Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005

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 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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for his generously yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of this rule reported out of the Rules Committee and of the underlying legislation, which I have been pleased to introduce along with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and more than 150 other Members of the House to address something that is long overdue, and that is modernization of our laws, our Federal laws, dealing with gambling, particularly what is referred to as Internet gambling.

This is a scourge on our society. It causes innumerable problems. Historically, gambling in the United States has been illegal unless regulated by the States. But Internet gambling ignores the laws of the 50 States, which vary each one compared to the next. Some States, like Utah, ban all forms of gambling. Other States, like Nevada next door, legalize a great many forms of gambling. This legislation does not interfere with that, but it addresses the now hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of offshore sites that are sucking billions of dollars. The latest estimate is a $12 billion industry with more than half of that coming out of the United States illegally, unregulated, untaxed.

Many like me who are opposed to gambling are concerned about the family problems. I have one family in my district whose son committed suicide because of debts run up on the Internet

due to gambling. Many are aware recently of the student at Lehigh University who ran up significant gambling debts and then robbed a bank in order to try to pay those off.

Those anecdotal evidences simply help to point out what is a magnifying problem of family problems, bankruptcy problems, problems with minors gambling, problems with addiction to gambling, problems with organized crime's being involved in gambling, all of which goes completely out of the purview of the States, which have jurisdiction over gambling in the United States.

So as a result of that, 48 out of 50 of our State attorneys general and the U.S. Justice Department and many other organizations, all the major sports organizations of the United States, many family organizations, many religious organizations, have come to the Congress asking for this legislation, asking to modernize the Wire Act, asking to take steps, as Congressman Leach has ably done in his legislation coming out of the Financial Services Committee, to enable the Treasury Department, working with law enforcement, working with the financial industry in this country, to see that this flow of money going out to these sites is cut off.

This legislation accomplishes those goals. It is supported by the National Collegiate Athletic Organization that is concerned about the proliferation of sports betting on the Internet and the effect that it is having on their ability to keep these games fair and honest. We have had scandals in the past with regard to betting on sports. And all of the major sports organizations in the country, the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, have joined with the NCAA in supporting this legislation. But other groups, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Advance USA, Eagle Forum, the United Methodists, Southern Baptists, and many, many other religious organizations and family organizations have joined in support of this effort to address this problem. And it is my hope that the House today will pass this legislation.

In the process it is very, very important that the amendment that has been made in order under the rule be defeated because this is, most clearly, a poison pill amendment. This amendment is designed to take away the carefully crafted legislation, the careful negotiations with the States to make it clear that the Congress is not attempting to interfere with the activities of the States that take place completely confined within their borders. This addresses interstate gambling on the Internet, and it addresses offshore gambling on the Internet. And this amendment would take out of the legislation those carefully crafted provisions and would effectively gut the bill and defeat the cooperative effort that the Congress has been engaged in with the States, with the State attorneys general, with the Justice Department, and with others. So I would urge my colleagues to support the legislation and to defeat the amendment.

The legislation clarifies the Wire Act, the 1961 statute that made it a Federal felony for gambling businesses to use wire communication facilities to transmit bets or wagers or related money in interstate or foreign commerce. The Wire Act did not contemplate the Internet or wireless communications devices and is ambiguous as to whether it applies to only sports-related gambling or all forms of gambling. The bill updates the Wire Act to clarify that it covers all types of gambling and all types of communication facilities.

H.R. 4411 also increases the maximum penalty for violations of the Wire Act from 2 to 5 years in prison and explicitly preserves the right of the States to regulate gambling that occurs solely within State borders. And the bill cuts off the flow of money to Internet gambling Web sites by regulating payment systems. The Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve will jointly develop policies and procedures for identifying and preventing financial transactions related to illegal Internet gambling.

Payment systems will be required to comply with these regulations. Even when criminal law cannot be enforced, the Federal Government's jurisdiction over financial systems can nevertheless cut off the money sources for these illegal businesses.

The bill authorizes State and Federal law enforcement to seek injunctions against persons who facilitate illegal Internet gambling, even when the person is not criminally liable; and when deliberating with foreign governments, the U.S. Government is exhorted to advance international cooperation in law enforcement efforts against illegal gambling and related money laundering. The Secretary of the Treasury will report to Congress about these efforts.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect of this legislation that many people are very familiar with, and that is that 6 years ago the predecessor to this legislation was killed on the floor of this House, and subsequently in another Congress in the Judiciary Committee, based upon the misleading representations and the flow of enormous sums of money related to lobbying activities of one Jack Abramoff, who has been widely reported in coverage in the Washington Post and elsewhere regarding the activities that he and others carrying his water, his dirty laundry, engaged in to misrepresent the purposes of this legislation and to defeat it.

