Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

In the current form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit would reinforce existing Federal law by making it clear that none of the funds authorized in this act would be used for lobbying or to retain lobbyists in order to attempt to influence Federal, State or local governments or officials within said governments.

This motion to recommit is an insurance policy that guarantees this bill won't be a kickback to K Street. This majority was elected on ending the K Street Project. In House Resolution 6, section 202, they changed rule XXIII to ensure that the K Street Project is ended.

If those words on opening day are to become a reality, I encourage the majority to support this motion to recommit that ensures that a K Street-type project would not be further propagated in this legislation.

There is a simple principle here; put plainly, I am asking the Members of the House to follow their own rules set up on opening day. From time to time, it is important to challenge Congress's words by calling them to action. And if this new majority is to live by the words they set up by opening day, then they should support this motion to recommit.

I would like to yield to my colleague from Georgia, Congressman Price.

Reclaiming my time, I would like to in particular talk to my 13 colleagues on the Democrat side, Mr. Speaker, and they realize that a motion to recommit is not a procedural motion; it is actually policy. And when those 13 Democrats voted for the recommit on the card check legislation, they said clearly they understand the underlying policy in a motion to recommit.

We are talking policy here today, Mr. Speaker. In this House, if the Democrat majority was truly elected and is committed to severing the link between legislation and lobbyists, they will vote for this motion to recommit. This motion to recommit is a gut check for Congress, especially the new Members of this body who have not been here before this last election cycle. It is gut check time for them, for them to explain to their constituents that they like the idea of limiting lobbyists' influence, and whether or not they are willing to fulfill that vote here on the House floor today.

This truly is an insurance policy that guarantees this bill won't simply be a kickback to K Street by this new majority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, national security should be the highest priority of the U.S. Congress. I talk to my constituents in western North Carolina a lot about the situation in Iraq. We understand the challenges. I think the American people understand the challenges of this war. But we also know the consequences of quitting are too dire and too dangerous.

We know that leaving an unstable Iraq endangers Israel, other Western democracies, as well as our own national interests and our constituents here in the United States.

The President put forward a plan that he and his generals believe will lead to a safe, secure, and stabilized Iraq. Let me repeat that: he put forward a plan, a plan of action and a plan for success.

The Democrats, in response, put forward a nonbinding resolution. Now, this is Washington-speak for legislation that does not have the force of law. Now, the disturbing thing is not that it is a nonbinding resolution; but the message that this legislative tool sends, it sends not only to our American people, not only to the troops in the field, but our allies around the world, and it also emboldens our enemies.

This resolution says that this time the Democrats are not prepared to offer a new direction, a plan or a solution for the challenges we face in Iraq. I offer this bit of wisdom to the Democrats: you must be the change you want to see.

If the Democrats are serious about developing a new plan, then the right thing to do is submit it. That is a true test of leadership, to submit solutions, solutions; and in order to effect change, you have to put forward ideas for that change.

I ask the American people to imagine what it would be like if their Representatives used this time to hammer out ideas and positive solutions. That is the American ingenuity that we should focus on as a Congress. This is the American way.

The Democrats say this debate is to send a message to the President. Well, I will tell you, I think he has heard you loud and clear.

But let me give you a message from the battlefield from a friend of mine in Iraq. He says the argument over what got us to this point is a diversion. The problem set is the present. The terrorists and would-be terrorists that have flowed into Iraq will not stand at the border and wave us good-bye and good luck. They understand our politics, our systems, and our weaknesses.

They believe that it is a war of endurance, and that we have shown historically and repeatedly that we don't have the national will for prolonged engagement.

Unfortunately the political grandstanding has endorsed their belief and ensures the terrorists' continued bloody engagement until November 2008.

The bottom line, we need reinforcements to set the conditions for success, and we need political support for the endurance to continue this fight. That is from my friend in the battlefield.

And I say to my colleagues, the American people need better than this. We need a plan of action for results and success in Iraq.

And I say, ``Madam Speaker, you have made your points. Now where is your plan?''

After months of campaigning against ``Stay the Course,'' the Democrats are proposing just that, a stay-the-course resolution here on the House floor. Their Iraq resolution does not have the force of law, and in fact, this nonbinding resolution is simply a mealy-mouth attempt to appease their Democrat leftist base.

Democrats have held 52 hearings on Iraq since taking control of Congress. So let me get this right. The Democrats have held 52 hearings so they can show one resolution on the House floor that has no bearing on the President's policy, does not have the force of law, does not advocate the withdrawal of troops, and does nothing except have a tantrum here on the House floor. So please explain this new direction, Madam Speaker. This is not a new direction, it is political posturing of the worst kind.

Madam Speaker, where is your plan? Where is your plan for victory in Iraq? Where is your plan for success and national security?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, our Speaker loves to fly and it shows. Today, we are debating a key provision in this important bill before us, the first open rule of the 110th Congress. We are glad that the majority could get around to it in the second month we are here.

But today it is important that we discuss a revolution in biofuels, an idea that we can look at ways to relieve the burden of global warming.

