Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 95 (Wednesday, July 19, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 95 (Wednesday, July 19, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5388-H5397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2389, PLEDGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 920 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows

H. Res. 920

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2389) to amend title 28, United States Code,
with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts over
certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of
Allegiance. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or their designees.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be
considered as read. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII,
no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in
the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings),
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.
Madam Speaker, House Resolution 920 is a structured rule, and it
provides 1 hour of general debate that is equally divided and
controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their
designees. This resolution waives all points of order against
consideration of the bill, and it makes in order only those amendments
that are printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the
resolution. It provides that the amendments printed in the report may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only
by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject
to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Further, it
waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the
report, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 920 and,
of course, the underlying bill, H.R. 2389, the Pledge Protection Act of
2005.

{time} 1045

Madam Speaker, I would first like to take this opportunity to thank
my friend and colleague from Missouri, Representative Todd Akin, the
author and lead sponsor of the underlying bill. As an original
cosponsor of H.R. 2389, I am glad to see that we will have the
opportunity to set the record straight and defend our traditions
against a few activist judges who would supplant the will of the people
with their own personal agenda.
Yesterday, this House had the opportunity to debate and vote on an
amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as the union between
one man and one woman. Unfortunately, the necessary two-thirds vote in
support of the amendment simply was not there. While some may
characterize yesterday's debate as an act of futility, I

[[Page H5389]]

wholeheartedly disagree. Yesterday's vote put each and every Member of
this House on record with their constituents and with the American
people as to where they stand on defending our culture, on defending
our values, against a few activist judges seeking to turn our society
upside down.
I make mention of this because I anticipate that the opponents of
this underlying bill will attempt to make the same arguments against
this bill as they did yesterday against the Marriage Protection Act.
And, Madam Speaker, they were wrong yesterday, and they continue to be
wrong today.
The Pledge Protection Act, as well as the Marriage Protection Act,
represents more than just the underlying issues of our Pledge of
Allegiance or the traditional definition of marriage. These bills
affirm that it is the American people, not a few activist judges, that
have the right to create laws and establish the policies that will
shape their lives.
Now, I know that the opponents of this bill will also try to confuse
and confound this debate by arguing that there are other more pressing
things to consider and that this Congress has passed nothing of
importance to the American people. Well, Madam Speaker, I have to ask
myself, where were they? Where were these individuals when we passed
H.R. 4297, that cut taxes and prevented tax increases for millions of
Americans? Where were they when we passed lobbying reform out of this
House with bipartisan support? Where were they when we passed out of
this House comprehensive border security legislation? Where were they
when we passed 10 of 11 appropriations bills that fund the operations
of this government? Where were they when we passed legislation to
increase oil production through domestic production and refinery
capacity to bring down the price of gasoline?
Madam Speaker, I could go on and on, but I believe I have made my
point that this House has a proven track record of passing legislation
important to the American people and their families, and the Pledge
Protection Act simply builds upon that track record.
H.R. 2389 will affirm the ability of Americans across this country to
recite the Pledge of Allegiance anytime, anywhere, with or without the
phrase ``one Nation under God.'' The point is, the individual will get
to choose.
Since the days of colonial America and the founding of this great
Nation, the vast majority of our citizenry has celebrated and honored
the role of Almighty God in shaping the history of this great land and
defending her through many trials and tribulations and in lifting her
up as a shining city on a hill.
As our founders set forth in the Declaration of Independence, ``We
hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.''
Madam Speaker, the recognition of a higher authority above human law
and above temporal law is fundamental to the establishment and
preservation of our fundamental rights and liberties. Those who would
divorce the recognition of a higher authority from the rights he
secures are guilty of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
If our fundamental rights come from human beings, then human beings
can take them away. But because our rights are endowed to us by our
creator, no man, no woman, no government can take them away. Therefore,
we in this Congress have an obligation to uphold the ability of
citizens across this great land to recite and pledge their allegiance
to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for
which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank Dr. Gingrey for the
time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I listened to Dr. Gingrey, and I have the misfortune
of reading the paper every now and again. Dr. Gingrey, you are quoted
as saying yesterday in the discussion with reference to banning gay
marriage, the quote says, ``This is probably the best message we can
give to the Middle East in regards to the trouble we are having over
there right now.''
I say to you, sir, that I find that very confusing in the sense that
I don't understand how, with all of the things going on in this country
and around the world, that gay marriage, yesterday, was the most
important thing that we could contribute to the horror of what is going
on in the Middle East.
But I don't intend to use much of my time this morning, frankly. I
really am embarrassed for the House of Representatives today. Why?
Let's be clear about what the priorities are for the majority and what
they are for the rest of the world.
Today, the Federal minimum wage purchases less than it has at any
point in the last 50 years. Let me repeat: The Federal minimum wage
purchases less than it has at any point in the last 50 years. It hasn't
been raised in 9 years, and today the House is going to spend its time
protecting something that all of us say every morning in the House of
Representatives, the Pledge of Allegiance.
In the last year, 23 percent of all Americans say they or someone in
their family have had to stop medical treatment because of the cost,
and today the House will spend its time attempting to turn the
independent judiciary into an echo chamber of the right wing of this
particular majority.
If today is anything like the typical day of the past 3 years, three
American soldiers will die in Iraq or Afghanistan, the Taliban will get
a little stronger in Afghanistan and the civil war will continue to be
enhanced in Iraq. And the American people will watch their Congress do
nothing, but listen to a bunch of demagogues who claim a crisis in the
United States courts.
The Middle East is literally going up in flames, as is California,
and Katrina's problems haven't been solved, and Congress' response is
to criticize Federal judges.
Today in America, 110 people will be treated in an emergency room for
their wounds from a handgun and there is an epidemic of violence with
reference to handguns, particularly by our youth in this country. 1,500
people will die of cancer today in America, and 1,900 people will die
of heart disease. And the United States House of Representatives will
speechify about patriotism.
Let me tell you something, Madam Speaker: Patriots try to solve real
problems and not seek out remedies to perceived problems. Yesterday in
this country we had people die of hunger and malnutrition. In some
parts of this country, the infant mortality rate rivals that of sub-
Saharan Africa. We have a public education system that ranks below that
of almost any other Western nation. We have a looming Social Security
crisis, and health care costs are spiraling out of control. And what do
we do? Speechify about patriotism.
These are some of the problems, just some of the problems,
confronting the American people today. And what is the majority's
response to this? Today we will make sure that the Pledge of Allegiance
is safe from so-called activist judges.
I could go on and on, but I have already taken more time than this
deserves. Court-stripping bills such as this are, according to the
Chief Justice of the United States of America, John Roberts, and let me
quote the Chief Justice of America, they are bad policy.
I hope the American people are paying attention to their priorities,
the priorities of the Republican majority.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.
I just wanted to respond to my friend from Florida. I didn't see that
quote. I need to grab that newspaper that he was referring to. It
sounds like I was either misquoted or my words were taken out of
context.
Yesterday I spoke several times, and I mainly was speaking about our
value system as a great Nation. We were talking about values yesterday
from my perspective and the image that we present to the rest of the
world, and particularly at this time to the countries in the troubled
Middle East. So I don't know what the exact quote was, but I just want
to try to clarify that
Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the
Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

