Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to ensure that Members have a reasonable amount of time to read legislation that will be voted upon.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill because it does nothing to reduce corruption and lobbying.

Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment that was adopted in the Judiciary Committee. That language was subsequently stripped from the bill by the Rules Committee. That amendment would have simply required a study of the practice by which some lobbyists appear to be charging percentage contingent fees for obtaining earmarks in appropriations bills. Now, when you combine that idea with the K Street Project where you are supposed to be hiring a Republican lobbyist who is supposed to be contributing back to the legislators, you can see just how ugly a practice this can be. My amendment would have simply asked for a study of the prevalence of that practice.

Mr. Chairman, these kinds of contracts are illegal when lobbyists are representing foreign governments and are illegal in some activities involving the Executive Branch. They are illegal in 39 State legislatures. However, it does not appear to be illegal lobbying Congress under Federal law. The Congressional Research Service in a memorandum dated September 21, 2000 cites a legal treatise which says that these contracts furnish the strongest incentive to the exertion of corrupting and sinister influences and are utterly void against public policy.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was cited in that same memorandum as saying that they have a tendency in such contracts to provide incentives towards corruption. In fact, an 1853 Supreme Court case said that common law will not lend its aid to enforce a contract to do an act which is inconsistent with sound morals or public policy, or which tends to corrupt or contaminate by improper influences the integrity of our social or political institutions.

Mr. Chairman, true lobbying reform ought to remove corruption from lobbying, and if we are going to be serious about that, we ought to at least study the prevalence of these contracts which everybody knows has a corrupting influence. By removing the amendment, it is clear that that was not the purpose of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.

Congressional Research Service,

Washington, DC, Sept. 21, 2000.

memorandum

Subject: Contingency Fees for Lobbying Activities.

From: Jack Maskell, Legislative Attorney, American Law

Division.

This memorandum is prepared in response to requests from

congressional offices for information about whether one may

lawfully have a contingency fee arrangement for ``lobbying''

activities in which the fee for such lobbying activities is

contingent upon the success of ``lobbying'' efforts in having

legislation passed in the United States Congress.

There is no statute under federal law which expressly

addresses the issue of contingency fees with respect to all

lobbying activities generally before the Congress.

Contingency fees may be expressly barred, however, under

certain circumstances. There is in federal law an express

prohibition against contingency fee arrangements with respect

to seeking certain contracts with the agencies of the Federal

Government. Activities which might generally or colloquially

be called ``lobbying,'' but which involve making

representations on behalf of private parties before federal

agencies to obtain certain government contracts, may thus be

subject to the contingency prohibitions. The reason for such

ban has been explained as follows: ``Contractors'

arrangements to pay contingent fees for soliciting or

obtaining Government contracts have long been considered

contrary to public policy because such arrangements may lead

to attempted or actual exercise of improper influence ....''

Contingency fees are also prohibited for lobbying the

Congress by persons who must register as agents of foreign

principals under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The

prohibition is upon agreements where the amount of payment

``is contingent in whole or in part upon the success of any

political activities carried on by such agent.'' The covered

``political activities'' of such agents under the Foreign

Agents Registration Act include any activity which the agent

``intends to, in any way influence any agency or official of

the Government of the United States ... with reference to

formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic or foreign

policies of the United States ...,'' and thus include the

activities of ``lobbying'' Members and staff of Congress on

legislation or appropriations.

Although there is no general, express federal law barring

all contingency fees for successful lobbying before Congress,

there is a long history of judicial precedent and traditional

judicial opinion which indicates that such contingency fee

arrangements, when in reference to ``lobbying'' and the use

of influence before a legislature on general legislation, are

void from their origin (ab initio) for public policy reasons,

and therefore would be denied enforcement in the courts. In

some instances contingency fee arrangements based on the

success of legislation have been upheld in a few courts,

however, when the duties contracted for were professional

services that did not involve traditional, statutorily

defined ``lobbying'' or the use of personal influence before

the legislature, or where the client had a legitimate claim

or legal right to be asserted in a matter before the

legislature (e.g., ``debt legislation'').

The concern of potential temptations from overzealousness

and undue influences which certain ``all or nothing''

contingency arrangements might engender has also been the

reason behind the public policy disfavoring contingency fees

in the case of lobbying the legislature. As summarized in one

legal treatise: ``Agreements under which the compensation for

procuring or influencing legislative action is made

contingent upon the success of the undertaking furnish the

strongest incentive to the exertion of corrupting and

sinister influences to the end that the desired legislation

may be secured, and there is a long line of cases which holds

that if the agreement is one in which the compensation is

contingent upon success in accomplishing the end sought, it

is utterly void as against public policy.''

The United Stats Supreme Court addressed the issue in

Hazelton v. Sheckells, in 1906. In that case the Court

refused specific performance of a contract to convey a deed

as compensation for services where ``the services

contemplated as a partial consideration of the promise to

convey were services in procuring legislation upon a matter

of public interest, in respect of which neither of the

parties had any claim against the United States.'' As

established in the conveyance document, such agreement

``was in substance a contingent fee,'' dependent upon the

passage of legislation by the Congress. Justice Oliver

Wendell Holmes, writing for the Court, explained that it

was the ``tendency'' in such contract agreements to

provide incentives towards corruption, and not necessarily

any actual corrupt activity in a particular contract or

case, that made these contingent arrangements void for

public policy reasons. Thus, the Court found that even

though the services in this case were legitimate, that

``[t]he objection to them rests in their tendency, not in

what was done in the particular case,'' especially since

if there had been undue or improper influence ``it

probably would be hidden and would not appear.'' The Court

stated that ``in its inception'' the contingency fee

arrangement ``necessarily invited and tended to induce

improper solicitations, and it intensified the inducement

by the contingency of the reward.'' The Court found that

earlier Supreme Court precedent had established ``that all

contracts for a contingent compensation for obtaining

legislation were void,'' and refused to enforce the

contract in question.

The judicial disfavor expressed by the Supreme Court for

contingency contracts for lobbying on general legislation

dates back at least to 1853, when in Marshal v. Baltimore &

Ohio R.R., supra, the Court with reference to secret

contingent contracts explained:

``It is an undoubted principle of the common law, that it

will not lend its aid to enforce a contract to do an act . .

