Providing for consideration of 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 consideration of the bill (H.R. 4) to provide economic security for all Americans, and for other purposes.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the

gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to correct the record.

The legislation does not require the funding of these plans. Executives can continue to get benefits out of these plans if they are only 60 percent funded. The gentlewoman from California was correct. Workers can only get benefits if they are 80 percent funded.

So the executives can continue to draw down the assets of the corporations, but the employees cannot.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

(Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).

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

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, this is a complicated piece of legislation and Members of the House and Members of the Senate have struggled with it for some period of time. That struggle really hasn't been completed yet because this legislation was taken from the conference committee and it is here tonight to be passed unilaterally within the House and be presented to the Senate in the future.

It is difficult to understand all of the things that have been done in this legislation, certainly for the Democratic Members of the House since we were not included in this conference committee. We were not invited into any of the sessions, nor was the information shared with us as it was developed during the conference committee because they chose to run it simply on a partisan basis among the House conferees.

But I think it is clear to understand also that this legislation does, in fact, as my colleague from Massachusetts said, miss a number of opportunities. And that is why we are concerned with it tonight.

We understand the changes that have been made that allow companies to continue to underfund those pension plans and then increase the contributions that those plans will have to make in later years, and it is pretty clear that as businesses sit down and make the decisions about the allocation of resources and they look at those increased contributions, the burden will really push them in the direction of freezing or terminating their plans. That is why we see the quote that was given this last day or so, ``We will see an unprecedented number of companies freezing their plans in 2007 because they will recognize the difficulties of the new pension regime.'' That comes from the American Benefits Council, which deals with so many of these plans, because this tilts the table toward the decisions by companies to terminate or to freeze those plans.

And if that happens, of course, we have been warned now, under this legislation by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that as they contribute less to those plans and then make that decision, it also heightens the likelihood that these underfunding problems will become worse, according to this legislation as represented to us by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. And they also make it clear

the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation that absorbs these plans on behalf of a safety net paid for by other plans that as they suffer from a huge deficit, a $23 billion deficit, they expect that this legislation that is before us tonight will add some $2 billion to that deficit over the next 10 years.

But there are other decisions that the conferees could have made or that you could have made in drafting this bill as you brought it to the floor. You could have erred on the side of working people. You could have made a decision that in these plans that are distressed and underfunded that we would, in fact, treat the employees and the executives alike. But we set two different standards. We said that if your plan is not 80 percent funded, then the employees can get no additional benefits in terms of their retirement out of that plan. But if a plan is only 60 percent funded, executives can continue to draw and add on and accrue pension benefits. So we have set two different standards here. Both people, I assume, are working very hard for the success of that corporation. One is just going to get treated entirely differently than the other. It is a matter of simple fairness. A matter of simple equity. But when we see the greatest disparities in the history of this country for a long time now, when we see these disparities, this bill increases those disparities between the executives and the employees.

You could have made a decision not to harm the pilots that were harmed after 9/11 because they were forced to retire early. Federal law made them retire at 60. Then 9/11 and the high fuel costs come along, and that drives United Airlines into bankruptcy, a bankruptcy I didn't agree with, but they went into bankruptcy; so you lost 40 percent of your pension. PBGC took over their plan, but you lost an additional amount because you retired at 60. Those pilots had no chance. We could have taken care of them in this bill. One would have thought that that was somewhat of a humane thing to do, a compassionate thing to do. They were victims of 9/11. They were victims of the downturn in the travel economy after 9/11. They were victims of high fuel costs. They did not do anything wrong, and Federal law forced them to retire. But we just blew off their cause in this legislation.

The issue of older workers, a missed opportunity there, to make sure, as we transition from defined benefits plans to cash balance plans, that we would protect the oldest of those workers, the closest to retirement, that we would make sure that they would be taken care of because, as we know, people who are 55, 60 years old, 5 years from retirement, have very little opportunity to accumulate the kind of economic resources that are necessary to match the retirement that they were expecting. You didn't have to do it. It was recommended by the administration.

The Secretary of Treasury, former Secretary Mr. Snow, said it should be done. He said he did it in his corporation at CSX. He voted to do it as a member of the board of Verizon. It was done by Honeywell. It was done by Wells Fargo Bank. It was a compassionate thing to do. They still realized the savings that they wanted by changing their pension plans, and I do not object to their doing that. I just thought that we could make an effort to try to protect those people who the GAO tells us would lose almost half of their benefits with those kinds of conversions. But that was not done in this legislation.