[[Page H5390]]

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Georgia for yielding me time, and I rise in support of the rule and the
underlying bill.
I am a proud cosponsor of the Pledge Protection Act, and, like many
of my West Virginia constituents, I am disappointed that this
legislation is necessary.
I was disappointed 4 years ago when two judges of the Ninth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that our Pledge, our statement of shared
national values, was somehow unconstitutional.
I do not take legislation that removes an issue from the jurisdiction
of this court system lightly. This legislation is appropriate, however,
because of the egregious conduct of the courts in dealing with the
Pledge of Allegiance. By striking ``under God'' from the Pledge, the
Ninth Circuit has shown contempt for the Congress which approved the
language, and, more importantly, shows a complete disregard for the
millions of Americans who proudly recite the Pledge as a statement of
our shared national values and aspirations.
One of the many great things about living in a Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, is that no one is
required to recite the Pledge if they disagree with its message.
We are a Nation that respects minority opinions. Those who disagree
with the Pledge have every right to attempt to convince others of their
point of view and convince Congress to change it. That is how our
system works. Instead, the Ninth Circuit would allow the opinion of one
person who disagrees with the Pledge to override the opinions of tens
of millions of Americans who want to express their belief that America
is in fact one Nation under God.
I am proud to stand with the vast majority of Americans and certainly
the vast majority of West Virginians who support our Pledge of
Allegiance the way that it is. We do not need Federal judges to dictate
what our Pledge says. I hope my colleagues will join me and support the
Pledge Protection Act.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this
time to yield 6 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
Madam Speaker, for 9 years there has been no increase in the minimum
wage. Meanwhile, CEOs of the largest corporations in this country have
seen their pay rise to record heights, almost 200 times the size of the
paycheck for an average worker in this country.
For the last month, we on this side of the aisle have been trying to
get the majority party to allow for a simple, straight up or down vote
on increasing the minimum wage. We tried over a month ago to attach it
to the appropriations bill for the Department of Labor, and we
succeeded. When we did, the majority party decided they would not allow
that bill to come forward because they didn't like the results.
We are now told, if you read Congress Daily put out by the National
Journal, we are now told that the Speaker of the House, Mr. Hastert, is
against the minimum wage increase; we are told that the Majority Leader
of the House, Mr. Boehner, is against the minimum wage increase. But
they don't want to evidently face this issue up or down.

{time} 1100

So the article in CQ this morning says, ``It is unlikely that GOP
leaders would allow an up-or-down vote on a wage increase. Rather GOP
aides say that if they craft a bill, it would likely include so-called
sweeteners.''
Madam Speaker, I am proud of the fact that on this side of the aisle,
our Members do not have to be maneuvered and cajoled and enticed into
voting for a minimum wage increase. I am pleased by the fact that on
this side of the aisle, Members do not need sweeteners in order to do
what is right on this issue.
So we are trying today to attach the minimum wage increase to this
bill. There are those on the other side of the aisle who will say that
is inappropriate. Well, the previous speaker just recited part of the
Pledge of Allegiance. When we stand on this House floor every day and
take that pledge, we pledge to provide liberty and justice for all; not
for most, not just for CEOs, not just to the wealthiest 1 percent of
people in this country, but for all.
This Congress has provided $50 billion in tax cuts this year for
people who make $1 million or more a year, and yet it is steadfastly
refusing, on the direction of the top Republican leadership of this
House, it is steadfastly refusing to do anything at all on the wage
front for people who live life on the underside.
I think it is disgraceful for a Member of Congress, or for this
Congress, to allow a pay raise for Members of Congress to go through at
the same time that they are trying to block an increase in the minimum
wage for the poorest people among us.
We have 15 weeks between now and the election. Do you realize, Madam
Speaker, that we are going to spend 4 of those weeks in town here, and
11 weeks we are going to be spending back home campaigning for
reelection? Meanwhile we will have taken no action to provide a
Manhattan-like project on the energy front so that we are not stuck
with $3 and $4 gasoline prices.
This Congress will have taken no action to provide health care for
every child in this country. It will have taken no action to guarantee
that we provide as much protection for the average worker in a company
as we do for the board of directors and the CEO if that company goes
bankrupt. We are taking no action to make college more affordable for
every family in this country. We are not doing any of that.
Cannot we at least provide a minimal increase in the minimum wage for
people who are living on life's edge? That is what we are asking you to
do. I am amazed that we are told that we cannot do it.
Oh, you have time to strip a court from jurisdiction, just like you
had time to call the Congress back to stick your nose in the family
affairs of the Terry Schiavo family, but you do not have time and you
do not have the will to provide some decent economic help to people who
need it more than virtually anybody else in this society.
Shame on every one of you who will not move on this issue.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute just in response
to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Madam Speaker, a couple of weeks ago on another rule that I was
managing, this same issue was brought up, had really nothing do with
the subject at hand, but was in regard to the minimum wage. I pointed
out in a little colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin that I did
not vote for that congressional pay raise, and he said that he did not
either.
I just want to point out, this gentleman from Georgia, to the
gentleman from Wisconsin that this just once again proves that cheese
and crackers occasionally go good together. So I do not disagree with
the gentleman on that particular point.
Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the author, the
distinguished author, of this bill, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Akin).
Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, I came here to discuss, I thought there
would not be much discussion on the rule, because that is what we are
supposed to be debating and discussing right now, the rule on the
Pledge Protection Act.
Instead, most of the discussion that seems to come from the other
side is complaining about priorities. I did not know that this is where
we were going to complain about priorities. I suppose there are some
connections.
It seems that judging by the comments in the Rules Committee
yesterday, that the Democrats have a very hard time understanding the
importance of the Pledge or the words ``under God'' or even the first
amendment, which is about free speech. They seem to consider that to be
a rather minor thing, and that perhaps may fit in with their view of
government.
But I would recall that if you were to summarize what America stands
for, we have always stood for the idea, the simple principle, that
there is a God, even though we disagree as to who He might be, who
gives basic inalienable rights to all people, and that it is the job of
government to protect those rights.
That is, in a sense, a formula that Americans have gone to war about
through the ages. That is why we went to war with King George, that is
why

