     in connection with an association

[[Page 789]]

     health plan, from exercising its sole discretion in selecting 
     the specific items and services consisting of medical care to 
     be included as benefits under such plan or coverage, except 
     (subject to section 514) in the case of (1) any law to the 
     extent that it is not preempted under section 731(a)(1) with 
     respect to matters governed by section 711, 712, or 713, or 
     (2) any law of the State with which filing and approval of a 
     policy type offered by the plan was initially obtained to the 
     extent that such law prohibits an exclusion of a specific 
     disease from such coverage.

     ``SEC. 806. MAINTENANCE OF RESERVES AND PROVISIONS FOR 
                   SOLVENCY FOR PLANS PROVIDING HEALTH BENEFITS IN 
                   ADDITION TO HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.

       ``(a) In General.--The requirements of this section are met 
     with respect to an association health plan if--
       ``(1) the benefits under the plan consist solely of health 
     insurance coverage; or
       ``(2) if the plan provides any additional benefit options 
     which do not consist of health insurance coverage, the plan--
       ``(A) establishes and maintains reserves with respect to 
     such additional benefit options, in amounts recommended by 
     the qualified actuary, consisting of--
       ``(I) a reserve sufficient for unearned contributions;
       ``(ii) a reserve sufficient for benefit liabilities which 
     have been incurred, which have not been satisfied, and for 
     which risk of loss has not yet been transferred, and for 
     expected administrative costs with respect to such benefit 
     liabilities;
       ``(iii) a reserve sufficient for any other obligations of 
     the plan; and
       ``(iv) a reserve sufficient for a margin of error and other 
     fluctuations, taking into account the specific circumstances 
     of the plan; and
       ``(B) establishes and maintains aggregate and specific 
     excess/stop loss insurance and solvency indemnification, with 
     respect to such additional benefit options for which risk of 
     loss has not yet been transferred, as follows:
       ``(i) The plan shall secure aggregate excess/stop loss 
     insurance for the plan with an attachment point which is not 
     greater than 125 percent of expected gross annual claims. The 
     applicable authority may by regulation provide for upward 
     adjustments in the amount of such percentage in specified 
     circumstances in which the plan specifically provides for and 
     maintains reserves in excess of the amounts required under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(ii) The plan shall secure specific excess/stop loss 
     insurance for the plan with an attachment point which is at 
     least equal to an amount recommended by the plan's qualified 
     actuary. The applicable authority may by regulation provide 
     for adjustments in the amount of such insurance in specified 
     circumstances in which the plan specifically provides for and 
     maintains reserves in excess of the amounts required under 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(iii) The plan shall secure indemnification insurance for 
     any claims which the plan is unable to satisfy by reason of a 
     plan termination.
     Any person issuing to a plan insurance described in clause 
     (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (B) shall notify the 
     Secretary of any failure of premium payment meriting 
     cancellation of the policy prior to undertaking such a 
     cancellation. Any regulations prescribed by the applicable 
     authority pursuant to clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (B) 
     may allow for such adjustments in the required levels of 
     excess/stop loss insurance as the qualified actuary may 
     recommend, taking into account the specific circumstances of 
     the plan.
       ``(b) Minimum Surplus in Addition to Claims Reserves.--In 
     the case of any association health plan described in 
     subsection (a)(2), the requirements of this subsection are 
     met if the plan establishes and maintains surplus in an 
     amount at least equal to--
       ``(1) $500,000, or
       ``(2) such greater amount (but not greater than $2,000,000) 
     as may be set forth in regulations prescribed by the 
     applicable authority, considering the level of aggregate and 
     specific excess/stop loss insurance provided with respect to 
     such plan and other factors related to solvency risk, such as 
     the plan's projected levels of participation or claims, the 
     nature of the plan's liabilities, and the types of assets 
     available to assure that such liabilities are met.
       ``(c) Additional Requirements.--In the case of any 
     association health plan described in subsection (a)(2), the 
     applicable authority may provide such additional requirements 
     relating to reserves, excess/stop loss insurance, and 
     indemnification insurance as the applicable authority 
     considers appropriate. Such requirements may be provided by 
     regulation with respect to any such plan or any class of such 
     plans.
       ``(d) Adjustments for Excess/Stop Loss Insurance.--The 
     applicable authority may provide for adjustments to the 
     levels of reserves otherwise required under subsections (a) 
     and (b) with respect to any plan or class of plans to take 
     into account excess/stop loss insurance provided with respect 
     to such plan or plans.
       ``(e) Alternative Means of Compliance.--The applicable 
     authority may permit an association health plan described in 
     subsection (a)(2) to substitute, for all or part of the 
     requirements of this section (except subsection 
     (a)(2)(B)(iii)), such security, guarantee, hold-harmless 
     arrangement, or other financial arrangement as the applicable 
     authority determines to be adequate to enable the plan to 
     fully meet all its financial obligations on a timely basis 
     and is otherwise no less protective of the interests of 
     participants and beneficiaries than the requirements for 
     which it is substituted. The applicable authority may take 
     into account, for purposes of this subsection, evidence 
     provided by the plan or sponsor which demonstrates an 
     assumption of liability with respect to the plan. Such 
     evidence may be in the form of a contract of indemnification, 
     lien, bonding, insurance, letter of credit, recourse under 
     applicable terms of the plan in the form of assessments of 
     participating employers, security, or other financial 
     arrangement.
       ``(f) Measures to Ensure Continued Payment of Benefits by 
     Certain Plans in Distress.--
       ``(1) Payments by certain plans to association health plan 
     fund.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of an association health 
     plan described in subsection (a)(2), the requirements of this 
     subsection are met if the plan makes payments into the 
     Association Health Plan Fund under this subparagraph when 
     they are due. Such payments shall consist of annual payments 
     in the amount of $5,000, and, in addition to such annual 
     payments, such supplemental payments as the Secretary may 
     determine to be necessary under paragraph (2). Payments under 
     this paragraph are payable to the Fund at the time determined 
     by the Secretary. Initial payments are due in advance of 
     certification under this part. Payments shall continue to 
     accrue until a plan's assets are distributed pursuant to a 
     termination procedure.
       ``(B) Penalties for failure to make payments.--If any 
     payment is not made by a plan when it is due, a late payment 
     charge of not more than 100 percent of the payment which was 
     not timely paid shall be payable by the plan to the Fund.
       ``(C) Continued duty of the secretary.--The Secretary shall 
     not cease to carry out the provisions of paragraph (2) on 
     account of the failure of a plan to pay any payment when due.
       ``(2) Payments by secretary to continue excess/stop loss 
     insurance coverage and indemnification insurance coverage for 
     certain plans.--In any case in which the applicable authority 
     determines that there is, or that there is reason to believe 
     that there will be: (A) a failure to take necessary 
     corrective actions under section 809(a) with respect to an 
     association health plan described in subsection (a)(2); or 
     (B) a termination of such a plan under section 809(b) or 
     810(b)(8) (and, if the applicable authority is not the 
     Secretary, certifies such determination to the Secretary), 
     the Secretary shall determine the amounts necessary to make 
     payments to an insurer (designated by the Secretary) to 
     maintain in force excess/stop loss insurance coverage or 
     indemnification insurance coverage for such plan, if the 
     Secretary determines that there is a reasonable expectation 
     that, without such payments, claims would not be satisfied by 
     reason of termination of such coverage. The Secretary shall, 
     to the extent provided in advance in appropriation Acts, pay 
     such amounts so determined to the insurer designated by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Association health plan fund.--
       ``(A) In general.--There is established on the books of the 
     Treasury a fund to be known as the `Association Health Plan 
     Fund'. The Fund shall be available for making payments 
     pursuant to paragraph (2). The Fund shall be credited with 
     payments received pursuant to paragraph (1)(A), penalties 
     received pursuant to paragraph (1)(B); and earnings on 
     investments of amounts of the Fund under subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Investment.--Whenever the Secretary determines that 
     the moneys of the fund are in excess of current needs, the 
     Secretary may request the investment of such amounts as the 
     Secretary determines advisable by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury in obligations issued or guaranteed by the United 
     States.
       ``(g) Excess/Stop Loss Insurance.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) Aggregate excess/stop loss insurance.--The term 
     `aggregate excess/stop loss insurance' means, in connection 
     with an association health plan, a contract--
       ``(A) under which an insurer (meeting such minimum 
     standards as the applicable authority may prescribe by 
     regulation) provides for payment to the plan with respect to 
     aggregate claims under the plan in excess of an amount or 
     amounts specified in such contract;
       ``(B) which is guaranteed renewable; and
       ``(C) which allows for payment of premiums by any third 
     party on behalf of the insured plan.
       ``(2) Specific excess/stop loss insurance.--The term 
     `specific excess/stop loss insurance' means, in connection 
     with an association health plan, a contract--
       ``(A) under which an insurer (meeting such minimum 
     standards as the applicable authority may prescribe by 
     regulation) provides for payment to the plan with respect to

