[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1156-1162]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Altmire). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address the 
House, and I will concur with my colleague, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, in 
honoring the legacy and memory of Dr. Martin Luther King and his 
contributions, and I must add Ms. Coretta Scott King and the entire 
King family and the King Institute in Atlanta, Georgia. This country 
will be forever grateful for the contributions of the King family and 
those who carry their memory.
  Many of us know that Ms. Jackson-Lee is going to have a special order 
on Tuesday. Many of us know that service is the way the King family 
wanted us to address this upcoming Monday, being able to carry out not 
only public service, which is random acts of goodwill throughout the 
country and your community where you live, but especially the day that 
we recognize his birthday. For his birthday to have birth here on this 
House floor and in this Congress is recognized as a Federal holiday, is 
something that this Congress should always hold on to.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me compliment the gentleman for 
beginning his special order with the reference to Dr. King. Might I 
just add how excited I am that Members are going home to their 
districts to be able to commemorate this holiday.
  Might I just cite, for the first time in Houston, Council Member Ada 
Edwards and many other elected officials and myself will be walking 
silently. We love parades, and we will be commemorating that, but we 
will be walking silently. I want to pay tribute to that.
  The AFL-CIO will be in Houston, its national officers and 
representatives, the Reverend Al Sharpton, commemorating.
  Finally, we will have what we call the Frontiersmen breakfast, an 
annual event, for corporate Houston. I only cite that not to highlight 
Houston, but to say all over America, different representations, 
different communities, will be celebrating and commemorating his 
holiday, which shows the broadness of his legacy.
  I thank you for allowing me to speak and I thank the King family as 
well.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so much, Ms. Jackson-Lee. I know that 
many Members of Congress hopefully on both sides of the aisle will be 
joining you during your special order in recognition of the 
contributions of Dr. King and the entire King family, including Ms. 
Coretta Scott King.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take an opportunity to come down, and I have 
already given comments on the memory and legacy of Dr. King and the 
entire family for the record, and I know that that will be entered. I 
wanted to come to the floor just to sum up this week.
  As you know, those of us in the 30-Something Working Group, we work 
to not only let the Members know what the Congress is doing and what we 
are leading in the direction of that the American people would like for 
us to go in in all areas, need it be defense, need it be standing up on 
behalf of our most vulnerable members of our society, our children and 
our elderly, those that have put forth opportunities so that we would 
have a better America.

[[Page 1157]]

