Summary:

All articles in House section

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3081, WAGE AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ACT OF 1999, AND H.R. 3846, MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT
(House of Representatives - March 09, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H773-H792] PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3081, WAGE AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ACT OF 1999, AND H.R. 3846, MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 434 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 434 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3081) to increase the Federal minimum wage and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax benefits for small businesses, and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 3832 shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3846) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the minimum wage, and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; (2) the amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order (except those arising under section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) and which may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 3081, the Clerk shall-- (1) await the disposition of H.R. 3846; (2) add the text of H.R. 3846, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 3081; (3) conform the title of H.R. 3081 to reflect the addition of the text of H.R. 3846 to the engrossment; (4) assign appropriate designations to provisions within the engrossment; and (5) conform provisions for short titles within the engrossment. (b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 3846 to the engrossment of H.R. 3081, H.R. 3846 shall be laid on the table. {time} 1345 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman and my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 3081 in the House under a closed rule without intervention of any point of order. The rule provides that the bill be considered as read and that, in lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, the text H.R. 3832 shall be considered as adopted. The rule provides two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides one motion to recommit H.R. 3081 with or without instructions. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3846 in the House under a modified closed rule. It provides that the bill be considered as read and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule provides for consideration of the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, except those arising under section 425 of the Congressional Budget [[Page H774]] Act of 1974, prohibiting consideration of legislation containing certain unfunded mandates. The rule provides that the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution may only be offered by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The rule provides one motion to recommit H.R. 3846 with or without instructions. Finally, the rule provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 3081, The Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 3846 as passed by the House as a new matter at the end of H.R. 3081, after which H.R. 3846 shall be laid upon the table. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is a carefully crafted rule that makes in order two separate bills. The first is a bill out of the Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. 3081, the Wage and Employment Growth Act of 1999, which provides a series of tax benefits to small businesses. The second piece of legislation, H.R. 3846, is a bill to increase the minimum wage by $1.00 through incremental steps over the course of 3 years. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Ways and Means bill, like almost every tax bill for many, many years, will not be open to further amendments on the House Floor. This long-standing policy is designed to keep the Internal Revenue Code from becoming more cluttered than it is already with special interest provisions. Also, amendments offered on short notice on the House floor might have unintended consequences which may not be fully appreciated without the adequate time to research those issues. The Committee on Ways and Means bill will be subject to 2 hours of debate and allows the minority a motion to recommit with instructions. The minimum wage bill will receive 1 hour of general debate and makes in order two amendments, one to increase the minimum wage over the course of 2 years rather than 3 and another allows States flexibility to determine their own minimum wage. By making these amendments in order, the rule facilitates a thorough debate and vote on the major issues associated with the two bills under consideration, and by allowing a motion to recommit the legislation with or without instructions, the minority is assured their perspective on this issue will be aired and will be voted upon. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that Congress is undertaking an important effort to give tax relief to hard working people who run small businesses and create jobs. Through small business provisions, they include an acceleration of the increase in the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100 percent. This is crucial to making health care more available to innovative people who take risks by starting and running their own businesses. It is often too difficult and costly for a small business to set up pensions or retirement plans for their employees, especially in their new and start-up years. The legislation before the House today provides pension reform and improves retirement security. It increases contribution and benefit levels and limits in tax-favored retirement plans. It shortens investing requirements of employer matching contributions which is very important in today's marketplace, where a worker often spends only a few years on the job and then moves on. Mr. Speaker, I represent a district in Texas that has many, many small businesses. In my district and all across America, small businesses are an important part of our economy. Small business is the engine that drives the economy and creates new jobs in America. In fact, small businesses create more jobs than any other types of businesses, including large corporations. Too many businesses fail because our unfair Tax Code and because of heavy regulatory burdens that consume critical operating capital in their early years. These small business tax provisions do not just help small businesses but they help everyone by encouraging job growth. I remind my colleague that this rule allows for vigorous debate on every major issue related to the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, like many other conservative Members of this body, I question if raising the minimum wage might actually hurt those it is intended to help. I am afraid that employers may look at their rising payroll ledgers and decide to cut back on the number of employees that they hire to offset the added expense of the minimum wage hike. Having said that, it is apparent to me that a majority of Members feel now that it is the appropriate time to pass a minimum wage increase. I strongly support this rule because by allowing for an increase in the minimum wage, it ensures measures to offset the impact of doing so as part of a major deal that has been encouraged by my party. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support the rule so that the House may debate the important issues contained in the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of two bills, a minimum wage bill and a bill providing predominately estate tax breaks. Then once both bills pass, they lump them together and they go to the entire White House. Mr. Speaker, this is a very bad combination of tax breaks and much too slow minimum wage hikes. By stretching the minimum wage out to 3 years, the Republican minimum wage bill is a year late and several dollars short, while their tax bill could just as well be called who wants to make a millionaire a multimillionaire. Mr. Speaker, once again my Republican colleagues have taken a perfectly good idea to raise the $5.15 minimum wage by a dollar and turned it into another way to make the rich richer while stiffing the rest of the citizenry. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by linking these two bills together and creating this very unholy marriage, they have doomed both of these bills to the veto bin, and American workers deserve better. Over 10 million people work for minimum wage in this country, and minimum wage workers are predominately women and minorities. They are the people who take care of our youngsters, our senior citizens. They clean up our offices. They cook our food. They pump our gas. Mr. Speaker, despite working full-time they earn only $10,700 a year. Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, full-time a minimum wage worker in the United States makes only $10,700 a year. That is only $3,200 below the poverty line. I think it is high time they get a raise, even if it is only a dollar an hour, but my Republican colleagues want to phase this raise in over 3 years instead of 2. Mr. Speaker, for those who say there is not much difference between 2 and 3 years, let me add that that extra year will mean a net loss of $1,000 over 3 years to minimum wage workers. Any Member who is committed to welfare reform, any Member who is committed to getting families off the dole and into the workplace should take that commitment to the next step and give these people that very much needed raise. They will still be below the poverty level but at least the poverty line will be in sight. A dollar an hour may not sound like much to most people, but let me say it does make a big difference. It will mean an overall raise of about $2,000 to over 10 million Americans. Instead of giving these people the help they need, my Republican colleagues are watering it down by stretching it out to 3 years and then dooming it by attaching this very lopsided tax break for the very rich. Last month, my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle introduced a marriage penalty bill and most of the benefits of that bill went to the top 25 percent of wage earners and half of it went to people who pay no marriage tax at all. Today's Republican tax bill is no different. 91.4 percent of the tax cuts in this bill will go to the richest top 10 percent of taxpayers and most of those people do not even own small businesses. What it means, Mr. Speaker, is that for every dollar in higher wages for [[Page H775]] minimum wage workers, the rich will get $10.90 in tax breaks. We had a marriage penalty bill for people who pay no marriage penalty, and now we have a small business tax bill for people who do not own small businesses. Mr. Speaker, this is just the second installment of that $800 billion tax break that they tried to get through last year. Mr. Speaker, minimum wage workers are not looking for a handout. They work hard for a living, and they deserve a fair day's pay. Our country is enjoying a tremendous economic expansion so now really is the time to make sure that the minimum wage workers can share in it. My Democratic colleagues want to offer a minimum wage bill, a real minimum wage bill, to make sure that they can share in it, and we want to offer a small business tax bill that will actually help small businesses. Yes, we have a small business tax bill that will help small businesses instead of helping the rich get richer. Under this rule, we just cannot do it. Just this morning, a Washington Post editorial warns that these tax cuts are much too high a price to pay for a wage increase to which they bear very little relationship. {time} 1400 If I may at this time read a column from The Washington Post, today's editorial page. Inverting the Minimum Wage. Congressional Republicans are seeking enactment of still another batch of deceptively packaged tax cuts whose long-term cost the Government just cannot afford. The latest are to be voted on today in the House in connection with the minimum-wage increase. The gloss is that they will compensate small employers for the added cost of the higher wage. The fact is that most of the benefit will go to other than small employers and has nothing to do with the wage. Then I will skip, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to read the whole thing, but it is a very interesting column, and these are not my words, these are the words of the editorial writers of the Washington Post. Then they say, An estimated three-fourths of the tax savings in the bill would go to the highest income 1 percent of all the taxpayers and 90 percent to the highest income 10 percent. The tax savings are 11 times greater than the estimated cost to employers of the minimum wage increase because that is the pretext for them. Then it goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, ``The tax cuts are too high a price to pay for the wage increase to which they bear so little relation.'' It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. I think the people in this Chamber get the picture. I urge my colleagues to really look at this closely and see if the title really matches the contents. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question in order that we can put a Democratic alternative forward that really does give a minimum wage and really does help small business. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really enjoy being in debates with my colleagues on the other side. They want to argue about how we have to give and give and give, but when it comes time for the taxpayer or the small businessperson or the person that has made the investment to get something that is fair treatment back, they get nothing in return from my friends. I would like to also add that there were 48 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that voted for this outrageous marriage penalty; 48 Democrats joined the majority party because it is the right thing to do for the American families to get 1,400 more dollars rather than giving it to Uncle Sam. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and I congratulate him on managing what obviously is a somewhat challenging and controversial rule. I happen to be one who believes very much that we have a responsibility to put into place economic policies which will ensure that everyone, regardless of where they are on the economic scale, has an opportunity to improve their plight. I want to see those at the lower end of the economic spectrum get their wages up. I want us to encourage growth and investment and productivity so that those wages can increase. I do have a difficulty, however, with having the Federal Government mandate a wage rate that frankly has the potential to jeopardize economic growth and has the potential again to hurt most those we are trying to assist. Now, having said that, I realize that a majority of this House supports an increase in the minimum wage. I am in the minority here in believing that we should simply encourage economic growth through tax and other investment incentives. But I am in the minority. I am in the minority, so I feel the responsibility to do everything that we possibly can to allow a free flow of ideas and debate on these very important questions that are before us; and that is why we have, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has outlined, an extraordinarily fair and balanced rule which allows all of the alternatives that are out there to be considered. One over two, one over three. We have tax incentives which some of us do support. So we have a wide range of options that are there, put into place. I will say that I happen to think that tax relief is something that is much needed, and the issues that my friend from his summer spot in South Boston mentioned, the tax issue, is something that enjoys bipartisan support. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) said that 48 Democrats joined in support of the marriage tax penalty. President Clinton stood here during his State of the Union message and talked about his support for that. He indicated that he was adamantly opposed to increasing the earnings cap for retirees. Now, he is prepared to sign it and we welcome that. So aspects that were in that tax bill that he vetoed last year, he has clearly indicated that he supports and we welcome that kind of support and recognition of the fact that we as a country need to do everything, and as a Congress, need to do everything that we can to encourage this kind of economic growth. Specifically, the items that are in this tax package that are particularly beneficial, of course, allow us to deal with this health care question by providing for the self-employed workers to deduct their health care insurance expenses. We also, and I see my very dear friend from New York (Mr. Rangel) here, we want to encourage community redevelopment. We want the community renewal movement to go ahead. Again, President Clinton has joined with Speaker Hastert in supporting that. So I know that my friend from New York will strongly embrace that provision that is in this measure. So there are very, very good aspects of it; and I hope that we will see a strong vote for this rule. But before my colleagues get a chance to vote for the rule, I suspect that there just may be a vote on the previous question. So in light of that, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in support of the previous question so that we can move ahead with a fair, balanced rule that allows all of the different ideas out there to be considered, and then we will do what Speaker Hastert said when he on the opening day of the 106th Congress just a little over a year ago stood here and said we will allow the House to work its will so that the majority will prevail. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that my chairman really has the courage to say he is against the minimum wage. Unfortunately, many people are hiding behind this bill who are also against the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, who is in favor of a real minimum-wage increase. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me join in congratulating the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. His honesty in terms of opposing the minimum wage for the lowest working employees is really to be commended for coming forward and saying it, because like Governor Bush, I wondered about the meanness on this side of the aisle; and it is good to see that people are willing to say that there is a reason behind it. [[Page H776]] Mr. Speaker, one can be reforming and want results if one is going to cave in to the things that one believes in, and I would like to join with my Senator who makes it abundantly clear that the country is really not looking for tax cuts, but looking for us to do the right thing, protecting Social Security, Medicare, the Patients' Bill of Rights, affordable drugs. These are the things that the Congress, not Republicans and not Democrats, but working together, should be doing. There is very, very little compassion for the working people at a time that our country is doing so great. I oppose the rule because my colleagues do not even give us an opportunity to have an alternative. What is the fear in just allowing the House to work its will? There was a time that the tax-writing committee used to be involved in taxes. We yield to the distinguished people on the Committee on Rules to pick and choose what they would like. But when they do not have the courage of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to say that they are against the minimum- wage increase, for God's sake, do not kill it by just burdening taxes on it. Just say that we do not want reform on this side of the House of Representatives. How dare my colleagues say, how dare my colleagues say that the tax provisions in this bill is to protect small businesses. That is outrageous. It is an insult to the American people. It is clear that two-thirds of the tax benefits, they do not go to small businesses, they go to the richest Republicans that we have. So do what you want politically and kill the minimum-wage bill, but for God's sake, do not say that you are doing it fairly. The same thing applies to the Patients' Bill of Rights. If you do not want patients to have a bill of rights, and your leadership does not, do not compromise and say you are coming out for it and then load it up with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, it was clear to us a long time ago what our Republican colleagues' game plan was, and that is to do absolutely nothing and get out of this House of Representatives. And how did they intend to do it? By getting this big $800 billion tax cut, thinking about anything you could imagine, and having the President veto it so that you could go home and campaign on just how we Democrats are against tax cuts. Well, guess what? We Democrats are for tax cuts, but we also are for saving Social Security, saving Medicare, and helping all Americans enjoy it and not just the chosen and the blessed few. Why is it that when my colleagues' tax cut was vetoed, they did not move to override the veto? Could it be that they had lack of votes, or could it be they had lack of guts? In any event, now they have to give us an $800 billion tax cut $200 billion at a time. What does the $122 billion tax cut have to do with giving working people a buck increase from $5.15 to $6.15? Why did my Republican colleagues wait until the President said he would veto it before they brought it to the floor? Many of the things that my colleagues have in the tax provision we support. Why did they overdo it? If they really wanted to be fair, why did they not give us a chance really to report out a tax bill that the President will sign? Now, if my Republican colleagues want to be against the working poor, do it. But at least have the courage to stand up here and to say that every time you steal one of the President's good ideas that you have to load it up with some piece of the $800 billion tax cut until you have to force him to veto it. So if we want to talk about reformists with results, we better walk away from many of the critics outside of our side of the aisle that are talking about the way my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not taking care of the people's business. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for seeing their way clear to allowing the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) to have an amendment to this bill, and I wondered why my colleagues could not reach beyond that to allow some of us on the tax-writing committee to have an amendment to the tax bill. I know one thing: my Republican colleagues may be for reform, but they certainly are not supporting results. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Hearing my colleagues talk about this rule would make me think that they simply do not understand what the Committee on Rules did. First of all, the Committee on Rules, under Republicans, has always insisted or guaranteed that there will be a motion to recommit to the minority party. As my recollection tells me, that rarely happened when the Democrats were in control. Secondly, the fairness of this rule is very obvious to everyone. We will have a separate vote that will be on the provisions for minimum wage from the vote for the tax package, which means if the gentleman from New York or any of my colleagues wish to vote yes or no on minimum wage, they will be allowed to do that. If they want to vote yes or no on the tax package, they will be allowed to do that. If we were being unfair, we would have put them together. Then we would have heard that would be a poison pill, and I think that that could be said and it would be true. The fact of the matter is that the wisdom of this Committee on Rules is that we are trying to present an opportunity of fairness to fully debate the issue, to allow open votes that will take place; and I am very, very proud of what we have done. I believe that any criticism like this is from someone that simply has not read the rule, taken the time to read the rule, or who is trying to dissuade someone else by not using the facts that are at hand. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) {time} 1415 Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Committee on Rules and commend them for the work they have done. We worked in a bipartisan manner with a group of Republicans and Democrats, myself, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) to try to reach across the divide to address an issue that would do two things: It would increase the minimum wage, while protecting those jobs that could be lost through the increase of a minimum wage. In this rule, the will of the House will be heard. I think that is the important thing. If we want to judge the fairness of a rule, the question is, does the House have the ability to have their will heard on votes? We will have a debate, and we will have a vote on the tax cut portion of this bill, so those who believe that it is important to cut taxes to help offset the cost of small business can vote yes, and those who do not can vote no. Not many people in the 20th District of Illinois read the Washington Post. I have great respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), but they do read the Herald and Review from Decatur, Illinois. In an October 26, 1999, editorial, it reads: ``Minimum Wage Tax Break Sensible.'' I will quote just a portion of it. The paper stated that ``When the minimum wage increases, someone has to pay for it, because business owners have to maintain a profit level. The result could be higher prices or fewer jobs at minimum wage. Just as a worker will offer his labor at an acceptable wage level, an employer will pay workers a wage that will permit his company to earn a profit. That is why a minimum wage increase alone won't work, and why a bill to raise the rate linked to some tax breaks for small businesses makes sense.'' Again, that is from the October 26 Herald and Review from Decatur, Illinois. So we are going to have a vote on the tax cut. We are going to have a vote and debate on an issue that me and my friends on the conservative side want, State flexibility. We are going to have a debate. We are going to have a debate and a vote, and the will of the House is going to move forward. We are going to have a debate and we are going to have a vote on the increase, whether it should be $1 over 3 years or $1 over 2 years. The will of the House will have an opportunity to be spoken. I think the rule is pretty fair and pretty balanced, but what I really appreciate about the rule is that I think [[Page H777]] it respects the work that we tried to do over an entire year of keeping a balance, trying to get to the center ground to raise the minimum wage and cut taxes and protect jobs, a group of two Republicans and two Democrats that worked long and hard to get to the point where we are here today. