[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15045-15055]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 15046]]

  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 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

[[Page 15047]]

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).
  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

[[Page 15048]]

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 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

[[Page 15049]]

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 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

[[Page 15050]]

     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 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

[[Page 15051]]

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 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

[[Page 15052]]

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 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

[[Page 15053]]

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 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

[[Page 15054]]


     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
  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.

[[Page 15055]]



                          ____________________