. which is inconsistent with sound morals or public policy;

or which tends to corrupt or contaminate, by improper

influences, the integrity of our social or political

institutions. . . . Legislators should act from high

consideration of public duty. Public policy and sound

morality do therefore imperatively require that courts should

put the stamp of disapprobation on every act, and pronounce

void every contract the ultimate or probable tendency of

which would be to sully the purity or mislead the judgments

of those to whom the high trust of legislation is confided.

``. . . Bribes in the shape of high contingent

compensation, must necessarily lead to the use of improper

means and the exercise of undue influence. Their necessary

consequence is the demoralization of the agent who covenants

for them; he is soon brought to believe that any means which

will produce so beneficial a result to himself are ``proper

means''; and that a share of these profits may have the same

effect of quickening the perceptions and warming the zeal of

influential or ``careless'' members in favor of his bill.''

In a more recent federal case on this subject, a United

States Court of Appeals in 1996, in Florida League of

Professional Lobbyists, Inc. v. Meggs, upheld against a

constitutional challenge on First Amendment

grounds the State of Florida's specific legislative ban on

contingency fee contracts for lobbying. The court there

reaffirmed, albeit reluctantly, the long-recognized judicial

precedents concerning the general public policy against such

contingency fees for lobbying. The court noted that there was

no direct precedent overturning the older Supreme Court cases

directly on point on contingency fees and lobbying, but did

seem sympathetic and responsive to the plaintiff's arguments

that more modern cases on the First Amendment and

compensation for advocacy might eventually warrant a

different outcome on this issue:

``Florida points out that in cases decided well before the

articulation of `exacting scrutiny,' the Supreme Court

specifically held that contracts to lobby for a legislative

result, with the fee contingent on a favorable legislative

outcome, were void ab initio as against public policy . . .

[citations omitted]. The League does not contest the

applicability of these older decisions to this case. And, we

are persuaded that these decisions permit a legislature to

prohibit contingent compensation. The League, however,

suggested at argument that the extensive, interim

developments of First Amendment law established conclusively

that the Supreme Court today would strike a contingent-fee

ban on lobbying.

``This prediction may be accurate, but we are not at

liberty to disregard binding case law that is so closely on

point and has been only weakened, rather than directly

overruled, by the Supreme Court.''

As to State statutory bans on contingency fees for

lobbying, it should be noted that as of this writing most of

the States (39) have existing in their state codes an express

prohibition against such contingency fees for lobbying

activities. See, for example, Alabama (Sec. 36-25-23(c),

Michie's Ala. Code); Alaska (sec. 24.45.121 (a)(6), Alaska

Statutes); Arizona (sec. 41-1233(1), Arizona Rev. Statutes);

California (Government Code, Sec. 86205(f), Annotated Calif.

Codes); Colorado (sec. 24-6-308, Colorado Rev. Statutes);

Connecticut (Sec. 1-97(b), Conn. Gen. Statutes Ann.); Florida

(Sec. 11.047 [legislature]; Sec. 112.3217 [executive branch],

Florida Statutes Ann.); Georgia (sec. 28-7-3, Official Code

of Georgia Ann.); Hawaii (sec. 97-5, Hawaii Rev. Statutes

Ann.); Idaho (sec. 67-6621(b)(6), Idaho Code); Illinois

(S.H.A. 25 ILCS 170/8); Indiana (sec. 2-7-5-5, Burns Ind.

Statutes Ann.); Kansas (sec. 46-267, Kansas Statutes Ann.);

Kentucky (sec. 6.811(9), Kentucky Rev. Statutes); Maine

(Title 3, Sec. 318, Maine Rev. Statutes Ann.); Maryland

(State Government, Sec. 15-706, Michie's Ann. Code of Md.);

Massachusetts (Ch. 3, Sec. 42, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann.);

Michigan (sec. 4.421(1) Mich. Compiled Laws Ann.);

Minnesota (sec. 10A.06, Minn. Statutes Ann.); Mississippi

(sec. 5-8-13(1), West's Ann. Miss. Code); Nebraska (sec.

49-1492(1), Revised Statutes of Neb.); Nevada (sec.

218.942(4), Nev. Revised Statutes Ann.); New Mexico (sec.

2-11-8, New Mexico Statutes); New York (Book 31,

Legislative Law, Sec. 1-k, McKinney's Consolidated Laws of

N.Y. Ann.); North Carolina (sec. 120-47.5(1), Gen.

Statutes of N.C.); North Dakota (54-05.1-06, N.D. Century

Code Ann.); Ohio (sec. 101-77, Page's Ohio Rev. Code

Ann.); Oklahoma (Title 21, Sec. 334, Oklahoma Statutes

Ann.); Oregon (sec. 171.756(3), Oregon Rev. Statutes);

Pennsylvania (65 Pa. Cons. Statutes Ann. Sec. 1307(a));

Rhode Island (sec. 22-10-12, Gen. Laws of R.I.); South

Carolina (Sec. 2-17-110(A), Code of Laws of S.C.); South

Dakota (sec. 2-12-6, S.D. Codified Laws); Texas

(Government Code, 305.022, Vernon's Texas Codes Ann.);

Utah (sec. 36-11-301 (Utah Code Ann.); Vermont (Title 2,

266(1), Vt. Statutes Ann.); Virginia (Sec. 2.1-791, Code

of Va.); Washington (Sec. 42.17.230(f), West's Rev. Code

of Wash. Ann.); Wisconsin (sec. 13.625(d), Wise. Statutes

Ann.).

As noted, the weight of judicial opinion has been either to

uphold such restrictions against challenges, or in some cases

in the absence of an express statute to judicially find such

contingency fee arrangements void for public policy reasons.

In one instance in the 1980's, however, a provision, enacted

as a result of a state initiative, barring all contingency

fees for legislative lobbying activities was struck down by a

state court as an overbroad intrusion into the right to

petition the government. The Supreme Court of Montana found

the law ``overbroad because it precludes contingent fee

agreements that are properly motivated as well as those that

are improperly motivated'' and as such, the ``ability of

individuals and organizations to fully exercise their right

to petition the government may be severely curtailed by this

broad prohibition.''

While the existing state of the law is clearly for most

States to continue to expressly prohibit by law contingency

fee agreements with respect to legislative lobbying on

general legislation, and to have those prohibitions upheld

(or to consider such contingency agreements void for public

policy reasons where there is no express law, as is the case

with respect to lobbying before Congress), other

interpretations have permitted such arrangements where an

agent, attorney or representative is seeking legislation

based upon a claim or similar legal interest or right to be

asserted against the government, or when such action involves

conduct and activity that is done in the normal course of

client representation by an attorney and is not expressly

contemplated by the original contract.