[[Page 790]]

     claims under the plan in connection with a covered individual 
     in excess of an amount or amounts specified in such contract 
     in connection with such covered individual;
       ``(B) which is guaranteed renewable; and
       ``(C) which allows for payment of premiums by any third 
     party on behalf of the insured plan.
       ``(h) Indemnification Insurance.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `indemnification insurance' means, in 
     connection with an association health plan, a contract--
       ``(1) under which an insurer (meeting such minimum 
     standards as the applicable authority may prescribe by 
     regulation) provides for payment to the plan with respect to 
     claims under the plan which the plan is unable to satisfy by 
     reason of a termination pursuant to section 809(b) (relating 
     to mandatory termination);
       ``(2) which is guaranteed renewable and noncancellable for 
     any reason (except as the applicable authority may prescribe 
     by regulation); and
       ``(3) which allows for payment of premiums by any third 
     party on behalf of the insured plan.
       ``(i) Reserves.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `reserves' means, in connection with an association health 
     plan, plan assets which meet the fiduciary standards under 
     part 4 and such additional requirements regarding liquidity 
     as the applicable authority may prescribe by regulation.
       ``(j) Solvency Standards Working Group.--
       ``(1) In general.--Within 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2007, 
     the applicable authority shall establish a Solvency Standards 
     Working Group. In prescribing the initial regulations under 
     this section, the applicable authority shall take into 
     account the recommendations of such Working Group.
       ``(2) Membership.--The Working Group shall consist of not 
     more than 15 members appointed by the applicable authority. 
     The applicable authority shall include among persons invited 
     to membership on the Working Group at least one of each of 
     the following:
       ``(A) a representative of the National Association of 
     Insurance Commissioners;
       ``(B) a representative of the American Academy of 
     Actuaries;
       ``(c) a representative of the State governments, or their 
     interests;
       ``(D) a representative of existing self-insured 
     arrangements, or their interests;
       ``(E) a representative of associations of the type referred 
     to in section 801(b)(1), or their interests; and
       ``(F) a representative of multiemployer plans that are 
     group health plans, or their interests.