So I really think that we ought to understand that those kinds of decisions really do harm a number of people that could have been helped in this legislation, a significant number of people that could have been helped in this legislation. And we could have done some more to try to help keep these plans out of the PBGC.

We could have also made sure that before people went to bankruptcy in the manner in which United did, that they would have made the last ditch effort, the kind of effort that we just talked about earlier, where airlines made these kinds of efforts to freeze their plans, but they did not. But I think before we rush to bankruptcy and then we turn these plans over to the PBGC and maybe ultimately to the taxpayer that there ought to be a burden, there ought to be a showing, there ought to be evidence that, in fact, you made every effort. I am not asking you to destroy the company. I am asking you to make the kind of effort that we saw others make but they chose not to make it at United, and as a result of that, those machinists, those flight attendants, the pilots, the ramp workers, and so many others have taken such a serious hit on their pension benefits with no ability to recover. So those are my objections to this legislation.

We started this session with an unprecedented attack on Social Security. And as people started to look at that attack, and they saw the Federal privatization of Social Security, they started to look at their own pension plans, and they realized, as what we are doing with here today, that their own pension plans are very insecure. There is probably no employer in this country that can tell you that that pension plan will be there for their employees 75 years from now, 65 years from now, and be paying out 80 percent of the benefits. So people have come to realize that they need retirement security. And I do not believe that this legislation provides that kind of security that individuals need.

I recognize the transitions in pension plans. I recognize the changes in pension plans. But I really think that this legislation, in many ways, was drafted looking in the rear-view mirror as opposed to the future of these plans and how we encourage savings and how we encourage participation.

There is no question this legislation deals with some of those issues, but I do not believe that we did the kind of job that will serve us well in the future.

And I would encourage Members to oppose this legislation. We will have a motion to recommit, a motion that will protect those older workers, a motion that will treat those airlines the same. If they all freeze their plans, they should get the same number of years to do that, and we think it will provide them a greater margin of safety if they do that, and provide for that kind of transition and the protection of those pension plans as they originally requested, as the Senate originally voted to do. But the conferees didn't go there, and certainly this legislation being offered in the House tonight didn't go there. But that will be offered in a few minutes.

I urge opposition to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this motion does two things. First, it sends the pension bill back to committee to include all of the airline protection provisions that were included in the Senate-passed pension bill. Second, it seeks to send back to the committee to add the Senate-passed provisions providing for the transition protections for older workers affected by cash balance conversions.

Both of these are critical to protecting America's workers' pensions and their retirement security. All across America, employees are worried sick about their retirement nest egg. They have seen big airlines like U.S. Air and United cut and run on their obligations to pay promised benefits and are wondering if they are next.

The House bill protects Delta and Northwest and enables them to extend their pension payments over 17 years at the plan's interest rate. However, the bill only provides American and Continental a 10- year payment and at a much lower interest rate, making their pension payments much higher. We would extend the same period of time, work-out time, for the airlines if they chose to provide for the freezing of their plans.

The bill does nothing for airline pilots who are forced to retire at age 60 and who received PBGC pensions reduced by 35 percent because of their age. All airlines were hurt by 9/11 and the skyrocketing fuel prices and the downturn in the economy.

It would be devastating to hundreds of thousands of workers across the Nation if more airlines were permitted to dump their plans into the PBGC. When this happens, the big losers are the employees. Look at what happened to the pilots at United, for example. They had vested pension benefits cut in half. The average pilot lost $1,270 a month. That is why we offer these protections.

Finally, the motion would report back this pension bill to provide for the

protection of older workers who are facing conversions in cash balance plans. This means the older workers who the companies are now putting on notice that they will lower their benefits will now get a substitute plan called a cash balance plan.

Despite overwhelming votes in support of protecting older workers' pensions in the House and Senate, Republican leadership has excluded these vital transition protections. Many workers will lose hundreds of dollars a month in expected retirement benefits. Many of these workers will be in excess of 50 years of age, and it is highly unlikely they will be able to recover the retirement benefits that they have been counting on for many years, that they signed a contract for in exchange for their labor with their employers.