There have also been cases where legitimate professional

services are contracted for, such as, for example, the

drafting of legislative language, as opposed to merely

engaging another's ``influence'' to ``lobby,'' when such an

arrangement for services, even if based on the contingency of

the passage of legislation, has been permitted. Such cases

have been described as related to contracts where the

``services rendered thereunder did not partake of anything in

the nature of lobbying....'' Although relating to

legislation, the services in question were not necessarily

within a specific or narrow definition of ``lobbying'' in the

sense that nothing that was contracted for involved any

activities attempting to ``exert private or personal

influence with members of the legislature, or in interviewing

or bringing pressure to bear on them....'' In making

arguments for allowing such contingent fees in cases of

professional services rendered in relation to legislation

where no undue influences are contemplated or used, and no

traditional ``lobbying'' is conducted, it has been suggested

that such permissibility of the fee arrangement would have no

more ``influencing'' tendency than in the permissible

instance of one representing oneself before the legislature

(and thus having an even greater financial stake than an

agent in the outcome), or if an agent or attorney represented

a client before a judicial panel, i.e., a court.

Jack Maskell,

Legislative Attorney.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I was just listening to the debate on the last bill considered under suspension of the rules, and I saw a wonderful sense of bipartisanship as we were able to pass, I suspect we may have a vote on it, but I know it will pass overwhelmingly, the legislation by our good friend from Dallas, Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson.

It is my hope that, as we proceed with this very important issue, that that same sense of bipartisanship can prevail. Because I believe that it is absolutely essential to dealing with the challenge that lies ahead.

Mr. Chairman, as you know very well, recent scandals involving elected representatives from both political parties have underscored the very urgent need for us to reform ethics and lobbying rules.

The American people and Members of Congress are very correctly incensed about this. I believe that it is absolutely outrageous some of the things that we have seen from both political parties over the past several months.

Action, common-sense action, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely needed, and that is why I am very proud that Speaker Dennis Hastert 4 months ago stepped up to the plate and said this is exactly what we need to do, is we need to take strong action.

Republicans and Democrats have worked together tirelessly on this issue over the past 4 months. The goal is to strengthen and reform House rules, as well as that 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act which we very proudly put into place when we won the majority back in 1994.

Our aim, our goal, is a Congress that is effective, a Congress that is ethical, and a Congress that is worthy of the public trust. Now, I know that the American people should understandably have a healthy skepticism towards this institution. That is what Thomas Jefferson wanted. But, at the same time, it is very important that we do what we can to enhance the level of trust that the American people have in their elected representatives.

We know right after this began, at the beginning of this second session of the 109th Congress, we stepped right up and were able to take very bold action to bring about reform. On our very first day of legislative business we voted to level the playing field by ending the access to the House floor and gym by former Members of Congress who are registered lobbyists. This rule change was supported by 379 of our 435 Members.

At the beginning of the last month, we took a second step in the name of balance and fairness. In another bipartisan vote, the House closed an enormous loophole in campaign finance regulations. Integrity in our elections was a key focus of our reform efforts, and the 527 Reform Act makes sure campaign finance laws apply across the board.

Now we are considering the comprehensive reform package, H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Mr. Chairman, this legislation seeks to uphold the highest standards of integrity when it comes to Congress' interaction with outside groups.

I am very proud of the process and the results of this multi-month effort that we have seen. Anyone, anyone, Democrat and Republican alike, outside groups, academics, anyone who wanted to offer any suggestion, any proposal at all, make any comment on any part of the legislation has had that opportunity. This has been a very thorough and, again, a very bipartisan process.

Mr. Chairman, we already conducted a very spirited and worthwhile debate just last Thursday when we were considering the rule that allows us to consider this legislation; and, from that debate, it was very clear to me that there is a lot of confusion over H.R. 4975. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, as I have read editorials for a wide range of publications here in this town and across the country, there is an awful lot of confusion as to what this bill actually does. So I thought that I would take just a moment to summarize for our friends here in the House and for anyone who might be following this, any editorial writer out there, I would like to summarize what this legislation will and will not do.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation will enhance transparency and accountability in Congress through increased disclosure and tighter rules. No matter what anyone says, Mr. Chairman, this legislation does increase transparency

and accountability through toughening up disclosure and tightening the rules.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation will fulfill the public's right to know who is seeking to influence their Congress.

This legislation will provide brighter lines of right and wrong and more rigorous ethics training so that everyone can understand what is right and what is wrong here. I was taught that as a kid, but obviously there has been some confusion and in the past there have been gray areas. This legislation creates that clear definition and provides an opportunity for greater training for Members and staff so they can have an understanding of it.

This legislation will significantly reform the earmark process to foster more responsible and accountable government spending.

I read one editorial in which they said this bill does not tackle the so-called Bridge to Nowhere issue. Well, Mr. Chairman, anyone who has followed this debate knows that full well that last week when we were debating the rule, the Speaker, the majority leader, I, the whip, others made have a very strong commitment, working with the Appropriation Committee, that the Senate has passed language which we think is very good.

It is language which says that when we look at the issue of earmark reform so we can have greater accountability when it comes to spending that it should not simply focus on the appropriations process. It should be universal and go across the board to the other committees as well. That commitment was made a week ago, and yet some people seem to think that we are not willing to take that on.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation will considerably increase fines and penalties for violating the transparency and accountability provisions.

This legislation will give a new authority to the House Inspector General to perform random audits of lobbyist disclosure forms and refer violations to the Department of Justice.

Now, Mr. Chairman, here is what this legislation will not do. It will not permit business as usual. It will not perpetuate the status quo.

Mr. Chairman, while this body is united in its desire for reform, we clearly have disagreements over some of the specifics. Some think that this bill goes too far; some think that this bill does not go far enough; and, frankly, I wish that this bill were stronger than it is. But we are getting ready to take this very important step to go into conference with the Senate; and, as we do that, I believe that we can come back with a stronger bill. This is what I am hoping will happen, but we must proceed with this measure so that we can make that happen.

Yet today we stand, as I said, on the starting blocks of our reform effort, and the single most important thing that we can do at this stage is to keep the process of reform moving. That is really what this is all about today, Mr. Chairman. We know full well that they are going to get a lot of people standing in the way, and yet we need to take this step forward, and that is what H.R. 4975 does.

There is no question whatsoever that this bill, regardless of what anyone says about it, that it represents progress. It is a move in the right direction, and a lot of us want to do more, but this is a bill that moves us in the right direction.