We know the Democratic majority is very focused on researching this idea of global warming, the idea that fossil fuels are warming the Earth and that the burning of fossil fuels are warming the Earth.

It is ironic that the highest officer of this body seeks a large jet to fly across country that could seat 42 people, perhaps some of the Speaker's friends and allies and supporters, some here in this body, some, oh, perhaps downtown, large contributors, I am not sure, although that has been denied by the Speaker in the request for those people to fly along, this plane, that are contributors and campaign supporters.

But let us talk today about a few important provisions. After the Speaker made a promise to the American people that they would be the most ethical Congress ever and after including the ban on the use of corporate jets in her lobbying reform bill, Speaker Pelosi asked for carte blanche access to one of the most extravagant and luxurious airliners in the military arsenal. It seats 42 people and has an office. It has a bedroom. Plenty of her cronies could fly along.

But the Speaker decided she, her family, her friends, her staff, her Democratic friends from California deserved to fly in style. This is not a matter of security, Mr. Chairman. It is a matter of, well, whatever is convenient for the Speaker as an individual.

But this is a bullet point to a larger value for this Democrat majority. It is about the Democrats' abuse of power since they have taken office just a short month ago, and it began when this Speaker denied minority rights to Republicans and continued with Tunagate which the Speaker, throwing a sop to her home constituents headquartered in her district, allowed American Samoa to be exempt from the minimum wage bill. Now they are seeking a matter of personal convenience and luxury.

Well, I believe the Speaker deserves security, not luxury; security, not convenience. As the New York Post reported today, the conventional view is that emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, are a major factor in global warming, and the jet Pelosi is demanding produces more than 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per hour, far more than the commuter plane the previous Speaker used.

If the Speaker is so concerned about global warming, maybe the Speaker should consider the same mode of transportation her colleagues took to the retreat this past weekend. They took a train.

It is very important that this House debate this important provision that the Speaker's request from the American military, and I think it is important that we discuss in terms of our research that we are trying to put forward on new fuels, new forms of transportation, new modes of powering our economy, and in terms of the global warming debate that is a large issue the American people are concerned about.

Let us talk about this luxury airliner and let us see what my Democrat colleagues say about the Speaker using it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would invite the Speaker of the House down to this floor to answer these important questions. I think this would be something the body would appreciate. I think that would be a very helpful proposition, if the Speaker of this Chamber comes to the floor to answer these questions.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Thank you so much, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

The question is, if we want to combat global warming, why should we, as an institution, allow one person to use a 737 for a $300,000 transcontinental flight? That is the question I pose to the Science Committee, Mr. Chairman.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the Congressman from New York for yielding, but don't you think a jet that is a 757 and can seat 42 people, flying one person is contributing to global warming?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a point of order.

Under the new House rules, there is an anti-earmark rule that governs the House, which the rule governing this bill does not waive that rule of the House; and sections of this legislation actually go forward and violate that anti-earmark legislation. Therefore, I rise to make a point of order against H.J. Res. 20, as title I, section 101(a)(2), violates rule XXI, clause 9, of the House rules, stating, ``There shall be no Member-directed earmarks,'' which this legislation does possess.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman will not yield for the question.

Yes. I wish to speak further.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is stating, simply because legislation states that there are no earmarks, that you can contain thousands of earmarks after that statement. It defies logic and defies reason.

And, furthermore, your section explaining that there shall be no congressional earmarks is further on in the legislation. Therefore, it is not operational over the violation that I am stating in section 101. Therefore, under the legislation here, it is not operational. Therefore, it is a very crafty way, and I have got to compliment the gentleman for putting together a very crafty piece of legislation to try to slip this by. But under these House rules, this is a clear violation of the anti-earmarking provision that is very important to the rules of debate, even when the minority is not able to offer any amendments, even when the minority has no other means of removing congressional earmarks.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Obey

Division. I ask for a division vote, Mr. Speaker.

Wait a second, Mr. Speaker. I asked for a division vote.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

We just had a vote on this floor about rule XXI, section 9. Just for clarification, for the body's purposes going forward with this new rule, in essence, this is the parliamentary inquiry, if I may state it. The summary of rule XXI, section 9 is that as long as the legislation states that there are no earmarks, there may be thousands of earmarks within that legislation, but only operationally must the legislation include text that states that there are no earmarks. Is that the ruling of the Chair? I would be happy to give the Speaker numerous examples of earmarks in this.

Further parliamentary inquiry then.

Rule XXI, section 9, states that a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee, unless the report includes a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, limited tariff benefits in the bill or in the report and the name of any Member, Delegate or Resident Commissioner who submits a request to the committee for each respective item included in such list or a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits. Does this legislation state that and conform to rule XXI, section 9?

Further parliamentary inquiry. Operationally, may a committee Chair simply sign and attest to the Parliamentarian that there are no earmarks within said legislation?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

I appreciate the Speaker operating in such an unbiased way. It is very kind of you.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. What is an earmark? Under House rules, what is an earmark?

Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi put forth this promise on November 13, 2006, regarding her intentions to govern the House in a bipartisan, well-mannered fashion:

``We will restore civility to our debate. We will restore bipartisanship to the administration of the House, reestablish regular order, and ensure the rights of the minority are heard. The voice of every American has a right to be heard, and that is what the American people expect and deserve.''