     ``SEC. 807. REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATION AND RELATED 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) Filing Fee.--Under the procedure prescribed pursuant 
     to section 802(a), an association health plan shall pay to 
     the applicable authority at the time of filing an application 
     for certification under this part a filing fee in the amount 
     of $5,000, which shall be available in the case of the 
     Secretary, to the extent provided in appropriation Acts, for 
     the sole purpose of administering the certification 
     procedures applicable with respect to association health 
     plans.
       ``(b) Information to Be Included in Application for 
     Certification.--An application for certification under this 
     part meets the requirements of this section only if it 
     includes, in a manner and form which shall be prescribed by 
     the applicable authority by regulation, at least the 
     following information:
       ``(1) Identifying information.--The names and addresses 
     of--
       ``(A) the sponsor; and
       ``(B) the members of the board of trustees of the plan.
       ``(2) States in which plan intends to do business.--The 
     States in which participants and beneficiaries under the plan 
     are to be located and the number of them expected to be 
     located in each such State.
       ``(3) Bonding requirements.--Evidence provided by the board 
     of trustees that the bonding requirements of section 412 will 
     be met as of the date of the application or (if later) 
     commencement of operations.
       ``(4) Plan documents.--A copy of the documents governing 
     the plan (including any bylaws and trust agreements), the 
     summary plan description, and other material describing the 
     benefits that will be provided to participants and 
     beneficiaries under the plan.
       ``(5) Agreements with service providers.--A copy of any 
     agreements between the plan and contract administrators and 
     other service providers.
       ``(6) Funding report.--In the case of association health 
     plans providing benefits options in addition to health 
     insurance coverage, a report setting forth information with 
     respect to such additional benefit options determined as of a 
     date within the 120-day period ending with the date of the 
     application, including the following:
       ``(A) Reserves.--A statement, certified by the board of 
     trustees of the plan, and a statement of actuarial opinion, 
     signed by a qualified actuary, that all applicable 
     requirements of section 806 are or will be met in accordance 
     with regulations which the applicable authority shall 
     prescribe.
       ``(B) Adequacy of contribution rates.--A statement of 
     actuarial opinion, signed by a qualified actuary, which sets 
     forth a description of the extent to which contribution rates 
     are adequate to provide for the payment of all obligations 
     and the maintenance of required reserves under the plan for 
     the 12-month period beginning with such date within such 120-
     day period, taking into account the expected coverage and 
     experience of the plan. If the contribution rates are not 
     fully adequate, the statement of actuarial opinion shall 
     indicate the extent to which the rates are inadequate and the 
     changes needed to ensure adequacy.
       ``(C) Current and projected value of assets and 
     liabilities.--A statement of actuarial opinion signed by a 
     qualified actuary, which sets forth the current value of the 
     assets and liabilities accumulated under the plan and a 
     projection of the assets, liabilities, income, and expenses 
     of the plan for the 12-month period referred to in 
     subparagraph (B). The income statement shall identify 
     separately the plan's administrative expenses and claims.
       ``(D) Costs of coverage to be charged and other expenses.--
     A statement of the costs of coverage to be charged, including 
     an itemization of amounts for administration, reserves, and 
     other expenses associated with the operation of the plan.
       ``(E) Other information.--Any other information as may be 
     determined by the applicable authority, by regulation, as 
     necessary to carry out the purposes of this part.
       ``(c) Filing Notice of Certification With States.--A 
     certification granted under this part to an association 
     health plan shall not be effective unless written notice of 
     such certification is filed with the applicable State 
     authority of each State in which at least 25 percent of the 
     participants and beneficiaries under the plan are located. 
     For purposes of this subsection, an individual shall be 
     considered to be located in the State in which a known 
     address of such individual is located or in which such 
     individual is employed.
       ``(d) Notice of Material Changes.--In the case of any 
     association health plan certified under this part, 
     descriptions of material changes in any information which was 
     required to be submitted with the application for the 
     certification under this part shall be filed in such form and 
     manner as shall be prescribed by the applicable authority by 
     regulation. The applicable authority may require by 
     regulation prior notice of material changes with respect to 
     specified matters which might serve as the basis for 
     suspension or revocation of the certification.
       ``(e) Reporting Requirements for Certain Association Health 
     Plans.--An association health plan certified under this part 
     which provides benefit options in addition to health 
     insurance coverage for such plan year shall meet the 
     requirements of section 103 by filing an annual report under 
     such section which shall include information described in 
     subsection (b)(6) with respect to the plan year and, 
     notwithstanding section 104(a)(1)(A), shall be filed with the 
     applicable authority not later than 90 days after the close 
     of the plan year (or on such later date as may be prescribed 
     by the applicable authority). The applicable authority may 
     require by regulation such interim reports as it considers 
     appropriate.
       ``(f) Engagement of Qualified Actuary.--The board of 
     trustees of each association health plan which provides 
     benefits options in addition to health insurance coverage and 
     which is applying for certification under this part or is 
     certified under this part shall engage, on behalf of all 
     participants and beneficiaries, a qualified actuary who shall 
     be responsible for the preparation of the materials 
     comprising information necessary to be submitted by a 
     qualified actuary under this part. The qualified actuary 
     shall utilize such assumptions and techniques as are 
     necessary to enable such actuary to form an opinion as to 
     whether the contents of the matters reported under this 
     part--
       ``(1) are in the aggregate reasonably related to the 
     experience of the plan and to reasonable expectations; and
       ``(2) represent such actuary's best estimate of anticipated 
     experience under the plan.

     The opinion by the qualified actuary shall be made with 
     respect to, and shall be made a part of, the annual report.

     ``SEC. 808. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUNTARY TERMINATION.

       ``Except as provided in section 809(b), an association 
     health plan which is or has been certified under this part 
     may terminate (upon or at any time after cessation of 
     accruals in benefit liabilities) only if the board of 
     trustees, not less than 60 days before the proposed 
     termination date--
       ``(1) provides to the participants and beneficiaries a 
     written notice of intent to terminate stating that such 
     termination is intended and the proposed termination date;
       ``(2) develops a plan for winding up the affairs of the 
     plan in connection with such termination in a manner which 
     will result in timely payment of all benefits for which the 
     plan is obligated; and
       ``(3) submits such plan in writing to the applicable 
     authority.

     Actions required under this section shall be taken in such 
     form and manner as may be prescribed by the applicable 
     authority by regulation.

[[Page 791]]



     ``SEC. 809. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AND MANDATORY TERMINATION.

       ``(a) Actions to Avoid Depletion of Reserves.--An 
     association health plan which is certified under this part 
     and which provides benefits other than health insurance 
     coverage shall continue to meet the requirements of section 
     806, irrespective of whether such certification continues in 
     effect. The board of trustees of such plan shall determine 
     quarterly whether the requirements of section 806 are met. In 
     any case in which the board determines that there is reason 
     to believe that there is or will be a failure to meet such 
     requirements, or the applicable authority makes such a 
     determination and so notifies the board, the board shall 
     immediately notify the qualified actuary engaged by the plan, 
     and such actuary shall, not later than the end of the next 
     following month, make such recommendations to the board for 
     corrective action as the actuary determines necessary to 
     ensure compliance with section 806. Not later than 30 days 
     after receiving from the actuary recommendations for 
     corrective actions, the board shall notify the applicable 
     authority (in such form and manner as the applicable 
     authority may prescribe by regulation) of such 
     recommendations of the actuary for corrective action, 
     together with a description of the actions (if any) that the 
     board has taken or plans to take in response to such 
     recommendations. The board shall thereafter report to the 
     applicable authority, in such form and frequency as the 
     applicable authority may specify to the board, regarding 
     corrective action taken by the board until the requirements 
     of section 806 are met.
       ``(b) Mandatory Termination.--In any case in which--
       ``(1) the applicable authority has been notified under 
     subsection (a) (or by an issuer of excess/stop loss insurance 
     or indemnity insurance pursuant to section 806(a)) of a 
     failure of an association health plan which is or has been 
     certified under this part and is described in section 
     806(a)(2) to meet the requirements of section 806 and has not 
     been notified by the board of trustees of the plan that 
     corrective action has restored compliance with such 
     requirements; and
       ``(2) the applicable authority determines that there is a 
     reasonable expectation that the plan will continue to fail to 
     meet the requirements of section 806,

     the board of trustees of the plan shall, at the direction of 
     the applicable authority, terminate the plan and, in the 
     course of the termination, take such actions as the 
     applicable authority may require, including satisfying any 
     claims referred to in section 806(a)(2)(B)(iii) and 
     recovering for the plan any liability under subsection 
     (a)(2)(B)(iii) or (e) of section 806, as necessary to ensure 
     that the affairs of the plan will be, to the maximum extent 
     possible, wound up in a manner which will result in timely 
     provision of all benefits for which the plan is obligated.

     ``SEC. 810. TRUSTEESHIP BY THE SECRETARY OF INSOLVENT 
                   ASSOCIATION HEALTH PLANS PROVIDING HEALTH 
                   BENEFITS IN ADDITION TO HEALTH INSURANCE 
                   COVERAGE.