Many in this House are very determined that they have the opportunity today to clear the record, to purge the smear on the Congress that was placed on it by these actions; and Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to take full advantage of that opportunity to do today what should have been done back then when this industry was much smaller. It has quadrupled in size since then, and we need to make sure that this legislation passes this House here today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, defeat the amendment and support the rule.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentleman for yielding. I want to be very, very clear about this. This legislation is very, very similar to the legislation that Jack Abramoff helped to defeat. He in no way supports it, number one. Number two, there is no carve-out in this legislation for horse racing or for lotteries.

That has been misrepresented time and time again. That is exactly the device, that is exactly the argument that Jack Abramoff used to defeat this legislation twice before. So to make the argument again I think is entirely wrong; it is entirely misleading. The fact of the matter is that the horse racing industry has a separate statute, the Interstate Horse Racing Act, and this legislation does nothing to enhance that legislation nor to repeal it.

The Justice Department negotiated very carefully the language that preserves their right to proceed against the horse racing industry if they choose to do so, because they maintain that separate statute, the Interstate Horse Racing Act, does not allow them to do what they are doing.

But this legislation does nothing to enable that in any way, shape or form; nor does it do anything to enable State lotteries to engage in Internet gambling operations.

The legislation makes it very clear that for any type of operation to take place, it must be confined within the borders of the State which cannot be done on the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 906 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last night, the Rules Committee granted a structured rule for H.R. 2990, the Credit Agency Duopoly Relief Act of 2006. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule also provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.

The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution. It also 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.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule, making all germane amendments that were offered in the Committee on Rules in order.

The underlying legislation is an important, commonsense approach to providing greater transparency for credit rating agencies. Who can forget the scandals following the bankruptcies of Enron and WorldCom? Even more shocking is the fact that both corporations were given investment grade ratings by credit rating agencies just before their financial collapse. This misrepresentation resulted in the loss of millions of dollars for investors.

The root of the problem lies with the current process of recognizing statistical rating organizations by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The current process stifles competition and fosters an environment that has led to two rating agencies holding 80 percent of the market share.

A level playing field is needed so smaller companies with expertise in specific areas can enter the market. H.R. 2990 clearly lays out the registration requirements for rating agencies replacing the current opaque designation process by the SEC. By injecting the current system with competition and greater transparency, the quality of ratings will be enhanced.

This act will also provide greater investor protection, including provisions requiring rating agencies to be in the business of issuing credit ratings for at least 3 years prior to filing an application for registration as a nationally recognized statistical ratings organization, ensuring better quality assessments for investors.

Mr. Speaker, the economy is booming due in part to greater participation by investors in the various markets. Greater transparency, accountability and competition among credit ratings agencies will provide investors with better information and encourage future investment. The underlying legislation is a step in the right direction towards ensuring this success.

Finally, this legislation will improve the quality of information provided to investors. It is no secret that a little competition improves quality and expands services offered. Armed with more reliable and accurate credit ratings, investors will continue to drive the economy and foster a more innovative environment.

I would like to remind all Members that the rule makes in order all germane amendments presented to the Committee on Rules.

I urge all Members to support this fair rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the sponsor of the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that the vote that we

are discussing is the rule on the duopoly bill, which will increase the number of credit rating agencies so that we can have more transparency, more accountability, so that not only investors will be protected, but also those folks who work for those businesses who have 401(k)s who have their savings invested in the company that they work for.

This will provide for them better protections, better transparency, and better accountability.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather ironic that the bill before us today is a bill that I think would help go a long way towards bringing more transparency and accountability to credit rating agencies. They agree with the principles behind the bill, which would avert and help the working people of America to make not only better investment decisions, but to know that the company that they are working for and entrusting their savings with is going to have a fair and balanced look at their books.

We have no disagreement in terms of the rule. We have two different approaches to this, and I think we would really be well served to keep the debate looking towards how we can best protect those working people under the realm of the bill that we are discussing today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 4 minutes to Mr. Baker of Louisiana, a champion of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude my remarks by reminding my colleagues that defeating the previous question is nothing more than an exercise because the minority wants to offer an amendment that would otherwise be ruled out of order as nongermane. So the vote is without substance.

The previous question vote itself is a procedural motion to close debate on this rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The vote has no substantive policy implications whatsoever.

At this point in the Record, Mr. Speaker, I insert an explanation of the previous question.