When we think about and reflect just on the last few hours here in the 
House and we reflect on what happened last week and the beginning of 
this week, I can't help but what we say in the Baptist Church, since I 
am Baptist, testify for a moment.
  I have been in Congress now two terms. I believe we have done more in 
the last week and one or two days than we have done in a very long time 
as it relates to the 109th and 110th Congress.
  I come today to report, because I know that some would say that while 
everything is happening and everything is going in reverse and people 
are not being included and goodness gracious, why didn't we have 10,000 
hours of committee work, well, I would just say for everything that has 
passed, it seems like the American people are happier and pleased with 
the way this Congress is moving with its work.
  I just want to make sure, because you can't say it enough, because it 
is important that the record is correct. When Members come to the 
floor, it is important that Members reflect on what they say before 
they come to the floor.
  This is America. You are elected from your district. You can come and 
voice your opinion, not only of your constituents, but of all 
Americans, but I think it is important when we look at the 
Congressional Record that we are as accurate as possible.
  Historians will look back at this time and say, let me see what took 
place during that time in this country's history. I think it is 
important that the American people know that even though we represent 
individual districts, like I represent Miami Dade County and Broward 
County in Florida, I have to make sure that I carry not only the will 
of the people from that district, but also the American people. That is 
the reason why we have to make sure that the Members are informed of 
what actually took place, in case some forgot, and that the American 
people know what is going on. I say all of that to lay the facts out, 
and the facts are the facts.
  The fact is that in the last Congress, the 109th Congress and the 
Congress before that one, the American people were very disappointed in 
what was not taking place, Mr. Speaker. It so great we have a 30-
Something Working Group in this U.S. House of Representatives. I think 
I said the last time we were on the House floor, I believe just the 
night before last, we said we didn't create this 30-Something Working 
Group just to get in the majority. We didn't create the 30-Something 
Working Group, thanks to the Speaker, who then was minority leader at 
that time. We wanted to make sure the American people and the Members 
of this Congress knew that we wanted to work in a bipartisan way 
towards tackling the issues that the American people wanted us to 
tackle and represent them and not the special interests.
  Now, there are some folk that are still on the other side of the 
aisle that are disappointed that the American people are getting what 
they have been asking for, need it be polling or what have you. I can 
tell you, some of my friends on the other side, a lot of my friends on 
the other side agree with us, and when I say ``us,'' I am saying the 
Members on the Democratic side, on issues that are bipartisan.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to reflect on the fact 
that there are some Members on the majority side that have been asking 
for that all along. A majority of the Members on the minority side have 
been asking for bipartisanship. Now we have it.
  Now you have the minority party, or the minority leadership, I must 
add, on the Republican side, they are so concerned that so many of 
their Members are working in a bipartisan way. It is not because they 
like the Democratic Members on the majority side. It is because they 
are voting on behalf of their constituents.
  Well, what is wrong with that? I came down to the floor because, you 
know, I was with my daughter and we are in the office, it is the end of 
the week, we are about to get some things together, and I said, you 
know, I want to continue to have the minority spirit that I had in the 
108th and the 109th Congress, to say that this is historic in recent 
times, and working in a bipartisan manner.
  Now, if I wasn't serious about bipartisanship and if the Democratic 
leadership wasn't serious about bipartisanship, I wouldn't be here. We 
are serious about this. We have got work to do. We don't have time to 
sit around here and say, I come here with a donkey hat on and say I am 
a Democrat and hail to the Democrats, whatever, you know. Bow down, 
what have you. We are in charge, and, you know, walking around here and 
looking important and not saying ``hello'' when I walk by people in the 
hall. That is not what this is about.
  This is about working in a bipartisan way on behalf of the American 
people. I am so glad the Democratic leadership has embraced that. I am 
so glad that all Democrats here on this floor have embraced that.
  I am also very pleased and glad that many of the Republicans have 
embraced that. Maybe not their leadership, because as far as I am 
concerned, on many of the issues that we passed on this floor a good 
number of Republicans have voted for it in this past week, Mr. Speaker 
and Members, but the Republican leadership are not voting for it.
  Why? They want to show the difference between us and them. Well, we 
are not in the business of us and them anymore. And I think it is 
important that the American people and the Members understand that 
there is a public out there that is paying attention. There is a public 
out there. We have an escalation of troops out there now.
  Well, we are going to separate the Members of Congress from the 
followers. Members are going to have to have a choice in what they want 
to be. We have to stand up on behalf of the people that have elected us 
and federalized us to serve in this U.S. House of Representatives on 
their behalf.
  Mr. Speaker, case in point. I will just make my point with this, and 
I would move on to other things. I think it is important that we 
understand in adopting the rules of the 110th Congress, there were many 
carrying on and saying, well, why do we have to do that? We have a new 
set of rules and we want to be better than you, when the Republican 
leadership had an opportunity to set those rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand four pages of how under Republican 
control on more than 14 or 15 or even 20 examples, as a matter of fact, 
it is not four pages, it is six pages, of how Democrats were blocked, 
how Democrats weren't even allowed to offer amendments. House votes 
were held open for 3 hours, making U.S. history on behalf of special 
interests while they twisted arms. That is the past.
  I got it right here. If any Member wants to come down on the floor 
and debate me on this, we can get a time and talk about this, because, 
you know something, we are right on this one. The people are right.
  So, if you want to talk, these are the facts. The Congressional 
Record, you can go and cite it, because we in the 30-Something Working 
Group on this side of the aisle, we don't talk fiction, we talk fact, 
because that is the only thing that will hold up; not only the test 
here on this floor but the test of the American people, that challenge.
  I want to commend some of the Republicans and all of my caucus for 
voting for some of the good things. The rules of the House, like I was 
mentioning, 232 Democrats with one Democrat not voting because they 
weren't here on the rules of the House.
  Forty-eight Republicans joined us on PAYGO, which brought about the 
kind of accountability that we needed in this House to be able to stop 
the out-of-control spending that the Republican Congress has built up. 
That was this chart. There are so many people that are familiar with 
this. The record, $1.05 trillion that was spent under Bush and the 
Republican Congress in just 4 years, that trumped 42 presidents and 224 
years of history. $1.01 trillion.

                              {time}  1645

  That vote started moving this in reverse, Mr. Speaker, saying that we 
would no longer spend, and I wouldn't

[[Page 1158]]