There is no question at all that it is a vast improvement over the status quo, and there is no question that it does put us on a path towards that very important conference that we will have with our friends in the other body.

Now, of course, Mr. Chairman, there are many up there who want to engage in nothing but criticism. They want to say no. They want to defeat this effort for real reform. They want to just criticize what it is that we are trying to do here when we have been able to fashion a bipartisan package. But to what end? To protect the current system? Because this is really what is going to happen. I mean, if we pass the previous question, if we defeat this legislation, all we will be doing is perpetuating the status quo because it will slow the process of reform. The same system that we have spent 4 months decrying, as we sought this reform, would be perpetuated.

It defies logic, Mr. Chairman, to criticize the current standards and then vote to keep them in place, because that is exactly what will happen. With their recommittal motion, that is exactly what will happen with any attempt to defeat this measure.

Mr. Chairman, Winston Churchill, I think said it very well, when he wrote: Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult.

Mr. Chairman, this is no time for us to recoil in our effort to bring about reform. By voting yes for this bill, the House will vote for achievement, for progress and for rebuilding the trust of the American people. A vote for H.R. 4975 is a vote for reform.

Mr. Chairman, after we pass this bill, let me tell you what is next on our agenda: more reform. The Republican party is the party of reform. The Republican party has and will continue to reach out to our Democratic colleagues who are reform-minded to continue down this road towards reform.

The drive for reform never stops. We have demonstrated that consistently in the past, and we will continue to do so in the future. It is a continuous, ongoing process that takes both perseverance and commitment.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is absolutely essential for us to continue down the road towards reform so that we can make this institution more effective and more respected.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I have not been in Alice in Wonderland until I heard my colleague talk about it. So much for bipartisan comity. I am very proud to be working with Democrats on this important legislation, but as I listen to this mischaracterization of our strong bipartisan reform effort, I am somewhat stunned.

Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to an individual who has worked as hard or harder than anyone on this issue of reform, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, my Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from Charleston, West Virginia, a hardworking member of the Rules Committee (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.

My friend said, if we have a small bill. We don't have a small bill. This is a very, very strong package that we have come forward with.

He has talked about outside organizations that have criticized this. I am very happy that three of the recommendations that outside organizations have provided to us are included in this. We have included input from a wide range of entities.

This is a package that does double the disclosure rate for lobbyists when it comes to their activities that relate to this institution. We have very strong reforms.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I was going to say, what the Chair just said. I am sure that my colleague from Chicago, my very good friend, was not in any way impugning the integrity or motives of any of his colleagues in this institution.

And I should say that the legislation itself very specifically says that no Member may have any decision that is impacted that influences an outside hiring decision that another Member raises, and so that is raised in this.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend, a great reformer, the gentleman from Phoenix (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Chairman, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to my good friend from Vienna, Virginia, my classmate (Mr. Wolf).

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the very hardworking chairman of the Committee on Administration, our friend from Grand Rapids, Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Hensarling), a very hardworking reformer of this institution.

It appears again that my friends on the other side don't have any remaining speakers. I know you are waiting and want to reserve the balance of your time. Absolutely, in a bipartisan sense of comity, we want you to reserve the time.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Chairman, for a unanimous consent request, I yield to our hardworking and very senior colleague from Davenport, Iowa (Mr. Leach).

(Mr. LEACH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our hardworking friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a member on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as I said at the outset, we have gone through a long, bipartisan, 4-month process to get to where we are. Speaker Hastert began in January saying we need as an institution

to step up to the plate and deal with the issue of lobbying and ethics reform, and that is exactly what we have done.

Again, we have worked with Democrats and Republicans, outside organizations; and, as I have listened to the debate and the statements made from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, it is very obvious to me that they have failed to read this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, in virtually every single area that my friend from Rochester just addressed, this is addressed in the legislation. And if it is not actually addressed in the legislation itself, we have made commitments that we are going to, as we move this process forward, get into a conference with the Senate and address some of these issues of concern.

Critics seem to be absolutely intent on telling us what this bill is not. Everything that was said by my friend from Rochester was in the negative. Just imagine if we went through every single day lamenting what is not. Today is not Christmas; that is terrible. Today is not Thanksgiving, and that is terrible. Today is not my birthday, and that is terrible. But what does it get us? It does not get us a thing. Searching for storm clouds on a clear day is a recipe for inaction and defeatism.

Mr. Chairman, Speaker Hastert and I and the leadership team here and the Republicans and, I am happy to say, some Democrats have indicated to me that they are interested in not defeatism; they are interested in pursuing vigorous reform.

As I listened to the litany of what this bill is not, I think it is very important again, as I have read some of these editorials which mischaracterize the legislation, as I listened to the rhetoric that mischaracterized this legislation, let us again look at the bill and just four simple things of what this bill is: This bill actually doubles the fines, doubles the fines, for lobbyists who fail to disclose. This bill adds the possibility of jail time for failing to comply with the Act. This bill adds oversight to make sure disclosure information is accurate. It gives the public full, online access to disclosure reports. It withdraws the government-funded pension for people who commit the crimes that we have outlined in the legislation.

So, Mr. Chairman, anyone who tries to say that they are supporting a recommittal motion, are going to vote against this legislation because it does not do enough is, in fact, standing in the way of reform.

Many people said we should get this thing out. The Speaker and I said we wanted this to pass by early March. Obviously, we needed more and more input from Members, from outside organizations, from academics, from our constituents who are concerned about this issue. And, Mr. Chairman, we extended beyond that early March date. Here we are now in early May, having listened to so many different people, and we have come up with a bill that I believe is strong. I believe it is bold. I hope we will be able to do more, but this is legislation that allows us to move forward in a positive way.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 966, I call up the bill (H.R. 5970) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit against the estate tax to an exclusion equivalent of $5,000,000, to repeal the sunset provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes, and to extend expiring provisions, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Does anyone here think it is rather odd if we designed a bill to fail we would place in it what apparently the Members on the other side say is one of our really primary focuses, and that is to allow people who have worked all their lives to hang on to a little bit of what they get after death for their family? Why would you couple those two together if you wanted it to fail?

The so-called extenders are 7 months overdue. They need to be extended. Why would you put a minimum wage in this structure, and extenders, if you built a bill to fail?

I think it is going to be very tortured discussion on the floor, because our colleagues on the other side just can't quite get their arms around the fact that the Republicans are for a significant change in the estate tax, they are for extending the extenders, and we are for a minimum wage.