The Previous Question Vote: What Does It Mean?

House Rule XIX (``Previous Question'') provides in part

that:

There shall be a motion for the previous question, which,

being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off all

debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the

immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered.

In the case of a special rule or order of business

resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing

for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the

previous question is moved following the one hour of debate

allowed for under House Rules.

The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural

vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting

the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and

amendment on the legislation it would make in order.

Therefore, the previous question has no substantive

legislative or policy implications whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the underlying legislation is an important step towards improving transparency in the credit rating industry and the quality of information provided by the agencies. The industries receiving credit ratings are wide-ranging, from information technology, healthcare, manufacturing, financial services, and the list goes on.

I would also like to remind my colleagues that many, many workers in America and investors in America are heavily reliant on the full health of the companies that they work for and invest in, all up and down the economic ladder. Allowing smaller industry specific credit rating agencies to enter the market will improve the information provided to investors.

We cannot forget those workers of Enron and WorldCom who were saving for colleges, saving for retirement, and basically left penniless. With the ever-increasing importance placed on these ratings by investors, it is important that clear requirements for registration of credit rating agencies be created, and this legislation is a giant step towards that goal.

I would like to remind my colleagues that this fair rule makes in order all germane amendments that were presented to the Committee on Rules.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and all four of the underlying pieces of legislation that it encompasses. For those who did not hear me the first time, I said four pieces of legislation under one closed rule.

This is a quadruple coupon day in the House of Representatives, Mr. Speaker. Four opportunities to shut off democracy for the price of one. What is perhaps most offensive about the rule is the fact that not one amendment was made in order for any of the four bills. Let me repeat that: Not one amendment was made in order for any of the four underlying bills.

Closed rules are an affront to our democracy. We should stop it now. My outrage and the outrage of all on this side of the aisle is as much about process as it is about policy. Pure partisan politics never produces sound public policy. And patronizing corporate interests to pad one's campaign coffers has no place in the people's House. Yet, that is all the majority seems interested in doing.

The political score Republicans are seeking to settle with their barrage of anti-working-class legislation is not going to be fulfilled by stifling debate and blocking Democrats out of the process. Republicans are calling this the OSHA fairness package. Fair for who? There are only losers with these bills, Mr. Speaker, and the biggest victim is the American worker. All four of the underlying pieces of legislation represent a buffet of rollbacks in our laws governing working conditions.

Mr. Speaker, do we have an overwhelming epidemic in this country of ridiculous and overzealous workplace lawsuits that I do not know about? The judicial process for violations and workplace health and safety standards has been in place for nearly 30 years. It is fair, and most importantly, it protects the rights of workers. Yet, two of the underlying bills affecting OSHA standards are coming as a direct result of recent court rulings that Republicans and their corporate friends do not agree with. The other two are aimed at stacking the OSHA commission with anti-worker commissioners and creating a system where only those who can afford legal representation will be permitted to file a complaint with the Workplace Safety and Health Board.

Mr. Speaker, I do not like the new policy of this Congress which can best be described as ``when the courts rule against you, legislate against the courts.''

Why are we stifling Members from offering thoughtful amendments? Just one example, if I may. The ranking Democrat on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), a man who served in this body for 30 years and is known throughout the country as a champion for working- class Americans, Republicans denied him the opportunity to offer a substitute to one of the underlying bills that came out of his committee.

Had the majority made the Miller substitute in order, the House could have done something today that would have actually benefited working- class Americans. We could have had a real debate about increasing the minimum wage to a meager $7.25 an hour.

Realize, this is an amount that while above the current level of $5.15 is significantly below the much needed living wage that is needed to pull someone making the minimum wage 40 hours a week above the poverty line. In blocking the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) from offering his amendment, Republicans are again proving that they are anything but the people's party. Perhaps the majority is blocking what it knows it cannot defeat, or better yet, perhaps the majority is just protecting its members from taking a vote that will show their true colors. Shame on them and shame on this body if it allows this assault on American workers to continue. None of us in this body would want to live on $5.15 an hour. None of us would want to work three jobs just to make ends meet. None of us would want to work three jobs and still have no health care. Yet, that is what we are asking, no, requiring millions of our fellow citizens to do.

When the opportunity to increase the minimum wage presents itself, Republicans blocked House Members from voting on it. At least in the other body, while the leadership opposed an increase in the minimum wage, they at least permitted a vote. Protecting the rights of those most in need is the cornerstone of our great democracy. I refuse to remain silent while those on the other side of the aisle seek to dismiss this cardinal American value.