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman, I want to thank the Committee on Rules, and I urge all my colleagues to support the rule. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas. Since 1892, the rules of the House have prohibited the Committee on Rules from reporting any rule that prevents a motion to recommit from being made. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. SESSIONS. A motion to recommit with instructions. Mr. MOAKLEY. I thought the gentleman was just talking about a motion to recommit. Mr. SESSIONS. With instructions. Mr. MOAKLEY. That was added later. Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for helping me with that history, Mr. Speaker. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the leader of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, do not be fooled. This is not an illustration of bipartisanship at work. This debate is a good illustration of how to turn what should have been a proud bipartisan moment for the House into a partisan action by Republican leaders. The majority is performing a charade of bipartisanship. It is not the real thing. For more than 2 years, there has been a true bipartisan effort in this House to increase the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years. This effort has repeatedly run head on into the desire by Republican leaders to keep this issue off the floor for good, but the bipartisan coalition never gave up, thanks to the efforts of Members on both sides of the aisle like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn). Because of their persistence and because of the insistence of the American people, Republican leaders had no choice but to bring a minimum wage bill to the floor. Like so many times before, Republican leaders decided if they could not kill a popular bill they disagree with, they would kill it through neglect. They would try and kill it, attacking it in the light of day on the floor of the House with legislative trickery. Today they are dispensing dollars to the wealthy through the tax bill that is going to be attached at the end, but pennies to the working poor. Republican leaders are forcing us to vote on a minimum wage bill originally designed to help hard-working low-income families that is tied to a regressive tax bill designed to give $120 billion in tax breaks to the very wealthiest Americans. They are preventing Democrats from even offering an alternative that would provide tax cuts targeted to owners of small businesses and family farms, giving relief to those who need it. For every penny that would go to working low-income Americans, Republicans want to give 10 cents or a dime to the wealthiest Americans among us. It is really emblematic of their values. Republicans do not seem able to ever give a break to working families without making sure that they first take care of the wealthiest in America with even greater largesse. We should be voting on a minimum wage that provides a real pay increase and a tax package that provides sensible, responsible tax relief to small businesses, just as the Democratic tax alternative would do. We should be voting on a bill that will be signed by the President, so we can get this minimum wage increase to the people who need it now. The Republican rule is designed to produce a bill that will eliminate the possibility that we can ever get this minimum wage done this year. The people who need it need it now. They do not need to have a bill vetoed by the President because the bill gets joined up with a tax bill that the President will not sign. If we are really, truly committed to working in a bipartisan manner and ensuring that a minimum wage bill passes this year, Members will join me in voting against this rule and putting together a rule that will allow us to have a tax bill joined with the minimum wage that will get this bill signed by the President of the United States. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, a gentleman who knows what the minimum wage is, he has been fighting it for so long. Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, because it limits the opportunity for Members to have a fair and open debate on a pocketbook issue affecting millions of workers. First, it denies us an opportunity to offer a Democratic substitute that would phase in a $1 increase over a 2-year period. This parliamentary maneuver bars Members from debating and amending provisions of the bill that repeal overtime pay for millions of employees working in computers, sales, and funeral services. This maneuver is even more insulting to Members of this body because the effect of these overtime provisions were never considered in this Congress by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, or evaluated by expert witnesses to determine what impact they may have on the work force. Second, Mr. Speaker, the rule automatically includes the DeMint amendment, which will destroy the concept of a Federal minimum wage by allowing 50 States to enact 50 different Federal minimum wage provisions. What a disaster, Mr. Speaker. What an administrative nightmare: fifty States, some of them competing against each other to see who can reduce their State's minimum wage to a level as close to Mexico's and other Nations that exploit their workers. Mr. Speaker, this House should not be in the business of relegating our workers to slave wages in order to compete with cruel, insensitive economic systems of Third World countries. This rule should be opposed because it abuses the House rules, because it violates fair play, and because it stacks the deck against American workers. I urge its defeat, Mr. Speaker. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip. Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the dictionary defines ``outrage'' as a forcible violation of others' rights, and a gross or wanton offense or indignity. That definition could easily apply to this rule. But what else can we expect when the Republican leader once again this year tells the American people that raising the minimum wage is, and I quote ``the wrong thing?'' Let me tell the Members what Democrats think is wrong, Mr. Speaker. We think it is wrong that even as our economy is surging ahead, millions of Americans are left behind. They are the workers who earn the minimum wage. These are the folks that look after our children at day care, that take care of our parents and our grandparents when they are sick. These are the folks who work in our hospitals, who clean our offices. Most of them are women. They have families of their own, in many instances. They struggle to keep a roof over their heads, the heads of their children, food on the table; to give their kids a better life, a little bit of hope; to spend some time with them, but they cannot spend any time with them because they are making $10,700 a year, $2,300 below the poverty level, if they have two children. What do they end up doing? They are out there working two and often three jobs, and it is not right. They deserve a raise, just like the rest of America. By providing a $1 increase over 2 years, our plan will help them achieve just that. Some may ask, what is the difference between a $1 increase over 2 years or $1 over 3 years? The answer to that is, [[Page H778]] $1,000. I know some of my Republican leadership friends may seem to think, well, that is pocket change. That is not a lot of money. But to a poverty wage worker, it can make all the difference in the world. It can make a difference on whether their children get another pair of blue jeans, whether they can meet the bills at the end of the month, whether they may even have a little left over to go to the movies. It makes a heck of a difference. Our initiative does not stop with providing a fair wage, Mr. Speaker. We understand that small businesses are creating most of the jobs in this country and we want to help them. That is why our plan expands the tax relief for family businesses and family farms. It provides for the deductibility of health care premium insurance. Our plan offers a higher minimum wage to workers who have earned it, and tax relief to the businesses who need it. Under the outrageous rule that we have before us right now, it is a plan we will not even have a fair chance to consider. Instead, the leadership on this side of the aisle is presenting us with an elaborate scheme. They will provide a wage increase all right, but only if it is tied to this jumbo tax cut for the wealthy and the super rich, tax cuts that are reckless and that are enormous. Their message basically is this, to working families: Sure, we will give you a little bologna sandwich, but first you have to buy my friends who belong to the country club a really nice, thick, juicy steak dinner. Mr. Speaker, we have news for the Republican leaders, and it is that the minimum wage was never intended to become a meal ticket for their fat cat friends. Mr. Speaker, what the Republican leaders propose is not policy- making, it is a shell game. No wonder the President has pledged that he will veto the Republican plan. Whether we agree with it or not, every Member of this House deserves a chance to consider our substitute, but this rule would deny us that opportunity, and that is why we are fighting it. We will not be denied. We will offer motions to recommit that will give workers a fair minimum wage and provide real tax relief for small businesses and family farms. {time} 1430 Mr. Speaker, our plan is the only one that provides the raise that workers have earned and the tax relief small business and family farms need. Vote against this outrageous rule. Bring back a rule that will give us some sense of equity and fairness and stand with us for America's workers, for small business, for the family farmer. We are not asking for anything more; and by God, the country deserves nothing less. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when I hear the debate on the other side, the debate is as though these Republicans have not allowed a fair and open rule, a great vote for people who think we ought to raise the minimum wage and a great vote and an opportunity for small businesses, men and women who create opportunity for America. You would think by listening to the other side that they do not want to create opportunity and jobs and growth and happiness and the opportunity for the next generation to be employed. I want to stand up and say that my Republican Party has the provisions that accelerate the increase and the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100 percent because we want people to be able to have, not only health insurance, we want people to have their own doctors; that we want to do the things that will extend work opportunities and tracks credits to extend welfare to work. We want to put America to work, want to have opportunity and jobs that are available for everyone. That is what this fair and open rule is about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Perry Township, Ohio (Ms. Pryce) who sits on the Committee on Rules with me. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very fair rule which will allow the House to work its will on the question of raising the minimum wage and providing tax relief to the very businesses that will pay the cost of this new Federal mandate. Now, no matter what my colleagues' position may be on the minimum wage or on tax relief, they will have an opportunity to make their views very clear through the procedure by which we will consider these two bills. Now what could be fairer? For those who support this minimum wage, this rule makes in order legislation to increase it by a dollar over 3 years. If that table is not fast enough, the rule allows Members to vote for a Democrat amendment that increases the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years. Now, of course, many of my colleagues do not think the government should play any role in setting the wages and telling businesses what to pay employees. Even these Members will have at least two opportunities to make their disapproval known when they vote against the Martinez-Traficant amendment and final passage. Whatever one's view is on the minimum wage, I hope that we all recognize that this policy is not free. Someone actually has to pay the higher wages. Those who pay the highest prices are the small businesses across this Nation, the engines of our economy, those businesses which are creating jobs for some of our workers who are the very, very hardest to employ. That is why this rule also allows the House to vote on tax relief for these small companies. The mom and pop store fronts and the new start- up businesses, the dreams of our country's entrepreneurs. Under this rule, Members can register their support for these businesses by voting for legislation that increases the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100 percent, reduces the death tax so that family businesses can be passed on from one generation to the next. It increases the deduction for business meal expenses, and it reforms pension laws to help businesses offer more retirement security to their workers. All of these changes will be helpful to the businessmen and women who are responsible for the innovations and job creation that are making this economy so very strong. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with some controversial issues today on which Members of the House have very, very different views. But this rule gives all Members a fair opportunity to express their position and let the House work its will. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not happy, but believe me, Mr. Speaker, many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle are not happy either; and it is my experience that that usually means we have a pretty good rule. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support raising the minimum wage over a period of 2 years instead of 3 years. The current minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. At this rate, a full-time year-round minimum wage earner in the United States makes approximately $10,712 per year. In 1998, the yearly salary determined necessary for a family of three to rise above the poverty level in this country was $13,003, an amount $2,291 more than the minimum wage salary provides. Clearly, the current minimum wage is too low. Congress has already inexcusably allowed the value of the minimum wage to fall 21 percent lower than in 1979. If the minimum wage is not increased by the year 2001, recent studies show that the inflation adjusted value will fall to $4.90 per hour. It is essential that the minimum wage is raised over the course of 2 years instead of 3. That is why I will support the Traficant amendment, and I urge everyone to support the Traficant amendment. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker was right. Not all of us are happy with this rule. I believe it deals fairly with the minimum wage question. But I continue to not understand why the majority party continues to refuse to allow a substitute [[Page H779]] tax bill when there are sufficient Members on both sides of the aisle who I believe would like our version better than the version that is put before us. But here again, the fundamental question is why not allow a simple vote? Why not allow the package put together by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) to have the opportunity to have the will of the House worked? The bill that we will be voting on today continues the fiscal irresponsible pattern of legislation coming from the majority side that, once again, will squander our national surplus and our opportunity to deal with Social Security and Medicare. This, when one adds up this $122 billion unpaid for, will amount to something over $400 billion now voted by the House and by the Senate in spending the surplus that is not yet real. The tax bill that this rule will allow is the latest in the series of tax bills that will drain the projected budget surplus drip by drip without regard for the consequences. If we pass this bill today, it will be fiscally reckless for this body to continue to rush down this path of passing tax cuts and spending bills without a road map. Why do we continue to casually waive the budget rules? Why do we just continue to come to this floor of the House without first bringing a road map so we can deal with how we are going to spend money and cut taxes this year? The tax bill before us is simply a political document that will never become law. We know this. It appears the majority wants a political issue rather than dealing with the estates of family farmers and small businessmen and women. If my colleagues are truly concerned about estate tax relief, which I am and have been, I very much appreciate what could have been an opportunity to vote on an immediate exemption exclusion of $4 million estates immediately. But, yet, the bill that we have before us pays more attention to estates over $10 million. I do not understand this. The President has promised that he will sign into law the Democratic tax package. The fact the leadership will not allow the House to vote on this amendment suggests they are more interested in keeping a political issue, which I fail to understand, than they are on actually providing tax relief to small businesses. This rule is unfair to our children and grandchildren who will face the consequences of our fiscal irresponsibility if this bill should become law, which it will not. What I do not understand is why we never allow the House of Representatives to work our will so that we might send something to the President that the President will actually sign. Mr. Speaker, I ask that simple question. Why not let the House be the House? Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office not intending to participate in this debate and really got incensed. I sat there, and I wondered, what must the American people be thinking is going on here? What must my Republican colleagues be thinking? Do they think the American people are stupid? What are they doing? It is obvious that their leadership does not support the minimum wage increase, and they are trying to kill the minimum wage increase by loading it up with an irresponsible tax cut that benefits the richest people in America. Are we stupid? Do they think we are stupid? That is exactly what is going on here. The President has said, I will veto this bill. We cannot stand here on the floor and say, hey, we are being bipartisan. There is no bipartisanship here. All we are trying to do is get a wage increase for people in America who need it and want it. All they are trying to do is kill that minimum wage increase. They will try anything and everything to accomplish that objective. We should not sit here and pretend that we are doing something being bipartisan. There is nobody being bipartisan in this House. If they were being bipartisan, they would separate these two bills, let them be voted up or down, give us the opportunity to offer amendments on both bills, and let the House work its will. That is all we are asking for in this equation. It is quite obvious that the Republicans are not going to give it to us and not going to give the opportunity to the American people to have a wage increase. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, just directing my conversation to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), is he the only remaining speaker? Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker who I am going to give 7 minutes to, rundown the time to where we have a minute or so left, and then I will reserve 1 minute for myself when that speaker is through. Mr. MOAKLEY. Then I would be delighted to sit back and listen to the gentleman's speaker for 7 minutes right now. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to both gentlemen who have just spoken, the fact of the matter is that the Republican House of Representatives is not going to send a tax increase, which is what President Clinton wants to sign. The American people understand this. The bills that the President wants to sign are tax increases that take money away from people. Forty-eight of my colleagues on the Democrat side came across just within weeks to sign the marriage penalty. The President of the United States cannot join us. What we are doing today is talking about a minimum wage that is good for America and great for the people who employ those people, small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the Democrat leadership on their analysis of this bill. I support the rule. I will support the tax break. I will support an amendment to increase the minimum wage $1 over a 24-month span, and I will vote for final passage when they are linked together. My district desperately needs an increase in the minimum wage. The sharpest politician to ever sit on Independence Avenue, with great political wisdom, owns two-thirds of the votes, and there are many political machinations that follow down the road on this bill. But a tax break for the boss who raises the wages of my workers is a decent trade-off for me. Am I totally crazy about their tax break? Not totally. There is a thing called a conference. But in the last 4 years, we have had two increases in the minimum wage that were under Republican Party leadership. The Republicans could have brought a bill out here today that did not have an opportunity for $1 over 2 years. They could have left it $1 over 3 years. They did that. I thank them for that. But I want to also say this, those who say that the Republican Party's tactics are simply mean spirited, trying to kill a minimum wage are not truthful. {time} 1445 Their concerns over inflation causing a downward spiral that could hurt my workers is a valid concern that I share, just as they do. I believe our economy is strong enough that it can absorb both. But I think the point that I would like to make today is this: there are many people who come from different backgrounds. I look around and I see great Members coming from very, very poor families. I come from a very poor family. My dad finally got on his feet maybe when I was about 11 years old. My dad never worked for a poor man. This business of bashing one another should stop. Is this bill good for America or not? My Democrat colleagues are saying it is not. I am a Democrat. I am saying it is, after it goes through the conference and after we go through the political machinations to work out those problems. That is what the process is all about, my colleagues. But let us look at this. How many times do we come to the floor that we bash, that we pit old against the young; rich against the poor; black against the white; man against the woman; worker against the company? My colleagues, without a company there is no worker. Without an entrepreneur there is no company. I think the Democrat Party has got to look at this issue. [[Page H780]] I am appealing to the Democrat Party to pass the rule. I do not want to see the Republican Party on their own pass the rule and give an opportunity for a minimum-wage increase on their own, because President Clinton is sharp. I believe if the Clinton White House and the Republican leadership, whose intentions I believe are honorable, were to get together in reasonableness on that tax scheme, we will have a minimum-age increase, and my people desperately need it. My colleagues, the gas prices in America are beginning to approach $2 a gallon. So I want to say this: I want to commend the Republican Party and the Republican leadership for bringing out an opportunity for a minimum-wage increase and, yes, politically machinating the process to accommodate some of their goals. That is what we do here. We are not the Rotary. In closing, Democrats, my amendment does this: the bill says there is a $1 increase over 3 years. The Traficant bill would accelerate the minimum wage of $1 over 2 years. I am asking for a positive vote. I will vote ``yes'' on the previous question; I will vote ``yes'' on the rule. And I will also say this in closing: I served on the majority and on the minority; and we have had, in my opinion, much fairer rules coming from this majority party than we did when I was in the majority. That is telling it like it is. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the Democrats to offer a substitute to both the minimum-wage bill and to the small business tax bill. It is extremely unfortunate that the majority leadership in this House has shut the minority out of the amendment process on these two very critical bills. The two substitutes proposed by the Democrats are reasonable, and they are responsible alternatives to the two bills being offered by the Republicans. Members deserve an opportunity to choose between these two approaches. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we may consider these two sensible alternatives. The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cities the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition. Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislation or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' The vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the text of the amendments I have just referred to and other extraneous materials: Previous Question for H. Res. Small Bus