All you have to do is vote ``yes.'' Now, that probably is your biggest difficulty, voting ``yes'' on a bill that is in front of you. If you vote ``yes,'' as the gentleman from Maryland said, minimum wage goes from $5.15 to $7.25. If you vote ``yes,'' you join us in encouraging the Senate. And if you want to find the graveyard for the minimum wage, I suggest you go over and visit the other body.

What we have done is tried to package this to succeed in getting the minimum wage through the other body. And if we can work together, all you have to do is start by voting ``yes,'' and then it could be contagious, we could go over and get the Senate to vote ``yes,'' and we could have a minimum-wage increase to $7.25 in 3 years. We could also extend the extenders, and we could also have a very reasonable appropriate structure for allowing people to hang on to a little bit more of what they work for and accumulate over their lifetime.

I know the cost of making that happen is high. It means you'd actually have to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself briefly.

Gee, I know you work for the minimum wage, and I know you want a higher minimum wage, but the way the offer was packaged was such that I had to vote ``no.'' So don't blame me that you didn't get an increase in the minimum wage, because I voted ``no.''

As I said, this is going to be very difficult. All you have to do is vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself briefly.

All we have to do to provide an increase in the minimum wage is to vote ``yes.''

And I wonder how that person working for a minimum wage feels when you say, I couldn't vote ``yes'' for the increase in the minimum wage because I was offended the way it was presented to us. And you need to know that the way I feel about the process in the House of Representatives is more important than providing you with an increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. English.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his vote.

I want to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was kind of stunned when my colleague from Ohio indicated that he was going to support this bill. I believe him when he wants to support it for the minimum wage. And then it struck me: he is not going to be in a gerrymandered district. He is running statewide. He is actually going to have to respond. In an environment where if he doesn't pick the position that people believe is the right one, he could lose. But if he were in a district in which he could vote virtually any way he wanted and wanted to slant the issues in ways that provided a political benefit rather than a real benefit, I just wonder.

Gee, that means maybe if we had more competitive seats, we would have more folks voting for policies that actually benefit people like raising the minimum wage, because a ``yes'' vote tonight will raise the minimum wage.

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Weller.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to a valued member of the committee, the chairman of the House subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I keep telling my friend from New York that there is a really big country west of the Hudson. It is 9 p.m. in California. The sun is shining in the United States. I understand east of the Hudson, but there is a big country west of the Hudson.

I told you this was going to be a strange debate.

The gentleman from California is right. He counted backward: ten, nine, eight, seven, six. We have not increased the minimum wage. It is about time we increased the minimum wage.

Are you offended that we finally got it? Is that what you are offended about? Or is it the fact that when you were the majority for 40 years, Medicare never saw one preventative service, they never saw one wellness program, and there was no drug program? We became the majority and all of that occurred.

I am now beginning to figure this out. These people are going to have to tear up these old, yellowed speeches they have been giving for decades because the Republicans get it.

There is one other thing we get. It is a concept you are beginning to hear about. It is called ``multi-tasking.'' You do not really have to come with one subject. You can actually do several things at the same time. And there is a degree of synergy involved in those things. You heard the gentlewoman from Connecticut, that there are interactive aspects in this.

So I am really somewhat confused. Is it that you want to keep on giving speeches that Republicans do not understand that we should raise the minimum wage, that you do not want to rewrite the speech? Or is it because on every one of those hackneyed, worn political positions, you do not have a position anymore?

We are for raising the minimum wage. We agree with you. It is time to raise it. Your arguments are now: But it is not packaged correctly.

It is after midnight. I would love to be doing this at 7 p.m. You know the difficulties in moving. We just passed a massive pension bill. We got it done. It is 9 o'clock. You are going to complain that you are going to vote against this because we are doing it after midnight? Is it so offensive to you that you have to stay up a couple of hours and have presented to you a package which is very difficult for you to get your hackneyed, yellowed political speeches around?

Yes, we are Republicans. Are we for increasing the minimum wage? Yes. Do we want to get the extenders done before we go out because it is 7 months too late? Yes. Do we want to help people who want to hang on to a little bit of what they have built over their lifetimes? Yes. And you are going to vote ``no'' because it is put together in a way that offends you?

I wonder what that person hoping for an increase in the minimum wage thinks when they are told, I wanted to help you, but I was offended in the way in which the opportunity to help you was presented to me.

Who is kidding who?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me like somebody is saying on this issue, I have a hostage, and if you try to force me to vote for minimum wage, I am going to kill the hostage.

There is a minimum-wage increase in this legislation. The argument that somehow, and I will say it again, somehow the fact that we didn't act earlier is a sufficient rationale for you to not vote for it now, to say that we have

other items in this bill and we are hiding the minimum wage with other attractive packages to Republicans, I will repeat to you, is a way we might actually be able to get it through the other body, since the other body would not allow a clean minimum wage to pass through it. And they have exhibited that a number of times.

I know it is difficult for you, and I know it is going to take a period of time in terms of understanding that when we say this is a bill that contains extenders, that this is a bill that contains a reasonable and appropriate adjustment on estate taxes. The reason I say that is this is almost identical to the bill that got 43 Democrat votes just a few weeks ago.

And when I say there is an increase in the minimum wage in this bill, I have heard all kinds of tortured arguments about package and process, but I can't understand for the life of me, if we are such hypocrites, and this is a sham, why you don't take us up on it and show how wrong we are by voting for a minimum-wage provision and then see what we do with it.

What we are going to do with this is try to make law. This will pass this House. Join me. Let's go over to the Senate and do everything we can together to get the Senate to pass it.

Or is it that if it actually happened and the President signed it, and we had an increase in the minimum wage, you would have to draw one more line through those easy arguments that are now outdated about the difference between Republicans and Democrats, because it is hard enough to believe that Democrats no longer have a monopoly on improving Medicare with quality measures and putting prescription drugs in.

But don't Republicans have any shame? Coming to the floor trying to raise the minimum wage, what are we going to do? Well, the first thing you have to say is, okay, guys, we can't vote ``yes''. Why? Test us. Let's make law. It has been 10 years. Let's raise the minimum wage. I understand that we are also going to save the extenders.

I understand we are going to put in a reasonable estate tax change. But what I am asking you to do, rather than to wring your hands and figure out how you are going to explain you didn't want to vote for the increase in the minimum wage because of the way it was packaged is to test us. I want a test. Let's pass this. Let's go over to the Senate. Let's try to make law.