I urge my colleagues to reject the closed rule and oppose the underlying pieces of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), a champion of worker rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens).

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

Mr. Speaker, I kind of question whether a closed rule is fair, but I hear the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

First, I heard several times that the matter of the minimum wage is not germane to the four measures included in this one rule. The simple fact of the matter is that an amendment was offered at the Committee on Rules last night and that amendment was voted down on a party-line vote. So at least a discussion during the period of the rule allows the germaneness of the question having to do with the minimum wage, not so much of the substance of the base bill.

I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question, Mr. Speaker, so I can amend the rule and allow the House to vote on the Miller-Owens bill to increase the Federal minimum wage. This amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules, as I just said, last night, but was defeated on a straight party-line vote.

My amendment to the rule would provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring H.R. 2429 to the House floor for an up-or-down vote. This bill will gradually increase the minimum wage for Americans from the current level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour after about 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, it is time we in the House started helping American workers instead of taking away their rights as the four underlying bills in this rule do. I think one of the best things we can do to help working families is to increase the minimum wage. It has been nearly 10 years since this Congress has voted to increase the minimum wage, an increase that was signed into law by President Clinton in August of 1996. Since that time, the value of that increase has eroded by 20 percent. A full-time minimum wage earner is working 40 hours a week, makes about $10,700 annually, an amount that is $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three.

Clearly we are way overdue for another increase. Somehow we have had time to implement numerous tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, but we have turned our backs on those who work the hardest and are paid the least, those who struggle to make ends meet every day.

I think it is time this Congress developed a conscience and started helping those who need help the most.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can help these 7.5 million American workers who directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia for yielding me the time.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the issue we are debating today may not be glamorous, but I want to emphasize for our constituents its importance. H.R. 2990 will significantly affect the guidance investors receive on the soundness of all kinds of investments.

The type of debt rating that a company or municipality receives is an essential guidepost for investors, and the degree to which that rating is accurate has far reaching consequences. So by reforming the way that firms receive the stamp of legitimacy to offer these ratings, Congress is making a significant change.

As we have seen during the past few years, financial investments can have a huge impact on our constituents. Just ask anyone who held stock in Enron or WorldCom. This is about protecting investors, whether you manage your own portfolio or you rely on a pension for your retirement.

So we need to tread carefully as we consider how we determine which firms should be deemed nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations. Established in the 1970s, only credit agencies that receive this designation have the legitimacy to assess the likelihood of a company or a municipality to default on its debt. In other words, they tell investors whether they are likely to get paid back.

Today, there are only five firms that are nationally recognized by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The purpose of H.R. 2990 is to add to that number, increasing competition in the credit ratings market. This is a worthy goal. I know the Financial Services Committee has been exploring the best way to achieve it. Unfortunately, in its pursuit of quantity, this bill will sacrifice quality. This is a risky proposal that I do not believe the House should accept.

H.R. 2990 would allow virtually any firm to be considered a nationally recognized credit rating agency. The SEC would no longer be able to ensure that such firms are producing reliable and credible ratings. Under this new voluntary regime, any ratings agency that has been around for 3 years and discloses its performance data can become nationally recognized. That is a pretty low bar.

I know the majority will argue that H.R. 2990 would allow market forces to sift the good credit rating agencies from the bad. While Democrats do not object to letting the market play a role in ensuring quality, why not let the experts at the SEC also evaluate the quality of the ratings firms? Congress needs to strike a balance between quantity and quality, but this bill falls short of that goal.

Under this bill anyone can open up shop and 3 years later be nationally recognized. That means we may be allowing firms that will offer an investment grade rating to anyone willing to pay, regardless of whether that rating is based on sound facts. As long as a rating firm continues to provide certain disclosures, it will still be nationally recognized, even if it issues credit ratings of the lowest possible quality.

Additionally, this bill could lead to a series of unintended consequences. Federal, State and local agencies, as well as many private sector entities, rely on the current definition of a nationally recognized credit rating agency. By undermining the credibility of this established benchmark, this bill could impose a significant burden on all of these groups, possibly increasing risks and imposing new costs for a wide swath of Americans.

Certainly, the House can increase competition in a more responsible way. Representative Kanjorski, the ranking member on the Capital Markets Subcommittee, with the support of Ranking Member Frank, has offered a logical substitute. It will ensure quality while moving to increase competition in the credit ratings market. I am pleased that the rule will allow a vote on this commonsense proposal.