[[Page H5391]]

we fought the War of Independence, because we believed in that basic
formula.
The Democrats are saying now that formula is not very important, we
should not give it time to discuss it or think about it. But if they
spent a little more time thinking about it, they would realize that is
why we are in the war against these radical Islamists, why we fight the
war of terror, why our sons and daughters are overseas.
The reason we fight is because these terrorists take away people's
innocent lives and blow them up for political statements. We fight
because these terrorists want to terrorize, to take away people's
freedom. And the other side, the Democrats, want to cut and run from
that fight. They would not want to cut and run if they understood the
importance of those basic principles and that inalienable rights are
impossible without a recognition of God, and that is why the Pledge
bill is important and not irrelevant or trivial.
And so while we hear all of these discussions about, oh, you are not
doing this, you are not doing that, you are not doing the other thing,
fortunately government can do more than one thing at a time. There are
many people at work in government.
The energy bill was brought up. I am surprised that the Democrats
would mention the energy bill. It would be an embarrassment to me if I
were a Democrat, and the Republicans had brought an energy bill on this
floor in 2001, and it was killed by Democrats in the Senate. 2002, we
brought an energy bill. That was killed by Democrats in the Senate.
2003, we brought an energy bill. It was killed by the Democrats in the
Senate. And 2004, the Democrats killed it again. Finally in 2005, we
get an energy bill.
If I were a Democrat, I would not be talking about energy prices
after basically filibustering an energy bill for 5 years.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume before yielding to the distinguished minority whip from
Maryland, my very good friend, a Member of this body who works
tirelessly, tirelessly to alleviate the squeeze on America's middle
class.
Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to my friend from Georgia who
was responding to my friend from Wisconsin Mr. Obey when he says cheese
and crackers go together. And the context, as I understand it, was that
you did not vote for the pay raise.
The question is, do you favor and can you push for the minimum wage?
Cheese and crackers may very well go together, but they need to be
washed down with milk or Coca-Cola. And the fact of the matter is
people living on the minimum wage cannot buy cheese, crackers, Coca-
Cola or milk, and so somewhere along the line that needs to be
understood
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), my good friend.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
The gentleman who just spoke previously on the other side of the
aisle was wrong, and he misstates the position of the Democrat Party.
Indeed, he misstates the need for this bill. There is no court case
that is pending that has shunted this aside, of articulation of ``under
God.'' In fact, the Supreme Court said the litigant did not have
standing.
Madam Speaker, I believe that our Pledge of Allegiance with its use
of the phrase ``one Nation under God'' is entirely consistent with our
Nation's cultural and historic traditions.
I also believe that the United States District Court in Sacramento,
in September of 2005, holding that use of this phrase is
unconstitutional is wrong. I want the gentleman to hear me. I believe
the decision was wrong.
As a matter of fact, as the gentleman knows, 383 people on the floor
of this House, overwhelming numbers of Democrats and Republicans, said
it was wrong. The gentleman may recall that resolution.
But this court-stripping bill is not necessary. In fact, the
Department of Justice is seeking to overturn the district court's
decision. For political reasons, the other side of the aisle does not
want to allow the judicial procedure to continue as our Founding
Fathers perceived it to be in the best interests of our Nation, a
Nation of laws.
Yet today with this radical court-stripping bill, our Republican
friends completely overreact to this lone district court decision,
which I believe is clearly likely to be overturned.
This legislation would bar a Federal court, including the Supreme
Court, from reviewing any claim that challenges the recitation of the
Pledge on first amendment grounds. If we are a Nation of laws, we must
be committed to allowing courts to decide what the law is.
Let us be clear. This bill is unnecessary and, I believe, probably
unconstitutional. It would contradict the principle of Marbury v.
Madison, intrude on the principles of separation of powers, degrade our
independent Federal judiciary, which, by the way, is a pattern of the
majority party that is constantly wanting to undermine the judiciary.
It is an end run.
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, the House should not be spending its time
today addressing a single Federal court decision that should be
overturned on appeal. My goodness, how many bills we would have to have
to disagree with every court opinion that comes down.
What we should be doing, Madam Speaker, is taking up legislation
providing a long overdue increase in the Federal minimum wage, which
has stood at $5.15 per hour since 1997, the longest period of time that
we have not raised the minimum wage since Ronald Reagan and George Bush
were President of the United States, in which case it was a longer
period of time.
An estimated 6.6 million, indeed some estimate as many as 18 million
people, are impacted by the minimum wage. Yes, we are raising this
issue now because it is the right thing to do whenever you do it, in
whatever forum you do it, at whatever time you do it. It is time that
we take people working in America every day, playing by the rules, take
them out of poverty. Let's do it now. Give us this opportunity. Give
them a chance.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We have heard on both sides reference, of course, to our Founding
Fathers in this debate. Madam Speaker, deep concern that Federal judges
might abuse their power has long been noted by America's most gifted
observers, including Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.
Thomas Jefferson lamented that, this is the quote, ``the germ of
dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the
Federal judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day,
gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its
noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all
shall be usurped . . . ''
In Jefferson's view, leaving the protection of individuals' rights to
Federal judges employed for life was a serious error.
Listen to what Abraham Lincoln said, Madam Speaker, in his first
inaugural address in 1861. ``The candid citizen must confess that if
the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole
people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court,
the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that
extent practical resigned their Government into the hands of eminent
tribunal.''
That is the concern that we express today in this debate, Madam
Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1115