even say the Federal tax dollars because we borrow from all of these 
countries to carry out that out-of-control spending, which we put 
together this chart to show all of the countries that we owe because of 
reckless spending and not living under PAYGO rules, pay-as-we-go rules. 
And so I think that is important for the Members to know and reflect 
upon. So if it was so bad, Mr. Speaker, why did 48 Republicans vote for 
it?
  Now, I can tell you right now, I am pretty sure there are Members on 
the other side saying I am not voting with Democrats just to vote with 
Democrats. They are voting because that is what their constituents 
want. And if we are to work in a bipartisan way, I think it is 
important for them to continue to join us on great ideas. There will be 
times when there will be partisan votes on this floor, but they should 
be few, especially when it comes down to issues of the Federal 
Treasury.
  Mr. Speaker, on implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission, we were here on this floor talking time and time again 
about following the bipartisan commission report on making America 
safer. What is wrong with screening containers coming into this country 
before making it to U.S. ports? What is wrong with making sure we carry 
out all of the 9/11 recommendations? This was 9/11. We went to the war 
in Afghanistan, running after al-Qaeda and doing away with the Taliban 
because of 9/11.
  Now, 9/11 Commission members and the American people, Democrats, 
Republicans and independents, are happy that we voted on this. Again, 
all the Democrats voted for it, with 68 Republicans voting for it. Mr. 
Speaker, that is the reason why we have some Members on the other side 
of the aisle running to the floor complaining. They are not complaining 
because they happen to be upset with us, and when I say us, I mean the 
Democrat majority, they are complaining because their Members are 
voting for their constituents.
  I am sure there are Republican Members that are saying, I am a member 
of the Republican Caucus, I am not trying to caucus with the Democrats, 
but they are trying to represent their constituents. So let them. And 
so for the 68 Republicans who voted on behalf of the 9/11 
recommendations, why not? It is protecting their constituents in 
America. Good for you.
  So much work has been done, very little talk but so much work, on the 
minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, I cannot say enough about this. We have the 
charts from the 109th Congress, because I think it is important that 
Members don't get amnesia. We have a lot of new Members trying to 
figure out how to get around the office buildings here in Washington, 
D.C. I have been here now going on my third term, and I am still trying 
to figure out a few things myself, but I think it is important when it 
comes down to the business of the House, and you want to stay in the 
House and you want to have this honor to represent not only the people 
in your district but the American people, and you want to do right on 
behalf of the American people, then it is important, Mr. Speaker, that 
we share this good information not only with the new Members but the 
present Members that have been here, because the American people have 
spoken.
  Let me share these figures. These are the pay increases of Members of 
Congress. In 1998, $3,100; in 2000, $4,600; 2001, $3,800; 2002, $4,900; 
2003, $4,700; 2004, $3,400; 2005, $4,000; and 2006, $3,100.
  Now, here is the point that is very, very important, Mr. Speaker and 
Members. I am not here to say that, well, you know, this is not 
justified. Just as a Member who is financially challenged, like myself, 
I will tell you there are some Members here, this cost-of-living 
adjustment, whatever the case may be, maintaining two households, I 
don't want to make an argument there. But if Members felt it was 
important to give themselves a raise and at the point when you start 
getting in the back years, the Democrat leadership made the decision 
that we will not give ourselves a pay raise unless the American people 
get it because we are tired of fighting for a pay raise for them, yet 
when it comes to Members of Congress, please join us in making sure we 
get a cost-of-living adjustment.
  We put our foot down. And now, this week, Mr. Speaker, we were able 
to give the American people a pay raise. Not because Republicans said 
we should do it. It is because we have a Democratic controlled 
Congress. And that is the problem that some Members on the minority 
side have with progress on behalf of the American people.
  It is going to be $7.25 that people are going to be making now. 
Believe it or not, we are going to get it passed in the Senate and the 
President will hopefully sign it. We had 82 Republicans that joined, 
and all the Democrats on this side of the aisle, in voting to increase 
the minimum wage. What we called the fair Minimum Wage Act. But, Mr. 
Speaker, the Republican leadership voted against it.
  How do you jump on top of the head of somebody making $5.15 an hour? 
How do you stand on top of their head and say, well, you know, we can't 
do it because it is gonna hurt somebody. CEOs are making, oh, boy, they 
are making more than the minimum wage worker would make in their entire 
lifetime, Mr. Speaker. In some instances, in a month. Yet we have 
Members here standing on top of the head of folks making $5.25 an hour 
and still carrying on about the vote.
  If it is so bad, Mr. Speaker, why did 82 Republicans join Democrats 
in voting for what was right? Why? Because they were representing their 
constituents. So I commend all my Democratic colleagues that have been 
waiting for an opportunity to vote on the floor on the minimum wage, 
and I commend the chairman, Mr. George Miller. I am glad he lived long 
enough to see this happen there in the Education and Labor Committee.
  But 82 Republicans joined Democrats in that. And that is good and 
that is bipartisan and it was the right thing to do, and I am glad they 
did it. But I want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, while we are here setting 
the record straight, not only talking about the vision of the 
Democratic leadership and caucus but also talking about bipartisanship, 
because that is the reason why I came to the floor today, to talk about 
bipartisanship. That is the record.
  I don't care what anyone else says. And I say again, these 
Republicans voted for this Democratic movement to raise the minimum 
wage because it was a part of our six in 2006 plan. Now, some may say, 
well, let's have a committee meeting. Well, goodness, let me just show 
you this, six pages, six pages where we did not have committee 
meetings. In the 108th Congress I saw with my own eyes a bill filed in 
the morning, went to the Rules Committee, and was on the floor and 
passed by 2 p.m., and then passed in the Senate and went to the White 
House the next day. For one person I watched it happen.
  So don't come to the floor, especially when it comes down to 
something like the Federal minimum wage that will help workers 
throughout this country and start raising a ``yeah, but.'' It is 
progress. I think the people like it. I think that is why they elected 
us to come to Congress, to get something done.
  Here is another point. The Medicare Prescription Drug Price 
Negotiation Act. Why is the Republican minority so scared of this? I 
can't understand it. Well, I look at companies, and I look at HMOs, and 
I look at other folks that have price negotiating opportunities and 
they are trying to drive down the price with their little group that 
they are dealing with. And now we are saying, the Federal Government, 
let's get the Secretary to try to see if he or she can make this 
happen. What is the problem? I can tell you what the problem is, it is 
that 24 Republicans voted with all Democrats to make that happen. What 
is wrong with that?
  While I talk about the fact that my Republican colleagues are joining 
us in bipartisanship, you have to commend the Democratic leadership on 
this side of the aisle for having the gumption to do what they said 
they would do. Now, that may seem like something very small in American 
households throughout the country, because usually when you say you are 
going to do something,