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, millions of Americans are thankful they now have prescription drugs at significant savings. I know it is difficult because another line went through one of your typical political arguments. Test us. See if we are just kidding. See if this is a sham.

What I am inviting you to do is make law. I know it is a brave new world. But let's try it. Let's see if we can make law together. Your arguments have been so turned that you are explaining you are against raising the minimum wage because of the way it is being presented to you. It deserves to be clean. Okay. It's not.

I am offended that I would have to vote this way. By the way, you are still at $5.15. Test us. Let's make law.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I really would like to travel with some of you folks to restaurants and hotels and watch you go back and find someone who is getting the minimum wage and make that pitch to them. Because what they are going to say is, gee, you are right, I am glad you voted against increasing the minimum wage so I could get a few more bucks.

I understand doing it here on the floor. I understand doing it in those expensive fund-raisers that you hold. I have a really difficult time seeing someone who says, would you just give me an increase in the minimum wage buying that argument.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you did not hear the gentleman from New York's closing statement, that we are just going to have to throw the poor folks out with it. Let me get this straight. We want to vote ``aye''. That would produce a higher minimum wage. We want to vote ``aye''. That will provide those low-income people, especially in States like Texas, with a State and local sales tax deduction.

We want to vote ``aye'', so the work opportunity tax credit can continue. We want to vote ``aye'' so the welfare-to-work program will continue. But you are for those low-income folk. So you want to vote ``no'', which would deny the minimum wage, which would deny the State and local sales tax, which would deny the work opportunity tax credit, which would deny the welfare-to-work, and you are going to convince these folk that what you are doing is protecting them.

Well, let me tell you, if I had a gerrymandered district like some of you folks do, I guess I could get away with it. I do not. When you look at this vote tonight, no matter how much you squirm, no matter how much you squeal, no matter how much you protest, it is very simple.

An ``aye'' vote increases the minimum wage. An ``aye'' vote allows State and local sales tax to be deducted. An ``aye'' vote allows the work opportunity tax credit to continue. An ``aye'' vote allows the welfare-to-work program to continue.

No matter how much you are offended, if you vote ``no'', none of those will happen. Mr. Speaker, I have said it already, I will say it again to The gentleman from New York, this is an opportunity. This is a positive gesture on my part. Join me in making sure that those low- income people you are so compassionate about but cannot support will come with me and I will support them so that your compassion and my support, in terms of a ``yes'' vote, will actually deliver them something other than rhetoric.

So I would love to have you vote ``yes'' so we are both supporting them. But you go ahead, bring your compassion, I will bring the ``yes'' vote along with the majority of people here bringing a ``yes'' vote, and we will pass it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, speaker after speaker after speaker on the other side of the aisle went in the well. What was the common plea? Give us a clean vote on minimum wage. Just give us a clean vote on minimum wage. You have got 169 pages here. They wrote it. They can't even write a motion to recommit that is a clean vote on the minimum wage. I am offended. And any other Member who is offended, vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would love to make law with the distinguished chairman, Mr. Rangel, but it sure is tough. We have been 50 years in the desert, 50 years on an increase relevant to minimum wage. It is the lowest in 50 years.

Rather than take the 250 Members of this body who are willing to have an up and down vote, and my good friend who is the chairman, and I do believe he is a good friend, knows that the Senate is not, the other body is not going to take this bill the way it is. This is a joke.

Ten million people are going to be denied the minimum wage with this bill. This is a joke. No one is going to take this on the other side. So we do this in the midnight hour. We have a headline. We go home to campaign. You will. We will go home and tell the truth.

Give us an up and down vote on a $7.25 minimum wage up or down vote.

The joke is on you. This is an untruth and it makes no sense to put people who have been in the desert without getting any money for this joke, because you know your Senate Republicans are not taking this joke.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to vote up or down. Give us the 250 Members who will vote on a minimum wage. Vote for it now and throw this bill out the window.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5970, the Permanent Estate Tax, Minimum Wage, and Extenders Bill. But I would be remiss if I did not point out that it is clear that Republicans are playing politics with a pay raise for millions of American workers. We have had enough politics. It is time for a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is ignoring the American people, holding a pay raise for American workers hostage for partisan purposes. H.R. 5970 contains ``poison pills'' that will prevent the minimum wage increase from becoming law, most importantly a costly tax cut for multi-millionaires.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5970 is just a cynical, political ploy to defeat a minimum wage increase. It is a cruel hoax on the 6.6 million people who would get a raise with a minimum wage increase and would give a huge tax break to only 7,500 of the richest households in America.

The cynicism behind this ridiculous bill is as obvious as the Republicans devotion to giving away tax breaks to the wealthy and a hard time to the middle and working class. The aim of the H.R. 5970 is to make it look like Republicans support a minimum wage increase, while ensuring its demise in the Senate by attaching ``poison pills.''

Republicans' poison pill will cost nearly $753 billion when fully in effect, and impact less than 1 percent of all Americans, and Republicans are using that to derail an increase in the minimum wage for 6.6 million Americans.

Mr. Speaker, the only way to ensure that a minimum wage increase becomes law is to allow a straight up-or-down vote on H.R. 2429, the Fair Minimum Wage Act, which provides an increase to $7.25 an hour.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats have a New Direction for America, which raises the minimum wage and brings economic opportunity and security to all Americans, not just the privileged few.

oppose estate tax repeal

Mr. Speaker, I have voted for estate tax relief before but I oppose this bill because it is irresponsible to cut taxes for the wealthy when the Nation is at war and the national debt is over $8 trillion. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I think it is unconscionable to be considering voting another tax cut to the wealthiest 0.3 percent of Americans.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this estate tax proposal will cost the Federal Government $602 billion, plus an extra $160 billion when interest is accounted for. Only 0.5 percent of the richest families in America currently pay estate taxes. Moreover, under current law in 2009, only 3 out of every 1,000 estates will pay a penny in estate taxes--all couples with estates up to $7 million--99.7 percent--will pass on their entire estates tax-free. Any compromise proposal which deviates from 2009 current law--such as the bill before us--is therefore crafted entirely to benefit this tiny sliver of the richest estates. Particularly since I have voted for a fair estate tax initiative but this bill is not it.

According to recent polling data, nearly 60 percent of voters hold the initial, unaided view that estate tax should be left as is or reformed, and only 23 percent support repeal. When asked about the estate tax in the context of other budget priorities, voters rank repealing the estate tax as the last priority, and 55 percent of voters oppose repeal.