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I look forward to the day
that somebody offers a bill to eliminate the Court. I mean, you talk
about Jefferson and Madison. I don't know how many of you have read the
Federalist Papers and clearly understand the dynamics of establishing
the Federal judiciary and the importance of the separation of powers.
That is what they went to war about or with King George, it was to
make sure that we had a separation of powers. I travel in countries all
over this world where the leaders of the country dictate to the courts,
if they have any.
I don't want to see America in that position, and I believe my good
friend from California feels likewise.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, we are here today
because the Republican leadership has

[[Page H5392]]

made a stunning decision that it thwart the will, a bipartisan will of
the House of Representatives, a bipartisan majority will of the House
of Representatives to increase the minimum wage. They have decided that
they are not going to follow the rules of democracy. They are not going
to let this body reflect over 80 percent of the American people that
believe that the minimum wage that is stuck at 1997 levels should be
brought up to date for those workers who work hard every day.
In fact, when the Appropriations Committee spoke on a bipartisan
majority, they refused to bring the bill to the floor, because it had
an increase in the minimum wage that was put there by Mr. Obey and Mr.
Hoyer. We just see last week, 26 Members of the Republican Party of
this House wrote the majority leader demanding action before we leave
in August.
Two Members of the Republicans voted for our motion on the previous
question and we will offer it again today. So what we now understand is
there is a majority. If we want to strip somebody of authority, maybe
we ought to strip the Republican majority in this House of its
authority to block the democratic will of both Members of this House
who are duly elected under the Constitution and reflecting the will of
the American people to increase the minimum wage. Forget stripping the
Court of its authority. Let us strip the Republican leadership.
Just last week the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, completely
misrepresented the record on the minimum wage when he suggested that he
had never heard from the Democrats about the minimum wage in an odd-
numbered year.
Now, maybe Mr. Boehner doesn't know odd from even. But the fact of
the matter is we introduced a minimum wage bill in 1997. I believe that
is an odd-numbered year. We introduced a bill in 1999, another odd
year; 2001, another odd year; 2005 an odd year.
We wrote to Mr. Boehner, as the chairman of that committee, time and
again in 1991, asking for hearings and a markup. We asked again in
October of 1999. In March of 2001 we sent Mr. Boehner letters from the
members of the committee again asking for actions; in March of 2001 and
in July of 2001. There have been numerous events calling upon the
majority leader and the Speaker of this House to provide for an
increase in the minimum wage.
It goes on and on and on. I have 30 here that I would like to enter
into the Record. I suspect there are hundreds where the Democrats have
asked time and time again this leadership to provide us an up-or-down
vote on the minimum wage. Why do we do that? Because, as Mr. Obey and
Mr. Hoyer pointed out, 6 million workers in this country are stuck in a
wage that this Congress set in 1997.
No other workers in this country are stuck at that wage except these
individuals. These are people who get up every day and go to work at
very difficult jobs at the lowest wage you can pay in this country
legally, and they go every day and every week and every month. At the
end of the year, at the end of the year, they end up poor.
By official action of this Congress, they end up poor. The gas that
they buy to go to work is not at 1997 prices. The bread and the milk
they buy to bring back to their families is not at 1997 prices. The
health care they hope to buy someday for themselves and their family is
not at 1997 prices, nor is the housing where they rent homes.
These are people, because of the official action of the Republican
leadership of the House of Representatives, these people must continue
to be impoverished. Yet we tell them that we value their work.
No, we don't. We ought to strip this Republican leadership so that
these people can have economic justice so that they can share in some
of the liberties and freedoms that the other side talks about so much.
It is very hard to share in liberties and freedom at $5.15 an hour,
very difficult to do that. But the Republicans wouldn't understand
that, because they just don't understand the plight nor do they care
about the plight of these workers. That is why we should raise this
minimum wage.
Minimum Wage Legislation Introduced By Democrats in Odd-
Numbered Years
1. 105th Congress 1997: H.R. 2211 ``American Family Fair
Minimum Wage Act of 1997''--Republican-controlled E&W
Committee refused to take action on the bill.
2. 106th Congress 1999: H.R. 325 ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of
1999''
3. 107th Congress 2001: H.R. 665 ``Fair Minimum Wage Act of
2001''
4. 109th Congress 2005: H.R. 2429 ``Fair Minimum Wage Act
of 2005''
Letters to Ed and Workforce Chairman Goodling From Ranking
Democrat William Clay Requesting Action on the Minimum Wage--
in Odd-Numbered Years
5. March 1, 1999, asking for hearing and markup of minimum
wage legislation.
6. October 29, 1999
Letters To Ed and Workforce Chairman Boehner from Senior
Member Miller Requesting Action on the Minimum Wage--in Odd-
Numbered Years
7. March 2, 2001 from all 22 Democratic Members of the
Committee requesting hearings on H.R. 665 to increase the
minimum wage
8. July 16, 2001 from George Miller requesting, among other
things, ``immediate action to increase the minimum wage.''
Press Events/Statements/Reports--in Odd-Numbered Years
9. Ranking Member Clay Makes a Statement in Ed and
Workforce Committee urging passage of the minimum wage,
October 7, 1999.
10. Ranking Member Clay asks unanimous consent in the
Education and Workforce Committee to bring up H.R. 325 to
increase the minimum wage, November 3, 1999.
11. Democrats issue ``A Mid-Term Report Card, the
Republicans Failed Labor Education and Health Care Record''