The Kanjorski substitute would direct the SEC to expeditiously complete rulemaking on nationally recognized statistical ratings organizations. In doing so, the SEC would, for the first time, publicly define what constitutes a nationally recognized credit rating agency. It would also direct the SEC to design a process to identify new nationally recognized credit rating agencies. These steps would bring an unprecedented level of transparency and scrutiny to the selection process. The result will increase competition in the credit ratings market without the negative consequences associated with H.R. 2990.

The Kanjorski substitute will also encourage the establishment of a voluntary framework for industry self-regulation. This will further protect investors from conflicts of interest and other abusive practices.

To ensure that all of these reforms are effective, the Kanjorski amendment will require annual hearings on this topic for the next 5 years.

So Members have two options today. Both will increase competition in the

credit ratings market. However, only the Kanjorski substitute will ensure that investors continue to receive credible and reliable credit ratings from nationally recognized agencies.

I urge my colleagues to support this wise approach.

Mr. Speaker, another responsible policy that Members will have an opportunity to support today is an increase in the minimum wage. Just as the credit rating bill seeks to safeguard average Americans in the long term, so should Congress protect their immediate financial needs by increasing the minimum wage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski).

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

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, my friend, Mr. Obey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. And since the gentlewoman has no further speakers, I will go to closing.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule and provide this House with an opportunity to vote on legislation to increase the Federal minimum wage, something that has not happened in almost 10 years.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment to the rule provides that immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring H.R. 2429 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.

This bill has 136 cosponsors and a discharge petition to bring to the House, the bill to the floor, and has the signatures of 190 Members of the House. This bill is also identical to language as included in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that was blocked by the leadership just last month.

Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that this Congress has refused to help America's low-income workers and their families by increasing the minimum wage. Somehow there is always time for another tax break for multimillionaires who don't need the money, but nothing to ease the financial struggle that low-income families face each day.

The minimum wage is now at its lowest level in 50 years. A full-time, minimum-wage earner earns just $10,700 a year, an amount that is $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. It takes a full day's pay just to pay for a tank of gas.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can help millions and millions of American workers who would directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time opposing this rule.

I would like to express my disappointment that the Committee on Rules refused to allow a vote on an amendment that has bipartisan support, an amendment that would require to list contract workers on their injury site log.

This was not a major expense or an inconvenience for employers, yet the Committee on Rules defeated it on a party-line vote.

The bills that are up today are not major legislation. They may correct individual problems, and each of them need to be debated, and they should be. But not to allow other needed OSHA reforms is a travesty of this House because of the situation I am getting ready to talk about. Our amendment was defeated on a party-line vote, even though we have bipartisan support on the original legislation that was introduced in March of this year.

Mr. Speaker, 15 people lost their lives during an explosion and fire at a refinery in Texas City. This is a picture of the site, and I include for the Record a copy of the Baytown Sun article on the

deadly accident. This picture shows the site in Texas City.

The bills that are allowed under this rule will do nothing to help the 15 people killed in this accident. Nothing. That is what the travesty is on this floor today.

A series of news articles quickly discovered that it is extremely difficult to assess the safety of such facilities due to the way employers are required to keep their site logs of injuries on the work site. While all deaths and injuries are reported to OSHA, only those involving direct employees of the site-controlling company are required to be maintained on the site incident log. This means that the incidents involving contract workers or part-time workers do not show up on the injury log employers are required to keep by law. Unfortunately, because current law does not require them to do so, the site log will look just the same as it did the day before March 23. It will show no lives were lost.

Those 15 workers who died on this site were contract workers, and they should be reported. Residents and communities surrounding these facilities have a right to know if they live near a place that could endanger them if something were to go wrong. If we had full disclosure of these incidents, the free market system may be able to work. Workers are less willing to work in hazardous environments, so facilities would have incentives to improve safety. Right now, it is nearly impossible to determine exactly how many accidents have occurred at a particular site without cross-referencing contracts between employers and contractors.

OSHA has known these reporting requirements were a problem for 14 years, and yet here we are today dealing with three pieces of legislation that deal with nothing to do with contract workers.

In 1989, one of the most serious plant explosions in our country occurred at a plant in Pasadena, Texas, and I am honored to represent that area. This accident killed 23 workers and injured 232 others. As a result, OSHA called for a study regarding the use of contract labor in the petrochemical industry. This study was conducted while the first George Bush was President, and this study found there was a lack of adequate injury and incident data. It states that current data reporting procedures do not capture the full range of injury or illnesses experienced in the industry because the injury statistics do not include the experience of contract workers.