[[Page 1159]]

you do it. You know, I tell my mother, I tell a family member that I am 
going to do something, I try my best to do it. But when I make a 
promise, I have got to do it.
  We made a promise, and it is not a secret, that the minimum wage 
would be raised in the first 100 hours. We made a promise we would pass 
a package on ethics. We made a promise that we would make sure that we 
have price negotiations for prescription drugs. We made a promise, Mr. 
Speaker, that we would reverse royalties and other tax breaks to large 
oil companies and make sure that we have innovation in alternative 
fuels. We made a promise, Mr. Speaker, that we would reduce the student 
loan package; making sure that we reduce what the Republican Congress 
did, taking money to give to the super wealthy in this country a tax 
break.
  We promised we would do these things. We promised, Mr. Speaker, that 
we would do this in the first 100 hours. Everyone knew it. It wasn't a 
secret. We promised that we would make sure we wouldn't de-fund the 
troops when they are in harm's way. The troops. Then all of a sudden 
you get this escalation in troops.
  What is about to happen, Mr. Speaker, and I think the administration 
knows, and I think the minority party knows that we are about to have 
some committee meeting in a few minutes. We have just organized this 
Congress and we are going to start asking some of the tough questions. 
Where did this money go? Why was this company over here able to abuse 
this contract and nothing was said? Why are they still receiving 
Federal dollars? Why are these eight brigades of Army reservists going 
back to Iraq for a fifth term? Why don't we have other coalition 
partners joining us? Why won't we take the training wheels off the 
Iraqi government? All of these questions have to be answered.
  I like the bipartisan spirit that is going through the floor as a 
Congress now, or in the halls of Congress. I think it is important that 
we continue to encourage that, Mr. Speaker and Members. And I think it 
is important that Members realize that, especially when they come to 
the floor to start talking about issues that are facing the American 
people. During the 109th Congress, one of the most partisan Congresses, 
which passed no bipartisan votes, this week we passed bills with 60, 
70, 80 Republicans joining us on these votes.
  So I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that, again, we let the 
facts roll out. Again, I challenge my colleagues. And the reason why I 
can stand here with great confidence, Mr. Speaker, and the reason why I 
can even challenge some of my Republican colleagues or those outside of 
this great institution of ours, the House of Representatives, the 
people's house, is that I speak of the truth. If I wasn't speaking the 
truth, and if I wasn't citing the Congressional Record, you know, this 
notebook is just not a page on the top and newspaper in the middle. 
These are facts.
  So as we move forth in this 110th Congress in a bipartisan way, and 
making America stronger and better for our children and grandchildren, 
let that happen. The Republican leadership can say whatever they want. 
We are in the majority. But you know something, we still have a 
minority spirit. The minority spirit is making sure that we fight on 
behalf of those who need representation in this House. Not the special 
interests.
  The special interests have their representation, or they had it here 
in this House. And those that continue to carry the water on behalf of 
the special interests that are totally against or versus the American 
people, Mr. Speaker, because it is right, they will lose. And that is 
just where it is.
  So when we start talking about the integrity of the U.S. House of 
Representatives, we start talking about the things we would like to do 
on behalf of the American people, then we are serious about it. Now, if 
folks want to be serious about coming and representing special 
interests against the will of the American people, have at it, because 
there are Members of this Congress, or former Members of this Congress, 
who did that. And guess what? They are reading what the Congress is 
doing in the newspaper when it is dropped on their front door.
  I am not going to be a part of that group. I am here to make sure we 
represent the folk that sent us up here to represent them.