with section entitled ``Republicans Continue to Block a Fair
Minimum Wage'' and notes no committee action ``[d]espite the
submission to the committee's chairman for repeated written
requests for a markup of minimum wage legislation . . .''
November 29, 1999 (Report).
12. Statement on the Introduction of the Fair Minimum Wage
Act of 2001 (February 7, 2001)
13. Miller Introduces Legislation to Increase the Minimum
Wage, February 27, 2003 (press release)
14. ``Bush Administration Assault on Working Families--
First 100 Days'' calls for Republicans to stop blocking an
increase in the minimum wage. April 26, 2001 (Report)
15. This Christmas, Congress Should Help the Less Fortunate
by Raising Minimum Wage, December 14, 2005. (press release)
16. House Again Refuses to Give Minimum Wage Workers a
Raise, July 12, 2005 (press release)
17. Miller Calls for Minimum Wage Increase, May 18, 2005
(press release)
Sample of Dear Colleagues Sent in Odd-Numbered Years on
Minimum Wage
18. Support a Fair Increase in the Minimum Wage, January 8,
2003 (Miller)
19. Support an Increase in the Minimum Wage, January 31,
2003 (Miller)
20. Co-sponsor the Minimum Wage, February 25, 2003 (Miller)
Sampling of Floor Statements (Congressional Record) on
Minimum Wage by Key Democrats in Odd-Numbered Years
21. Rep. George Miller, October 25, 2005:
``Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of millions of
American working men and women who are in desperate need of a
raise. It has been a disgraceful 8 years since Congress last
voted to raise the national minimum wage which is stuck today
at only $5.15 an hour. A person making the minimum wage today
would have to work for the better part of an hour just to
afford a single gallon of milk or a gallon of gasoline.''
(Congressional Record, Page H9049)
22. Rep. George Miller, May 18, 2005:
``Mr. Speaker, today, together with 100 of my colleagues,
we are introducing legislation to raise the Federal minimum
wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over 2 years. Senator Edward Kennedy
is introducing identical legislation in the Senate. Two
reports that are also being released today, one by the Center
for Economic and Policy Research and one by the Children's
Defense Fund, make obvious the importance of raising the
minimum wage for workers, children, and families.''
(Congressional Record, Page E1024)
23. Rep. George Miller, February 27, 2003:
``Mr. Speaker, today I am honored to be joined by 73 of my
colleagues in introducing legislation to increase the minimum
wage. The legislation that we are introducing today provides
for a $1.50 increase in the minimum wage, in two steps. Our
bill raises the minimum wage from its current level of $5.15
per hour to $5.90 sixty days after enactment and raises it
again to $6.65 one year thereafter. In addition, the
legislation extends the applicability of the minimum wage to
the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Our
bill is identical to legislation introduced in the other body
by the Democratic Leader, Mr. Daschle, and 34 of his
colleagues.'' (Congressional Record, Page E333)
24. Rep. George Miller on CNMI, July 26, 2001:
``Today, I am joined by more than 40 co-sponsors as we
introduce the ``CNMI Human Dignity Act,'' which would require
that the Americans living in the US/CNMI live under the same
laws as all of our constituents in our home districts. This
legislation would extend U.S. immigration and minimum wage
laws to the US/CNMI.'' (Congressional Record, Page E1442)
25. Rep. Rob Andrews, May 23, 2001:
``That compassion is sorely lacking when there has been a
commitment by the majority not to move a bill to raise the
minimum

[[Page H5393]]

wage of many of those parents that we are talking about
today.'' (Congressional Record, Page H2601)
26. Rep. Major Owens, March 7, 2001:
``What we are experiencing today is the beginning of
warfare on a large scale which has a psychological
significance. It is very strategic. After we roll over
ergonomics, it is going to be Davis-Bacon's prevailing wage
act. It is going to be onward marching toward the elimination
of any consideration of any minimum wage from now until this
administration goes out of power.'' (Congressional Record,
Page H664)
27. Rep. George Miller, November 3, 1999:
``Now the Republicans tell us that we cannot afford a
prescription drug benefit for our seniors, that we cannot
afford a Patients' Bill of Rights to protect our families
against managed care and HMOs that deny them care, that we
cannot afford a minimum wage for our low-income workers in
this Nation, and that we cannot extend the fiscal security of
social security by even one day. No, the Republicans still
want to try to pass tax breaks for the wealthiest
individuals, corporations, and special interests in this
country. When in this session, in the last remaining 8 or 10
days of this session, when is it that Republicans are going
to start thinking about our elderly, our children, and the
working families of this Nation?'' (Congressional Record,
Page H11376)
28. Rep. William Clay, June 18, 1997:
``Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention an
important editorial that appeared in the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, Monday, June 16, 1997. It brings to light the harsh
reality of a GOP plan that deprives welfare participants of
minimum wage.'' (Congressional Record, Page E1251)
29. Rep. George Miller on CNMI, April 24, 1997:
``Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to
address the systematic, persistent, and inexcusable
exploitation of men and women in sweatshops in the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, a territory of
the United States of America. . . . This legislation will
increase the minimum wage in the CNMI in stages until it
matches the Federal level.'' (Congressional Record, Page
E748)
30. Rep. George Miller, September 5, 1997:
``This is not a matter of conjecture, this is a matter of
record that hundreds of thousands of workers on a regular
basis are denied their overtime pay. That overtime pay is the
difference of whether or not they can provide for their
family or not provide for their family. That minimum wage
pays the difference of whether or not they need public
assistance or they do not need public assistance, whether
they can provide child care or they cannot provide child care
for their children as they work.'' (Congressional Record,
Page H6931)