Today, the Congress is getting ready to tell them they are not going to make the employers live up to their agreements, and we are not going to even provide a transition to soften the economic blow when those agreements are changed.

Here is what AARP CEO William Novelli said about the backroom Republican deal for older workers: ``AARP cannot support legislation that would undermine the age discrimination laws and prevent the reduction of pension benefits for older workers, thus discouraging older workers from continuing to participate in the workforce,'' unless they get a second job to make up for the loss of their retirement, of course. ``Our members and older workers in general care a great detail about these issues.'' That is why we brought this motion to recommit.

Again, time and again the House and Senate have voted to provide these protections for older workers. We would have carried that message to the conference committee, but we were not allowed into those discussions and apparently the conference committee couldn't hear the Members of this House on the bipartisan basis that voted overwhelmingly to provide these protections, both to the airlines and to the older workers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 966 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 966 is a closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 5970. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 5970 in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

It also waives all points of order against the consideration of H.R. 5970 and provides one motion to recommit H.R. 5970.

House Resolution 966 also provides for the consideration of H.R. 4 under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of general debate on H.R. 4 in the House equally divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 4, and provides one motion to recommit.

This rule allows for consideration, Mr. Speaker, of two very important measures. The first deals with protecting the pensions of American workers. Mr. Speaker, the recent financial troubles and pension terminations of several large companies underscore the need for fundamental pension reform. The underlying bill is an agreement struck between the House and the Senate conferees on H.R. 2830, the Pension Security and Transparency Act.

The underlying bill will ensure that millions of hard-working Americans who rely on single and multi-employer pension benefits can continue to count on them. I would like to congratulate the majority leader, Mr. Boehner for his tireless efforts in bringing this conference report before the House today.

Mr. Boehner has worked on legislation to better protect the pension of workers for over 5 years now, and I commend him for his hard work on this issue. It is vital, Mr. Speaker, that we modernize current pension laws by strengthening worker's retirement security and reduce----

I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just tell my friend from North Dakota that that was the rule that we worked on. But there are three provisions. It was for the conference report, it was for the minimum wage bill, and it was for another bill. We are taking up the second two of those bills under that rule.

In other words, the first portion that was provided in the rule, while it is provided, is not applicable to what we are taking up tonight.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. Again, there was a conference report, my understanding was agreed by all but it was not signed. The gentleman is correct on that.

The underlying bill that we are taking up is that bill that was agreed by all parties on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. That is what this rule provides for.

Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we modernize the current pension laws by strengthening the workers' retirement and reducing the prospect of future multi-billion dollar tax bailouts.

In recent years, we have seen participants mistakenly believe that their pension plans are well funded only to be surprised when their plan is abruptly terminated. This legislation is intended to end that.

The underlying bill encourages workers to increase their personal savings by permanently extending several provisions to enhance pension participation and retirement savings that are set to expire in 2010.

Mr. Speaker, without a comprehensive fix to our outdated Federal pension laws, more companies will default on their work and pension plans, and more will stop pension plans for workers entirely. Now is the time for Congress to act on this important legislation.

The other measure, Mr. Speaker, that this rule will allow for will continue our ongoing commitment to American workers and taxpayers by providing economic security, enacting permanent estate tax relief, and extending numerous tax provisions that have passed the House in the past with bipartisan support.

This bill includes extending the sales tax deductibility, research and development credits and higher education incentives.

In 2001, Congress enacted, in a bipartisan fashion, to gradually phase out the death tax and fully eliminate it by 2010. However, if Congress does not extend this relief, in 2011, small business owners and family farmers will once again be assessed the full death tax up to a maximum 2001 rate of 55 percent.

The House of Representatives has acted twice in this the 109th Congress to enact a permanent solution to this form of double taxation, but unfortunately, our efforts have been blocked by the other body. Today, the House of Representatives will once again act to help families suffering the loss of a loved one from having to worry about losing the family farm or business in order to pay the Internal Revenue Service.

The expectation this time is that the other body will take up the bill and pass the bill. This legislation will provide estate and gift tax relief to America's small business owners and family farmers. Specifically, the bill would increase the exemption amount and index it for inflation, and would lower the amount of taxation on estates.