                              {time}  1700

  I think it is important that we remember that. Have faith in the 
American will. If every Member was to carry themselves in the way the 
night that they were elected or the day that they were elected, of all 
the things they said they wanted to do before they got here, then this 
would be a better country. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that 
while we have that spirit, bipartisanship, let's continue it. Let's 
continue the spirit. It's not about being in the majority and we just 
want as a strategy to keep you in the minority, no, it's not a strategy 
to keep the Republicans in the minority. It's just representing the 
American people. They have had their opportunity to do it. They had the 
last 12 years to do it. They can't come here and say, we balanced the 
budget. All they can say is that we have deficits as far as the eye can 
see.
  What did we do? First order of business, Mr. Speaker, not only 
passing a new rules package that cut out a lot of the stuff that went 
on in the 109th Congress, the 108th Congress, the 107th Congress, but 
we also passed the pay-as-you-go rule to make sure that we say we're 
going to spend it, we show how we're going to pay for it.
  I can tell you right now, that is a paradigm shift coming from this 
side of the aisle that we have the only record in Congress in balancing 
the budget. We on this side of the aisle are the only party that can 
say that without one Republican vote that took place. When that happens 
again, Mr. Speaker, as we work through trying to dig out of the ditch 
that the Republican leadership put the American people in, we want to 
do it in a bipartisan way. We don't want history to repeat itself 
without one Republican vote we balanced the budget. We don't want that 
to happen.
  When we deal with Social Security again, we want it to happen just 
like when Tip O'Neill was sitting in that seat, Mr. Speaker, and Ronald 
Reagan was in the White House. They got together in a bipartisan way 
and said, let's save Social Security together. We don't need to run 
around here with a flag that says Democrat and says, we did it and they 
didn't. Let's work together. Let's work together in making that happen. 
That is why it is very, very important, Mr. Speaker, that we work in 
this bipartisan spirit as we move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, as we reflect on the past, I just wanted to come down to 
the floor and make sure that we set the record straight that there are 
a lot of things that happened and did not happen in the 109th and 108th 
Congress. I am only speaking for the Congresses that I have been here 
for. My mother before me served in the five Congresses before that, so 
there was a lot of dining room table talk about what was going on here 
in Congress or what wasn't going on here in Congress. But I can tell 
you as it relates to the Democratic side of the aisle and even the 
Republican side of the aisle, Members voting common sense, Members 
voting on behalf of their constituents back home, I like what I see. 
The American people like what they see. If we didn't like the 
bipartisanship, Mr. Speaker, there would be no reason to come to the 
floor and share ideas and plans with the Republican Members of the 
House because we said, well, we just want all the credit for what's 
happening right now. No, we share that in a bipartisan spirit and we 
stand on the mountain of bipartisanship in this new 110th Congress.
  The Republican leadership is trying not to stand on that mountain of 
bipartisanship. They want to stand on the mountain of us against them. 
Well, this is the U.S. Congress. This is us. It's not us against them. 
That is a debate for somewhere else. But these major, major, major, 
major issues that I outlined here in the last 30 minutes, Mr. Speaker, 
are bipartisan issues that we should be able to join elbow to

[[Page 1160]]

elbow and lock in together and work together on these issues. I look 
forward to dealing with this, working with not only the American people 
on these issues but also Members of Congress on dealing with this issue 
of doing away with this issue of partisanship on major issues.
  I wanted to let my Democratic colleagues and leadership know that we 
are on the right track. We are on the right track and the reason why we 
are here in the U.S. Congress. We are on the right track in working on 
behalf of the American people, all of us. If someone tries to pull you 
away from voting otherwise, against your constituents, you need to 
share with them that you love being a Member of the U.S. Congress, want 
to continue being a Member of the U.S. Congress, because those who 
voted against the will of their constituents are no longer Members of 
Congress. That's something to take into consideration.
  As we have talked about the minimum wage, Mr. Speaker, I am so glad 
to be joined by my colleague who represents the American Samoa islands. 
I want to thank him for being here. We have worked together over the 
last two Congresses. Before that he worked with my mother who was here. 
They are good friends. I am so glad you came down to the floor to join 
me.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank my colleague and dear friend for allowing 
me to intervene in this special order and I really appreciate the 
courtesy extended to me to discuss the issue of H.R. 2 which was 
recently passed by this body yesterday. As you know, one of the 
specific provisions of the bill provides for the application of the 
Federal Labor Standards Act to the Northern Marianas territories. I do 
want to say that in a response to recent comments made by our 
colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), saying to 
the effect that something is fishy about this proposed legislation, I 
would suggest that before he starts spouting off his mouth, perhaps he 
should get the facts first before expressing an opinion to this issue.
  The fact of the matter is the Fair Labor Standards Act does apply to 
American Samoa, my district, since 1938. So this whole idea that 
American Samoa has received a special exemption and the Fair Labor 