This amendment does not require an industry to do anything more than record injuries and accidents on their site log regardless of whether they are their employee or someone working on their site. I am not here to bash employers or OSHA. The bottom line is that neighbors and employees have the right to know. These bills that we are considering today may very well weaken job safety, but I do not think they are that major. We should be working on a bipartisan basis to solve problems and prevent deaths and injuries like what happened on March 23, 2005, in Texas City, Texas. That is why these three bills are woefully inadequate to deal with the problems that we have with on-site job injuries right now.

[From the Baytown Sun, June 29, 2005]

Alarms, Instrumentation Failed in BP Refinery Blast

(By Pam Easton)

Nassau Bay.--Key pieces of instrumentation and alarms at

BP's Texas City refinery weren't working properly in March

when explosions rocked the plant, killing 15 and injuring

more than 170, federal investigators said Tuesday.

Don Holmstrom, lead investigator with U.S. Chemical Safety

and Hazard Investigation Board, said an alarm within the

isomerization unit--where the explosion occurred--didn't work

properly until after the explosions had begun.

Holmstrom also said a sensor in a section of the raffinate

splitter, which separates chemicals for gasoline production,

indicated the liquid level in the tower was decreasing when

it was instead flooding. Another alarm that should have

sounded when the liquid exceeded 10 feet high didn't

activate, ``even as the liquid flooded more than 12 times

that height,'' Holmstrom said.

Among the 15 people killed in the March 23 explosion, seven

were from Baytown or surrounding communities.

They were: Jimmy Hunnings, 58, of Baytown; Morris Raymond

``Monk'' King, 57 of Baytown; Susan Duhan Taylor, 33, of

Baytown; Ralph Herrera Jr. 27, of Baytown; Larry Linsenbardt,

58 of Mont Belvieu; Ryan Rodriguez, 28, of Dayton; and Lorena

``Lori'' Cruz, 32 of La Porte.

BP spokesman Ronnie Chappell said the federal safety

board's findings are similar to the company's own

investigation completed in May.

The company blamed staff errors for the March 23 explosion

and fire. Among the procedural lapses company executives

cited were a lack of supervision and a six-minute window in

which unit supervisors could have sounded an alarm to

evacuate the area, but didn't.

``If personnel responsible for the safe startup of the isom

unit had followed procedures, the fire and explosion would

not have occurred,'' Chappell said Tuesday.

An alarm notified operators of a liquid level that was too

high in the raffinate splitter at 3:05 a.m. on March 23,

company records show. An operator silenced the alarm, but an

illuminated warning remained on screens and the alarm

remained in effect until 1:20 p.m., the time of the blast,

Holmstrom said.

Meanwhile, liquid-level indicators drifted down from 100

percent to 79 percent beginning at 7:30 a.m., and

``erroneously indicated to operators that the liquid level in

the tower was below 10 feet and was falling back toward a

normal value.''

However, the 164-foot tower was instead flooded with liquid

that reached 120 feet or more, Holmstrom said. A normal level

is below 10 feet.

When the excess liquid and vapor was discharged, it

overwhelmed one of the unit's systems, causing the vapor and

liquid to be released and ignited by a still-unknown source.

Holmstrom said federal investigators will spend the next

four to six weeks testing at least 30 instruments and other

equipment in the isomerization unit, which boosts the octane

level in gasoline. Federal investigators have also asked BP

for equipment maintenance records. Chappell said BP was

cooperating.

Holmstrom said it is ``unprecedented'' for his

investigators to spend so much time looking into equipment,

instrumentation and their possible failures.

``Our objective is to understand why this tragedy occurred,

and, we hope, to prevent similar occurrences in the future,''

he said.

The board will hold a public meeting to discuss complete

findings of the federal probe this fall, Holmstrom added.

Chappell said BP and federal investigators have the same

goal.

``We want to ascertain exactly what occurred and take

action to prevent something like this from ever happening

again,'' he said.

The blast was the plant's third accident in a year,

following a March 2004 explosion that caused an evacuation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I just want to join him in his remarks that this really is not about this rule, but this is the only place where we can protest the priorities of this Congress when there are millions of American workers who work at the minimum wage, who are unable to provide for their families the basic necessities of their families. And Congress fails to address that issue and fails to address it especially when it is so clear the voids in the congressional schedule, where there are these huge gaps of time where it would be available to debate the minimum wage, hold hearings on the minimum wage, and report out a bill for consideration by the Members of Congress. And yet that is not being done.

It is not being done basically because the Republican leadership has committed itself to its supporters and the business community that it will not allow a minimum wage vote to come before the House of Representatives, even though it is clear that there is probably enough support to pass this legislation to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour over the next couple of years.