Mr. Speaker, last year, I, along with 271 other Members of Congress, supported a measure that would permanently and fully eliminate the death tax. While permanent elimination of this tax is what I will continue to work with my colleagues on, this measure is a step, in my view, in the right direction.

With permanent tax relief from this tax, many farmers and business owners will have a sense of security that they need to plan for the financial future of their business or their farm for their family.

Another important provision in the underlying bill is an extension of the State and local sales tax deduction from the Federal income tax. My State of Washington is one of nine States that do not have a State income tax.

For nearly 20 years, residents of these States have been unfairly disadvantaged by the IRS code which allows for Federal tax deductions for State income taxes, but not States that have sales tax deductions.

In 2004, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and I fought to restore fairness to residents of States without an income tax by restoring the sales and local sales tax deduction.

I would like to thank the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Thomas, for his efforts to include a State and local sales tax extension, which allow every taxpayer that chooses to itemize deductions in the States with no income tax the opportunity to continue deducting sales tax from his or her Federal tax bill.

By passing the underlying legislation, we will be restoring fairness for those who live, work, and raise families in those States. This will allow workers in Washington and others to keep more of their own money to spend and invest as they see fit.

While continuing to work to fight to make the State and local sales tax deduction permanent, this extension for 2 years will provide billions of dollars of relief to taxpayers in Washington and those other States, and I think it is a step in the right direction.

I am also pleased that this legislation creates a new 60 percent deduction for qualified timber capital gains through 2008. In my State of Washington, there are 8\1/2\ million acres of privately owned forests, and the forest products industry is the State's largest manufacturing sector. However, the current Tax Code puts our timber industry at a distinct disadvantage against international competition by subjecting corporate timber and forest product industries to a significantly higher income tax than their overseas competitors. Included in H.R. 5970 is a provision that lowers the timber tax and supports an industry that provides good jobs in many rural communities while strengthening its international competitiveness.

Another key provision of this bill extends the research and experimentation tax credit for 2 years. Technological innovation is vital to America's continued economic prosperity and research, and research and development is the lifeblood of innovation. However, research and development activities are expensive, and businesses generally cannot capture all of the returns on their investments. The Federal Government must continue to encourage private businesses to innovate by extending and enhancing tax incentives. The underlying bill does just that.

The underlying bill also extends several tax incentives to improve the affordability of higher education, including tax deferred education savings accounts and tax credits for post-secondary education. Specifically, it allows all taxpayers to deduct up to $4,000 of higher education expenses, which will help more students go to college.

Mr. Speaker, with about one month left before school starts, teachers will begin preparing and purchasing classroom supplies. Unless Congress acts, an important above-the-line tax deduction that expired this year will not be available to teachers when they go back to school. This bill will help teachers contain the costs of out-of-pocket expenses like books, supplies, and computer equipment while allowing them to deduct $250 from their Federal tax bill.

In an effort to encourage savings and stable retirement security, the underlying bill allows lower-income families that contribute to an individual retirement account and pension plans to continue receiving a Federal match in the form of an income tax credit for the first $2,000 of annual contributions. This encourages families to save and plan for their own retirement.

There is no question that allowing families to keep more of their hard-earned money spurs economic growth. Earlier this month, revised budget estimates projected that a recent surge in tax revenue will help shrink the Federal deficit more than previously expected. Not acting would raise taxes on millions of workers and families. We must continue the policy to grow our economy and keep our tax bills from rising.

The House of Representatives has previously passed these tax provisions on a bipartisan basis, and last December the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2830, the Pension Protection Act, by a bipartisan vote of 294-132. I would encourage my colleagues to support House Resolution 966 and both underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the Republican conference Chair, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

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

I continue to reserve my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield time to my friend from Tennessee, I would remind my friend from Oregon that the minimum wage in Washington State is, if not the highest, is the second highest in the country. It is $7.63.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

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

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of two very important bills. One bill is a pension reform bill that has been worked on for over 5 years on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. It is a very important piece of legislation and it needs to pass. The other bill is a bill that has two very important provisions: tax provisions dealing with the death tax and raising the minimum wage.