Standards Act not being applicable to my district is totally wrong and 
erroneous. The fact of the matter is since 1956, the Congress amended 
the Fair Labor Standards Act requiring at that time most of the 
territories, who are very difficult in terms of economic development 
and in the process the other territories went on their own ways and the 
Federal minimum wage law became applicable, except for my district.
  The fact of the matter is under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the 
U.S. Department of Labor every 2 years would constitute a committee 
composed of those who were members of the labor union, someone 
representing management, someone representing the local government 
officials and for a whole week we would conduct hearings in trying to 
determine what is the economic status of the territory relative to its 
ability to provide what is considered fair and equitable salaries and 
wages for both government workers as well as the private industry 
workers.
  It so happens that rather than being called a banana republic, I am a 
tuna republic because that is our main industry. I happen to have the 
two largest tuna canning facilities in the world. We export almost $500 
million of canned tuna to the United States and provides 5,000 workers 
employment opportunities. I have in my district Starkist Corporation 
that was owned by Heinz Corporation, is now owned by Del Monte, whose 
headquarters are based in San Francisco, and Chicken of the Sea's 
headquarters is based in San Diego.
  The fact of the matter is I wanted to note for my colleagues, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) and also the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), that the reason why this provision is 
to include Northern Marianas is because the Northern Marianas is not 
included in the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  I might also want to note the fact that our colleague, George Miller, 
for years has been very concerned about the garment industry that 
developed out of the Northern Mariana islands. And who were the best 
patrons of the problems that we have in the Northern Marianas? A fellow 
by the name of Jack Abramoff and former Congressman Tom DeLay. And 
every time we talk about sweat shops, the way that expatriates were 
being hired, cheap labor and the real serious problems that we have had 
in the Northern Marianas, the Republican Congress did not take any 
action on the matter.
  The fact of the matter is there is a fellow by the name of Willie Tan 
who was closely associated with Mr. Abramoff. After finding out that he 
had violated how many Federal labor laws, he paid up front $9 million, 
not even questioning whether or not that the investigators that went 
there to find out if there were violations of labor laws, he went and 
he paid off on this.
  What has happened is that the garment industry in the Northern 
Marianas has gone down. And where is Mr. Willie Tan now operating his 
garment factories? In China. I think it would be important for our 
Republican colleagues first to understand, we are not exempted under 
the standards of the Fair Labor Standards Act. I want to make that 
point clear and I really, really appreciate the gentleman allowing me 
to correct these sweeping statements made by our colleagues from the 
other side suggesting that our Speaker has made this special provision 
just to exempt one of her corporate constituency which happens to be 
Del Monte. This is not true. This is absolutely not true.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. There is so much going on right now that is 
working on behalf of the American people. There are some Members of the 
minority party that feel that they need to come to the floor and raise 
objection to that, with the blessings of the Republican leadership. 
Because when you come to the floor, you have to have the okay of the 
leadership of your side of the aisle. I went through earlier this 
afternoon about Republicans joining Democrats in these votes. This 
bipartisan spirit, that is the only way I can figure this out because 
the misinformation that is coming to the floor and that is being given 
out to the American people, Mr. Speaker, you represent the area that 
they are so concerned about and they don't even bother to pick up the 
phone and say, is this true or that true or even doing the research. 
You can look in the law.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Not even the courtesy, to my colleague from 
Florida, to make such statements and to say that the honorable Speaker 
from San Francisco is being hypocritical in saying that one of her 
constituent companies is being let off the hook in this exception for 
American Samoa because we have the presence of Del Monte through the 
Starkist Company that does the packing of canned fish in my district. 
It is right there. I wanted to be very plain and clear on this and 
wanted to note, also, that Mr. George Miller for the last 15 years as 
the senior member of the House Education and Labor Committee has 
brought this to the attention of the Republican Congress how many 
times, to say something is going on that is wrong with the sweat shops 
that were developed out of some of these business people only to take 
advantage of the cheap labor.
  I say that, yes, the beginning salaries of the workers that we have 
there is below Federal minimum wage. But there is a reason for it and 
that is the reason why the Federal Government through an act passed by 
the Congress since 1956, we followed that religiously for the last 2 
years. I have disagreements also at times with the two major corporate 
companies that do business in my district, but that is part of the 
process and I have always advocated that we should get better, higher 
salaries for our workers. But in the process, the point that I wanted 
to make to our colleagues and friends in letting them know is that, 
yes, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Federal law relating to Federal 
labor standards does apply to the territory of American Samoa. However, 
in the Northern Marianas there is nothing.