       ``(a) Appointment of Secretary as Trustee for Insolvent 
     Plans.--Whenever the Secretary determines that an association 
     health plan which is or has been certified under this part 
     and which is described in section 806(a)(2) will be unable to 
     provide benefits when due or is otherwise in a financially 
     hazardous condition, as shall be defined by the Secretary by 
     regulation, the Secretary shall, upon notice to the plan, 
     apply to the appropriate United States district court for 
     appointment of the Secretary as trustee to administer the 
     plan for the duration of the insolvency. The plan may appear 
     as a party and other interested persons may intervene in the 
     proceedings at the discretion of the court. The court shall 
     appoint such Secretary trustee if the court determines that 
     the trusteeship is necessary to protect the interests of the 
     participants and beneficiaries or providers of medical care 
     or to avoid any unreasonable deterioration of the financial 
     condition of the plan. The trusteeship of such Secretary 
     shall continue until the conditions described in the first 
     sentence of this subsection are remedied or the plan is 
     terminated.
       ``(b) Powers as Trustee.--The Secretary, upon appointment 
     as trustee under subsection (a), shall have the power--
       ``(1) to do any act authorized by the plan, this title, or 
     other applicable provisions of law to be done by the plan 
     administrator or any trustee of the plan;
       ``(2) to require the transfer of all (or any part) of the 
     assets and records of the plan to the Secretary as trustee;
       ``(3) to invest any assets of the plan which the Secretary 
     holds in accordance with the provisions of the plan, 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary, and applicable 
     provisions of law;
       ``(4) to require the sponsor, the plan administrator, any 
     participating employer, and any employee organization 
     representing plan participants to furnish any information 
     with respect to the plan which the Secretary as trustee may 
     reasonably need in order to administer the plan;
       ``(5) to collect for the plan any amounts due the plan and 
     to recover reasonable expenses of the trusteeship;
       ``(6) to commence, prosecute, or defend on behalf of the 
     plan any suit or proceeding involving the plan;
       ``(7) to issue, publish, or file such notices, statements, 
     and reports as may be required by the Secretary by regulation 
     or required by any order of the court;
       ``(8) to terminate the plan (or provide for its termination 
     in accordance with section 809(b)) and liquidate the plan 
     assets, to restore the plan to the responsibility of the 
     sponsor, or to continue the trusteeship;
       ``(9) to provide for the enrollment of plan participants 
     and beneficiaries under appropriate coverage options; and
       ``(10) to do such other acts as may be necessary to comply 
     with this title or any order of the court and to protect the 
     interests of plan participants and beneficiaries and 
     providers of medical care.
       ``(c) Notice of Appointment.--As soon as practicable after 
     the Secretary's appointment as trustee, the Secretary shall 
     give notice of such appointment to--
       ``(1) the sponsor and plan administrator;
       ``(2) each participant;
       ``(3) each participating employer; and
       ``(4) if applicable, each employee organization which, for 
     purposes of collective bargaining, represents plan 
     participants.
       ``(d) Additional Duties.--Except to the extent inconsistent 
     with the provisions of this title, or as may be otherwise 
     ordered by the court, the Secretary, upon appointment as 
     trustee under this section, shall be subject to the same 
     duties as those of a trustee under section 704 of title 11, 
     United States Code, and shall have the duties of a fiduciary 
     for purposes of this title.
       ``(e) Other Proceedings.--An application by the Secretary 
     under this subsection may be filed notwithstanding the 
     pendency in the same or any other court of any bankruptcy, 
     mortgage foreclosure, or equity receivership proceeding, or 
     any proceeding to reorganize, conserve, or liquidate such 
     plan or its property, or any proceeding to enforce a lien 
     against property of the plan.
       ``(f) Jurisdiction of Court.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon the filing of an application for 
     the appointment as trustee or the issuance of a decree under 
     this section, the court to which the application is made 
     shall have exclusive jurisdiction of the plan involved and 
     its property wherever located with the powers, to the extent 
     consistent with the purposes of this section, of a court of 
     the United States having jurisdiction over cases under 
     chapter 11 of title 11, United States Code. Pending an 
     adjudication under this section such court shall stay, and 
     upon appointment by it of the Secretary as trustee, such 
     court shall continue the stay of, any pending mortgage 
     foreclosure, equity receivership, or other proceeding to 
     reorganize, conserve, or liquidate the plan, the sponsor, or 
     property of such plan or sponsor, and any other suit against 
     any receiver, conservator, or trustee of the plan, the 
     sponsor, or property of the plan or sponsor. Pending such 
     adjudication and upon the appointment by it of the Secretary 
     as trustee, the court may stay any proceeding to enforce a 
     lien against property of the plan or the sponsor or any other 
     suit against the plan or the sponsor.
       ``(2) Venue.--An action under this section may be brought 
     in the judicial district where the sponsor or the plan 
     administrator resides or does business or where any asset of 
     the plan is situated. A district court in which such action 
     is brought may issue process with respect to such action in 
     any other judicial district.
       ``(g) Personnel.--In accordance with regulations which 
     shall be prescribed by the Secretary, the Secretary shall 
     appoint, retain, and compensate accountants, actuaries, and 
     other professional service personnel as may be necessary in 
     connection with the Secretary's service as trustee under this 
     section.

     ``SEC. 811. STATE ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514, a State may 
     impose by law a contribution tax on an association health 
     plan described in section 806(a)(2), if the plan commenced 
     operations in such State after the date of the enactment of 
     the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2007.
       ``(b) Contribution Tax.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `contribution tax' imposed by a State on an association 
     health plan means any tax imposed by such State if--
       ``(1) such tax is computed by applying a rate to the amount 
     of premiums or contributions, with respect to individuals 
     covered under the plan who are residents of such State, which 
     are received by the plan from participating employers located 
     in such State or from such individuals;
       ``(2) the rate of such tax does not exceed the rate of any 
     tax imposed by such State on premiums or contributions 
     received by insurers or health maintenance organizations for 
     health insurance coverage offered in such State in connection 
     with a group health plan;
       ``(3) such tax is otherwise nondiscriminatory; and
       ``(4) the amount of any such tax assessed on the plan is 
     reduced by the amount of any tax or assessment otherwise 
     imposed by the State on premiums, contributions, or both 
     received by insurers or health maintenance organizations for 
     health insurance coverage, aggregate excess/stop loss 
     insurance (as defined in section 806(g)(1)), specific excess/
     stop

[[Page 792]]

     loss insurance (as defined in section 806(g)(2)), other 
     insurance related to the provision of medical care under the 
     plan, or any combination thereof provided by such insurers or 
     health maintenance organizations in such State in connection 
     with such plan.