And I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I am curious by hearing the debate. I kept hearing on the other side of the aisle their talking about ``just give us an up-or-down vote.'' Well, I think we are sent here by our constituents to do more than vote. We are here to enact legislation. And the expectation, the expectation is that the second dealing with the tax provisions and the minimum wage will pass not only this body, but will pass the other body and become law.

I think that is much, much better service to our constituents rather than just saying give us a vote up or down and knowing that it may not pass both bodies. This will pass both bodies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

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 want to thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been saying again and again and again and again the American people want and deserve a clean up-or-down vote on raising the minimum wage, and this rule does not provide for such a vote. Minimum-wage workers want and deserve a clean up-or-down vote. A clear bipartisan majority of this House wants and deserves a clean up- or-down vote, not a cynical maneuver to provide political cover for certain vulnerable Republican Members, a maneuver that the majority knows full well will kill any chance of an increase in the minimum wage this year.

Let me say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, maybe you can fool your constituents in August, but let me tell you, the American people will not be fooled in November.

What the Republican leadership is presenting is a bill that clutters up the minimum-wage vote with, surprise, surprise, tax cuts for the wealthy. Actually, it isn't a surprise at all. The Republican answer to every problem is more tax cuts for the wealthy. Medicare prescription drugs? Tax cuts for the wealthy drug companies and HMOs. An energy bill? Tax cuts for the oil and gas industry, despite their record- breaking profits. And, now, an increase in the minimum wage with estate tax cuts for the wealthiest few attached.

The Republicans believe that low-wage workers don't deserve a raise unless Paris Hilton also gets a big tax cut. No wonder the American people are so sick and tired of politics as usual in Washington.

I would ask my Republican colleagues, why is it so impossible for you to do anything good for working families? Why does it cause you such pain and anguish and hand-wringing? Why can't you just do the right thing?

Congress has not raised the minimum wage since 1997. That is 9 years. During that same period of time, Congress has raised its own salary eight times. Now, that is what I call out of touch. The congressional pay raise, just the amount of the pay raise in the last 9 years has been $30,000, almost triple what a minimum-wage worker earns in an entire year. The average corporate CEO, who will benefit of course from the estate tax cut, earns more before lunchtime than a minimum-wage worker earns all year. A Republican staffer told the Columbus Ohio Dispatcher: ``Not too many people work at minimum wage anymore. I don't think it gets you anywhere politically.''

Mr. Speaker, politics aren't the point. The point is to make sure that people who work hard every day in this country have enough money to feed their families and pay their rent and fill up their gas tanks.

Nearly 15 million Americans will benefit from a minimum-wage increase, 6.6 million directly and 8.3 million indirectly. Almost 60 percent of those workers are women, 40 percent are people of color, 35 percent of them are their family's sole wage earners. You want to talk about family values, about helping children? Just raise the minimum wage.

Even worse, Mr. Speaker, the massive estate tax cut being tacked onto this bill will actually harm those hardworking families by adding millions of dollars to the national debt. The children of today's minimum-wage worker will have to pay that debt. They will have to deal with increased interest rates; they will have to deal with China and other countries controlling the debt of this country. They will have to deal with the cuts in education and health care. It is outrageous, Mr. Speaker.

In addition, this rule makes in order a pension bill that not only misses an important opportunity to deal with this country's retirement security crisis; it also will lead to benefit cuts for millions of American workers.

And let me again clarify it for the record so there is no mistake: this is not a conference report that we are voting on here tonight. I want to make it clear, because there is some misunderstanding. This is not the result of the conference negotiations that we have this bill before us tonight.

The pension bill fails to encourage companies to keep offering traditional pensions to their workers, it fails companies from using bankruptcy to dump worker pension plans, and it fails to stop companies from awarding lavish retirement compensation packages to executives at the same time they cut workers' benefits.

I can't say it any more plainly, Mr. Speaker, the priorities of this Republican leadership are not the priorities of the American people. What the American people want and what they deserve is a clean up-or- down vote on increasing the minimum wage. We have voted on this issue in various procedural votes over and over and over and over. We want a clean vote. We want this to become the law of the land. We want to make sure that low-income wage earners get the raise that they deserve so they can get out of poverty. And what the American people also want and deserve is a pension bill that protects them. They won't be getting any of that today, Mr. Speaker, so I urge my colleagues to reject this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the previous speaker, give me a break. The Republicans know

that this is dead on arrival when it goes to the Senate. They know that there will be no increase in the minimum wage if this is the combination that goes before the United States Senate. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming here. The only reason why we are here right now is because the American people are demanding action on this issue, and they are trying to find political cover. This is beyond cynical. This is disgraceful what they are doing here on the House floor today.