[[Page 1161]]

  There is a real interesting question. Because the Northern Marianas 
came into this unique political relationship with the United States 
which is called a covenant relationship, there may be some provisions 
in there that are going to be questioned. It is my intention that I am 
going to call Chairman Rahall as well as Mr. Miller. We hope to have an 
oversight hearing on this issue as soon as we can at the earliest 
possibility, maybe sometime next month. We want to find out exactly the 
whole thing.
  But for them to say that there is a double standard that our side of 
the aisle have taken is utterly not true. I want to make that firmly 
established in the Record. I will elaborate on this issue more 
specifically sometime next week when I take a special order, but I do 
want to thank my good friend and colleague from Florida for giving me 
this opportunity to clarify this, I wouldn't call it a misunderstanding 
but a misaccusation, I suppose, is a better word for saying it. But I 
do want to thank my good friend for allowing me to say this.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit some documentation to be made 
part of the Record.


                                               Washington, DC,

                                                 January 10, 2007.

     Faleomavaega Comments on Minimum Wage Bill Now Before Congress

       Congressman Faleomavaega announced today that in response 
     to articles by the Washington Post and inquiries by the 
     Washington Times he is speaking out about the minimum wage 
     bill recently introduced by the House leadership.
       ``Despite recent claims made by the Washington Post which 
     suggest that American Samoa is exempt from the federal 
     minimum wage process, I wish to set the record straight,'' 
     Faleomavaega said.
       ``The Fair Labor Standards Act has applied to American 
     Samoa since 1938. After enactment, Industry Committees were 
     established to phase low-wage industries in to the minimum 
     statutory wage making American Samoa, as well as all other 
     U.S. Territories, exempt from mainland minimums but bound by 
     minimums determined by Special Industry Committees. At the 
     time, Congress believed that application of mainland wages to 
     territorial island industries would `cause serious 
     dislocation in some insular industries and curtail employment 
     opportunities.'
       ``For this reason, since 1956, and in accordance with 
     Sections 5, 6, and 8 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 
     U.S.C. Sections 205, 206, 208), the Wage and Hour Division of 
     the US Department of Labor continues to conduct Special 
     Industry Committees every two years in American Samoa to 
     determine minimum wage increases.
       ``While these Industry Committees have been phased out in 
     other US Territories due to their more diversified economies, 
     American Samoa continues to be a single industry economy. In 
     fact, more than 80 percent of our private sector economy is 
     dependent either directly, or indirectly, on two U.S. tuna 
     processors, Chicken of the Sea and StarKist.
       ``As has been repeatedly stated at our Special Industry 
     Committees, a decrease in production or departure of one or 
     both of the two canneries in American Samoa could devastate 
     the local economy resulting in massive layoffs and 
     insurmountable financial difficulties.
       ``For this very reason, I do not support efforts to apply 
     mainland minimums to American Samoa at this time. The truth 
     is the global tuna industry is so competitive that it is no 
     longer possible for the federal government to demand mainland 
     wages for American Samoa without causing the collapse of our 
     economy and making us welfare wards of the federal 
     government.
       ``However, I continue to believe it is a crying shame that 
     for years StarKist's parent company, Heinz, paid its 
     corporate executives over $30 million per year in salary and 
     stock options and bonuses while workers in American Samoa 
     have not been paid decent wages on scale with our local 
     economy. This is why I have fought year after year for 
     increased wages for our tuna cannery workers and I will 
     continue to make my views known before Special Industry 
     Committees which have been established by federal law.
       ``CNMI should follow suit and support Special Industry 
     Committees which are in place to protect workers from labor 
     rights abuses. Ten years ago, I suggested to CNMI leaders 
     that they should come under the umbrella of federal law and 
     support Special Industry Committees but CNMI failed to take 
     action. In other words, unlike American Samoa, CNMI is 
     operating outside of the scope and intent of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act and this has led to well-documented worker 
     abuse. For this reason, my colleagues have taken a stand and 
     said enough is enough and I support Chairman George Miller's 
     actions.
       ``Finally, I am aware that some may point a finger at 
     American Samoa as a result of labor violations at the 
     Daewoosa garment factory. But, in response, let me say that I 
     personally called for a federal investigation into the 
     reported abuses and the federal government took immediate 
     action. Consequently, the owner of the factory, Kil Soo Lee, 
     was prosecuted in federal court and the factory was 
     subsequently shut down. Since this time, American Samoa has 
     had no further labor violations.
       ``While I understand that for partisan purposes some might 
     like to compare American Samoa and CNMI in terms of the 
     federal minimum wage debate, I conclude by emphatically 
     stating that CNMI and American Samoa are not alike in terms 
     of our political relationships with the United States. CNMI 
     is under a `covenant' relationship and American Samoa is an 
     `unincorporated' and `unorganized' territory. Our situations 
     involving minimum wage are entirely different. American Samoa 
     complies with the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     as determined by Special Industry Committees.
       ``By terms of its covenant, CNMI is exempt from compliance. 
     However, with the minimum wage bill now before Congress, 
     there is some question as to whether or not CNMI should be 
     brought under the purview of federal labor laws.
       ``Whatever Congress decides for CNMI, I am hopeful that 
     Members of Congress will recognize that American Samoa is 
     different and that what Congress has established for our 
     Territory is necessary for economic stability,'' Faleomavaega 
     concluded.

                [From the Saipan Tribune, Jan. 11, 2007]

             Why Is American Samoa Exempted From Wage Hike?

       Washington.--Republican leadership aides are accusing the 
     Democrats of using a double standard by imposing the higher 
     minimum wage on the Northern Mariana Islands--considered a 
     Republican protectorate-while continuing to exempt a 
     Democratic territory, American Samoa.
       Under a Democrat-backed legislation that is now before the 
     House of Representatives, employers on the Northern Mariana 
     Islands would have to pay workers the federal minimum wage. 
     American Samoa and the tuna industry that dominates its 
     economy would, on the other hand, remain free to pay wages 
     less than half the bill's new mandatory minimum.
       Democrats have long tried to pull the Northern Marianas 
     under the umbrella of U.S. labor law, accusing the island's 
     government and its industry leaders of coddling sweatshops 
     and turning a blind eye to forced abortions and indentured 
     servitude.
       Samoa has escaped such notoriety, and its low-wage 
     canneries have a protector of a different political stripe, 
     Democratic delegate Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, whose campaign 
     coffers have been well stocked by the tuna industry that 
     virtually runs his island's economy.
       Faleomavaega has long made it clear he did not believe his 
     island's economy could handle the federal minimum wage, 
     issuing statements of sympathy for a Samoan tuna industry 
     competing with South American and Asian canneries paying 
     workers about 67 cents an hour.
       The message got through to House Education and Labor 
     Committee Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., the author of the 
     minimum wage bill who included the Marianas but not Samoa, 
     according to committee aides. The aides said the Samoan 
     economy does not have the diversity and vibrance to handle 
     the mainland's minimum wage, nor does the island have 
     anything like the labor rights abuses Miller claims of the 
     Marianas.
       The wage bill coming to a vote this Wednesday (Thursday on 
     Saipan) would raise the federal minimum from $5.15 an hour to 
     $7.25 over two years, the first such increase since 1997. The 
     10-year stretch between wage increases is the longest since 
     the mandatory minimum was created, and passage is expected to 
     be overwhelming.
       By including the Northern Marianas, Democrats say they hope 
     to put an end to abusive sweatshops, especially in the 
     garment industry. ``I have been trying to fix the deplorable 
     situation in the Northern Marianas since I first held 
     hearings on the issue in 1992, 15 years ago,'' Miller said. 
     ``But under Republican control, the House never even held a 
     hearing.''
       American Samoa has had a smattering of its own negative 
     publicity, and an Education and Labor Committee aide said 
     Monday that Miller probably will seek a review of the 
     island's labor relations.
       Last month, the U.S. District Court for the District of 
     Hawaii upheld the conviction of a Korean sweatshop owner, who 
     held 17 workers in involuntary servitude in American Samoa, 
     imprisoning them in his garment factory compound.
       But in American Samoa the tuna industry rules the roost. 
     Canneries employ nearly 5,000 workers on the island, or 40 
     percent of the work force, paying on average $3.60 an hour, 
     compared to $7.99 an hour for Samoan government employees. 
     Samoan minimum wage rates are set by federal industry 
     committees, which visit the island every two years.
       Faleomavaega's aides said Monday that the delegate was in 
     American Samoa for the opening session of the island's 
     government and would not comment.