     ``SEC. 812. DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       ``(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this part--
       ``(1) Group health plan.--The term `group health plan' has 
     the meaning provided in section 733(a)(1) (after applying 
     subsection (b) of this section).
       ``(2) Medical care.--The term `medical care' has the 
     meaning provided in section 733(a)(2).
       ``(3) Health insurance coverage.--The term `health 
     insurance coverage' has the meaning provided in section 
     733(b)(1).
       ``(4) Health insurance issuer.--The term `health insurance 
     issuer' has the meaning provided in section 733(b)(2).
       ``(5) Applicable authority.--The term `applicable 
     authority' means the Secretary, except that, in connection 
     with any exercise of the Secretary's authority regarding 
     which the Secretary is required under section 506(d) to 
     consult with a State, such term means the Secretary, in 
     consultation with such State.
       ``(6) Health status-related factor.--The term `health 
     status-related factor' has the meaning provided in section 
     733(d)(2).
       ``(7) Individual market.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `individual market' means the 
     market for health insurance coverage offered to individuals 
     other than in connection with a group health plan.
       ``(B) Treatment of very small groups.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), such term 
     includes coverage offered in connection with a group health 
     plan that has fewer than 2 participants as current employees 
     or participants described in section 732(d)(3) on the first 
     day of the plan year.
       ``(ii) State exception.--Clause (i) shall not apply in the 
     case of health insurance coverage offered in a State if such 
     State regulates the coverage described in such clause in the 
     same manner and to the same extent as coverage in the small 
     group market (as defined in section 2791(e)(5) of the Public 
     Health Service Act) is regulated by such State.
       ``(8) Participating employer.--The term `participating 
     employer' means, in connection with an association health 
     plan, any employer, if any individual who is an employee of 
     such employer, a partner in such employer, or a self-employed 
     individual who is such employer (or any dependent, as defined 
     under the terms of the plan, of such individual) is or was 
     covered under such plan in connection with the status of such 
     individual as such an employee, partner, or self-employed 
     individual in relation to the plan.
       ``(9) Applicable state authority.--The term `applicable 
     State authority' means, with respect to a health insurance 
     issuer in a State, the State insurance commissioner or 
     official or officials designated by the State to enforce the 
     requirements of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act 
     for the State involved with respect to such issuer.
       ``(10) Qualified actuary.--The term `qualified actuary' 
     means an individual who is a member of the American Academy 
     of Actuaries.
       ``(11) Affiliated member.--The term `affiliated member' 
     means, in connection with a sponsor--
       ``(A) a person who is otherwise eligible to be a member of 
     the sponsor but who elects an affiliated status with the 
     sponsor,
       ``(B) in the case of a sponsor with members which consist 
     of associations, a person who is a member of any such 
     association and elects an affiliated status with the sponsor, 
     or
       ``(C) in the case of an association health plan in 
     existence on the date of the enactment of the Small Business 
     Health Fairness Act of 2007, a person eligible to be a member 
     of the sponsor or one of its member associations.
       ``(12) Large employer.--The term `large employer' means, in 
     connection with a group health plan with respect to a plan 
     year, an employer who employed an average of at least 51 
     employees on business days during the preceding calendar year 
     and who employs at least 2 employees on the first day of the 
     plan year.
       ``(13) Small employer.--The term `small employer' means, in 
     connection with a group health plan with respect to a plan 
     year, an employer who is not a large employer.
       ``(b) Rules of Construction.--
       ``(1) Employers and employees.--For purposes of determining 
     whether a plan, fund, or program is an employee welfare 
     benefit plan which is an association health plan, and for 
     purposes of applying this title in connection with such plan, 
     fund, or program so determined to be such an employee welfare 
     benefit plan--
       ``(A) in the case of a partnership, the term `employer' (as 
     defined in section 3(5)) includes the partnership in relation 
     to the partners, and the term `employee' (as defined in 
     section 3(6)) includes any partner in relation to the 
     partnership; and
       ``(B) in the case of a self-employed individual, the term 
     `employer' (as defined in section 3(5)) and the term 
     `employee' (as defined in section 3(6)) shall include such 
     individual.
       ``(2) Plans, funds, and programs treated as employee 
     welfare benefit plans.--In the case of any plan, fund, or 
     program which was established or is maintained for the 
     purpose of providing medical care (through the purchase of 
     insurance or otherwise) for employees (or their dependents) 
     covered thereunder and which demonstrates to the Secretary 
     that all requirements for certification under this part would 
     be met with respect to such plan, fund, or program if such 
     plan, fund, or program were a group health plan, such plan, 
     fund, or program shall be treated for purposes of this title 
     as an employee welfare benefit plan on and after the date of 
     such demonstration.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments to Preemption Rules.--
       (1) Section 514(b)(6) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1144(b)(6)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) The preceding subparagraphs of this paragraph do not 
     apply with respect to any State law in the case of an 
     association health plan which is certified under part 8.''.
       (2) Section 514 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1144) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``Subsection (a)'' 
     and inserting ``Subsections (a) and (d)'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(5), by striking ``subsection (a)'' in 
     subparagraph (A) and inserting ``subsection (a) of this 
     section and subsections (a)(2)(B) and (b) of section 805'', 
     and by striking ``subsection (a)'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``subsection (a) of this section or subsection 
     (a)(2)(B) or (b) of section 805'';
       (C) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (e) and (f), respectively; and
       (D) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d)(1) Except as provided in subsection (b)(4), the 
     provisions of this title shall supersede any and all State 
     laws insofar as they may now or hereafter preclude, or have 
     the effect of precluding, a health insurance issuer from 
     offering health insurance coverage in connection with an 
     association health plan which is certified under part 8.
       ``(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5) of 
     subsection (b) of this section--
       ``(A) In any case in which health insurance coverage of any 
     policy type is offered under an association health plan 
     certified under part 8 to a participating employer operating 
     in such State, the provisions of this title shall supersede 
     any and all laws of such State insofar as they may preclude a 
     health insurance issuer from offering health insurance 
     coverage of the same policy type to other employers operating 
     in the State which are eligible for coverage under such 
     association health plan, whether or not such other employers 
     are participating employers in such plan.
       ``(B) In any case in which health insurance coverage of any 
     policy type is offered in a State under an association health 
     plan certified under part 8 and the filing, with the 
     applicable State authority (as defined in section 812(a)(9)), 
     of the policy form in connection with such policy type is 
     approved by such State authority, the provisions of this 
     title shall supersede any and all laws of any other State in 
     which health insurance coverage of such type is offered, 
     insofar as they may preclude, upon the filing in the same 
     form and manner of such policy form with the applicable State 
     authority in such other State, the approval of the filing in 
     such other State.
       ``(3) Nothing in subsection (b)(6)(E) or the preceding 
     provisions of this subsection shall be construed, with 
     respect to health insurance issuers or health insurance 
     coverage, to supersede or impair the law of any State--
       ``(A) providing solvency standards or similar standards 
     regarding the adequacy of insurer capital, surplus, reserves, 
     or contributions, or
       ``(B) relating to prompt payment of claims.
       ``(4) For additional provisions relating to association 
     health plans, see subsections (a)(2)(B) and (b) of section 
     805.
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     `association health plan' has the meaning provided in section 
     801(a), and the terms `health insurance coverage', 
     `participating employer', and `health insurance issuer' have 
     the meanings provided such terms in section 812, 
     respectively.''.
       (3) Section 514(b)(6)(A) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     1144(b)(6)(A)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (i)(II), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (ii), by inserting ``and which does not 
     provide medical care (within the meaning of section 
     733(a)(2)),'' after ``arrangement,'', and by striking 
     ``title.'' and inserting ``title, and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) subject to subparagraph (E), in the case of any 
     other employee welfare benefit plan which is a multiple 
     employer welfare arrangement and which provides medical care 
     (within the meaning of section 733(a)(2)), any law of any 
     State which regulates insurance may apply.''.
       (4) Section 514(e) of such Act (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2)(C)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Nothing'' and inserting ``(1) Except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), nothing''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