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3081, WAGE AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ACT OF 1999, AND H.R. 3846, MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT
(House of Representatives - March 09, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H773-H792] PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3081, WAGE AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ACT OF 1999, AND H.R. 3846, MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 434 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 434 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3081) to increase the Federal minimum wage and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax benefits for small businesses, and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 3832 shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3846) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the minimum wage, and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; (2) the amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order (except those arising under section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) and which may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 3081, the Clerk shall-- (1) await the disposition of H.R. 3846; (2) add the text of H.R. 3846, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 3081; (3) conform the title of H.R. 3081 to reflect the addition of the text of H.R. 3846 to the engrossment; (4) assign appropriate designations to provisions within the engrossment; and (5) conform provisions for short titles within the engrossment. (b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 3846 to the engrossment of H.R. 3081, H.R. 3846 shall be laid on the table. {time} 1345 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman and my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 3081 in the House under a closed rule without intervention of any point of order. The rule provides that the bill be considered as read and that, in lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, the text H.R. 3832 shall be considered as adopted. The rule provides two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides one motion to recommit H.R. 3081 with or without instructions. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3846 in the House under a modified closed rule. It provides that the bill be considered as read and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule provides for consideration of the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, except those arising under section 425 of the Congressional Budget [[Page H774]] Act of 1974, prohibiting consideration of legislation containing certain unfunded mandates. The rule provides that the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution may only be offered by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The rule provides one motion to recommit H.R. 3846 with or without instructions. Finally, the rule provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 3081, The Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 3846 as passed by the House as a new matter at the end of H.R. 3081, after which H.R. 3846 shall be laid upon the table. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is a carefully crafted rule that makes in order two separate bills. The first is a bill out of the Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. 3081, the Wage and Employment Growth Act of 1999, which provides a series of tax benefits to small businesses. The second piece of legislation, H.R. 3846, is a bill to increase the minimum wage by $1.00 through incremental steps over the course of 3 years. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Ways and Means bill, like almost every tax bill for many, many years, will not be open to further amendments on the House Floor. This long-standing policy is designed to keep the Internal Revenue Code from becoming more cluttered than it is already with special interest provisions. Also, amendments offered on short notice on the House floor might have unintended consequences which may not be fully appreciated without the adequate time to research those issues. The Committee on Ways and Means bill will be subject to 2 hours of debate and allows the minority a motion to recommit with instructions. The minimum wage bill will receive 1 hour of general debate and makes in order two amendments, one to increase the minimum wage over the course of 2 years rather than 3 and another allows States flexibility to determine their own minimum wage. By making these amendments in order, the rule facilitates a thorough debate and vote on the major issues associated with the two bills under consideration, and by allowing a motion to recommit the legislation with or without instructions, the minority is assured their perspective on this issue will be aired and will be voted upon. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that Congress is undertaking an important effort to give tax relief to hard working people who run small businesses and create jobs. Through small business provisions, they include an acceleration of the increase in the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100 percent. This is crucial to making health care more available to innovative people who take risks by starting and running their own businesses. It is often too difficult and costly for a small business to set up pensions or retirement plans for their employees, especially in their new and start-up years. The legislation before the House today provides pension reform and improves retirement security. It increases contribution and benefit levels and limits in tax-favored retirement plans. It shortens investing requirements of employer matching contributions which is very important in today's marketplace, where a worker often spends only a few years on the job and then moves on. Mr. Speaker, I represent a district in Texas that has many, many small businesses. In my district and all across America, small businesses are an important part of our economy. Small business is the engine that drives the economy and creates new jobs in America. In fact, small businesses create more jobs than any other types of businesses, including large corporations. Too many businesses fail because our unfair Tax Code and because of heavy regulatory burdens that consume critical operating capital in their early years. These small business tax provisions do not just help small businesses but they help everyone by encouraging job growth. I remind my colleague that this rule allows for vigorous debate on every major issue related to the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, like many other conservative Members of this body, I question if raising the minimum wage might actually hurt those it is intended to help. I am afraid that employers may look at their rising payroll ledgers and decide to cut back on the number of employees that they hire to offset the added expense of the minimum wage hike. Having said that, it is apparent to me that a majority of Members feel now that it is the appropriate time to pass a minimum wage increase. I strongly support this rule because by allowing for an increase in the minimum wage, it ensures measures to offset the impact of doing so as part of a major deal that has been encouraged by my party. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support the rule so that the House may debate the important issues contained in the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of two bills, a minimum wage bill and a bill providing predominately estate tax breaks. Then once both bills pass, they lump them together and they go to the entire White House. Mr. Speaker, this is a very bad combination of tax breaks and much too slow minimum wage hikes. By stretching the minimum wage out to 3 years, the Republican minimum wage bill is a year late and several dollars short, while their tax bill could just as well be called who wants to make a millionaire a multimillionaire. Mr. Speaker, once again my Republican colleagues have taken a perfectly good idea to raise the $5.15 minimum wage by a dollar and turned it into another way to make the rich richer while stiffing the rest of the citizenry. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by linking these two bills together and creating this very unholy marriage, they have doomed both of these bills to the veto bin, and American workers deserve better. Over 10 million people work for minimum wage in this country, and minimum wage workers are predominately women and minorities. They are the people who take care of our youngsters, our senior citizens. They clean up our offices. They cook our food. They pump our gas. Mr. Speaker, despite working full-time they earn only $10,700 a year. Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, full-time a minimum wage worker in the United States makes only $10,700 a year. That is only $3,200 below the poverty line. I think it is high time they get a raise, even if it is only a dollar an hour, but my Republican colleagues want to phase this raise in over 3 years instead of 2. Mr. Speaker, for those who say there is not much difference between 2 and 3 years, let me add that that extra year will mean a net loss of $1,000 over 3 years to minimum wage workers. Any Member who is committed to welfare reform, any Member who is committed to getting families off the dole and into the workplace should take that commitment to the next step and give these people that very much needed raise. They will still be below the poverty level but at least the poverty line will be in sight. A dollar an hour may not sound like much to most people, but let me say it does make a big difference. It will mean an overall raise of about $2,000 to over 10 million Americans. Instead of giving these people the help they need, my Republican colleagues are watering it down by stretching it out to 3 years and then dooming it by attaching this very lopsided tax break for the very rich. Last month, my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle introduced a marriage penalty bill and most of the benefits of that bill went to the top 25 percent of wage earners and half of it went to people who pay no marriage tax at all. Today's Republican tax bill is no different. 91.4 percent of the tax cuts in this bill will go to the richest top 10 percent of taxpayers and most of those people do not even own small businesses. What it means, Mr. Speaker, is that for every dollar in higher wages for [[Page H775]] minimum wage workers, the rich will get $10.90 in tax breaks. We had a marriage penalty bill for people who pay no marriage penalty, and now we have a small business tax bill for people who do not own small businesses. Mr. Speaker, this is just the second installment of that $800 billion tax break that they tried to get through last year. Mr. Speaker, minimum wage workers are not looking for a handout. They work hard for a living, and they deserve a fair day's pay. Our country is enjoying a tremendous economic expansion so now really is the time to make sure that the minimum wage workers can share in it. My Democratic colleagues want to offer a minimum wage bill, a real minimum wage bill, to make sure that they can share in it, and we want to offer a small business tax bill that will actually help small businesses. Yes, we have a small business tax bill that will help small businesses instead of helping the rich get richer. Under this rule, we just cannot do it. Just this morning, a Washington Post editorial warns that these tax cuts are much too high a price to pay for a wage increase to which they bear very little relationship. {time} 1400 If I may at this time read a column from The Washington Post, today's editorial page. Inverting the Minimum Wage. Congressional Republicans are seeking enactment of still another batch of deceptively packaged tax cuts whose long-term cost the Government just cannot afford. The latest are to be voted on today in the House in connection with the minimum-wage increase. The gloss is that they will compensate small employers for the added cost of the higher wage. The fact is that most of the benefit will go to other than small employers and has nothing to do with the wage. Then I will skip, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to read the whole thing, but it is a very interesting column, and these are not my words, these are the words of the editorial writers of the Washington Post. Then they say, An estimated three-fourths of the tax savings in the bill would go to the highest income 1 percent of all the taxpayers and 90 percent to the highest income 10 percent. The tax savings are 11 times greater than the estimated cost to employers of the minimum wage increase because that is the pretext for them. Then it goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, ``The tax cuts are too high a price to pay for the wage increase to which they bear so little relation.'' It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. I think the people in this Chamber get the picture. I urge my colleagues to really look at this closely and see if the title really matches the contents. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question in order that we can put a Democratic alternative forward that really does give a minimum wage and really does help small business. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really enjoy being in debates with my colleagues on the other side. They want to argue about how we have to give and give and give, but when it comes time for the taxpayer or the small businessperson or the person that has made the investment to get something that is fair treatment back, they get nothing in return from my friends. I would like to also add that there were 48 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that voted for this outrageous marriage penalty; 48 Democrats joined the majority party because it is the right thing to do for the American families to get 1,400 more dollars rather than giving it to Uncle Sam. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and I congratulate him on managing what obviously is a somewhat challenging and controversial rule. I happen to be one who believes very much that we have a responsibility to put into place economic policies which will ensure that everyone, regardless of where they are on the economic scale, has an opportunity to improve their plight. I want to see those at the lower end of the economic spectrum get their wages up. I want us to encourage growth and investment and productivity so that those wages can increase. I do have a difficulty, however, with having the Federal Government mandate a wage rate that frankly has the potential to jeopardize economic growth and has the potential again to hurt most those we are trying to assist. Now, having said that, I realize that a majority of this House supports an increase in the minimum wage. I am in the minority here in believing that we should simply encourage economic growth through tax and other investment incentives. But I am in the minority. I am in the minority, so I feel the responsibility to do everything that we possibly can to allow a free flow of ideas and debate on these very important questions that are before us; and that is why we have, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has outlined, an extraordinarily fair and balanced rule which allows all of the alternatives that are out there to be considered. One over two, one over three. We have tax incentives which some of us do support. So we have a wide range of options that are there, put into place. I will say that I happen to think that tax relief is something that is much needed, and the issues that my friend from his summer spot in South Boston mentioned, the tax issue, is something that enjoys bipartisan support. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) said that 48 Democrats joined in support of the marriage tax penalty. President Clinton stood here during his State of the Union message and talked about his support for that. He indicated that he was adamantly opposed to increasing the earnings cap for retirees. Now, he is prepared to sign it and we welcome that. So aspects that were in that tax bill that he vetoed last year, he has clearly indicated that he supports and we welcome that kind of support and recognition of the fact that we as a country need to do everything, and as a Congress, need to do everything that we can to encourage this kind of economic growth. Specifically, the items that are in this tax package that are particularly beneficial, of course, allow us to deal with this health care question by providing for the self-employed workers to deduct their health care insurance expenses. We also, and I see my very dear friend from New York (Mr. Rangel) here, we want to encourage community redevelopment. We want the community renewal movement to go ahead. Again, President Clinton has joined with Speaker Hastert in supporting that. So I know that my friend from New York will strongly embrace that provision that is in this measure. So there are very, very good aspects of it; and I hope that we will see a strong vote for this rule. But before my colleagues get a chance to vote for the rule, I suspect that there just may be a vote on the previous question. So in light of that, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in support of the previous question so that we can move ahead with a fair, balanced rule that allows all of the different ideas out there to be considered, and then we will do what Speaker Hastert said when he on the opening day of the 106th Congress just a little over a year ago stood here and said we will allow the House to work its will so that the majority will prevail. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that my chairman really has the courage to say he is against the minimum wage. Unfortunately, many people are hiding behind this bill who are also against the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, who is in favor of a real minimum-wage increase. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me join in congratulating the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. His honesty in terms of opposing the minimum wage for the lowest working employees is really to be commended for coming forward and saying it, because like Governor Bush, I wondered about the meanness on this side of the aisle; and it is good to see that people are willing to say that there is a reason behind it. [[Page H776]] Mr. Speaker, one can be reforming and want results if one is going to cave in to the things that one believes in, and I would like to join with my Senator who makes it abundantly clear that the country is really not looking for tax cuts, but looking for us to do the right thing, protecting Social Security, Medicare, the Patients' Bill of Rights, affordable drugs. These are the things that the Congress, not Republicans and not Democrats, but working together, should be doing. There is very, very little compassion for the working people at a time that our country is doing so great. I oppose the rule because my colleagues do not even give us an opportunity to have an alternative. What is the fear in just allowing the House to work its will? There was a time that the tax-writing committee used to be involved in taxes. We yield to the distinguished people on the Committee on Rules to pick and choose what they would like. But when they do not have the courage of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to say that they are against the minimum- wage increase, for God's sake, do not kill it by just burdening taxes on it. Just say that we do not want reform on this side of the House of Representatives. How dare my colleagues say, how dare my colleagues say that the tax provisions in this bill is to protect small businesses. That is outrageous. It is an insult to the American people. It is clear that two-thirds of the tax benefits, they do not go to small businesses, they go to the richest Republicans that we have. So do what you want politically and kill the minimum-wage bill, but for God's sake, do not say that you are doing it fairly. The same thing applies to the Patients' Bill of Rights. If you do not want patients to have a bill of rights, and your leadership does not, do not compromise and say you are coming out for it and then load it up with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, it was clear to us a long time ago what our Republican colleagues' game plan was, and that is to do absolutely nothing and get out of this House of Representatives. And how did they intend to do it? By getting this big $800 billion tax cut, thinking about anything you could imagine, and having the President veto it so that you could go home and campaign on just how we Democrats are against tax cuts. Well, guess what? We Democrats are for tax cuts, but we also are for saving Social Security, saving Medicare, and helping all Americans enjoy it and not just the chosen and the blessed few. Why is it that when my colleagues' tax cut was vetoed, they did not move to override the veto? Could it be that they had lack of votes, or could it be they had lack of guts? In any event, now they have to give us an $800 billion tax cut $200 billion at a time. What does the $122 billion tax cut have to do with giving working people a buck increase from $5.15 to $6.15? Why did my Republican colleagues wait until the President said he would veto it before they brought it to the floor? Many of the things that my colleagues have in the tax provision we support. Why did they overdo it? If they really wanted to be fair, why did they not give us a chance really to report out a tax bill that the President will sign? Now, if my Republican colleagues want to be against the working poor, do it. But at least have the courage to stand up here and to say that every time you steal one of the President's good ideas that you have to load it up with some piece of the $800 billion tax cut until you have to force him to veto it. So if we want to talk about reformists with results, we better walk away from many of the critics outside of our side of the aisle that are talking about the way my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not taking care of the people's business. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for seeing their way clear to allowing the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) to have an amendment to this bill, and I wondered why my colleagues could not reach beyond that to allow some of us on the tax-writing committee to have an amendment to the tax bill. I know one thing: my Republican colleagues may be for reform, but they certainly are not supporting results. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Hearing my colleagues talk about this rule would make me think that they simply do not understand what the Committee on Rules did. First of all, the Committee on Rules, under Republicans, has always insisted or guaranteed that there will be a motion to recommit to the minority party. As my recollection tells me, that rarely happened when the Democrats were in control. Secondly, the fairness of this rule is very obvious to everyone. We will have a separate vote that will be on the provisions for minimum wage from the vote for the tax package, which means if the gentleman from New York or any of my colleagues wish to vote yes or no on minimum wage, they will be allowed to do that. If they want to vote yes or no on the tax package, they will be allowed to do that. If we were being unfair, we would have put them together. Then we would have heard that would be a poison pill, and I think that that could be said and it would be true. The fact of the matter is that the wisdom of this Committee on Rules is that we are trying to present an opportunity of fairness to fully debate the issue, to allow open votes that will take place; and I am very, very proud of what we have done. I believe that any criticism like this is from someone that simply has not read the rule, taken the time to read the rule, or who is trying to dissuade someone else by not using the facts that are at hand. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) {time} 1415 Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Committee on Rules and commend them for the work they have done. We worked in a bipartisan manner with a group of Republicans and Democrats, myself, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) to try to reach across the divide to address an issue that would do two things: It would increase the minimum wage, while protecting those jobs that could be lost through the increase of a minimum wage. In this rule, the will of the House will be heard. I think that is the important thing. If we want to judge the fairness of a rule, the question is, does the House have the ability to have their will heard on votes? We will have a debate, and we will have a vote on the tax cut portion of this bill, so those who believe that it is important to cut taxes to help offset the cost of small business can vote yes, and those who do not can vote no. Not many people in the 20th District of Illinois read the Washington Post. I have great respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), but they do read the Herald and Review from Decatur, Illinois. In an October 26, 1999, editorial, it reads: ``Minimum Wage Tax Break Sensible.'' I will quote just a portion of it. The paper stated that ``When the minimum wage increases, someone has to pay for it, because business owners have to maintain a profit level. The result could be higher prices or fewer jobs at minimum wage. Just as a worker will offer his labor at an acceptable wage level, an employer will pay workers a wage that will permit his company to earn a profit. That is why a minimum wage increase alone won't work, and why a bill to raise the rate linked to some tax breaks for small businesses makes sense.'' Again, that is from the October 26 Herald and Review from Decatur, Illinois. So we are going to have a vote on the tax cut. We are going to have a vote and debate on an issue that me and my friends on the conservative side want, State flexibility. We are going to have a debate. We are going to have a debate and a vote, and the will of the House is going to move forward. We are going to have a debate and we are going to have a vote on the increase, whether it should be $1 over 3 years or $1 over 2 years. The will of the House will have an opportunity to be spoken. I think the rule is pretty fair and pretty balanced, but what I really appreciate about the rule is that I think [[Page H777]] it respects the work that we tried to do over an entire year of keeping a balance, trying to get to the center ground to raise the minimum wage and cut taxes and protect jobs, a group of two Republicans and two Democrats that worked long and hard to get to the point where we are here today. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman, I want to thank the Committee on Rules, and I urge all my colleagues to support the rule. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas. Since 1892, the rules of the House have prohibited the Committee on Rules from reporting any rule that prevents a motion to recommit from being made. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. SESSIONS. A motion to recommit with instructions. Mr. MOAKLEY. I thought the gentleman was just talking about a motion to recommit. Mr. SESSIONS. With instructions. Mr. MOAKLEY. That was added later. Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for helping me with that history, Mr. Speaker. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the leader of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, do not be fooled. This is not an illustration of bipartisanship at work. This debate is a good illustration of how to turn what should have been a proud bipartisan moment for the House into a partisan action by Republican leaders. The majority is performing a charade of bipartisanship. It is not the real thing. For more than 2 years, there has been a true bipartisan effort in this House to increase the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years. This effort has repeatedly run head on into the desire by Republican leaders to keep this issue off the floor for good, but the bipartisan coalition never gave up, thanks to the efforts of Members on both sides of the aisle like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn). Because of their persistence and because of the insistence of the American people, Republican leaders had no choice but to bring a minimum wage bill to the floor. Like so many times before, Republican leaders decided if they could not kill a popular bill they disagree with, they would kill it through neglect. They would try and kill it, attacking it in the light of day on the floor of the House with legislative trickery. Today they are dispensing dollars to the wealthy through the tax bill that is going to be attached at the end, but pennies to the working poor. Republican leaders are forcing us to vote on a minimum wage bill originally designed to help hard-working low-income families that is tied to a regressive tax bill designed to give $120 billion in tax breaks to the very wealthiest Americans. They are preventing Democrats from even offering an alternative that would provide tax cuts targeted to owners of small businesses and family farms, giving relief to those who need it. For every penny that would go to working low-income Americans, Republicans want to give 10 cents or a dime to the wealthiest Americans among us. It is really emblematic of their values. Republicans do not seem able to ever give a break to working families without making sure that they first take care of the wealthiest in America with even greater largesse. We should be voting on a minimum wage that provides a real pay increase and a tax package that provides sensible, responsible tax relief to small businesses, just as the Democratic tax alternative would do. We should be voting on a bill that will be signed by the President, so we can get this minimum wage increase to the people who need it now. The Republican rule is designed to produce a bill that will eliminate the possibility that we can ever get this minimum wage done this year. The people who need it need it now. They do not need to have a bill vetoed by the President because the bill gets joined up with a tax bill that the President will not sign. If we are really, truly committed to working in a bipartisan manner and ensuring that a minimum wage bill passes this year, Members will join me in voting against this rule and putting together a rule that will allow us to have a tax bill joined with the minimum wage that will get this bill signed by the President of the United States. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, a gentleman who knows what the minimum wage is, he has been fighting it for so long. Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, because it limits the opportunity for Members to have a fair and open debate on a pocketbook issue affecting millions of workers. First, it denies us an opportunity to offer a Democratic substitute that would phase in a $1 increase over a 2-year period. This parliamentary maneuver bars Members from debating and amending provisions of the bill that repeal overtime pay for millions of employees working in computers, sales, and funeral services. This maneuver is even more insulting to Members of this body because the effect of these overtime provisions were never considered in this Congress by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, or evaluated by expert witnesses to determine what impact they may have on the work force. Second, Mr. Speaker, the rule automatically includes the DeMint amendment, which will destroy the concept of a Federal minimum wage by allowing 50 States to enact 50 different Federal minimum wage provisions. What a disaster, Mr. Speaker. What an administrative nightmare: fifty States, some of them competing against each other to see who can reduce their State's minimum wage to a level as close to Mexico's and other Nations that exploit their workers. Mr. Speaker, this House should not be in the business of relegating our workers to slave wages in order to compete with cruel, insensitive economic systems of Third World countries. This rule should be opposed because it abuses the House rules, because it violates fair play, and because it stacks the deck against American workers. I urge its defeat, Mr. Speaker. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip. Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the dictionary defines ``outrage'' as a forcible violation of others' rights, and a gross or wanton offense or indignity. That definition could easily apply to this rule. But what else can we expect when the Republican leader once again this year tells the American people that raising the minimum wage is, and I quote ``the wrong thing?'' Let me tell the Members what Democrats think is wrong, Mr. Speaker. We think it is wrong that even as our economy is surging ahead, millions of Americans are left behind. They are the workers who earn the minimum wage. These are the folks that look after our children at day care, that take care of our parents and our grandparents when they are sick. These are the folks who work in our hospitals, who clean our offices. Most of them are women. They have families of their own, in many instances. They struggle to keep a roof over their heads, the heads of their children, food on the table; to give their kids a better life, a little bit of hope; to spend some time with them, but they cannot spend any time with them because they are making $10,700 a year, $2,300 below the poverty level, if they have two children. What do they end up doing? They are out there working two and often three jobs, and it is not right. They deserve a raise, just like the rest of America. By providing a $1 increase over 2 years, our plan will help them achieve just that. Some may ask, what is the difference between a $1 increase over 2 years or $1 over 3 years? The answer to that is, [[Page H778]] $1,000. I know some of my Republican leadership friends may seem to think, well, that is pocket change. That is not a lot of money. But to a poverty wage worker, it can make all the difference in the world. It can make a difference on whether their children get another pair of blue jeans, whether they can meet the bills at the end of the month, whether they may even have a little left over to go to the movies. It makes a heck of a difference. Our initiative does not stop with providing a fair wage, Mr. Speaker. We understand that small businesses are creating most of the jobs in this country and we want to help them. That is why our plan expands the tax relief for family businesses and family farms. It provides for the deductibility of health care premium insurance. Our plan offers a higher minimum wage to workers who have earned it, and tax relief to the businesses who need it. Under the outrageous rule that we have before us right now, it is a plan we will not even have a fair chance to consider. Instead, the leadership on this side of the aisle is presenting us with an elaborate scheme. They will provide a wage increase all right, but only if it is tied to this jumbo tax cut for the wealthy and the super rich, tax cuts that are reckless and that are enormous. Their message basically is this, to working families: Sure, we will give you a little bologna sandwich, but first you have to buy my friends who belong to the country club a really nice, thick, juicy steak dinner. Mr. Speaker, we have news for the Republican leaders, and it is that the minimum wage was never intended to become a meal ticket for their fat cat friends. Mr. Speaker, what the Republican leaders propose is not policy- making, it is a shell game. No wonder the President has pledged that he will veto the Republican plan. Whether we agree with it or not, every Member of this House deserves a chance to consider our substitute, but this rule would deny us that opportunity, and that is why we are fighting it. We will not be denied. We will offer motions to recommit that will give workers a fair minimum wage and provide real tax relief for small businesses and family farms. {time} 1430 Mr. Speaker, our plan is the only one that provides the raise that workers have earned and the tax relief small business and family farms need. Vote against this outrageous rule. Bring back a rule that will give us some sense of equity and fairness and stand with us for America's workers, for small business, for the family farmer. We are not asking for anything more; and by God, the country deserves nothing less. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when I hear the debate on the other side, the debate is as though these Republicans have not allowed a fair and open rule, a great vote for people who think we ought to raise the minimum wage and a great vote and an opportunity for small businesses, men and women who create opportunity for America. You would think by listening to the other side that they do not want to create opportunity and jobs and growth and happiness and the opportunity for the next generation to be employed. I want to stand up and say that my Republican Party has the provisions that accelerate the increase and the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100 percent because we want people to be able to have, not only health insurance, we want people to have their own doctors; that we want to do the things that will extend work opportunities and tracks credits to extend welfare to work. We want to put America to work, want to have opportunity and jobs that are available for everyone. That is what this fair and open rule is about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Perry Township, Ohio (Ms. Pryce) who sits on the Committee on Rules with me. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very fair rule which will allow the House to work its will on the question of raising the minimum wage and providing tax relief to the very businesses that will pay the cost of this new Federal mandate. Now, no matter what my colleagues' position may be on the minimum wage or on tax relief, they will have an opportunity to make their views very clear through the procedure by which we will consider these two bills. Now what could be fairer? For those who support this minimum wage, this rule makes in order legislation to increase it by a dollar over 3 years. If that table is not fast enough, the rule allows Members to vote for a Democrat amendment that increases the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years. Now, of course, many of my colleagues do not think the government should play any role in setting the wages and telling businesses what to pay employees. Even these Members will have at least two opportunities to make their disapproval known when they vote against the Martinez-Traficant amendment and final passage. Whatever one's view is on the minimum wage, I hope that we all recognize that this policy is not free. Someone actually has to pay the higher wages. Those who pay the highest prices are the small businesses across this Nation, the engines of our economy, those businesses which are creating jobs for some of our workers who are the very, very hardest to employ. That is why this rule also allows the House to vote on tax relief for these small companies. The mom and pop store fronts and the new start- up businesses, the dreams of our country's entrepreneurs. Under this rule, Members can register their support for these businesses by voting for legislation that increases the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100 percent, reduces the death tax so that family businesses can be passed on from one generation to the next. It increases the deduction for business meal expenses, and it reforms pension laws to help businesses offer more retirement security to their workers. All of these changes will be helpful to the businessmen and women who are responsible for the innovations and job creation that are making this economy so very strong. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with some controversial issues today on which Members of the House have very, very different views. But this rule gives all Members a fair opportunity to express their position and let the House work its will. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not happy, but believe me, Mr. Speaker, many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle are not happy either; and it is my experience that that usually means we have a pretty good rule. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support raising the minimum wage over a period of 2 years instead of 3 years. The current minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. At this rate, a full-time year-round minimum wage earner in the United States makes approximately $10,712 per year. In 1998, the yearly salary determined necessary for a family of three to rise above the poverty level in this country was $13,003, an amount $2,291 more than the minimum wage salary provides. Clearly, the current minimum wage is too low. Congress has already inexcusably allowed the value of the minimum wage to fall 21 percent lower than in 1979. If the minimum wage is not increased by the year 2001, recent studies show that the inflation adjusted value will fall to $4.90 per hour. It is essential that the minimum wage is raised over the course of 2 years instead of 3. That is why I will support the Traficant amendment, and I urge everyone to support the Traficant amendment. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker was right. Not all of us are happy with this rule. I believe it deals fairly with the minimum wage question. But I continue to not understand why the majority party continues to refuse to allow a substitute [[Page H779]] tax bill when there are sufficient Members on both sides of the aisle who I believe would like our version better than the version that is put before us. But here again, the fundamental question is why not allow a simple vote? Why not allow the package put together by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) to have the opportunity to have the will of the House worked? The bill that we will be voting on today continues the fiscal irresponsible pattern of legislation coming from the majority side that, once again, will squander our national surplus and our opportunity to deal with Social Security and Medicare. This, when one adds up this $122 billion unpaid for, will amount to something over $400 billion now voted by the House and by the Senate in spending the surplus that is not yet real. The tax bill that this rule will allow is the latest in the series of tax bills that will drain the projected budget surplus drip by drip without regard for the consequences. If we pass this bill today, it will be fiscally reckless for this body to continue to rush down this path of passing tax cuts and spending bills without a road map. Why do we continue to casually waive the budget rules? Why do we just continue to come to this floor of the House without first bringing a road map so we can deal with how we are going to spend money and cut taxes this year? The tax bill before us is simply a political document that will never become law. We know this. It appears the majority wants a political issue rather than dealing with the estates of family farmers and small businessmen and women. If my colleagues are truly concerned about estate tax relief, which I am and have been, I very much appreciate what could have been an opportunity to vote on an immediate exemption exclusion of $4 million estates immediately. But, yet, the bill that we have before us pays more attention to estates over $10 million. I do not understand this. The President has promised that he will sign into law the Democratic tax package. The fact the leadership will not allow the House to vote on this amendment suggests they are more interested in keeping a political issue, which I fail to understand, than they are on actually providing tax relief to small businesses. This rule is unfair to our children and grandchildren who will face the consequences of our fiscal irresponsibility if this bill should become law, which it will not. What I do not understand is why we never allow the House of Representatives to work our will so that we might send something to the President that the President will actually sign. Mr. Speaker, I ask that simple question. Why not let the House be the House? Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office not intending to participate in this debate and really got incensed. I sat there, and I wondered, what must the American people be thinking is going on here? What must my Republican colleagues be thinking? Do they think the American people are stupid? What are they doing? It is obvious that their leadership does not support the minimum wage increase, and they are trying to kill the minimum wage increase by loading it up with an irresponsible tax cut that benefits the richest people in America. Are we stupid? Do they think we are stupid? That is exactly what is going on here. The President has said, I will veto this bill. We cannot stand here on the floor and say, hey, we are being bipartisan. There is no bipartisanship here. All we are trying to do is get a wage increase for people in America who need it and want it. All they are trying to do is kill that minimum wage increase. They will try anything and everything to accomplish that objective. We should not sit here and pretend that we are doing something being bipartisan. There is nobody being bipartisan in this House. If they were being bipartisan, they would separate these two bills, let them be voted up or down, give us the opportunity to offer amendments on both bills, and let the House work its will. That is all we are asking for in this equation. It is quite obvious that the Republicans are not going to give it to us and not going to give the opportunity to the American people to have a wage increase. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, just directing my conversation to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), is he the only remaining speaker? Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker who I am going to give 7 minutes to, rundown the time to where we have a minute or so left, and then I will reserve 1 minute for myself when that speaker is through. Mr. MOAKLEY. Then I would be delighted to sit back and listen to the gentleman's speaker for 7 minutes right now. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to both gentlemen who have just spoken, the fact of the matter is that the Republican House of Representatives is not going to send a tax increase, which is what President Clinton wants to sign. The American people understand this. The bills that the President wants to sign are tax increases that take money away from people. Forty-eight of my colleagues on the Democrat side came across just within weeks to sign the marriage penalty. The President of the United States cannot join us. What we are doing today is talking about a minimum wage that is good for America and great for the people who employ those people, small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the Democrat leadership on their analysis of this bill. I support the rule. I will support the tax break. I will support an amendment to increase the minimum wage $1 over a 24-month span, and I will vote for final passage when they are linked together. My district desperately needs an increase in the minimum wage. The sharpest politician to ever sit on Independence Avenue, with great political wisdom, owns two-thirds of the votes, and there are many political machinations that follow down the road on this bill. But a tax break for the boss who raises the wages of my workers is a decent trade-off for me. Am I totally crazy about their tax break? Not totally. There is a thing called a conference. But in the last 4 years, we have had two increases in the minimum wage that were under Republican Party leadership. The Republicans could have brought a bill out here today that did not have an opportunity for $1 over 2 years. They could have left it $1 over 3 years. They did that. I thank them for that. But I want to also say this, those who say that the Republican Party's tactics are simply mean spirited, trying to kill a minimum wage are not truthful. {time} 1445 Their concerns over inflation causing a downward spiral that could hurt my workers is a valid concern that I share, just as they do. I believe our economy is strong enough that it can absorb both. But I think the point that I would like to make today is this: there are many people who come from different backgrounds. I look around and I see great Members coming from very, very poor families. I come from a very poor family. My dad finally got on his feet maybe when I was about 11 years old. My dad never worked for a poor man. This business of bashing one another should stop. Is this bill good for America or not? My Democrat colleagues are saying it is not. I am a Democrat. I am saying it is, after it goes through the conference and after we go through the political machinations to work out those problems. That is what the process is all about, my colleagues. But let us look at this. How many times do we come to the floor that we bash, that we pit old against the young; rich against the poor; black against the white; man against the woman; worker against the company? My colleagues, without a company there is no worker. Without an entrepreneur there is no company. I think the Democrat Party has got to look at this issue. [[Page H780]] I am appealing to the Democrat Party to pass the rule. I do not want to see the Republican Party on their own pass the rule and give an opportunity for a minimum-wage increase on their own, because President Clinton is sharp. I believe if the Clinton White House and the Republican leadership, whose intentions I believe are honorable, were to get together in reasonableness on that tax scheme, we will have a minimum-age increase, and my people desperately need it. My colleagues, the gas prices in America are beginning to approach $2 a gallon. So I want to say this: I want to commend the Republican Party and the Republican leadership for bringing out an opportunity for a minimum-wage increase and, yes, politically machinating the process to accommodate some of their goals. That is what we do here. We are not the Rotary. In closing, Democrats, my amendment does this: the bill says there is a $1 increase over 3 years. The Traficant bill would accelerate the minimum wage of $1 over 2 years. I am asking for a positive vote. I will vote ``yes'' on the previous question; I will vote ``yes'' on the rule. And I will also say this in closing: I served on the majority and on the minority; and we have had, in my opinion, much fairer rules coming from this majority party than we did when I was in the majority. That is telling it like it is. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the Democrats to offer a substitute to both the minimum-wage bill and to the small business tax bill. It is extremely unfortunate that the majority leadership in this House has shut the minority out of the amendment process on these two very critical bills. The two substitutes proposed by the Democrats are reasonable, and they are responsible alternatives to the two bills being offered by the Republicans. Members deserve an opportunity to choose between these two approaches. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we may consider these two sensible alternatives. The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cities the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition. Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislation or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' The vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the text of the amendments I have just referred to and other extraneous materials: Previous Question for H. Res. Small Business Tax and Minimum Wage

Summary:

All articles in House section

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3081, WAGE AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ACT OF 1999, AND H.R. 3846, MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT
(House of Representatives - March 09, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H773-H792] PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3081, WAGE AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ACT OF 1999, AND H.R. 3846, MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 434 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 434 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3081) to increase the Federal minimum wage and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax benefits for small businesses, and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 3832 shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3846) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the minimum wage, and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; (2) the amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order (except those arising under section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) and which may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 3081, the Clerk shall-- (1) await the disposition of H.R. 3846; (2) add the text of H.R. 3846, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 3081; (3) conform the title of H.R. 3081 to reflect the addition of the text of H.R. 3846 to the engrossment; (4) assign appropriate designations to provisions within the engrossment; and (5) conform provisions for short titles within the engrossment. (b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 3846 to the engrossment of H.R. 3081, H.R. 3846 shall be laid on the table. {time} 1345 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman and my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 3081 in the House under a closed rule without intervention of any point of order. The rule provides that the bill be considered as read and that, in lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, the text H.R. 3832 shall be considered as adopted. The rule provides two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides one motion to recommit H.R. 3081 with or without instructions. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3846 in the House under a modified closed rule. It provides that the bill be considered as read and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule provides for consideration of the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, except those arising under section 425 of the Congressional Budget [[Page H774]] Act of 1974, prohibiting consideration of legislation containing certain unfunded mandates. The rule provides that the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution may only be offered by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The rule provides one motion to recommit H.R. 3846 with or without instructions. Finally, the rule provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 3081, The Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 3846 as passed by the House as a new matter at the end of H.R. 3081, after which H.R. 3846 shall be laid upon the table. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is a carefully crafted rule that makes in order two separate bills. The first is a bill out of the Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. 3081, the Wage and Employment Growth Act of 1999, which provides a series of tax benefits to small businesses. The second piece of legislation, H.R. 3846, is a bill to increase the minimum wage by $1.00 through incremental steps over the course of 3 years. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Ways and Means bill, like almost every tax bill for many, many years, will not be open to further amendments on the House Floor. This long-standing policy is designed to keep the Internal Revenue Code from becoming more cluttered than it is already with special interest provisions. Also, amendments offered on short notice on the House floor might have unintended consequences which may not be fully appreciated without the adequate time to research those issues. The Committee on Ways and Means bill will be subject to 2 hours of debate and allows the minority a motion to recommit with instructions. The minimum wage bill will receive 1 hour of general debate and makes in order two amendments, one to increase the minimum wage over the course of 2 years rather than 3 and another allows States flexibility to determine their own minimum wage. By making these amendments in order, the rule facilitates a thorough debate and vote on the major issues associated with the two bills under consideration, and by allowing a motion to recommit the legislation with or without instructions, the minority is assured their perspective on this issue will be aired and will be voted upon. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that Congress is undertaking an important effort to give tax relief to hard working people who run small businesses and create jobs. Through small business provisions, they include an acceleration of the increase in the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100 percent. This is crucial to making health care more available to innovative people who take risks by starting and running their own businesses. It is often too difficult and costly for a small business to set up pensions or retirement plans for their employees, especially in their new and start-up years. The legislation before the House today provides pension reform and improves retirement security. It increases contribution and benefit levels and limits in tax-favored retirement plans. It shortens investing requirements of employer matching contributions which is very important in today's marketplace, where a worker often spends only a few years on the job and then moves on. Mr. Speaker, I represent a district in Texas that has many, many small businesses. In my district and all across America, small businesses are an important part of our economy. Small business is the engine that drives the economy and creates new jobs in America. In fact, small businesses create more jobs than any other types of businesses, including large corporations. Too many businesses fail because our unfair Tax Code and because of heavy regulatory burdens that consume critical operating capital in their early years. These small business tax provisions do not just help small businesses but they help everyone by encouraging job growth. I remind my colleague that this rule allows for vigorous debate on every major issue related to the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, like many other conservative Members of this body, I question if raising the minimum wage might actually hurt those it is intended to help. I am afraid that employers may look at their rising payroll ledgers and decide to cut back on the number of employees that they hire to offset the added expense of the minimum wage hike. Having said that, it is apparent to me that a majority of Members feel now that it is the appropriate time to pass a minimum wage increase. I strongly support this rule because by allowing for an increase in the minimum wage, it ensures measures to offset the impact of doing so as part of a major deal that has been encouraged by my party. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support the rule so that the House may debate the important issues contained in the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of two bills, a minimum wage bill and a bill providing predominately estate tax breaks. Then once both bills pass, they lump them together and they go to the entire White House. Mr. Speaker, this is a very bad combination of tax breaks and much too slow minimum wage hikes. By stretching the minimum wage out to 3 years, the Republican minimum wage bill is a year late and several dollars short, while their tax bill could just as well be called who wants to make a millionaire a multimillionaire. Mr. Speaker, once again my Republican colleagues have taken a perfectly good idea to raise the $5.15 minimum wage by a dollar and turned it into another way to make the rich richer while stiffing the rest of the citizenry. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by linking these two bills together and creating this very unholy marriage, they have doomed both of these bills to the veto bin, and American workers deserve better. Over 10 million people work for minimum wage in this country, and minimum wage workers are predominately women and minorities. They are the people who take care of our youngsters, our senior citizens. They clean up our offices. They cook our food. They pump our gas. Mr. Speaker, despite working full-time they earn only $10,700 a year. Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, full-time a minimum wage worker in the United States makes only $10,700 a year. That is only $3,200 below the poverty line. I think it is high time they get a raise, even if it is only a dollar an hour, but my Republican colleagues want to phase this raise in over 3 years instead of 2. Mr. Speaker, for those who say there is not much difference between 2 and 3 years, let me add that that extra year will mean a net loss of $1,000 over 3 years to minimum wage workers. Any Member who is committed to welfare reform, any Member who is committed to getting families off the dole and into the workplace should take that commitment to the next step and give these people that very much needed raise. They will still be below the poverty level but at least the poverty line will be in sight. A dollar an hour may not sound like much to most people, but let me say it does make a big difference. It will mean an overall raise of about $2,000 to over 10 million Americans. Instead of giving these people the help they need, my Republican colleagues are watering it down by stretching it out to 3 years and then dooming it by attaching this very lopsided tax break for the very rich. Last month, my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle introduced a marriage penalty bill and most of the benefits of that bill went to the top 25 percent of wage earners and half of it went to people who pay no marriage tax at all. Today's Republican tax bill is no different. 91.4 percent of the tax cuts in this bill will go to the richest top 10 percent of taxpayers and most of those people do not even own small businesses. What it means, Mr. Speaker, is that for every dollar in higher wages for [[Page H775]] minimum wage workers, the rich will get $10.90 in tax breaks. We had a marriage penalty bill for people who pay no marriage penalty, and now we have a small business tax bill for people who do not own small businesses. Mr. Speaker, this is just the second installment of that $800 billion tax break that they tried to get through last year. Mr. Speaker, minimum wage workers are not looking for a handout. They work hard for a living, and they deserve a fair day's pay. Our country is enjoying a tremendous economic expansion so now really is the time to make sure that the minimum wage workers can share in it. My Democratic colleagues want to offer a minimum wage bill, a real minimum wage bill, to make sure that they can share in it, and we want to offer a small business tax bill that will actually help small businesses. Yes, we have a small business tax bill that will help small businesses instead of helping the rich get richer. Under this rule, we just cannot do it. Just this morning, a Washington Post editorial warns that these tax cuts are much too high a price to pay for a wage increase to which they bear very little relationship. {time} 1400 If I may at this time read a column from The Washington Post, today's editorial page. Inverting the Minimum Wage. Congressional Republicans are seeking enactment of still another batch of deceptively packaged tax cuts whose long-term cost the Government just cannot afford. The latest are to be voted on today in the House in connection with the minimum-wage increase. The gloss is that they will compensate small employers for the added cost of the higher wage. The fact is that most of the benefit will go to other than small employers and has nothing to do with the wage. Then I will skip, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to read the whole thing, but it is a very interesting column, and these are not my words, these are the words of the editorial writers of the Washington Post. Then they say, An estimated three-fourths of the tax savings in the bill would go to the highest income 1 percent of all the taxpayers and 90 percent to the highest income 10 percent. The tax savings are 11 times greater than the estimated cost to employers of the minimum wage increase because that is the pretext for them. Then it goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, ``The tax cuts are too high a price to pay for the wage increase to which they bear so little relation.'' It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. I think the people in this Chamber get the picture. I urge my colleagues to really look at this closely and see if the title really matches the contents. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question in order that we can put a Democratic alternative forward that really does give a minimum wage and really does help small business. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really enjoy being in debates with my colleagues on the other side. They want to argue about how we have to give and give and give, but when it comes time for the taxpayer or the small businessperson or the person that has made the investment to get something that is fair treatment back, they get nothing in return from my friends. I would like to also add that there were 48 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that voted for this outrageous marriage penalty; 48 Democrats joined the majority party because it is the right thing to do for the American families to get 1,400 more dollars rather than giving it to Uncle Sam. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and I congratulate him on managing what obviously is a somewhat challenging and controversial rule. I happen to be one who believes very much that we have a responsibility to put into place economic policies which will ensure that everyone, regardless of where they are on the economic scale, has an opportunity to improve their plight. I want to see those at the lower end of the economic spectrum get their wages up. I want us to encourage growth and investment and productivity so that those wages can increase. I do have a difficulty, however, with having the Federal Government mandate a wage rate that frankly has the potential to jeopardize economic growth and has the potential again to hurt most those we are trying to assist. Now, having said that, I realize that a majority of this House supports an increase in the minimum wage. I am in the minority here in believing that we should simply encourage economic growth through tax and other investment incentives. But I am in the minority. I am in the minority, so I feel the responsibility to do everything that we possibly can to allow a free flow of ideas and debate on these very important questions that are before us; and that is why we have, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has outlined, an extraordinarily fair and balanced rule which allows all of the alternatives that are out there to be considered. One over two, one over three. We have tax incentives which some of us do support. So we have a wide range of options that are there, put into place. I will say that I happen to think that tax relief is something that is much needed, and the issues that my friend from his summer spot in South Boston mentioned, the tax issue, is something that enjoys bipartisan support. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) said that 48 Democrats joined in support of the marriage tax penalty. President Clinton stood here during his State of the Union message and talked about his support for that. He indicated that he was adamantly opposed to increasing the earnings cap for retirees. Now, he is prepared to sign it and we welcome that. So aspects that were in that tax bill that he vetoed last year, he has clearly indicated that he supports and we welcome that kind of support and recognition of the fact that we as a country need to do everything, and as a Congress, need to do everything that we can to encourage this kind of economic growth. Specifically, the items that are in this tax package that are particularly beneficial, of course, allow us to deal with this health care question by providing for the self-employed workers to deduct their health care insurance expenses. We also, and I see my very dear friend from New York (Mr. Rangel) here, we want to encourage community redevelopment. We want the community renewal movement to go ahead. Again, President Clinton has joined with Speaker Hastert in supporting that. So I know that my friend from New York will strongly embrace that provision that is in this measure. So there are very, very good aspects of it; and I hope that we will see a strong vote for this rule. But before my colleagues get a chance to vote for the rule, I suspect that there just may be a vote on the previous question. So in light of that, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in support of the previous question so that we can move ahead with a fair, balanced rule that allows all of the different ideas out there to be considered, and then we will do what Speaker Hastert said when he on the opening day of the 106th Congress just a little over a year ago stood here and said we will allow the House to work its will so that the majority will prevail. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that my chairman really has the courage to say he is against the minimum wage. Unfortunately, many people are hiding behind this bill who are also against the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, who is in favor of a real minimum-wage increase. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me join in congratulating the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. His honesty in terms of opposing the minimum wage for the lowest working employees is really to be commended for coming forward and saying it, because like Governor Bush, I wondered about the meanness on this side of the aisle; and it is good to see that people are willing to say that there is a reason behind it. [[Page H776]] Mr. Speaker, one can be reforming and want results if one is going to cave in to the things that one believes in, and I would like to join with my Senator who makes it abundantly clear that the country is really not looking for tax cuts, but looking for us to do the right thing, protecting Social Security, Medicare, the Patients' Bill of Rights, affordable drugs. These are the things that the Congress, not Republicans and not Democrats, but working together, should be doing. There is very, very little compassion for the working people at a time that our country is doing so great. I oppose the rule because my colleagues do not even give us an opportunity to have an alternative. What is the fear in just allowing the House to work its will? There was a time that the tax-writing committee used to be involved in taxes. We yield to the distinguished people on the Committee on Rules to pick and choose what they would like. But when they do not have the courage of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to say that they are against the minimum- wage increase, for God's sake, do not kill it by just burdening taxes on it. Just say that we do not want reform on this side of the House of Representatives. How dare my colleagues say, how dare my colleagues say that the tax provisions in this bill is to protect small businesses. That is outrageous. It is an insult to the American people. It is clear that two-thirds of the tax benefits, they do not go to small businesses, they go to the richest Republicans that we have. So do what you want politically and kill the minimum-wage bill, but for God's sake, do not say that you are doing it fairly. The same thing applies to the Patients' Bill of Rights. If you do not want patients to have a bill of rights, and your leadership does not, do not compromise and say you are coming out for it and then load it up with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, it was clear to us a long time ago what our Republican colleagues' game plan was, and that is to do absolutely nothing and get out of this House of Representatives. And how did they intend to do it? By getting this big $800 billion tax cut, thinking about anything you could imagine, and having the President veto it so that you could go home and campaign on just how we Democrats are against tax cuts. Well, guess what? We Democrats are for tax cuts, but we also are for saving Social Security, saving Medicare, and helping all Americans enjoy it and not just the chosen and the blessed few. Why is it that when my colleagues' tax cut was vetoed, they did not move to override the veto? Could it be that they had lack of votes, or could it be they had lack of guts? In any event, now they have to give us an $800 billion tax cut $200 billion at a time. What does the $122 billion tax cut have to do with giving working people a buck increase from $5.15 to $6.15? Why did my Republican colleagues wait until the President said he would veto it before they brought it to the floor? Many of the things that my colleagues have in the tax provision we support. Why did they overdo it? If they really wanted to be fair, why did they not give us a chance really to report out a tax bill that the President will sign? Now, if my Republican colleagues want to be against the working poor, do it. But at least have the courage to stand up here and to say that every time you steal one of the President's good ideas that you have to load it up with some piece of the $800 billion tax cut until you have to force him to veto it. So if we want to talk about reformists with results, we better walk away from many of the critics outside of our side of the aisle that are talking about the way my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not taking care of the people's business. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for seeing their way clear to allowing the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) to have an amendment to this bill, and I wondered why my colleagues could not reach beyond that to allow some of us on the tax-writing committee to have an amendment to the tax bill. I know one thing: my Republican colleagues may be for reform, but they certainly are not supporting results. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Hearing my colleagues talk about this rule would make me think that they simply do not understand what the Committee on Rules did. First of all, the Committee on Rules, under Republicans, has always insisted or guaranteed that there will be a motion to recommit to the minority party. As my recollection tells me, that rarely happened when the Democrats were in control. Secondly, the fairness of this rule is very obvious to everyone. We will have a separate vote that will be on the provisions for minimum wage from the vote for the tax package, which means if the gentleman from New York or any of my colleagues wish to vote yes or no on minimum wage, they will be allowed to do that. If they want to vote yes or no on the tax package, they will be allowed to do that. If we were being unfair, we would have put them together. Then we would have heard that would be a poison pill, and I think that that could be said and it would be true. The fact of the matter is that the wisdom of this Committee on Rules is that we are trying to present an opportunity of fairness to fully debate the issue, to allow open votes that will take place; and I am very, very proud of what we have done. I believe that any criticism like this is from someone that simply has not read the rule, taken the time to read the rule, or who is trying to dissuade someone else by not using the facts that are at hand. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) {time} 1415 Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Committee on Rules and commend them for the work they have done. We worked in a bipartisan manner with a group of Republicans and Democrats, myself, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) to try to reach across the divide to address an issue that would do two things: It would increase the minimum wage, while protecting those jobs that could be lost through the increase of a minimum wage. In this rule, the will of the House will be heard. I think that is the important thing. If we want to judge the fairness of a rule, the question is, does the House have the ability to have their will heard on votes? We will have a debate, and we will have a vote on the tax cut portion of this bill, so those who believe that it is important to cut taxes to help offset the cost of small business can vote yes, and those who do not can vote no. Not many people in the 20th District of Illinois read the Washington Post. I have great respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), but they do read the Herald and Review from Decatur, Illinois. In an October 26, 1999, editorial, it reads: ``Minimum Wage Tax Break Sensible.'' I will quote just a portion of it. The paper stated that ``When the minimum wage increases, someone has to pay for it, because business owners have to maintain a profit level. The result could be higher prices or fewer jobs at minimum wage. Just as a worker will offer his labor at an acceptable wage level, an employer will pay workers a wage that will permit his company to earn a profit. That is why a minimum wage increase alone won't work, and why a bill to raise the rate linked to some tax breaks for small businesses makes sense.'' Again, that is from the October 26 Herald and Review from Decatur, Illinois. So we are going to have a vote on the tax cut. We are going to have a vote and debate on an issue that me and my friends on the conservative side want, State flexibility. We are going to have a debate. We are going to have a debate and a vote, and the will of the House is going to move forward. We are going to have a debate and we are going to have a vote on the increase, whether it should be $1 over 3 years or $1 over 2 years. The will of the House will have an opportunity to be spoken. I think the rule is pretty fair and pretty balanced, but what I really appreciate about the rule is that I think [[Page H777]] it respects the work that we tried to do over an entire year of keeping a balance, trying to get to the center ground to raise the minimum wage and cut taxes and protect jobs, a group of two Republicans and two Democrats that worked long and hard to get to the point where we are here today. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman, I want to thank the Committee on Rules, and I urge all my colleagues to support the rule. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas. Since 1892, the rules of the House have prohibited the Committee on Rules from reporting any rule that prevents a motion to recommit from being made. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. SESSIONS. A motion to recommit with instructions. Mr. MOAKLEY. I thought the gentleman was just talking about a motion to recommit. Mr. SESSIONS. With instructions. Mr. MOAKLEY. That was added later. Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for helping me with that history, Mr. Speaker. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the leader of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, do not be fooled. This is not an illustration of bipartisanship at work. This debate is a good illustration of how to turn what should have been a proud bipartisan moment for the House into a partisan action by Republican leaders. The majority is performing a charade of bipartisanship. It is not the real thing. For more than 2 years, there has been a true bipartisan effort in this House to increase the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years. This effort has repeatedly run head on into the desire by Republican leaders to keep this issue off the floor for good, but the bipartisan coalition never gave up, thanks to the efforts of Members on both sides of the aisle like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn). Because of their persistence and because of the insistence of the American people, Republican leaders had no choice but to bring a minimum wage bill to the floor. Like so many times before, Republican leaders decided if they could not kill a popular bill they disagree with, they would kill it through neglect. They would try and kill it, attacking it in the light of day on the floor of the House with legislative trickery. Today they are dispensing dollars to the wealthy through the tax bill that is going to be attached at the end, but pennies to the working poor. Republican leaders are forcing us to vote on a minimum wage bill originally designed to help hard-working low-income families that is tied to a regressive tax bill designed to give $120 billion in tax breaks to the very wealthiest Americans. They are preventing Democrats from even offering an alternative that would provide tax cuts targeted to owners of small businesses and family farms, giving relief to those who need it. For every penny that would go to working low-income Americans, Republicans want to give 10 cents or a dime to the wealthiest Americans among us. It is really emblematic of their values. Republicans do not seem able to ever give a break to working families without making sure that they first take care of the wealthiest in America with even greater largesse. We should be voting on a minimum wage that provides a real pay increase and a tax package that provides sensible, responsible tax relief to small businesses, just as the Democratic tax alternative would do. We should be voting on a bill that will be signed by the President, so we can get this minimum wage increase to the people who need it now. The Republican rule is designed to produce a bill that will eliminate the possibility that we can ever get this minimum wage done this year. The people who need it need it now. They do not need to have a bill vetoed by the President because the bill gets joined up with a tax bill that the President will not sign. If we are really, truly committed to working in a bipartisan manner and ensuring that a minimum wage bill passes this year, Members will join me in voting against this rule and putting together a rule that will allow us to have a tax bill joined with the minimum wage that will get this bill signed by the President of the United States. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, a gentleman who knows what the minimum wage is, he has been fighting it for so long. Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, because it limits the opportunity for Members to have a fair and open debate on a pocketbook issue affecting millions of workers. First, it denies us an opportunity to offer a Democratic substitute that would phase in a $1 increase over a 2-year period. This parliamentary maneuver bars Members from debating and amending provisions of the bill that repeal overtime pay for millions of employees working in computers, sales, and funeral services. This maneuver is even more insulting to Members of this body because the effect of these overtime provisions were never considered in this Congress by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, or evaluated by expert witnesses to determine what impact they may have on the work force. Second, Mr. Speaker, the rule automatically includes the DeMint amendment, which will destroy the concept of a Federal minimum wage by allowing 50 States to enact 50 different Federal minimum wage provisions. What a disaster, Mr. Speaker. What an administrative nightmare: fifty States, some of them competing against each other to see who can reduce their State's minimum wage to a level as close to Mexico's and other Nations that exploit their workers. Mr. Speaker, this House should not be in the business of relegating our workers to slave wages in order to compete with cruel, insensitive economic systems of Third World countries. This rule should be opposed because it abuses the House rules, because it violates fair play, and because it stacks the deck against American workers. I urge its defeat, Mr. Speaker. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip. Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the dictionary defines ``outrage'' as a forcible violation of others' rights, and a gross or wanton offense or indignity. That definition could easily apply to this rule. But what else can we expect when the Republican leader once again this year tells the American people that raising the minimum wage is, and I quote ``the wrong thing?'' Let me tell the Members what Democrats think is wrong, Mr. Speaker. We think it is wrong that even as our economy is surging ahead, millions of Americans are left behind. They are the workers who earn the minimum wage. These are the folks that look after our children at day care, that take care of our parents and our grandparents when they are sick. These are the folks who work in our hospitals, who clean our offices. Most of them are women. They have families of their own, in many instances. They struggle to keep a roof over their heads, the heads of their children, food on the table; to give their kids a better life, a little bit of hope; to spend some time with them, but they cannot spend any time with them because they are making $10,700 a year, $2,300 below the poverty level, if they have two children. What do they end up doing? They are out there working two and often three jobs, and it is not right. They deserve a raise, just like the rest of America. By providing a $1 increase over 2 years, our plan will help them achieve just that. Some may ask, what is the difference between a $1 increase over 2 years or $1 over 3 years? The answer to that is, [[Page H778]] $1,000. I know some of my Republican leadership friends may seem to think, well, that is pocket change. That is not a lot of money. But to a poverty wage worker, it can make all the difference in the world. It can make a difference on whether their children get another pair of blue jeans, whether they can meet the bills at the end of the month, whether they may even have a little left over to go to the movies. It makes a heck of a difference. Our initiative does not stop with providing a fair wage, Mr. Speaker. We understand that small businesses are creating most of the jobs in this country and we want to help them. That is why our plan expands the tax relief for family businesses and family farms. It provides for the deductibility of health care premium insurance. Our plan offers a higher minimum wage to workers who have earned it, and tax relief to the businesses who need it. Under the outrageous rule that we have before us right now, it is a plan we will not even have a fair chance to consider. Instead, the leadership on this side of the aisle is presenting us with an elaborate scheme. They will provide a wage increase all right, but only if it is tied to this jumbo tax cut for the wealthy and the super rich, tax cuts that are reckless and that are enormous. Their message basically is this, to working families: Sure, we will give you a little bologna sandwich, but first you have to buy my friends who belong to the country club a really nice, thick, juicy steak dinner. Mr. Speaker, we have news for the Republican leaders, and it is that the minimum wage was never intended to become a meal ticket for their fat cat friends. Mr. Speaker, what the Republican leaders propose is not policy- making, it is a shell game. No wonder the President has pledged that he will veto the Republican plan. Whether we agree with it or not, every Member of this House deserves a chance to consider our substitute, but this rule would deny us that opportunity, and that is why we are fighting it. We will not be denied. We will offer motions to recommit that will give workers a fair minimum wage and provide real tax relief for small businesses and family farms. {time} 1430 Mr. Speaker, our plan is the only one that provides the raise that workers have earned and the tax relief small business and family farms need. Vote against this outrageous rule. Bring back a rule that will give us some sense of equity and fairness and stand with us for America's workers, for small business, for the family farmer. We are not asking for anything more; and by God, the country deserves nothing less. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when I hear the debate on the other side, the debate is as though these Republicans have not allowed a fair and open rule, a great vote for people who think we ought to raise the minimum wage and a great vote and an opportunity for small businesses, men and women who create opportunity for America. You would think by listening to the other side that they do not want to create opportunity and jobs and growth and happiness and the opportunity for the next generation to be employed. I want to stand up and say that my Republican Party has the provisions that accelerate the increase and the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100 percent because we want people to be able to have, not only health insurance, we want people to have their own doctors; that we want to do the things that will extend work opportunities and tracks credits to extend welfare to work. We want to put America to work, want to have opportunity and jobs that are available for everyone. That is what this fair and open rule is about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Perry Township, Ohio (Ms. Pryce) who sits on the Committee on Rules with me. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very fair rule which will allow the House to work its will on the question of raising the minimum wage and providing tax relief to the very businesses that will pay the cost of this new Federal mandate. Now, no matter what my colleagues' position may be on the minimum wage or on tax relief, they will have an opportunity to make their views very clear through the procedure by which we will consider these two bills. Now what could be fairer? For those who support this minimum wage, this rule makes in order legislation to increase it by a dollar over 3 years. If that table is not fast enough, the rule allows Members to vote for a Democrat amendment that increases the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years. Now, of course, many of my colleagues do not think the government should play any role in setting the wages and telling businesses what to pay employees. Even these Members will have at least two opportunities to make their disapproval known when they vote against the Martinez-Traficant amendment and final passage. Whatever one's view is on the minimum wage, I hope that we all recognize that this policy is not free. Someone actually has to pay the higher wages. Those who pay the highest prices are the small businesses across this Nation, the engines of our economy, those businesses which are creating jobs for some of our workers who are the very, very hardest to employ. That is why this rule also allows the House to vote on tax relief for these small companies. The mom and pop store fronts and the new start- up businesses, the dreams of our country's entrepreneurs. Under this rule, Members can register their support for these businesses by voting for legislation that increases the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100 percent, reduces the death tax so that family businesses can be passed on from one generation to the next. It increases the deduction for business meal expenses, and it reforms pension laws to help businesses offer more retirement security to their workers. All of these changes will be helpful to the businessmen and women who are responsible for the innovations and job creation that are making this economy so very strong. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with some controversial issues today on which Members of the House have very, very different views. But this rule gives all Members a fair opportunity to express their position and let the House work its will. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not happy, but believe me, Mr. Speaker, many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle are not happy either; and it is my experience that that usually means we have a pretty good rule. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support raising the minimum wage over a period of 2 years instead of 3 years. The current minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. At this rate, a full-time year-round minimum wage earner in the United States makes approximately $10,712 per year. In 1998, the yearly salary determined necessary for a family of three to rise above the poverty level in this country was $13,003, an amount $2,291 more than the minimum wage salary provides. Clearly, the current minimum wage is too low. Congress has already inexcusably allowed the value of the minimum wage to fall 21 percent lower than in 1979. If the minimum wage is not increased by the year 2001, recent studies show that the inflation adjusted value will fall to $4.90 per hour. It is essential that the minimum wage is raised over the course of 2 years instead of 3. That is why I will support the Traficant amendment, and I urge everyone to support the Traficant amendment. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker was right. Not all of us are happy with this rule. I believe it deals fairly with the minimum wage question. But I continue to not understand why the majority party continues to refuse to allow a substitute [[Page H779]] tax bill when there are sufficient Members on both sides of the aisle who I believe would like our version better than the version that is put before us. But here again, the fundamental question is why not allow a simple vote? Why not allow the package put together by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) to have the opportunity to have the will of the House worked? The bill that we will be voting on today continues the fiscal irresponsible pattern of legislation coming from the majority side that, once again, will squander our national surplus and our opportunity to deal with Social Security and Medicare. This, when one adds up this $122 billion unpaid for, will amount to something over $400 billion now voted by the House and by the Senate in spending the surplus that is not yet real. The tax bill that this rule will allow is the latest in the series of tax bills that will drain the projected budget surplus drip by drip without regard for the consequences. If we pass this bill today, it will be fiscally reckless for this body to continue to rush down this path of passing tax cuts and spending bills without a road map. Why do we continue to casually waive the budget rules? Why do we just continue to come to this floor of the House without first bringing a road map so we can deal with how we are going to spend money and cut taxes this year? The tax bill before us is simply a political document that will never become law. We know this. It appears the majority wants a political issue rather than dealing with the estates of family farmers and small businessmen and women. If my colleagues are truly concerned about estate tax relief, which I am and have been, I very much appreciate what could have been an opportunity to vote on an immediate exemption exclusion of $4 million estates immediately. But, yet, the bill that we have before us pays more attention to estates over $10 million. I do not understand this. The President has promised that he will sign into law the Democratic tax package. The fact the leadership will not allow the House to vote on this amendment suggests they are more interested in keeping a political issue, which I fail to understand, than they are on actually providing tax relief to small businesses. This rule is unfair to our children and grandchildren who will face the consequences of our fiscal irresponsibility if this bill should become law, which it will not. What I do not understand is why we never allow the House of Representatives to work our will so that we might send something to the President that the President will actually sign. Mr. Speaker, I ask that simple question. Why not let the House be the House? Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office not intending to participate in this debate and really got incensed. I sat there, and I wondered, what must the American people be thinking is going on here? What must my Republican colleagues be thinking? Do they think the American people are stupid? What are they doing? It is obvious that their leadership does not support the minimum wage increase, and they are trying to kill the minimum wage increase by loading it up with an irresponsible tax cut that benefits the richest people in America. Are we stupid? Do they think we are stupid? That is exactly what is going on here. The President has said, I will veto this bill. We cannot stand here on the floor and say, hey, we are being bipartisan. There is no bipartisanship here. All we are trying to do is get a wage increase for people in America who need it and want it. All they are trying to do is kill that minimum wage increase. They will try anything and everything to accomplish that objective. We should not sit here and pretend that we are doing something being bipartisan. There is nobody being bipartisan in this House. If they were being bipartisan, they would separate these two bills, let them be voted up or down, give us the opportunity to offer amendments on both bills, and let the House work its will. That is all we are asking for in this equation. It is quite obvious that the Republicans are not going to give it to us and not going to give the opportunity to the American people to have a wage increase. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, just directing my conversation to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), is he the only remaining speaker? Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker who I am going to give 7 minutes to, rundown the time to where we have a minute or so left, and then I will reserve 1 minute for myself when that speaker is through. Mr. MOAKLEY. Then I would be delighted to sit back and listen to the gentleman's speaker for 7 minutes right now. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to both gentlemen who have just spoken, the fact of the matter is that the Republican House of Representatives is not going to send a tax increase, which is what President Clinton wants to sign. The American people understand this. The bills that the President wants to sign are tax increases that take money away from people. Forty-eight of my colleagues on the Democrat side came across just within weeks to sign the marriage penalty. The President of the United States cannot join us. What we are doing today is talking about a minimum wage that is good for America and great for the people who employ those people, small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the Democrat leadership on their analysis of this bill. I support the rule. I will support the tax break. I will support an amendment to increase the minimum wage $1 over a 24-month span, and I will vote for final passage when they are linked together. My district desperately needs an increase in the minimum wage. The sharpest politician to ever sit on Independence Avenue, with great political wisdom, owns two-thirds of the votes, and there are many political machinations that follow down the road on this bill. But a tax break for the boss who raises the wages of my workers is a decent trade-off for me. Am I totally crazy about their tax break? Not totally. There is a thing called a conference. But in the last 4 years, we have had two increases in the minimum wage that were under Republican Party leadership. The Republicans could have brought a bill out here today that did not have an opportunity for $1 over 2 years. They could have left it $1 over 3 years. They did that. I thank them for that. But I want to also say this, those who say that the Republican Party's tactics are simply mean spirited, trying to kill a minimum wage are not truthful. {time} 1445 Their concerns over inflation causing a downward spiral that could hurt my workers is a valid concern that I share, just as they do. I believe our economy is strong enough that it can absorb both. But I think the point that I would like to make today is this: there are many people who come from different backgrounds. I look around and I see great Members coming from very, very poor families. I come from a very poor family. My dad finally got on his feet maybe when I was about 11 years old. My dad never worked for a poor man. This business of bashing one another should stop. Is this bill good for America or not? My Democrat colleagues are saying it is not. I am a Democrat. I am saying it is, after it goes through the conference and after we go through the political machinations to work out those problems. That is what the process is all about, my colleagues. But let us look at this. How many times do we come to the floor that we bash, that we pit old against the young; rich against the poor; black against the white; man against the woman; worker against the company? My colleagues, without a company there is no worker. Without an entrepreneur there is no company. I think the Democrat Party has got to look at this issue. [[Page H780]] I am appealing to the Democrat Party to pass the rule. I do not want to see the Republican Party on their own pass the rule and give an opportunity for a minimum-wage increase on their own, because President Clinton is sharp. I believe if the Clinton White House and the Republican leadership, whose intentions I believe are honorable, were to get together in reasonableness on that tax scheme, we will have a minimum-age increase, and my people desperately need it. My colleagues, the gas prices in America are beginning to approach $2 a gallon. So I want to say this: I want to commend the Republican Party and the Republican leadership for bringing out an opportunity for a minimum-wage increase and, yes, politically machinating the process to accommodate some of their goals. That is what we do here. We are not the Rotary. In closing, Democrats, my amendment does this: the bill says there is a $1 increase over 3 years. The Traficant bill would accelerate the minimum wage of $1 over 2 years. I am asking for a positive vote. I will vote ``yes'' on the previous question; I will vote ``yes'' on the rule. And I will also say this in closing: I served on the majority and on the minority; and we have had, in my opinion, much fairer rules coming from this majority party than we did when I was in the majority. That is telling it like it is. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the Democrats to offer a substitute to both the minimum-wage bill and to the small business tax bill. It is extremely unfortunate that the majority leadership in this House has shut the minority out of the amendment process on these two very critical bills. The two substitutes proposed by the Democrats are reasonable, and they are responsible alternatives to the two bills being offered by the Republicans. Members deserve an opportunity to choose between these two approaches. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we may consider these two sensible alternatives. The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cities the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition. Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislation or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' The vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the text of the amendments I have just referred to and other extraneous materials: Previous Question for H. Res. Small Bus

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3081, WAGE AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ACT OF 1999, AND H.R. 3846, MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT
(House of Representatives - March 09, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H773-H792] PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3081, WAGE AND EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ACT OF 1999, AND H.R. 3846, MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE ACT Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 434 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 434 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3081) to increase the Federal minimum wage and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax benefits for small businesses, and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. In lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 3832 shall be considered as adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3846) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the minimum wage, and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; (2) the amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order (except those arising under section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) and which may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 3081, the Clerk shall-- (1) await the disposition of H.R. 3846; (2) add the text of H.R. 3846, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 3081; (3) conform the title of H.R. 3081 to reflect the addition of the text of H.R. 3846 to the engrossment; (4) assign appropriate designations to provisions within the engrossment; and (5) conform provisions for short titles within the engrossment. (b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 3846 to the engrossment of H.R. 3081, H.R. 3846 shall be laid on the table. {time} 1345 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman and my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 3081 in the House under a closed rule without intervention of any point of order. The rule provides that the bill be considered as read and that, in lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, the text H.R. 3832 shall be considered as adopted. The rule provides two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides one motion to recommit H.R. 3081 with or without instructions. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3846 in the House under a modified closed rule. It provides that the bill be considered as read and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule provides for consideration of the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, except those arising under section 425 of the Congressional Budget [[Page H774]] Act of 1974, prohibiting consideration of legislation containing certain unfunded mandates. The rule provides that the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution may only be offered by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The rule provides one motion to recommit H.R. 3846 with or without instructions. Finally, the rule provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 3081, The Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 3846 as passed by the House as a new matter at the end of H.R. 3081, after which H.R. 3846 shall be laid upon the table. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is a carefully crafted rule that makes in order two separate bills. The first is a bill out of the Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. 3081, the Wage and Employment Growth Act of 1999, which provides a series of tax benefits to small businesses. The second piece of legislation, H.R. 3846, is a bill to increase the minimum wage by $1.00 through incremental steps over the course of 3 years. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Ways and Means bill, like almost every tax bill for many, many years, will not be open to further amendments on the House Floor. This long-standing policy is designed to keep the Internal Revenue Code from becoming more cluttered than it is already with special interest provisions. Also, amendments offered on short notice on the House floor might have unintended consequences which may not be fully appreciated without the adequate time to research those issues. The Committee on Ways and Means bill will be subject to 2 hours of debate and allows the minority a motion to recommit with instructions. The minimum wage bill will receive 1 hour of general debate and makes in order two amendments, one to increase the minimum wage over the course of 2 years rather than 3 and another allows States flexibility to determine their own minimum wage. By making these amendments in order, the rule facilitates a thorough debate and vote on the major issues associated with the two bills under consideration, and by allowing a motion to recommit the legislation with or without instructions, the minority is assured their perspective on this issue will be aired and will be voted upon. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that Congress is undertaking an important effort to give tax relief to hard working people who run small businesses and create jobs. Through small business provisions, they include an acceleration of the increase in the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100 percent. This is crucial to making health care more available to innovative people who take risks by starting and running their own businesses. It is often too difficult and costly for a small business to set up pensions or retirement plans for their employees, especially in their new and start-up years. The legislation before the House today provides pension reform and improves retirement security. It increases contribution and benefit levels and limits in tax-favored retirement plans. It shortens investing requirements of employer matching contributions which is very important in today's marketplace, where a worker often spends only a few years on the job and then moves on. Mr. Speaker, I represent a district in Texas that has many, many small businesses. In my district and all across America, small businesses are an important part of our economy. Small business is the engine that drives the economy and creates new jobs in America. In fact, small businesses create more jobs than any other types of businesses, including large corporations. Too many businesses fail because our unfair Tax Code and because of heavy regulatory burdens that consume critical operating capital in their early years. These small business tax provisions do not just help small businesses but they help everyone by encouraging job growth. I remind my colleague that this rule allows for vigorous debate on every major issue related to the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, like many other conservative Members of this body, I question if raising the minimum wage might actually hurt those it is intended to help. I am afraid that employers may look at their rising payroll ledgers and decide to cut back on the number of employees that they hire to offset the added expense of the minimum wage hike. Having said that, it is apparent to me that a majority of Members feel now that it is the appropriate time to pass a minimum wage increase. I strongly support this rule because by allowing for an increase in the minimum wage, it ensures measures to offset the impact of doing so as part of a major deal that has been encouraged by my party. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support the rule so that the House may debate the important issues contained in the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and my friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration of two bills, a minimum wage bill and a bill providing predominately estate tax breaks. Then once both bills pass, they lump them together and they go to the entire White House. Mr. Speaker, this is a very bad combination of tax breaks and much too slow minimum wage hikes. By stretching the minimum wage out to 3 years, the Republican minimum wage bill is a year late and several dollars short, while their tax bill could just as well be called who wants to make a millionaire a multimillionaire. Mr. Speaker, once again my Republican colleagues have taken a perfectly good idea to raise the $5.15 minimum wage by a dollar and turned it into another way to make the rich richer while stiffing the rest of the citizenry. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, by linking these two bills together and creating this very unholy marriage, they have doomed both of these bills to the veto bin, and American workers deserve better. Over 10 million people work for minimum wage in this country, and minimum wage workers are predominately women and minorities. They are the people who take care of our youngsters, our senior citizens. They clean up our offices. They cook our food. They pump our gas. Mr. Speaker, despite working full-time they earn only $10,700 a year. Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, full-time a minimum wage worker in the United States makes only $10,700 a year. That is only $3,200 below the poverty line. I think it is high time they get a raise, even if it is only a dollar an hour, but my Republican colleagues want to phase this raise in over 3 years instead of 2. Mr. Speaker, for those who say there is not much difference between 2 and 3 years, let me add that that extra year will mean a net loss of $1,000 over 3 years to minimum wage workers. Any Member who is committed to welfare reform, any Member who is committed to getting families off the dole and into the workplace should take that commitment to the next step and give these people that very much needed raise. They will still be below the poverty level but at least the poverty line will be in sight. A dollar an hour may not sound like much to most people, but let me say it does make a big difference. It will mean an overall raise of about $2,000 to over 10 million Americans. Instead of giving these people the help they need, my Republican colleagues are watering it down by stretching it out to 3 years and then dooming it by attaching this very lopsided tax break for the very rich. Last month, my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle introduced a marriage penalty bill and most of the benefits of that bill went to the top 25 percent of wage earners and half of it went to people who pay no marriage tax at all. Today's Republican tax bill is no different. 91.4 percent of the tax cuts in this bill will go to the richest top 10 percent of taxpayers and most of those people do not even own small businesses. What it means, Mr. Speaker, is that for every dollar in higher wages for [[Page H775]] minimum wage workers, the rich will get $10.90 in tax breaks. We had a marriage penalty bill for people who pay no marriage penalty, and now we have a small business tax bill for people who do not own small businesses. Mr. Speaker, this is just the second installment of that $800 billion tax break that they tried to get through last year. Mr. Speaker, minimum wage workers are not looking for a handout. They work hard for a living, and they deserve a fair day's pay. Our country is enjoying a tremendous economic expansion so now really is the time to make sure that the minimum wage workers can share in it. My Democratic colleagues want to offer a minimum wage bill, a real minimum wage bill, to make sure that they can share in it, and we want to offer a small business tax bill that will actually help small businesses. Yes, we have a small business tax bill that will help small businesses instead of helping the rich get richer. Under this rule, we just cannot do it. Just this morning, a Washington Post editorial warns that these tax cuts are much too high a price to pay for a wage increase to which they bear very little relationship. {time} 1400 If I may at this time read a column from The Washington Post, today's editorial page. Inverting the Minimum Wage. Congressional Republicans are seeking enactment of still another batch of deceptively packaged tax cuts whose long-term cost the Government just cannot afford. The latest are to be voted on today in the House in connection with the minimum-wage increase. The gloss is that they will compensate small employers for the added cost of the higher wage. The fact is that most of the benefit will go to other than small employers and has nothing to do with the wage. Then I will skip, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to read the whole thing, but it is a very interesting column, and these are not my words, these are the words of the editorial writers of the Washington Post. Then they say, An estimated three-fourths of the tax savings in the bill would go to the highest income 1 percent of all the taxpayers and 90 percent to the highest income 10 percent. The tax savings are 11 times greater than the estimated cost to employers of the minimum wage increase because that is the pretext for them. Then it goes on to say, Mr. Speaker, ``The tax cuts are too high a price to pay for the wage increase to which they bear so little relation.'' It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. I think the people in this Chamber get the picture. I urge my colleagues to really look at this closely and see if the title really matches the contents. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question in order that we can put a Democratic alternative forward that really does give a minimum wage and really does help small business. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I really enjoy being in debates with my colleagues on the other side. They want to argue about how we have to give and give and give, but when it comes time for the taxpayer or the small businessperson or the person that has made the investment to get something that is fair treatment back, they get nothing in return from my friends. I would like to also add that there were 48 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that voted for this outrageous marriage penalty; 48 Democrats joined the majority party because it is the right thing to do for the American families to get 1,400 more dollars rather than giving it to Uncle Sam. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and I congratulate him on managing what obviously is a somewhat challenging and controversial rule. I happen to be one who believes very much that we have a responsibility to put into place economic policies which will ensure that everyone, regardless of where they are on the economic scale, has an opportunity to improve their plight. I want to see those at the lower end of the economic spectrum get their wages up. I want us to encourage growth and investment and productivity so that those wages can increase. I do have a difficulty, however, with having the Federal Government mandate a wage rate that frankly has the potential to jeopardize economic growth and has the potential again to hurt most those we are trying to assist. Now, having said that, I realize that a majority of this House supports an increase in the minimum wage. I am in the minority here in believing that we should simply encourage economic growth through tax and other investment incentives. But I am in the minority. I am in the minority, so I feel the responsibility to do everything that we possibly can to allow a free flow of ideas and debate on these very important questions that are before us; and that is why we have, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has outlined, an extraordinarily fair and balanced rule which allows all of the alternatives that are out there to be considered. One over two, one over three. We have tax incentives which some of us do support. So we have a wide range of options that are there, put into place. I will say that I happen to think that tax relief is something that is much needed, and the issues that my friend from his summer spot in South Boston mentioned, the tax issue, is something that enjoys bipartisan support. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) said that 48 Democrats joined in support of the marriage tax penalty. President Clinton stood here during his State of the Union message and talked about his support for that. He indicated that he was adamantly opposed to increasing the earnings cap for retirees. Now, he is prepared to sign it and we welcome that. So aspects that were in that tax bill that he vetoed last year, he has clearly indicated that he supports and we welcome that kind of support and recognition of the fact that we as a country need to do everything, and as a Congress, need to do everything that we can to encourage this kind of economic growth. Specifically, the items that are in this tax package that are particularly beneficial, of course, allow us to deal with this health care question by providing for the self-employed workers to deduct their health care insurance expenses. We also, and I see my very dear friend from New York (Mr. Rangel) here, we want to encourage community redevelopment. We want the community renewal movement to go ahead. Again, President Clinton has joined with Speaker Hastert in supporting that. So I know that my friend from New York will strongly embrace that provision that is in this measure. So there are very, very good aspects of it; and I hope that we will see a strong vote for this rule. But before my colleagues get a chance to vote for the rule, I suspect that there just may be a vote on the previous question. So in light of that, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join in support of the previous question so that we can move ahead with a fair, balanced rule that allows all of the different ideas out there to be considered, and then we will do what Speaker Hastert said when he on the opening day of the 106th Congress just a little over a year ago stood here and said we will allow the House to work its will so that the majority will prevail. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that my chairman really has the courage to say he is against the minimum wage. Unfortunately, many people are hiding behind this bill who are also against the minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Ways and Means, who is in favor of a real minimum-wage increase. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me join in congratulating the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. His honesty in terms of opposing the minimum wage for the lowest working employees is really to be commended for coming forward and saying it, because like Governor Bush, I wondered about the meanness on this side of the aisle; and it is good to see that people are willing to say that there is a reason behind it. [[Page H776]] Mr. Speaker, one can be reforming and want results if one is going to cave in to the things that one believes in, and I would like to join with my Senator who makes it abundantly clear that the country is really not looking for tax cuts, but looking for us to do the right thing, protecting Social Security, Medicare, the Patients' Bill of Rights, affordable drugs. These are the things that the Congress, not Republicans and not Democrats, but working together, should be doing. There is very, very little compassion for the working people at a time that our country is doing so great. I oppose the rule because my colleagues do not even give us an opportunity to have an alternative. What is the fear in just allowing the House to work its will? There was a time that the tax-writing committee used to be involved in taxes. We yield to the distinguished people on the Committee on Rules to pick and choose what they would like. But when they do not have the courage of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to say that they are against the minimum- wage increase, for God's sake, do not kill it by just burdening taxes on it. Just say that we do not want reform on this side of the House of Representatives. How dare my colleagues say, how dare my colleagues say that the tax provisions in this bill is to protect small businesses. That is outrageous. It is an insult to the American people. It is clear that two-thirds of the tax benefits, they do not go to small businesses, they go to the richest Republicans that we have. So do what you want politically and kill the minimum-wage bill, but for God's sake, do not say that you are doing it fairly. The same thing applies to the Patients' Bill of Rights. If you do not want patients to have a bill of rights, and your leadership does not, do not compromise and say you are coming out for it and then load it up with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, it was clear to us a long time ago what our Republican colleagues' game plan was, and that is to do absolutely nothing and get out of this House of Representatives. And how did they intend to do it? By getting this big $800 billion tax cut, thinking about anything you could imagine, and having the President veto it so that you could go home and campaign on just how we Democrats are against tax cuts. Well, guess what? We Democrats are for tax cuts, but we also are for saving Social Security, saving Medicare, and helping all Americans enjoy it and not just the chosen and the blessed few. Why is it that when my colleagues' tax cut was vetoed, they did not move to override the veto? Could it be that they had lack of votes, or could it be they had lack of guts? In any event, now they have to give us an $800 billion tax cut $200 billion at a time. What does the $122 billion tax cut have to do with giving working people a buck increase from $5.15 to $6.15? Why did my Republican colleagues wait until the President said he would veto it before they brought it to the floor? Many of the things that my colleagues have in the tax provision we support. Why did they overdo it? If they really wanted to be fair, why did they not give us a chance really to report out a tax bill that the President will sign? Now, if my Republican colleagues want to be against the working poor, do it. But at least have the courage to stand up here and to say that every time you steal one of the President's good ideas that you have to load it up with some piece of the $800 billion tax cut until you have to force him to veto it. So if we want to talk about reformists with results, we better walk away from many of the critics outside of our side of the aisle that are talking about the way my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not taking care of the people's business. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for seeing their way clear to allowing the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) to have an amendment to this bill, and I wondered why my colleagues could not reach beyond that to allow some of us on the tax-writing committee to have an amendment to the tax bill. I know one thing: my Republican colleagues may be for reform, but they certainly are not supporting results. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Hearing my colleagues talk about this rule would make me think that they simply do not understand what the Committee on Rules did. First of all, the Committee on Rules, under Republicans, has always insisted or guaranteed that there will be a motion to recommit to the minority party. As my recollection tells me, that rarely happened when the Democrats were in control. Secondly, the fairness of this rule is very obvious to everyone. We will have a separate vote that will be on the provisions for minimum wage from the vote for the tax package, which means if the gentleman from New York or any of my colleagues wish to vote yes or no on minimum wage, they will be allowed to do that. If they want to vote yes or no on the tax package, they will be allowed to do that. If we were being unfair, we would have put them together. Then we would have heard that would be a poison pill, and I think that that could be said and it would be true. The fact of the matter is that the wisdom of this Committee on Rules is that we are trying to present an opportunity of fairness to fully debate the issue, to allow open votes that will take place; and I am very, very proud of what we have done. I believe that any criticism like this is from someone that simply has not read the rule, taken the time to read the rule, or who is trying to dissuade someone else by not using the facts that are at hand. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) {time} 1415 Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Committee on Rules and commend them for the work they have done. We worked in a bipartisan manner with a group of Republicans and Democrats, myself, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) to try to reach across the divide to address an issue that would do two things: It would increase the minimum wage, while protecting those jobs that could be lost through the increase of a minimum wage. In this rule, the will of the House will be heard. I think that is the important thing. If we want to judge the fairness of a rule, the question is, does the House have the ability to have their will heard on votes? We will have a debate, and we will have a vote on the tax cut portion of this bill, so those who believe that it is important to cut taxes to help offset the cost of small business can vote yes, and those who do not can vote no. Not many people in the 20th District of Illinois read the Washington Post. I have great respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), but they do read the Herald and Review from Decatur, Illinois. In an October 26, 1999, editorial, it reads: ``Minimum Wage Tax Break Sensible.'' I will quote just a portion of it. The paper stated that ``When the minimum wage increases, someone has to pay for it, because business owners have to maintain a profit level. The result could be higher prices or fewer jobs at minimum wage. Just as a worker will offer his labor at an acceptable wage level, an employer will pay workers a wage that will permit his company to earn a profit. That is why a minimum wage increase alone won't work, and why a bill to raise the rate linked to some tax breaks for small businesses makes sense.'' Again, that is from the October 26 Herald and Review from Decatur, Illinois. So we are going to have a vote on the tax cut. We are going to have a vote and debate on an issue that me and my friends on the conservative side want, State flexibility. We are going to have a debate. We are going to have a debate and a vote, and the will of the House is going to move forward. We are going to have a debate and we are going to have a vote on the increase, whether it should be $1 over 3 years or $1 over 2 years. The will of the House will have an opportunity to be spoken. I think the rule is pretty fair and pretty balanced, but what I really appreciate about the rule is that I think [[Page H777]] it respects the work that we tried to do over an entire year of keeping a balance, trying to get to the center ground to raise the minimum wage and cut taxes and protect jobs, a group of two Republicans and two Democrats that worked long and hard to get to the point where we are here today. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman, I want to thank the Committee on Rules, and I urge all my colleagues to support the rule. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to correct my dear friend, the gentleman from Texas. Since 1892, the rules of the House have prohibited the Committee on Rules from reporting any rule that prevents a motion to recommit from being made. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. SESSIONS. A motion to recommit with instructions. Mr. MOAKLEY. I thought the gentleman was just talking about a motion to recommit. Mr. SESSIONS. With instructions. Mr. MOAKLEY. That was added later. Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for helping me with that history, Mr. Speaker. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the leader of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, do not be fooled. This is not an illustration of bipartisanship at work. This debate is a good illustration of how to turn what should have been a proud bipartisan moment for the House into a partisan action by Republican leaders. The majority is performing a charade of bipartisanship. It is not the real thing. For more than 2 years, there has been a true bipartisan effort in this House to increase the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years. This effort has repeatedly run head on into the desire by Republican leaders to keep this issue off the floor for good, but the bipartisan coalition never gave up, thanks to the efforts of Members on both sides of the aisle like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn). Because of their persistence and because of the insistence of the American people, Republican leaders had no choice but to bring a minimum wage bill to the floor. Like so many times before, Republican leaders decided if they could not kill a popular bill they disagree with, they would kill it through neglect. They would try and kill it, attacking it in the light of day on the floor of the House with legislative trickery. Today they are dispensing dollars to the wealthy through the tax bill that is going to be attached at the end, but pennies to the working poor. Republican leaders are forcing us to vote on a minimum wage bill originally designed to help hard-working low-income families that is tied to a regressive tax bill designed to give $120 billion in tax breaks to the very wealthiest Americans. They are preventing Democrats from even offering an alternative that would provide tax cuts targeted to owners of small businesses and family farms, giving relief to those who need it. For every penny that would go to working low-income Americans, Republicans want to give 10 cents or a dime to the wealthiest Americans among us. It is really emblematic of their values. Republicans do not seem able to ever give a break to working families without making sure that they first take care of the wealthiest in America with even greater largesse. We should be voting on a minimum wage that provides a real pay increase and a tax package that provides sensible, responsible tax relief to small businesses, just as the Democratic tax alternative would do. We should be voting on a bill that will be signed by the President, so we can get this minimum wage increase to the people who need it now. The Republican rule is designed to produce a bill that will eliminate the possibility that we can ever get this minimum wage done this year. The people who need it need it now. They do not need to have a bill vetoed by the President because the bill gets joined up with a tax bill that the President will not sign. If we are really, truly committed to working in a bipartisan manner and ensuring that a minimum wage bill passes this year, Members will join me in voting against this rule and putting together a rule that will allow us to have a tax bill joined with the minimum wage that will get this bill signed by the President of the United States. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, a gentleman who knows what the minimum wage is, he has been fighting it for so long. Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, because it limits the opportunity for Members to have a fair and open debate on a pocketbook issue affecting millions of workers. First, it denies us an opportunity to offer a Democratic substitute that would phase in a $1 increase over a 2-year period. This parliamentary maneuver bars Members from debating and amending provisions of the bill that repeal overtime pay for millions of employees working in computers, sales, and funeral services. This maneuver is even more insulting to Members of this body because the effect of these overtime provisions were never considered in this Congress by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, or evaluated by expert witnesses to determine what impact they may have on the work force. Second, Mr. Speaker, the rule automatically includes the DeMint amendment, which will destroy the concept of a Federal minimum wage by allowing 50 States to enact 50 different Federal minimum wage provisions. What a disaster, Mr. Speaker. What an administrative nightmare: fifty States, some of them competing against each other to see who can reduce their State's minimum wage to a level as close to Mexico's and other Nations that exploit their workers. Mr. Speaker, this House should not be in the business of relegating our workers to slave wages in order to compete with cruel, insensitive economic systems of Third World countries. This rule should be opposed because it abuses the House rules, because it violates fair play, and because it stacks the deck against American workers. I urge its defeat, Mr. Speaker. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip. Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the dictionary defines ``outrage'' as a forcible violation of others' rights, and a gross or wanton offense or indignity. That definition could easily apply to this rule. But what else can we expect when the Republican leader once again this year tells the American people that raising the minimum wage is, and I quote ``the wrong thing?'' Let me tell the Members what Democrats think is wrong, Mr. Speaker. We think it is wrong that even as our economy is surging ahead, millions of Americans are left behind. They are the workers who earn the minimum wage. These are the folks that look after our children at day care, that take care of our parents and our grandparents when they are sick. These are the folks who work in our hospitals, who clean our offices. Most of them are women. They have families of their own, in many instances. They struggle to keep a roof over their heads, the heads of their children, food on the table; to give their kids a better life, a little bit of hope; to spend some time with them, but they cannot spend any time with them because they are making $10,700 a year, $2,300 below the poverty level, if they have two children. What do they end up doing? They are out there working two and often three jobs, and it is not right. They deserve a raise, just like the rest of America. By providing a $1 increase over 2 years, our plan will help them achieve just that. Some may ask, what is the difference between a $1 increase over 2 years or $1 over 3 years? The answer to that is, [[Page H778]] $1,000. I know some of my Republican leadership friends may seem to think, well, that is pocket change. That is not a lot of money. But to a poverty wage worker, it can make all the difference in the world. It can make a difference on whether their children get another pair of blue jeans, whether they can meet the bills at the end of the month, whether they may even have a little left over to go to the movies. It makes a heck of a difference. Our initiative does not stop with providing a fair wage, Mr. Speaker. We understand that small businesses are creating most of the jobs in this country and we want to help them. That is why our plan expands the tax relief for family businesses and family farms. It provides for the deductibility of health care premium insurance. Our plan offers a higher minimum wage to workers who have earned it, and tax relief to the businesses who need it. Under the outrageous rule that we have before us right now, it is a plan we will not even have a fair chance to consider. Instead, the leadership on this side of the aisle is presenting us with an elaborate scheme. They will provide a wage increase all right, but only if it is tied to this jumbo tax cut for the wealthy and the super rich, tax cuts that are reckless and that are enormous. Their message basically is this, to working families: Sure, we will give you a little bologna sandwich, but first you have to buy my friends who belong to the country club a really nice, thick, juicy steak dinner. Mr. Speaker, we have news for the Republican leaders, and it is that the minimum wage was never intended to become a meal ticket for their fat cat friends. Mr. Speaker, what the Republican leaders propose is not policy- making, it is a shell game. No wonder the President has pledged that he will veto the Republican plan. Whether we agree with it or not, every Member of this House deserves a chance to consider our substitute, but this rule would deny us that opportunity, and that is why we are fighting it. We will not be denied. We will offer motions to recommit that will give workers a fair minimum wage and provide real tax relief for small businesses and family farms. {time} 1430 Mr. Speaker, our plan is the only one that provides the raise that workers have earned and the tax relief small business and family farms need. Vote against this outrageous rule. Bring back a rule that will give us some sense of equity and fairness and stand with us for America's workers, for small business, for the family farmer. We are not asking for anything more; and by God, the country deserves nothing less. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when I hear the debate on the other side, the debate is as though these Republicans have not allowed a fair and open rule, a great vote for people who think we ought to raise the minimum wage and a great vote and an opportunity for small businesses, men and women who create opportunity for America. You would think by listening to the other side that they do not want to create opportunity and jobs and growth and happiness and the opportunity for the next generation to be employed. I want to stand up and say that my Republican Party has the provisions that accelerate the increase and the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100 percent because we want people to be able to have, not only health insurance, we want people to have their own doctors; that we want to do the things that will extend work opportunities and tracks credits to extend welfare to work. We want to put America to work, want to have opportunity and jobs that are available for everyone. That is what this fair and open rule is about. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Perry Township, Ohio (Ms. Pryce) who sits on the Committee on Rules with me. Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very fair rule which will allow the House to work its will on the question of raising the minimum wage and providing tax relief to the very businesses that will pay the cost of this new Federal mandate. Now, no matter what my colleagues' position may be on the minimum wage or on tax relief, they will have an opportunity to make their views very clear through the procedure by which we will consider these two bills. Now what could be fairer? For those who support this minimum wage, this rule makes in order legislation to increase it by a dollar over 3 years. If that table is not fast enough, the rule allows Members to vote for a Democrat amendment that increases the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years. Now, of course, many of my colleagues do not think the government should play any role in setting the wages and telling businesses what to pay employees. Even these Members will have at least two opportunities to make their disapproval known when they vote against the Martinez-Traficant amendment and final passage. Whatever one's view is on the minimum wage, I hope that we all recognize that this policy is not free. Someone actually has to pay the higher wages. Those who pay the highest prices are the small businesses across this Nation, the engines of our economy, those businesses which are creating jobs for some of our workers who are the very, very hardest to employ. That is why this rule also allows the House to vote on tax relief for these small companies. The mom and pop store fronts and the new start- up businesses, the dreams of our country's entrepreneurs. Under this rule, Members can register their support for these businesses by voting for legislation that increases the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100 percent, reduces the death tax so that family businesses can be passed on from one generation to the next. It increases the deduction for business meal expenses, and it reforms pension laws to help businesses offer more retirement security to their workers. All of these changes will be helpful to the businessmen and women who are responsible for the innovations and job creation that are making this economy so very strong. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with some controversial issues today on which Members of the House have very, very different views. But this rule gives all Members a fair opportunity to express their position and let the House work its will. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not happy, but believe me, Mr. Speaker, many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle are not happy either; and it is my experience that that usually means we have a pretty good rule. I urge all of my colleagues to support it. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support raising the minimum wage over a period of 2 years instead of 3 years. The current minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. At this rate, a full-time year-round minimum wage earner in the United States makes approximately $10,712 per year. In 1998, the yearly salary determined necessary for a family of three to rise above the poverty level in this country was $13,003, an amount $2,291 more than the minimum wage salary provides. Clearly, the current minimum wage is too low. Congress has already inexcusably allowed the value of the minimum wage to fall 21 percent lower than in 1979. If the minimum wage is not increased by the year 2001, recent studies show that the inflation adjusted value will fall to $4.90 per hour. It is essential that the minimum wage is raised over the course of 2 years instead of 3. That is why I will support the Traficant amendment, and I urge everyone to support the Traficant amendment. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker was right. Not all of us are happy with this rule. I believe it deals fairly with the minimum wage question. But I continue to not understand why the majority party continues to refuse to allow a substitute [[Page H779]] tax bill when there are sufficient Members on both sides of the aisle who I believe would like our version better than the version that is put before us. But here again, the fundamental question is why not allow a simple vote? Why not allow the package put together by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) to have the opportunity to have the will of the House worked? The bill that we will be voting on today continues the fiscal irresponsible pattern of legislation coming from the majority side that, once again, will squander our national surplus and our opportunity to deal with Social Security and Medicare. This, when one adds up this $122 billion unpaid for, will amount to something over $400 billion now voted by the House and by the Senate in spending the surplus that is not yet real. The tax bill that this rule will allow is the latest in the series of tax bills that will drain the projected budget surplus drip by drip without regard for the consequences. If we pass this bill today, it will be fiscally reckless for this body to continue to rush down this path of passing tax cuts and spending bills without a road map. Why do we continue to casually waive the budget rules? Why do we just continue to come to this floor of the House without first bringing a road map so we can deal with how we are going to spend money and cut taxes this year? The tax bill before us is simply a political document that will never become law. We know this. It appears the majority wants a political issue rather than dealing with the estates of family farmers and small businessmen and women. If my colleagues are truly concerned about estate tax relief, which I am and have been, I very much appreciate what could have been an opportunity to vote on an immediate exemption exclusion of $4 million estates immediately. But, yet, the bill that we have before us pays more attention to estates over $10 million. I do not understand this. The President has promised that he will sign into law the Democratic tax package. The fact the leadership will not allow the House to vote on this amendment suggests they are more interested in keeping a political issue, which I fail to understand, than they are on actually providing tax relief to small businesses. This rule is unfair to our children and grandchildren who will face the consequences of our fiscal irresponsibility if this bill should become law, which it will not. What I do not understand is why we never allow the House of Representatives to work our will so that we might send something to the President that the President will actually sign. Mr. Speaker, I ask that simple question. Why not let the House be the House? Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office not intending to participate in this debate and really got incensed. I sat there, and I wondered, what must the American people be thinking is going on here? What must my Republican colleagues be thinking? Do they think the American people are stupid? What are they doing? It is obvious that their leadership does not support the minimum wage increase, and they are trying to kill the minimum wage increase by loading it up with an irresponsible tax cut that benefits the richest people in America. Are we stupid? Do they think we are stupid? That is exactly what is going on here. The President has said, I will veto this bill. We cannot stand here on the floor and say, hey, we are being bipartisan. There is no bipartisanship here. All we are trying to do is get a wage increase for people in America who need it and want it. All they are trying to do is kill that minimum wage increase. They will try anything and everything to accomplish that objective. We should not sit here and pretend that we are doing something being bipartisan. There is nobody being bipartisan in this House. If they were being bipartisan, they would separate these two bills, let them be voted up or down, give us the opportunity to offer amendments on both bills, and let the House work its will. That is all we are asking for in this equation. It is quite obvious that the Republicans are not going to give it to us and not going to give the opportunity to the American people to have a wage increase. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, just directing my conversation to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), is he the only remaining speaker? Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker who I am going to give 7 minutes to, rundown the time to where we have a minute or so left, and then I will reserve 1 minute for myself when that speaker is through. Mr. MOAKLEY. Then I would be delighted to sit back and listen to the gentleman's speaker for 7 minutes right now. Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to both gentlemen who have just spoken, the fact of the matter is that the Republican House of Representatives is not going to send a tax increase, which is what President Clinton wants to sign. The American people understand this. The bills that the President wants to sign are tax increases that take money away from people. Forty-eight of my colleagues on the Democrat side came across just within weeks to sign the marriage penalty. The President of the United States cannot join us. What we are doing today is talking about a minimum wage that is good for America and great for the people who employ those people, small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the Democrat leadership on their analysis of this bill. I support the rule. I will support the tax break. I will support an amendment to increase the minimum wage $1 over a 24-month span, and I will vote for final passage when they are linked together. My district desperately needs an increase in the minimum wage. The sharpest politician to ever sit on Independence Avenue, with great political wisdom, owns two-thirds of the votes, and there are many political machinations that follow down the road on this bill. But a tax break for the boss who raises the wages of my workers is a decent trade-off for me. Am I totally crazy about their tax break? Not totally. There is a thing called a conference. But in the last 4 years, we have had two increases in the minimum wage that were under Republican Party leadership. The Republicans could have brought a bill out here today that did not have an opportunity for $1 over 2 years. They could have left it $1 over 3 years. They did that. I thank them for that. But I want to also say this, those who say that the Republican Party's tactics are simply mean spirited, trying to kill a minimum wage are not truthful. {time} 1445 Their concerns over inflation causing a downward spiral that could hurt my workers is a valid concern that I share, just as they do. I believe our economy is strong enough that it can absorb both. But I think the point that I would like to make today is this: there are many people who come from different backgrounds. I look around and I see great Members coming from very, very poor families. I come from a very poor family. My dad finally got on his feet maybe when I was about 11 years old. My dad never worked for a poor man. This business of bashing one another should stop. Is this bill good for America or not? My Democrat colleagues are saying it is not. I am a Democrat. I am saying it is, after it goes through the conference and after we go through the political machinations to work out those problems. That is what the process is all about, my colleagues. But let us look at this. How many times do we come to the floor that we bash, that we pit old against the young; rich against the poor; black against the white; man against the woman; worker against the company? My colleagues, without a company there is no worker. Without an entrepreneur there is no company. I think the Democrat Party has got to look at this issue. [[Page H780]] I am appealing to the Democrat Party to pass the rule. I do not want to see the Republican Party on their own pass the rule and give an opportunity for a minimum-wage increase on their own, because President Clinton is sharp. I believe if the Clinton White House and the Republican leadership, whose intentions I believe are honorable, were to get together in reasonableness on that tax scheme, we will have a minimum-age increase, and my people desperately need it. My colleagues, the gas prices in America are beginning to approach $2 a gallon. So I want to say this: I want to commend the Republican Party and the Republican leadership for bringing out an opportunity for a minimum-wage increase and, yes, politically machinating the process to accommodate some of their goals. That is what we do here. We are not the Rotary. In closing, Democrats, my amendment does this: the bill says there is a $1 increase over 3 years. The Traficant bill would accelerate the minimum wage of $1 over 2 years. I am asking for a positive vote. I will vote ``yes'' on the previous question; I will vote ``yes'' on the rule. And I will also say this in closing: I served on the majority and on the minority; and we have had, in my opinion, much fairer rules coming from this majority party than we did when I was in the majority. That is telling it like it is. Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the Democrats to offer a substitute to both the minimum-wage bill and to the small business tax bill. It is extremely unfortunate that the majority leadership in this House has shut the minority out of the amendment process on these two very critical bills. The two substitutes proposed by the Democrats are reasonable, and they are responsible alternatives to the two bills being offered by the Republicans. Members deserve an opportunity to choose between these two approaches. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we may consider these two sensible alternatives. The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cities the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition. Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislation or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' The vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the text of the amendments I have just referred to and other extraneous materials: Previous Question for H. Res. Small Business Tax and Minimum Wage