This so-called compromise, nearly as regressive and costly as a full repeal, is no compromise at all. Passing even this compromise legislation would constitute one of the most regressive tax cuts in the history of the United States. Middle- and lower-class Americans will be forced to shoulder the burden of radically decreasing the estate tax-- both monetarily and through decreased public programs. In order to cover the monetary gap, the government will plunge further into debt, which will limit its ability to address the Social Security solvency gap and reduce the money available for public programs. It will also have to tap other tax sources, like payroll taxes, which will overwhelmingly hinder lower-income families.

I urge my colleagues to uphold the core American values of fairness and belief in meritocracy by rejecting this tax cut.

increase minimum wage

If we really wish to help the most deserving American families, we should raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over 3 years. Mr. Speaker, did you know that today's minimum wage of $5.15 today is the equivalent of only $4.23 in 1995, which is even lower than the $4.25 minimum wage level before the 1996-97 increase? It is scandalous, Mr. Speaker, that a person can work full-time, 40 hours per week, for 52 weeks, earning the minimum wage would gross just $10,700, which is well below the poverty line.

A minimum wage increase would raise the wages of millions of workers. An estimated 7.3 million workers--5.8 percent of the workforce--would receive an increase in their hourly wage rate if the minimum wage were raised from $5.15 to $7.25 by June 2007. Due to ``spillover effects,'' the 8.2 million workers--6.5 percent of the workforce--earning up to a dollar above the minimum would also be likely to benefit from an increase.

Raising the minimum wage will benefit working families. The earnings of minimum wage workers are crucial to their families' well-being. Evidence from the 1996-97 minimum wage increase shows that the average minimum wage worker brings home more than half--54 percent--of his or her family's weekly earnings. An estimated 760,000 single mothers with children under 18 would benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by June 2007. Single mothers would benefit disproportionately from an increase--single mothers are 10.4 percent of workers affected by an increase, but they make up only 5.3 percent of the overall workforce. Approximately 1.8 million parents with children under 18 would benefit.

Contrary to popular myths and urban legends, adults make up the largest share of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase. Seventy-two percent of workers whose wages would be raised by a minimum wage increase to $7.25 by June 2007 are adults--age 20 or older. Close to half--43.9 percent--of workers who would benefit from a minimum wage increase work full time and another third--34.5 percent-- work between 20 and 34 hours per week.

Minimum wage increases benefit disadvantaged workers, and women are the largest group of beneficiaries from a minimum wage increase. 60.6 percent of workers who would benefit from an increase to $7.25 by 2007 are women. An estimated 7.3 percent of working women would benefit directly from that increase in the minimum wage.

A disproportionate share of minorities would benefit from a minimum wage increase. African-Americans represent 11.1 percent of the total workforce, but are 15.3 percent of workers affected by an increase. Similarly, 13.4 percent of the total workforce is Hispanic, but Hispanics are 19.7 percent of workers affected by an increase.

The benefits of the increase disproportionately help those working households at the bottom of the income scale. Although households in the bottom 20 percent received only 5.1 percent of national income, 38.1 percent of the benefits of a minimum wage increase to $7.25 would go to these workers. The majority of the benefits--58.5 percent--of an increase would go to families with working, prime-aged adults in the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution.

Among families with children and a low-wage worker affected by a minimum wage increase to $7.25, the affected worker contributes, on average, half of the family's earnings. Thirty-six percent of such workers actually contribute 100 percent of their family's earnings.

A minimum wage increase would help reverse the trend of declining real wages for low-wage workers. Between 1979 and 1989, the minimum wage lost 31 percent of its real value. By contrast, between 1989 and 1997--the year of the most recent increase--the minimum wage was raised four times and recovered about one-third of the value it lost in the 1980s.

Income inequality has been increasing, in part, because of the declining real value of the minimum wage. Today, the minimum wage is 33 percent of the average hourly wage of American workers, the lowest level since 1949. A minimum wage increase is part of a broad strategy to end poverty. As welfare reform forces more poor families to rely on their earnings from low-paying jobs, a minimum wage increase is likely to have a greater impact on reducing poverty.

Mr. Speaker, the opponents of the minimum wage often claim that increasing the wage will cost jobs and harm the economy. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is no credible evidence to support such claims. In fact, a 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. The truth is that following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades. And after the minimum wage was increased, the country went on to enjoy the most sustained period of economic prosperity in history. We had historic low levels of unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, and decreased poverty rates. Studies have shown that the best performing small businesses are located in States with the highest minimum wages. Between 1998 and 2004, the job growth for small businesses

in States with a minimum wage higher than the Federal level was 6.2 percent compared to a 4.1 percent growth in States where the Federal level prevailed.

So much for the discredited notion that raising the minimum wage harms the economy. It does not. But it increases the purchasing power of those who most need the money, which is far more than can be said of the Republicans' devotion to cutting taxes for multimillionaires.

conclusion

Mr. Speaker, Americans overwhelmingly side with progressive principles of rewarding hard work with a liveable wage. In a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, 86 percent of Americans favored raising the minimum wage. In the 2004 election, voters in Florida and Nevada, two States won by President Bush, overwhelmingly approved ballot measures to raise the minimum wage. Even in Nevada's richest county, Douglas, where Bush received 63.5 percent of the vote, 61.5 percent of voters supported raising the minimum wage.

Forty-three percent of Americans consider raising the minimum wage to be a top priority. In contrast, only 34 percent considered making the recent Federal income tax cuts permanent and only 27 percent consider the passage of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage as top priorities.

Members of Congress have legislated a minimum salary for themselves and have seen fit to raise it eight times since they last raised the minimum wage. It is time we gave the Americans we represent a long overdue pay raise by increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 over 3 years. Even this amount does not keep pace with the cost of living. The minimum wage would have to be increased to $9.05 to equal the purchasing power it had in 1968. And if the minimum wage had increased at the same rate as the salary increase corporate CEOs have received, it would now be $23.03/hour.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is time for a new direction. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 5970.

Finally, I have supported and do support the sales tax relief for Texas; however, the Republican majority knows that their bill is going nowhere and will not be heard by the Senate. We need an up or down vote on the minimum wage and an independent vote on sales tax relief on Federal income taxes for Texas--I would vote ``yea'' on both those two bills--which would not be a budget buster and deficit builder. The Republicans are simply playing games.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for him to control.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You can tell that if it is going to happen after midnight, that the majority just ain't up to something good because everything bad they do, they wait until late at night and then they come.