[[Page 793]]

       ``(2) Nothing in any other provision of law enacted on or 
     after the date of the enactment of the Small Business Health 
     Fairness Act of 2007 shall be construed to alter, amend, 
     modify, invalidate, impair, or supersede any provision of 
     this title, except by specific cross-reference to the 
     affected section.''.
       (c) Plan Sponsor.--Section 3(16)(B) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     102(16)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``Such term also includes a person serving as the 
     sponsor of an association health plan under part 8.''.
       (d) Disclosure of Solvency Protections Related to Self-
     Insured and Fully Insured Options Under Association Health 
     Plans.--Section 102(b) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 102(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``An association 
     health plan shall include in its summary plan description, in 
     connection with each benefit option, a description of the 
     form of solvency or guarantee fund protection secured 
     pursuant to this Act or applicable State law, if any.''.
       (e) Savings Clause.--Section 731(c) of such Act is amended 
     by inserting ``or part 8'' after ``this part''.
       (f) Report to the Congress Regarding Certification of Self-
     Insured Association Health Plans.--Not later than January 1, 
     2012, the Secretary of Labor shall report to the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
     of the Senate the effect association health plans have had, 
     if any, on reducing the number of uninsured individuals.
       (g) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 1 
     of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 734 
     the following new items:

           ``Part 8--Rules Governing Association Health Plans

``801. Association health plans
``802. Certification of association health plans
``803. Requirements relating to sponsors and boards of trustees
``804. Participation and coverage requirements
``805. Other requirements relating to plan documents, contribution 
              rates, and benefit options
``806. Maintenance of reserves and provisions for solvency for plans 
              providing health benefits in addition to health insurance 
              coverage
``807. Requirements for application and related requirements
``808. Notice requirements for voluntary termination
``809. Corrective actions and mandatory termination
``810. Trusteeship by the Secretary of insolvent association health 
              plans providing health benefits in addition to health 
              insurance coverage
``811. State assessment authority
``812. Definitions and rules of construction''.

     SEC. 203. CLARIFICATION OF TREATMENT OF SINGLE EMPLOYER 
                   ARRANGEMENTS.

       Section 3(40)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
     Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(40)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by inserting after ``control group,'' 
     the following: ``except that, in any case in which the 
     benefit referred to in subparagraph (A) consists of medical 
     care (as defined in section 812(a)(2)), two or more trades or 
     businesses, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed a 
     single employer for any plan year of such plan, or any fiscal 
     year of such other arrangement, if such trades or businesses 
     are within the same control group during such year or at any 
     time during the preceding 1-year period,'';
       (2) in clause (iii), by striking ``(iii) the 
     determination'' and inserting the following:
       ``(iii)(I) in any case in which the benefit referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) consists of medical care (as defined in 
     section 812(a)(2)), the determination of whether a trade or 
     business is under `common control' with another trade or 
     business shall be determined under regulations of the 
     Secretary applying principles consistent and coextensive with 
     the principles applied in determining whether employees of 
     two or more trades or businesses are treated as employed by a 
     single employer under section 4001(b), except that, for 
     purposes of this paragraph, an interest of greater than 25 
     percent may not be required as the minimum interest necessary 
     for common control, or
       ``(II) in any other case, the determination'';
       (3) by redesignating clauses (iv) and (v) as clauses (v) 
     and (vi), respectively; and
       (4) by inserting after clause (iii) the following new 
     clause:
       ``(iv) in any case in which the benefit referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) consists of medical care (as defined in 
     section 812(a)(2)), in determining, after the application of 
     clause (i), whether benefits are provided to employees of two 
     or more employers, the arrangement shall be treated as having 
     only one participating employer if, after the application of 
     clause (i), the number of individuals who are employees and 
     former employees of any one participating employer and who 
     are covered under the arrangement is greater than 75 percent 
     of the aggregate number of all individuals who are employees 
     or former employees of participating employers and who are 
     covered under the arrangement,''.

     SEC. 204. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSOCIATION 
                   HEALTH PLANS.

       (a) Criminal Penalties for Certain Willful 
     Misrepresentations.--Section 501 of the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1131) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' after ``Sec. 501.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Any person who willfully falsely represents, to any 
     employee, any employee's beneficiary, any employer, the 
     Secretary, or any State, a plan or other arrangement 
     established or maintained for the purpose of offering or 
     providing any benefit described in section 3(1) to employees 
     or their beneficiaries as--
       ``(1) being an association health plan which has been 
     certified under part 8;
       ``(2) having been established or maintained under or 
     pursuant to one or more collective bargaining agreements 
     which are reached pursuant to collective bargaining described 
     in section 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 
     U.S.C. 158(d)) or paragraph Fourth of section 2 of the 
     Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 152, paragraph Fourth) or which 
     are reached pursuant to labor-management negotiations under 
     similar provisions of State public employee relations laws; 
     or
       ``(3) being a plan or arrangement described in section 
     3(40)(A)(i),
     shall, upon conviction, be imprisoned not more than 5 years, 
     be fined under title 18, United States Code, or both.''.
       (b) Cease Activities Orders.--Section 502 of such Act (29 
     U.S.C. 1132) is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(n) Association Health Plan Cease and Desist Orders.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), upon 
     application by the Secretary showing the operation, 
     promotion, or marketing of an association health plan (or 
     similar arrangement providing benefits consisting of medical 
     care (as defined in section 733(a)(2))) that--
       ``(A) is not certified under part 8, is subject under 
     section 514(b)(6) to the insurance laws of any State in which 
     the plan or arrangement offers or provides benefits, and is 
     not licensed, registered, or otherwise approved under the 
     insurance laws of such State; or
       ``(B) is an association health plan certified under part 8 
     and is not operating in accordance with the requirements 
     under part 8 for such certification,
     a district court of the United States shall enter an order 
     requiring that the plan or arrangement cease activities.
       ``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the case 
     of an association health plan or other arrangement if the 
     plan or arrangement shows that--
       ``(A) all benefits under it referred to in paragraph (1) 
     consist of health insurance coverage; and
       ``(B) with respect to each State in which the plan or 
     arrangement offers or provides benefits, the plan or 
     arrangement is operating in accordance with applicable State 
     laws that are not superseded under section 514.
       ``(3) Additional equitable relief.--The court may grant 
     such additional equitable relief, including any relief 
     available under this title, as it deems necessary to protect 
     the interests of the public and of persons having claims for 
     benefits against the plan.''.
       (c) Responsibility for Claims Procedure.--Section 503 of 
     such Act (29 U.S.C. 1133) is amended by inserting ``(a) In 
     General.--'' before ``In accordance'', and by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Association Health Plans.--The terms of each 
     association health plan which is or has been certified under 
     part 8 shall require the board of trustees or the named 
     fiduciary (as applicable) to ensure that the requirements of 
     this section are met in connection with claims filed under 
     the plan.''.