[[Page 1162]]

       When StarKist lobbied in the past to prevent small minimum 
     wage hikes, Faleomavaega denounced the efforts.
       ``StarKist is a billion dollar a year company,'' he said 
     after a 2003 meeting with StarKist and Del Monte executives. 
     ``It is not fair to pay a corporate executive $65 million a 
     year while a cannery worker only makes $3.60 per hour.''
       But after the same meeting, Faleomavaega said he understood 
     that the Samoan canneries were facing severe wage competition 
     from South American and Asian competitors.
       Department of Interior testimony last year before the 
     Senate noted that canneries in Thailand and the Philippines 
     were paying their workers about 67 cents an hour. If the 
     canneries left American Samoa en masse, the impact would be 
     devastating, leaving Samoans wards of the federal welfare 
     state, warned David Cohen, deputy assistant secretary of the 
     interior for insular affairs.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much. I am glad you came to 
the floor to share that. There is nothing like a representative of the 
American people that the Republican minority seems to be so concerned 
about all of a sudden, sharing misinformation, that the representative 
of the people comes to the floor to set the record straight.
  The good thing about it is that we are in the majority right now, Mr. 
Speaker, and knowing that the issue will continue to receive the kind 
of attention it deserves, but making sure that mistruths are ironed out 
here in the Congressional Record, so that when we reflect on the facts, 
as I speak so fondly of, that we are on the right side of those facts.
  I would also like to share with the Members, since we try to provide 
information to the Members, mainly, and hopefully we will get to the 
American people, we want to make sure that Americans stay tuned on 
behalf of the rest of this 100-hour agenda that we are carrying out 
right now, with the Student Loan Relief Act, which is on Wednesday; and 
repealing big oil subsidies, that will be coming up; and also investing 
in renewable fuels, that will be coming up.
  All of this along these lines are going to make us a stronger 
America, a better America. These are issues, or issues that have been 
presented before Congress before, some of them passed on a committee 
level. Even some of them have passed in some amendatory form in a 
bigger package of legislation this House of Representatives, out of 
this House of Representatives. It should not be a surprise or a shock.
  As I mention it here now, well before next week, I am pretty sure we 
will have some Members on the other side of the aisle who will come up 
and say, you know, I was walking down the hall and someone told me we 
were taking tax breaks away from the big oil companies. What happened 
to the hearing?
  Well, I can tell you not only prior to the election, I know for sure 
I said it here on the floor in the last Congress, the 109th Congress, 
in the last Congress. If they did not know, if they did not know that 
this was going to take place, prior to the election, then I suggest you 
pick up a newspaper.
  We notice that some people don't read the newspaper here in 
Washington D.C., but that is another commentary. But I am excited about 
the fact that we are getting some of these issues done.
  We always encourage the Members to log onto www.speaker.gov. You can 
get any information that is coming up, if you want to learn more about 
the 100-hour agenda, but I would say if you want to e-mail the 30-
Something Working Group, www.speaker.gov/30something, and you can send 
us information on things that you are concerned about or questions that 
you may have.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the Democratic leadership 
for allowing me to come down to the floor. The 30-Something Working 
Group will be back on floor next week. We want to not only ask Members 
but also staff and all Americans to celebrate the memory and the legacy 
of Dr. King and his entire family along with Mrs. Coretta Scott King 
for their contributions, not only to this country but to the world.
  As we carry out this day of service that the King Center for the 
Advancement of Nonviolence calls for every year, try to create some 
sort of public service project within your family of something that you 
can do for somebody else, because that is what his philosophy was all 
about.

                          ____________________