By doing that, we dramatically change the lives of those individuals who today work at $5.15 an hour. We dramatically change the lives of the 1.6 million workers who are parents of children under the age of 18 who earn the minimum wage. All together those parents are working to raise more than 3 million children, and yet with the minimum wage stuck at $5.15 an hour, they are unable to provide the necessities for their family, for those children.

Mind you, these families are stuck at a wage of 1997. The Members of this House cannot think of anything else that is stuck at 1997. The price of bread is not struck in 1997 prices. The price of gasoline is not at 1997 prices. The price of health care is not at 1997 prices. But for these people who work every day and work at very difficult jobs, jobs most other people might not take, certainly will not take at this wage, they end up at the end of the year poor.

At the end of this congressional year, this Congress will not be able to find the time to address this urgent economic need.

We have supporters for increasing the minimum wage, a company I don't generally agree with, but Wal-Mart, who says essentially, even at their stores where they advertise everyday low prices, that the people who shop in the stores at minimum wage are not making enough money to buy the basic necessities that are offered. There is not enough money in the communities to provide for the success of those stores.

This is about whether or not we are going to create an underclass in America, an underclass probably we already have because these people are stuck in 1997 wages. But now that you know it, what is the morality of ignoring them? What is the morality of making a conscious decision that you are going to go out of session today at 2 o'clock as opposed to staying a couple of hours longer and dealing with the minimum wage? What is the morality that you are going to end this session of Congress where I think we have maybe 30 days left before adjournment without addressing the minimum wage?

What is it you are saying to these people about the worth that they are worth, about their lives, about their desire to take care of their children, to provide the necessities, to provide the wherewithal for the education and the health and the nutrition of their children?

Try doing it on $5.15 an hour. It won't buy you 2 gallons of gas today, so I hope you don't have to commute very far. It certainly won't help with health care payments because you have to pay the rent, and today we see rent is going up as housing markets go up.

So we leave these people stranded. And you want to talk about values, you want to talk about families, you want to talk about children, you want to talk about community, and you a creating an underclass that is so desperate, and yet these people make the decision to go to work every day. Explain the morality of that.

No, you are going to spend your morality on Internet gaming. We are going to say to people, if you bet on a horse, you are legal; if you bet on a dog, you are not. If you bet in one State, you are legal; not if in another. If you want to play Texas Hold `Em, you are legal in some States, but not in other States.

No, let's talk about the morality of a family that is struggling every day to hold itself together at a time of increasing utility costs, increasing food costs, increasing transportation costs, increasing energy costs; and this Congress, under Republican leadership, simply will not make time to discuss this issue, to vote on this issue. We are not finding the time under this leadership to vote on this issue.

That is why we are going to ask for a vote on the previous question to suggest to you that there is another way to run this Congress, to run it for the benefit of these desperate Americans who are working hard every day, but not getting compensated in today's pay.

Imagine. You didn't think it was sufficient that you all get compensated here at 1997 wages, so we have continued to provide a COLA. I think it is justified, but the fact of the matter is, for millions of Americans, you have made a conscious decision while we get a COLA, we are going to trap them in 1997 wages.

I thank the gentleman, I thank him for his leadership, for allowing his cooperation on allowing this opportunity to have this vote and again to try to express to this Congress, because now we are lobbying the Congress on behalf of the people that are not politically engaged, are not politically active. They are working too hard; they are working too hard at work, and they are working too hard the rest of the day trying to figure out how they hold their families together.

And what do they get from the Republican Congress? They get the back of their hand. They get the back of their hand. These people's workday does not end at 5 o'clock. They spend the rest of the time trying to figure out how they are going to juggle transportation costs, food costs, health care, education, how they are going to do that for those 3 million children. And we sit by and we end the workday at 2 o'clock? At 2 o'clock, they are just getting started. We end the work day at 5 o'clock; they are driving home and figuring out whether or not they can go by the supermarket. Or we are not going to work on Fridays. They go to work on Fridays. They go to work all day on Fridays. We are going to work at 6 o'clock on Monday night. They went to work at 6 o'clock Monday morning.

Do you start to get the sense of the inequities that are taking place here that are within your power to change?

Let me tell you, you say, oh, you are going to kill jobs. There is no evidence that that is the case. In fact, those States that have increased the minimum wage apparently are doing a little better economically and having more job creation than those States that did not. But let me tell you, if you have a business plan that is dependent upon paying people 1997 wages, there may be something wrong with your business plan.