     SEC. 205. COOPERATION BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES.

       Section 506 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
     of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1136) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) Consultation With States With Respect to Association 
     Health Plans.--
       ``(1) Agreements with states.--The Secretary shall consult 
     with the State recognized under paragraph (2) with respect to 
     an association health plan regarding the exercise of--
       ``(A) the Secretary's authority under sections 502 and 504 
     to enforce the requirements for certification under part 8; 
     and
       ``(B) the Secretary's authority to certify association 
     health plans under part 8 in accordance with regulations of 
     the Secretary applicable to certification under part 8.
       ``(2) Recognition of primary domicile state.--In carrying 
     out paragraph (1), the Secretary shall ensure that only one 
     State will be recognized, with respect to any particular 
     association health plan, as the State with which consultation 
     is required. In carrying out this paragraph--
       ``(A) in the case of a plan which provides health insurance 
     coverage (as defined in section 812(a)(3)), such State shall 
     be the State with which filing and approval of a policy

[[Page 794]]

     type offered by the plan was initially obtained, and
       ``(B) in any other case, the Secretary shall take into 
     account the places of residence of the participants and 
     beneficiaries under the plan and the State in which the trust 
     is maintained.''.

     SEC. 206. EFFECTIVE DATE AND TRANSITIONAL AND OTHER RULES.

       (a) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall 
     take effect 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act. The Secretary of Labor shall first issue all regulations 
     necessary to carry out the amendments made by this Act within 
     1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Treatment of Certain Existing Health Benefits 
     Programs.--
       (1) In general.--In any case in which, as of the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, an arrangement is maintained in a 
     State for the purpose of providing benefits consisting of 
     medical care for the employees and beneficiaries of its 
     participating employers, at least 200 participating employers 
     make contributions to such arrangement, such arrangement has 
     been in existence for at least 10 years, and such arrangement 
     is licensed under the laws of one or more States to provide 
     such benefits to its participating employers, upon the filing 
     with the applicable authority (as defined in section 
     812(a)(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 
     1974 (as amended by this subtitle)) by the arrangement of an 
     application for certification of the arrangement under part 8 
     of subtitle B of title I of such Act--
       (A) such arrangement shall be deemed to be a group health 
     plan for purposes of title I of such Act;
       (B) the requirements of sections 801(a) and 803(a) of the 
     Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 shall be 
     deemed met with respect to such arrangement;
       (C) the requirements of section 803(b) of such Act shall be 
     deemed met, if the arrangement is operated by a board of 
     directors which--
       (i) is elected by the participating employers, with each 
     employer having one vote; and
       (ii) has complete fiscal control over the arrangement and 
     which is responsible for all operations of the arrangement;
       (D) the requirements of section 804(a) of such Act shall be 
     deemed met with respect to such arrangement; and
       (E) the arrangement may be certified by any applicable 
     authority with respect to its operations in any State only if 
     it operates in such State on the date of certification.

     The provisions of this subsection shall cease to apply with 
     respect to any such arrangement at such time after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act as the applicable requirements 
     of this subsection are not met with respect to such 
     arrangement.
       (2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     terms ``group health plan'', ``medical care'', and 
     ``participating employer'' shall have the meanings provided 
     in section 812 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
     of 1974, except that the reference in paragraph (7) of such 
     section to an ``association health plan'' shall be deemed a 
     reference to an arrangement referred to in this subsection.

              TITLE III--TAX INCENTIVES FOR SMALL BUSINESS

     SECTION 301. INCREASED EXPENSING FOR SMALL BUSINESS.

       Subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), (c)(2), and 
     (d)(1)(A)(ii) of section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to election to expense certain depreciable 
     business assets) are each amended by striking ``2010'' and 
     inserting ``2011''.

     SEC. 302. DEPRECIABLE RESTAURANT PROPERTY TO INCLUDE NEW 
                   CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (7) of section 168(e) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified restaurant 
     property) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) Qualified restaurant property.--The term `qualified 
     restaurant property' means any section 1250 property which is 
     a building or an improvement to a building if more than 50 
     percent of the building's square footage is devoted to 
     preparation of, and seating for on-premises consumption of, 
     prepared meals.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to property placed in service after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 303. REPEAL OF FEDERAL UNEMPLOYMENT SURTAX.

       (a) In General.--Section 3301 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to rate of Federal unemployment tax) is 
     amended by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1), by 
     redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3), and by 
     inserting after paragraph (1) the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) in the case of wages paid in calendar year 2007--
       ``(A) 6.2 percent in the case of wages for any portion of 
     the year ending before April 1, and
       ``(B) 6.0 percent in the case of wages for any portion of 
     the year beginning after March 31; or''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3301(1) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2006''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to wages paid after December 31, 2006.

                             Point of Order

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I 
want to make a point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to dispensing with 
further reading of the motion to recommit?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed with his point of 
order.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order 
against the motion to recommit. The motion is not germane. For example, 
the motion contains tax provisions which are clearly outside the 
jurisdiction of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California wish to 
be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. McKEON. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond.
  Mr. Speaker, my motion should be ruled germane. The bill before us, 
brought to the floor under unprecedented circumstances, circumstances 
that have not been ``fair, open, and honest'' by any means, would raise 
the minimum wage mandate by 41 percent, with small businesses and their 
workers left unprotected.
  Considering that more than 7 million new jobs have been created in 
the last 3\1/2\ years, and that two-thirds of all new jobs are provided 
by small businesses, I ask my colleagues, why in the world would we 
leave them unprotected and endanger this incredible momentum?
  My motion provides a fair alternative that increases the minimum wage 
in exactly the same manner as the Democratic leadership's bill; expands 
access to affordable health care by establishing small business health 
plans; and extends important protections for small businesses and their 
workers.
  My motion should be considered not only germane but a proposal far 
superior to the Democratic leadership's unbalanced minimum wage 
proposal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish to be recognized for 
further argument?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would simply press the point that 
the motion to recommit offered by the minority is not germane, and it 
contains tax provisions and others that are outside the scope of the 
jurisdiction of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from California makes a point of order that the 
instructions included in the motion to recommit propose an amendment 
not germane to the bill.
  Clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, provides that no 
proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall 
be admitted under color of amendment. Among the central tenets of the 
germaneness rule are that an amendment may not introduce a new subject 
matter and that an amendment may not introduce matter within the 
jurisdiction of committees not represented in the pending measure.
  H.R. 2 was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and its 
provisions are confined to the jurisdiction of that committee. The bill 
addresses the rate of the minimum wage. It also applies certain wage 
provisions to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
  The instructions contained in the motion to recommit include, among 
other provisions, an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
regarding certain Federal tax provisions.
  In the opinion of the Chair, that feature of the motion to recommit 
is neither properly related to the subject matter of the bill nor 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and Labor.
  Accordingly, the amendment proposed in the motion to recommit is not 
germane. The point of order is sustained, and the motion is not in 
order.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