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on both
sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Eleven minutes remain for the gentleman from
Florida; the gentleman from Georgia, 16\1/2\.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, a young man whose
sensitivities have shown through on this subject of countless others
who are less fortunate, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good
friend from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Madam Speaker, if this issue were not so
serious it would be a joke. The Republican majority today is talking
about a Pledge of Allegiance where they are saying that we should
include the words ``under God'' as they have been historically in our
country. They preach God all the time. They even call themselves the
Christian Coalition. But you look at their policies, and you would not
see anything Christian about their policies.
My Aunt Rosemary was mentally retarded. If she didn't come from my
family and have all of the financial support to give her, all of the
support she needed, under the Republican Medicaid budget, she would
have to live in the right State in order to get the support of services
she needed because this Republican Congress has cut funding for the
developmentally disabled in this country.
The very people who are treating the most vulnerable people in our
society, the handicapped, the people who are living in group homes, in
institutions, those people are being paid the least. They are being
paid the minimum wage. They are taking care of God's children, God's
children, and yet this majority says they want to make sure they stand
up for God.
Where is their religiosity when it comes to standing up for the
children of God? Where is their sense of justice when it comes to
making sure that we treat others with the dignity and respect that God
would have us treat one another with?
This is a joke, Madam Speaker, that this majority would talk about
God and yet not even work to raise the wages of the very people that
are taking care of the children of God.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The gentleman from Rhode Island, I greatly respect. The other side,
making points about minimum wage or mental health parity and implying
that these are the godly things to do, then I think in a way that they
are inadvertently making my case.
Let us go along with the wishes outlined in this bill to keep ``under
God'' in our Pledge of Allegiance, as we stand up every day and honor
our flag. That, indeed is what it is all about. I thank them for
helping to make the case for this particular piece of legislation, H.R.
2389.
I do hope that we have a recorded vote on the rule, and obviously on
the bill, and I look forward to wide, maybe unanimous, bipartisan
support on this issue.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) to respond.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Madam Speaker, in 1960 my uncle,
President Kennedy, in one of his remarks in the inaugural address said,
ultimately, our truest test here on Earth, we need to make sure we do
God's will, because God's work is ultimately our own.
I find it so interesting that when it comes to our implementing the
kinds of things that this gentleman would say we are somehow being
inconsistent; it is really my point that the gentleman is being
inconsistent, saying that he is for making sure we have God in our
Pledge of Allegiance, but that God does not exist anywhere else in the
Republican majority positions.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Before the gentleman from Georgia goes
forward, may I say that we have but one more speaker, and then I will
be prepared to close if the gentleman is prepared to close.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, to my good friend from Florida, at this
time I have no additional speakers. I will reserve to close.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Before yielding to the distinguished
minority leader whom I believe will cause in November the priorities of
this House to change substantially, and to protect not only minimum
wage earners, but the middle class of this country better than we have,
I would like to come to today's discussion.
I find it difficult to believe that God would want us to strip the
courts of their powers to interpret the laws of this land, albeit with
the divergent opinions. I shudder that my colleagues do not understand
the dynamics of the Federal judiciary.
But let me do something, perhaps not dramatic, perhaps a little
melodramatic. Under Madam Speaker are the words ``In God we trust.'' I
have been in this body 14 years, and I have had the distinct privilege,
as have many other Members of the House of Representatives, of opening
these proceedings with other speakers in the chair, at least five
times, from my memory.
Every time that I participated in the opening proceedings, we said
the Pledge of Allegiance, and we used the term ``God.'' I don't have as
many of these as I want, and minimum wage workers don't have this many,
and the middle class is suffering immensely in this country. But on our
money is ``In God we trust.''
Please understand this. Only once has a court ruled that you cannot
say the Pledge of Allegiance in this country, and that law was stricken
down. I ask you, please, to listen to the Chief Justice when he says
that court-stripping would be bad policy.
You may have the right intention, but you are doing it in the wrong
way.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished minority leader,
Ms. Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida for his
leadership on this important issue, and for his eloquence on it as
well.
Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues on the other side of the
aisle, I have really good news for you. The pledge to the flag and the
words ``under

[[Page H5394]]

God'' are not in trouble. They are very safely ensconced in the Pledge
of Allegiance, which, as our colleague mentioned, we pledge every
single day that this body comes to order, school children across the
country, the beginning of meetings all over our country. The profession
of our pledge to the flag, and one Nation under God, is safe and it is
sound.
That is why it is hard to understand why you would take up the time
of this Congress to bring something to the floor that is so out of
touch with the concerns of America's middle class. We are talking about
democracy here and the intentions of our Founding Fathers. Essential to
a democracy is a strong, thriving and growing middle class.
The policies of this Congress, this Republican Congress, undermined
the security and the size of that middle class. That is why, if you are
at home with someone who is sick, or a child home from school, and you
happen to turn on the TV, and you see the proceedings of Congress, what
would an American think? What they are doing is totally irrelevant to
my life, totally irrelevant to my life, whether it is the health of my
family, the education of my children, the economic security of our
family and the safety of my neighborhoods.
Why isn't Congress addressing the concerns of America's great middle
class? Why, indeed, are the Republicans taking up the time, day in and
day out, with their proposals which have no prospect of success, which
have no basis in reality, and which, in fact, undermine the
Constitution of the United States which each one of us takes an oath of
office to support and defend.
Why, instead of having this conversation, which as Mr. Hastings and
others have said, this is not at risk. We all agree. One Nation under
God. What a beautiful pledge. We all agree.