I do not think we should become co-conspirators in creating this underclass, and we should not be able to look the other way as we live a life that is completely out of touch with the struggle of these people, with our neighbors, with people living in our community. They struggle on the job and off the job because it never ends for them trying to make ends meet. And we stroll in here on a Tuesday morning, we stroll out of here on a Thursday night. We stroll out of here for the month of August and we stroll out of here in November and we can't find time? We can't find time to address this issue?

We are not asking you to raise the wages from today. We are asking you to raise the wages from 1997.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

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.

So rather than addressing the concerns of the American people, we are making here an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States, which, thank God, will fail. Court-stripping. Court-stripping.

Fundamental to our democracy is the separation of powers, a system of checks and balances, but this Republican Congress says that Congress should strip the courts of the power to be a check and a balance to the other branches of government.

They have said in their meetings that Marbury v. Madison, which established precedent of judicial review, was wrongly decided. Over 200 years of precedent on judicial review they say was wrongly decided, and therefore, they can strip the courts of the ability to review the constitutionality of an act of Congress. That means by a simple majority, and if the other body were willing and the President were to sign, by a simple majority they can amend the Constitution with bills that are not constitutional but have no court to judge that constitutionality.

It is absolutely wrong, and Justice O'Connor said recently on this subject that this was brought up at the time of desegregation. They tried to use it then. Thank God, thank God, thank you, God, they failed. Thank God they failed.

What we should be talking about today is what is important, the issues that are important to America's middle class. Again, when people ask me what are the three most important issues facing the Congress I say the same thing: our children, our children, our children; their health, their education, the economic security of their families, which includes the pension security of their grandparents, the healthy environment and safety of the neighborhoods in which they live, a world at peace in which they can thrive.

But turn on the television and tune in to C-SPAN and see what is going on in Congress, and what do you see? The politics of divide and distract. It is really sad, as Mr. Kennedy said. It would be almost a joke but it is just really not that funny.

So let us instead vote, when we have a chance to vote on this rule, against the previous question; and that vote will be a vote to increase the minimum wage. That is relevant to the lives of the American people. In fact, it is relevant to the lives of millions of American people, many of them single moms. Many of them single moms.

Right now, minimum wage is $5.15 an hour. If you work full time at the minimum wage you make about $10,000. If you are two wage earners in a family and you both work full time and make the minimum wage, you make $20,000. You are below the poverty line for a family of four. Imagine two wage earners working full time. Is that fair? Is that just? I do not think so.

This Congress had no hesitation to give itself a raise over the past 9 years, $30,000 in raises. That $30,000 would take a minimum wage worker 3 years to earn just the increase in salaries that Congress gave itself. So there is no justice in what we are talking about here.

I quoted another debate on this subject, the recent encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI. This is a quote from Cardinal McCarrick, quoting the Pope quoting a saint. In his encyclical, ``God is Love,'' Pope Benedict talks about the responsibilities of politicians, people in government, and he quotes Saint Augustine who said that unless politicians, people who are in the public domain, are there to promote justice, they are just a bunch of thieves. Saint Augustine said, unless politicians were there in office to promote justice, they were just a gang of thieves. The Pope quoted Saint Augustine and the cardinal quoted the Pope in his farewell address to us.

It is true, it is true, how can we be talking about justice, how can we be talking about our Constitution, how can we be talking about under God if we do not even meet the simple test of fairness to America's middle class, which is central to our democracy? How can we be talking about that here when people are suffering in our country? They do not know how they are going to pay for their health bills, and millions of them do not have health insurance. In fact, 6 million more people in America do not have health insurance since President Bush became President, a 70 percent increase in the cost of health insurance since President Bush and this Republican Congress went to work on the American people.

So the injustices are there. The opportunity is here, and it is being ignored because the priority of the Republicans in Congress is to distract and divide the country. It is time for the politics as usual to end. It is time for this House to be the marketplace of ideas that our Founders intended, where we come to do the work of the American people, where they tell us to make laws to grow our economy, to make our country strong militarily, and then the health and well-being of the American people, make our country strong in the unity and the reputation that we have in the world.

Instead, we have this freak show one day after another of a rollout of distractions and divisions that is unworthy of this House, unworthy of the American people and certainly does not honor the vision of our Founding Fathers, the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform or the aspirations of our children.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and that vote will be a vote to increase the minimum wage, which is, again, $5.15 an hour. It has not been increased in 9 years. While the price of gas, food, health care and everything else has gone up, the purchasing power has gone down.

Let us not be a bunch of thieves. Let us be a deliberative body that is here to promote justice. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote ``no'' on this court-stripping bill which dishonors the oath of office that we all take.