Mr. Speaker I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, a distinguished member of the Rules Committee (Ms. Matsui).

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

All we want is a clean up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. We want this to become law. We do not want to make a political statement. This is not about a press release.

Why do we have to bog the minimum wage bill down with language to benefit the heirs of the Wal-Mart family, the Mars family? Or give Paris Hilton another tax cut? Why can we not just do what is right, which is to give low-wage income earners in this country the raise that they deserve?

We are tired of the political posturing. We want action.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Let us have a little straight talk. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are tying the minimum wage to all these special tax breaks and tax breaks for Paris Hilton absolutely. They are doing this for one reason, because they know it will be dead on arrival in the Senate. That is cynical, and this is politics at its worst.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the distinguished ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

(Mr. AL GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Let me say to my friend from Tennessee, I mean every word I say.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time I have left.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our distinguished Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

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

Mr. Speaker, people in this country are tired of politics as usual, and what is before us today is politics as usual. It is cynical and it is wrong. This is a press release. This is a political stunt. My friends on the other side of the aisle know that there will be no minimum wage increase when you tie it to tax cuts for Paris Hilton. It is just not going to happen. The Senate has already said that this is going nowhere. You know that.

To my Republican friends who have taken to the floor today to say that they support the minimum wage, to the 20 Republicans who signed a letter to their leader asking that we bring the minimum wage to the floor, let me say that it is not enough to go through the motions. If you really believe that we should have an increase in the minimum wage, which has been stuck at $5.15 for 9 years, then you need to demand action. And what we are doing today is not demanding action.

Mr. Speaker, during those 9 years since we last raised the minimum wage, this Congress has given itself eight pay raises. There is something fundamentally wrong when we can give ourselves pay raise after pay raise, but we cannot raise the minimum wage for those who are making $5.15 an hour. These families work hard. They are working every day. They are living in poverty.

Mr. Speaker, do the right thing. Let us have a clean up-or-down vote on the minimum wage. Vote against this rule.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding.

And, Mr. Miller, let me say hello to you and thank you for your loyal opposition. Even though over the last 7 years that we have worked on this project together, much of what is in here you should be very proud of because you and Mr. Andrews, Mr. Thomas, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Johnson, and others, all of us, over the last 6 or 7 years, have spent a lot of time bringing this bill together.

And I am pleased that this bill is on the floor tonight. It could be here in a different form. It could be here in a different way. But the fact is that we have worked together in a bipartisan way to craft a very good bill to protect American workers' pensions.

Simply put, I think these reforms that we have put in place tonight represent the most sweeping changes to America's pension system in 30 years. And they will ensure that workers and retirees can continue to count on their hard-earned retirement benefits. And these reforms, I think, deserve the support of every Member in this House.

Over the past few years, we have seen more and more companies get out of their pension system, freeze their pension plan, go bankrupt, turn it over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and put the pension benefits for American workers in jeopardy. And what we are attempting to do tonight, in a bipartisan way, is to protect the American workers and the benefits that they have earned and try to make sure that the commitments that companies make to their workers are kept. And the way to do that is to make sure that we put more money into these pension funds.

Now, my friend from California, who was down here arguing against this bill, had a two-sided argument. One, the bill is too strong. We are going to require companies to put more money into their pension plans, and as a result, they are going to freeze their plans. Yet on the other hand, he is complaining that we are not protecting the interests of the American worker. Now, we spent years on this, both of us together, and we know the only way you get there is to walk a very fine line, to make sure that promises made to American workers are kept, that plans are better funded, and that we try to prevent a taxpayer bailout of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

As my colleague from California said, 7 years ago, when I was bounced out of the Republican leadership after the 1998 election, I became chairman of the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee of the Education and the Workforce Committee, a subcommittee most of you have never heard of. And my ranking member was my good friend from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews, and we began a series of hearings in 1999 to uncover what was happening in the pension system in America today. And we had dozens of hearings and worked hard. And some of the things that we learned, I think we have dealt with very comprehensively in this bill.