So you take a look at this bill, and they call it the minimum wage bill. Well, that is good; so why would they wait until after midnight? Or you might take another look at the bill and you see that they are trying to help the poor miners. Well, that doesn't sound like Republicans to me. If they ever got enough religion to help poor miners, they would certainly want to do that in the sunlight. But, no, they wait until after midnight.

Then, of course, there are the extenders that really help schools and research and development. It sounds pretty decent. It does not sound that Republican to me.

There has to be a skunk at this picnic somewhere. And then you take a look and you find out that with all of

the wonderful, spiritual good that they want to do for so many people, the working poor, we find out that there are 7,500 families in this great country that are worth billions of dollars, that they cannot leave this Congress without saying, ``We helped you. You are the people we really love.'' And if you take a look to see, have they sent us letters, these rich people, most of them, saying, ``Hey, try to cut back on the war, try to help us with some health and education project?'' They are not asking for this money. And yet over $800 billion, we are prepared to take away from the Treasury at a time that our country needs it the most but it just cannot stand on its own two feet. So, therefore, we have to find a sweetness for it, and we have enough nerve to believe that someone is going to believe that you have a concern for the minimum wage.

After 9 or 10 years, you wake up at the end of the day, and you bring in the estate tax relief bill that is the real money, and because that sucker is so heavy it cannot get off the ground, you try to spray some perfume on this skunk, and you call it minimum wage, extenders, and help for the miners.

If you had any compassion at all, don't these people deserve to be treated separately? Do they have to be with 7,500 people who are close friends of yours? Should not the working people have a bill of their own just to increase the minimum wage? Should not the miners, their pensions and their health benefits, should they not have a bill of their own during the daytime hours? And certainly the incentives are so popular, why do you have to hold them hostage for where your hearts really belong?

So I knew that you were going to wait until midnight, but no one knew exactly what you were up to. But, hey, it is after midnight, you are on the floor, and you say if you want all of this good medicine, then swallow our pill with it, but if you say no, you say no to what is good. It does not make any sense. But I think the newspapers, television, everyone knows what is going on. You have gotten away with this for a long, long time. But there comes a time when people wake up to what is happening, and even though you have done it in the middle of the night, the sun will rise and people would understand.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), an outstanding member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), an outstanding member of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the chairman has taken his mask off and brought his sense of honesty to this debate. Yes. Test you. What you are basically saying is that if you want to give some help to these people that have such low wages, we then have to buy, in the same bill, the $800 billion relief that you are giving to 7,500 people. I understand what you are doing.

Why don't you call it the Estate Tax Relief Bill, which is sweetening up, you know, by just giving some of them minimum wage. And you say, if you don't like the rich people, if you don't want to get close to $1 trillion away, then of course vote against the minimum wage.

It is so unfair to call this a package. It is a package for the rich, that just as an afterthought, you throw in minimum wage. But, fortunately, the chairman has said what he is doing. Either you buy it as I put it or forget about it. I think that is so unfair to the working poor people in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) to respond to the distinguished gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Republicans for their honesty in expressing their concern at this late hour for the minimum wage bill. At least we know on the record, they know what the situation is, they know how long it has been since these people have not been able to increase the minimum wage.

It would just seem to me, though, that honesty would dictate that this subject alone, the millions of people that are affected, would warrant that we not put it in any other kind of package, but we deal with it by itself because it deserves to be dealt with by itself.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that you have to really be a politician to understand that when any bill is going to cost $800 billion, and it only has 7,500 people as a beneficiary, I think you can call that controversial. I think you can say that all of the editorials believe it is unfair. People are talking about a Nation at war, a Nation that has a deficit, a Nation that has Katrina, a Nation that does not fund its health system.

They are concerned about the deficit, they are concerned about the war, and they should be concerned about close to a trillion dollars loss in revenue for people that have these large estates.

Now, for those who believe that they should get relief. Good. But why mix the two? Why take the poor folks and hold them hostage because you cannot get enough political support to get what you really want out of this, not help, I mean you are just not known to be concerned about coal miners. It is not my fault.

You are not known to have compassion about working people. It is not my fault. You are known to be concerned about the wealthiest people in our Nation. That is not your fault, you just cannot help yourself.

But why would you bring these things together and just give us one vote? Why do you not give America an opportunity to determine which side you are on? Are you with the minimum wage enough so that you give them a vote to say this is what you believe in, or are you so scared to death politically that you cannot get this 800-trillion-dollar gorilla off the ground that you have to throw in something that sounds compassionate?

I do not know, but I know one thing, it all does not come out of the same committee. So you are not only mixing ideas in terms of tax incentives and giving away money, but what you are doing is taking committees with different jurisdictions, and bringing it together in the middle of the night, and asking people to vote on these things.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is fair. But I do believe that the American people will be able to determine the difference between our parties. That is what makes our country great. I want to thank you for being able to admit that you just cannot get your package off the ground unless you throw in poor folks' help with it.

I thank the gentleman from California.

For those who have been listening to this debate, you would notice that the Republicans have never talked about one part of this bill. I heard the distinguished chairman of the committee go through all of the things that he requested a ``yes'' for, and he never mentioned the giveaway for the rich in the estate tax repeal.

Everything that he talked about dealt with helping the poor folks get an increase in minimum wage. Well, that is the motion to recommit. I think he mentioned something, other people did, about helping the poor coal miners. That is here. I know he talked about the carefully skilled extension, the tax bills that expire, the extenders for that, and that is in it. And so since he didn't mention the estate tax repeal, a motion to recommit takes it away. And so we can all start reading from the same page and say this is like the Thomas-Rangel bill: it takes care of the poor that are working, the 6 million workers that deserve a pay increase. It takes care of the extenders that are so badly needed that takes care of a lot of kids and tax incentives for disadvantaged workers and school teachers and school renovations. And so it does a lot of these good things.

But how can we refuse to see, pardon the pun, the elephant in the living room? Because it is there, and that elephant is called estate tax repeal. And you can say it any way that you want; if you want to do the good things that are in this bill, package, if you will, you have got to buy that elephant. And we are saying that not all of us are prepared to do it. We can take care of those people who work every day and believe that this Congress should be there for them, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but the Congress.

These people deserve better than waiting until after midnight and taking their destiny and tying it up with an $800 billion elephant to provide relief for the richest in this country. I urge you to support the motion to recommit tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.