[[Page 795]]




       Motion to Table Offered by Mr. George Miller of California

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the 
appeal.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 197, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 16]

                               YEAS--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     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
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     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
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     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
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     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
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     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--197

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     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
     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)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Buyer
     Knollenberg
     Meek (FL)
     Norwood
     Reynolds
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1631

  Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. LEWIS of California, Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania 
and Mr. GILLMOR changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. SPRATT, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Ms. CLARKE and Mr. REYES changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 16, on the motion 
to table the Appeal of the Ruling of the Chair, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated for:
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 16 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. McKeon

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. McKEON. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. McKeon moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 2) to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor with instructions to report 
     the bill back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       In section 2, redesignate subsection (b) as subsection (c) 
     and insert after subsection (a) the following:
       (b) Minimum Wage for Employers Providing Employees Certain 
     Health Care Benefits.--Section 6(a) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 is further amended in subsection (a), 
     by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as paragraphs (3) 
     through (6), respectively and inserting after paragraph (2) 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) if an employer provides health care benefits to an 
     employee through an employee welfare benefit plan (as defined 
     under section 3(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
     Act (29 USC 1002(3)), the applicable minimum wage rate paid 
     by such employer to such employee shall be $5.15 an hour;''.

  Mr. McKEON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, this motion is straightforward in purpose, 
but for millions of uninsured Americans, it would be incredibly 
meaningful in practice. During today's debate, many of us, particularly 
those on this side of the aisle, have talked about the need to expand 
access to affordable health care. As I noted earlier, when discussing 
my comprehensive minimum wage package, I believe this debate presents 
us a tremendous opportunity, not only to impact wages, but to improve 
working families' quality of life as well.

[[Page 796]]

  Therefore, I offer this motion in the same spirit as that 
comprehensive measure. It would ensure that if an employer offers 
health coverage to his or her workers, an incredibly costly yet 
incredibly important employee benefit, then this employer should not be 
further burdened with a 41 percent minimum wage mandate imposed by H.R. 
2, a mandate thrust upon these employers without any protections at all 
for small business and their workers.
  Mr. Speaker, to speak about the benefits of this proposal, I yield 
the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson), who has been working this very issue for many years.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I would like 
to tell you about one of my constituents. Her name is Mary Padilla, and 
she runs Roadrunner Transmission in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She has 
five employees, and she has been in business for 7 years, and she 
provides health insurance for every one of those five employees. Mary 
tells me that if we raise the minimum wage, she is going to have a 
tough time continuing to provide health insurance for her employees, 
and she may have to make a choice that she doesn't want to make.
  Mary is not alone. More than 3 million Americans have gotten new jobs 
in the last 36 months with small businesses. The toughest thing for a 
small business person to do is to make the payroll and provide health 
insurance.
  This motion to recommit would add one provision into this bill on the 
minimum wage. It would say, if you are an employer who is providing 
health insurance for your employees, that benefit is worth more than 
the bump up in the minimum wage, and you would not have to comply with 
these new rules with respect to the minimum wage. It would stay where 
it is for your small business.
  One of the biggest problems we face as a country is the uninsured 
population. In my State, about one in four people doesn't have health 
insurance. This provision would encourage more small and medium-sized 
businesses to provide health insurance for their employees. A paycheck 
matters, a paycheck that makes it through the whole week, but it also 
matters if you are a parent who has to worry every night whether the 
kids are going to get sick when you cannot pay for it, because you 
don't have insurance with your job.
  I would encourage all of you to support the motion to recommit and 
support small business health insurance for every employee in America.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, and Members of the 
House, today is a remarkable day, because after 10 years, we are going 
to have an up-and-down vote on whether the poorest people in our 
Nation, who are working every day and, at the end of the year, end up 
poor, deserve a raise. That is what we are going to do today.
  For 10 years, we have struggled to have this vote, and now we are 
finally going to have it. We have had a lot of excuses why we couldn't 
have it. We have had votes hijacked, and we have had votes pulled off 
the floor, but we could never have this vote. Today, the beginning of 
the 100 hours, we are going to have this vote. We are going to have 
this vote, because this is a major concern. This is a major concern to 
the American society.
  What so many of my colleagues made clear today in the debate is that 
after you have stalled this vote for 10 years, this goes way beyond the 
dollars and cents of the minimum wage. It goes to the core values of 
America and economic justice and social justice and fairness and 
whether or not every American is going to get to participate in the 
American economic system and also be able to provide for their children 
and their families.
  But my colleagues didn't disappoint me today on the other side of the 
aisle. We have one more bump in the road. This last moment, they have 
offered us a motion to recommit where they say, if you offer your 
employees a health care plan, you can keep the minimum wage at $5.15. 
Now it doesn't say that health care plan has to be affordable. It 
doesn't say what the deductibles are, the copayments, which I am sure 
if you are a minimum wage worker at $5.15 today, a wage that is 10 
years old, I am sure you can pay the copayments and the deductibles and 
the premiums. That will not be a problem.
  What is it you don't understand about being poor? What is it you 
don't understand? You are stuck at $5.15 in today's world. You can't 
buy the gasoline to go to work, the bread to put on the table, the milk 
out of the refrigerator. Your utilities are going up. The rent is going 
up.
  Now you say, by the way, if you can pay for a health care plan, you 
can stay at the minimum wage, you lucky ducky. I don't think that is 
what America was talking about when 89 percent of them said they want 
this Congress to raise the minimum wage, not trade it in, not trade it 
in.
  They didn't ask us to trade in the increase in the minimum wage for 
some phantom health care proposal. You know what the average premium is 
for a family? The average premium is $10,880. Okay. That is good plans 
and bad plans together. Cut it in half. You are at the minimum wage. 
You have got to pay $5,000? Cut it in half again. You are at the 
minimum wage. You can pay another $2,000 for your health care? I don't 
think so. I don't think so. Let us get on with the Nation's business, 
with the people's business, and with the minimum-wage workers' 
business. Let us reject this motion and pass this bill now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was 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 passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 144, 
noes 287, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 17]

                               AYES--144

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Fallin
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

[[Page 797]]



                               NOES--287

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Buyer
     Knollenberg
     Miller, Gary
     Norwood

                              {time}  1702

  Mr. GINGREY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SHAYS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LINDER. 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 315, 
noes 116, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 18]

                               AYES--315

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--116

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt

[[Page 798]]


     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Buyer
     Knollenberg
     Miller, Gary
     Norwood

                              {time}  1710

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________