{time} 1130

So rather than addressing the concerns of the American people, we are
making here an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United
States, which, thank God, will fail. Court-stripping. Court-stripping.
Fundamental to our democracy is the separation of powers, a system of
checks and balances, but this Republican Congress says that Congress
should strip the courts of the power to be a check and a balance to the
other branches of government.
They have said in their meetings that Marbury v. Madison, which
established precedent of judicial review, was wrongly decided. Over 200
years of precedent on judicial review they say was wrongly decided, and
therefore, they can strip the courts of the ability to review the
constitutionality of an act of Congress. That means by a simple
majority, and if the other body were willing and the President were to
sign, by a simple majority they can amend the Constitution with bills
that are not constitutional but have no court to judge that
constitutionality.
It is absolutely wrong, and Justice O'Connor said recently on this
subject that this was brought up at the time of desegregation. They
tried to use it then. Thank God, thank God, thank you, God, they
failed. Thank God they failed.
What we should be talking about today is what is important, the
issues that are important to America's middle class. Again, when people
ask me what are the three most important issues facing the Congress I
say the same thing: our children, our children, our children; their
health, their education, the economic security of their families, which
includes the pension security of their grandparents, the healthy
environment and safety of the neighborhoods in which they live, a world
at peace in which they can thrive.
But turn on the television and tune in to C-SPAN and see what is
going on in Congress, and what do you see? The politics of divide and
distract. It is really sad, as Mr. Kennedy said. It would be almost a
joke but it is just really not that funny.
So let us instead vote, when we have a chance to vote on this rule,
against the previous question; and that vote will be a vote to increase
the minimum wage. That is relevant to the lives of the American people.
In fact, it is relevant to the lives of millions of American people,
many of them single moms. Many of them single moms.
Right now, minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. If you work full time at
the minimum wage you make about $10,000. If you are two wage earners in
a family and you both work full time and make the minimum wage, you
make $20,000. You are below the poverty line for a family of four.
Imagine two wage earners working full time. Is that fair? Is that just?
I do not think so.
This Congress had no hesitation to give itself a raise over the past
9 years, $30,000 in raises. That $30,000 would take a minimum wage
worker 3 years to earn just the increase in salaries that Congress gave
itself. So there is no justice in what we are talking about here.
I quoted another debate on this subject, the recent encyclical of
Pope Benedict XVI. This is a quote from Cardinal McCarrick, quoting the
Pope quoting a saint. In his encyclical, ``God is Love,'' Pope Benedict
talks about the responsibilities of politicians, people in government,
and he quotes Saint Augustine who said that unless politicians, people
who are in the public domain, are there to promote justice, they are
just a bunch of thieves. Saint Augustine said, unless politicians were
there in office to promote justice, they were just a gang of thieves.
The Pope quoted Saint Augustine and the cardinal quoted the Pope in his
farewell address to us.
It is true, it is true, how can we be talking about justice, how can
we be talking about our Constitution, how can we be talking about under
God if we do not even meet the simple test of fairness to America's
middle class, which is central to our democracy? How can we be talking
about that here when people are suffering in our country? They do not
know how they are going to pay for their health bills, and millions of
them do not have health insurance. In fact, 6 million more people in
America do not have health insurance since President Bush became
President, a 70 percent increase in the cost of health insurance since
President Bush and this Republican Congress went to work on the
American people.
So the injustices are there. The opportunity is here, and it is being
ignored because the priority of the Republicans in Congress is to
distract and divide the country. It is time for the politics as usual
to end. It is time for this House to be the marketplace of ideas that
our Founders intended, where we come to do the work of the American
people, where they tell us to make laws to grow our economy, to make
our country strong militarily, and then the health and well-being of
the American people, make our country strong in the unity and the
reputation that we have in the world.
Instead, we have this freak show one day after another of a rollout
of distractions and divisions that is unworthy of this House, unworthy
of the American people and certainly does not honor the vision of our
Founding Fathers, the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform or the
aspirations of our children.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and
that vote will be a vote to increase the minimum wage, which is, again,
$5.15 an hour. It has not been increased in 9 years. While the price of
gas, food, health care and everything else has gone up, the purchasing
power has gone down.
Let us not be a bunch of thieves. Let us be a deliberative body that
is here to promote justice. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote
``no'' on this court-stripping bill which dishonors the oath of office
that we all take.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Akin), the author of the bill.
Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, the question has been placed: Is there
really a need for this legislation? And I think the statement was made,
inaccurately, that there was just only one time that the Pledge had
been challenged as being unconstitutional.
The words ``under God'' were found by the Ninth Circuit to be
unconstitutional. It was not once. It was done first by a three-judge
panel there. They came to the conclusion that school kids are not
allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance. They were then backed up by
the entire Ninth Circuit that supported that same position.
The case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court. If we could be so
assured that the phrase ``one Nation under

[[Page H5395]]