The bill ensures that employers better fund their pension plans. It closes loopholes that allow underfunded plans to skip their pension payments. It prohibits employers and union leaders from digging the hole even deeper by promising extra benefits when their plans are severely underfunded. The bill enhances disclosure to give workers and retirees more information about the condition of their own pension fund that they are a member of. It protects taxpayers from a multi-billion dollar bailout of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. It better protects multi-employer pension plans for both workers and the employers who fund them. And it gives access to critical investment advice for those who have 401(K) plans and IRAs.

I want to also mention the last issue, the fact that one of the issues I have worked on for these 7 years and never given up on is trying to get critical investment advice into those who have self- directed plans. My colleague from Massachusetts sits over there with a smile on his face because we worked on this together, although he disagrees with me. He is still my friend. But helping those who have to make decisions in their 401(k) plan or their IRA is critically important if we want to help them get the type of retirement security that they want for themselves. We all know that many of these plans are underfunded.

There is not enough diversification in their portfolios, and if we don't get real investment advice and personalized investment advice into their hands, we know they are not going to have the type of retirement that they are expecting. Thankfully, those provisions are included in this bill to help make sure that investment advice gets there.

Another big issue is bringing legal certainty to those cash balance plans, these hybrid plans. It is not a defined benefit plan; it is not a 401(K). And over 2,000 companies in America today have these hybrid pension plans, and they are in some legal jeopardy. And I think we have struck the right balance in this legislation to protect the interest of older workers that are in defined benefit plans as these conversions take place.

Now, not every Member favors every provision of this bill, as my friend from California pointed out. And if I had to write this bill myself, it would be different than what we see today. The fact is that I think we have made good on our promise to help American workers keep their retirement benefits they have earned, to make sure that those commitments are kept.

I want to thank my friend from California, Chairman Bill Thomas, whom I have worked on this proposal with for the last 5 years. We all know Bill is a sweet, lovable human being. This is his last year as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. And I have got to tell you that all of us in the House, whether we agree with Bill or disagree with Bill every day, Bill is someone who works hard, puts his mind to it, and no one has worked harder in bringing this bill to the floor tonight than my colleague and friend from California, Mr. Thomas.

Also I want to thank Chairman McKeon, the man who took my place as Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee some 6 months ago, for his hard work.

I want to thank my staff. Stacey Dion, Stacey, everybody that has worked on this knows Stacey. She has been one of the principal authors of this. I want to thank Paula Nowakowski, Jo-Marie St. Martin, Kevin Smith, Mike Sommers, Greg Maurer, Dave Schnittger and George Canty on my staff for all of their work on this bill now and in the past.

I also have to thank some of my former staff on the Education and the Workforce Committee, Ed Gilroy, Steve Forde, Jim Paretti and Steve Perrotta, for all of the work they have done continuing to assist not only me when I was chairman, but Mr. McKeon as well.

Let me also thank the staff from the Ways and Means Committee and our Democrat staff who have worked hard over many years to get us to this point.

This is a very important bill. I think all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know it is a very important bill.

When we started this process, Mr. Andrews and I in 1999, it wasn't many months into this when we asked ourselves, why haven't these laws been cleaned up and straightened out? Well, Mr. Andrews, I can tell you, I found out why, because it is hard work and there are a lot of people who have a lot of different interests.

But at the end of the day, the work that we started I think is going to pay dividends tonight, because what we have here is a process and a product that has been developed together that will in fact meet the goals that we set out to do. And it wouldn't have happened without the work of a lot of Members on both sides of the aisle.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill, to defeat the motion to recommit, and move this bill to the Senate and on to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my colleague for yielding.

There is a very delicate balance in this bill. My colleague from California talked about the airline provisions. I am going to talk about one of the most important provisions in this bill, and that is the protection for hybrid plans, or cash balance pension plans.

This was a very difficult issue in the House; it was a very difficult issue in the conference. It has been worked out in a bipartisan way to the satisfaction of those on the farthest on the left in the Senate and the farthest on the right in the House. And to rewrite this provision in a motion to recommit I think is irresponsible.

I would say to my colleagues who have worked on this bipartisan pension bill for a long time, the balance of this bill is right. Let's support the underlying bill and reject the motion to recommit.