God,'' Madam Speaker, that is over your head is safe, if the words ``in
God we trust'' on our money is safe, well, then certainly the words
``under God'' in our Pledge should be safe. So the Supreme Court could
simply have ruled this is a ridiculous and a silly case that the Ninth
Circuit has sent to the Supreme Court; we strike down their decision.
They could have ruled that way.
I was there when the case was heard. The President's attorney
recommended that the Court dismiss the case based on lack of standing
of the person who brought the case. And one of the Supreme Court judges
said we consider that the lower courts will take care of whether or not
somebody has standing; that is not the kind of issue we consider. And
yet on deliberation, instead of striking the Ninth Circuit decision,
the Court said, oh, we are going to dismiss it for lack of standing.
That gives many of us very little cause to not be concerned not only
with our Pledge, but with the money that says ``in God we trust,'' ``in
God we trust'' over the Speaker's chair, and ``one Nation under God''
on our money. So it is a matter of debate whether or not there is a
threat here, but this is the same Court who not so long ago made the
decision that we could also ignore the fifth amendment and redistribute
private property to other people without it being for government use.
If they would ignore the fifth amendment, is it possible they might
turn the first amendment upside down and use it as a tool of
censorship? Certainly, many authorities think so.
This bill has merit, and it needs serious consideration. We take an
oath of office to uphold the Constitution. That includes the first
amendment, and this is about free speech, not censorship.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
It is hard to correct my friend from Missouri. I said to him last
night, earlier yesterday, as it were, in the Rules Committee that he is
an engineer and I am a lawyer of 44 years standing, twice a judge as it
were, and I understand a little bit about how the Federal judiciary
works. I said to him that I do not come into his engineering
association to tell them how to construct bridges and tunnels, and not
that there is any premium on lawyers or judges having clarity, but he
muddies the water on this subject.
I would urge him to understand that it was under President Eisenhower
that the words ``under God'' were put in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Somehow or another, during World War I and World War II, without the
words ``under God,'' we managed to win those wars. Somehow or another
we were not a godless society any more than we are not today.
Please understand that the pendulum swings in the Federal judiciary,
and there may be a day when things that you envision are important for
the Court to undertake constitutionally will allow for some more
liberal Congresspersons to come along than you and strip the courts of
those powers.
We have a beautiful system of checks and balances in this country.
Madam Speaker, I would urge that we do not impinge upon that territory.
I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can
amend the rule and provide this House with yet another chance to vote
on legislation to increase the Federal minimum wage.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. My amendment provides that immediately after
the House adopts this rule it will bring H.R. 2429, the Miller-Owens
minimum wage bill, to the House floor for an up-or-down vote. This bill
will gradually increase the minimum wage from the current level of
$5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour after about 2 years.
A footnote right there; I am so proud of my State. By petition, the
State of Florida passed a minimum wage with an acceleration clause
pegged to the cost of living. Hurrah for Florida.
The bill is identical to language that was included in the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill that was blocked by the majority leadership last
month. It is also identical to the language that we on the Democratic
side have tried to bring to this floor in recent weeks.
Madam Speaker, every day that we fail to bring legislation to the
floor to increase the minimum wage is another day we turn our backs on
America's low-income and middle-class families who desperately need our
help. These workers, as many have said, struggle every day to make ends
meet. Many minimum-wage earners work two and three jobs just to get by,
and it is unconscionable that we have waited this long to offer even a
little relief to those in this Nation who need it most.
There is a statistic that was quoted very recently, but no offense to
rich people, but America's corporate executives collectively, when
paired down in the first 4 hours of any given year that they worked,
they earn in 4 hours more money than a minimum-wage earner makes all
year long.
It has been nearly a decade since this House voted to increase the
minimum wage. The minimum wage, as I said earlier, is now at its lowest
level in 50 years.

{time} 1145

A full-time minimum-wage earner makes just $10,700 a year, an amount
that is $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.
I am going to cut it off right here, Madam Speaker, and go back to my
original remarks. We have not done anything about genocide in Darfur;
the Middle East is in flames. California is suffering forest fires. We
have left the Hurricane Katrina victims by the wayside with more
hurricanes looming to come during this hurricane season. The deficit is
at an all-time high and accelerating. The national debt is crippling
this Nation. And the middle class, we didn't fully fund education to
the extent that we left no children behind. We are not putting
sufficient police on the streets in order to be able to protect our
Nation. Our homeland is vulnerable in more ways than one, including the
containers that go on our aircraft and those that are not inspected in
our ports. I could go on and on, including the potential for $4-a-
gallon gas prices.
And what we are going to do? We are going to strip the courts. We
ought to strip some of these people that are in the business of
stripping the courts.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in
recognition of the importance of the underlying bill, H.R. 2389, the
Pledge Protection Act of 2005.
I want to express my appreciation to my colleagues who participated
in the preceding debate on this rule, and I want to ask my colleagues
to continue their participation as we move into the general debate.
I also want to again commend Representative Akin, both a friend and a
colleague, for leading the charge in defense of not only our Pledge of
Allegiance, but also many of our time-honored traditions that are
currently under assault by some activist judges, as he just enumerated.
As I stated yesterday, we did not raise these issues; a few activist
judges did when they decided to throw out precedent and make new law
without one vote cast in either a legislature or at the ballot box. So
it is now the responsibility of this Congress to stand up for the will
of the American people and sanction our Pledge of Allegiance. Let us
affirm this is ``one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.''
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 920, Rule for H.R. 2389 The Pledge
Protection Act of 2005

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
it shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2429) to amend
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an
increase in the Federal minimum wage. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) 60 minutes of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and
(2) one

[[Page H5396]]

motion to recommit with or without instructions.''
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adopting
the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 200, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 382]

YEAS--224

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--200

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--8

Evans
Ford
Goode
Gutierrez
Harris
Linder
McKinney
Northup

{time} 1213

Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas and Mr. POMEROY
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. SULLIVAN changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded

[[Page H5397]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 257,
nays 168, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 383]

YEAS--257

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--168

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--7

Evans
Ford
Gutierrez
Harris
McKinney
Northup
Ryan (OH)

{time} 1223

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

____________________