Those are the words of Speaker Pelosi. But the actions of Speaker Pelosi and this Democrat majority are very different. And it is no surprise that this week, just like last week and the previous week, the Democrats are railroading legislation through this House. This time it is a $460 billion spending bill that won't see a committee hearing, won't see a committee markup, that won't see the light of day, Madam Speaker, and will cost every taxpayer in America $3,500 apiece.

The Democrats believe that regular order is still out of order. They also believe that campaign promises are not worth keeping.

I believe the American people deserve better, and I think we should vote down this continuing resolution that spends $460 billion of our own taxpayer money.

Madam Speaker, I demand the question of consideration.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my colleague.

Madam Speaker, today the House Democrats continue their abuse of power. They are pushing forward a measure to allow the territory Delegates, nonvoting Members of Congress traditionally, actually, not Members of Congress on a technical basis because they don't represent States, their constituents don't pay Federal income taxes, they are going to allow these individuals to cast votes and even preside when the Chamber meets. So let's have a quick Q&A on this; let's talk questions and answers here.

Why would the Democrats do this? Because 80 percent of the territory Delegates are, hold for an answer here, they are Democrats. They want to cushion their numbers. Why is this an abuse of power? Well, there is this little thing we Americans call the Constitution. It says, ``The House shall be comprised of Members chosen by the people of the several States,'' not territories, not mayors of cities allowed to vote on this House floor, not any individual, but ``comprised of Members chosen by the people of the several States,'' not non-State territories. But plainly the Democrats are cushioning their numbers and abusing their power.

The Democrats' power grab is a continuation of the abusive policies and actions they have taken since day one in this institution. Since day one they have shut down all debate. Since day one they have shut down the committee process. They held open a vote to change the outcome because they were losing on the vote. They ran through the Speaker's special interest project affectionately known as TunaGate, and all without fulfilling their pledge of working a 5-day week. In fact, in 3 weeks we only worked 40 hours in this House. That is a new Democrat majority, that is a continuation of the abuse of power.

What we have to do today is vote down this legislation that is, first, unconstitutional, and second, an abuse of power by the Democrat majority.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure.

Mr. Speaker, this week House Democrats are pushing forward a measure allowing Delegates to cast votes even on the House floor, even in this chamber.

Now, what is happening here is a continuation of a policy that the Democrats have put in place since day one, and that is an abuse of power. This proposal this week means that Delegates from Guam, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and my favorite, American Samoa, will enjoy new voting privileges similar to Members of Congress who actually represent districts in the United States and who actually represent districts with tax-paying citizens of the United States. This is a clear abuse of power.

And beyond that, as we all know, there is this little thing called the Constitution, and the Constitution says very clearly, the House shall be comprised of Members chosen by the people of the several States, not territories, not any member who wishes to come to this House floor and vote, but those elected by the citizens of the United States from districts in the United States.

What the Democrats are trying to do here is cushion their numbers. There is a tight majority here in the House that the Democrats have, and they are trying to add to those numbers so that when they have tough votes on the House floor, they can look up and point to a better number for their side than for the Republican side.

Beyond that, 80 percent of the Delegates from these territories are Democrats. Let's think this thing through. I think it is starting to make sense now, Mr. Speaker. There is an abuse of power that is continuing in the third week of Congress that began even before its first day. And let me tell you what is so perplexing about this, is that while my constituents have to pay Federal income tax in order to have their representation in Congress, the Delegates from the territories represent constituents who never have to pay Federal income tax. While the Revolutionary War was fought over this idea of taxation without representation, what we have here today with this Delegate voting is representation without taxation. I think that would be great for my constituents in western North Carolina; I think it would be great for all of America if we don't have to pay Federal income tax and still have our power and our elected democracy, but that is not the case.

But let's rewind. Just 2 weeks ago, the new Speaker of the House pushed forward a new minimum wage bill, a minimum wage bill that covered all of America and all of the territories, save one, American Samoa. The largest employer in American Samoa is headquartered in no other district than the Speaker's home district in San Francisco. I think something smells fishy. That is what I said at the time. And I think this is another fishy favor to the Delegates from the territories. It is quite perplexing, Mr. Speaker, that in week three we have a continued abuse of power on this House floor.

But let's go back, let's rewind. What else have the Democrats done in their short time in power to abuse the power that the American people gave them?

Well, let's look at this: On opening day, we proposed the Pelosi minority bill of rights, the same bill of rights that the Democrats demanded 2 years ago. We proposed the same thing, and the Speaker summarily dismissed it. Look at the 9/11 Commission, they pledged to implement all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and they went back on that pledge. A 5-day workweek, that was a key pledge they made during the campaign, and after the campaign they said this House will work 5 days a week. We have yet to work a 5-day workweek. In fact, last Friday we voted on only one bill.

And also, in 3 weeks in Congress, we only worked 40 hours in those 3 weeks. Another abuse of power, Mr. Speaker.

And finally, when they talk about keeping votes open in order to change the outcome; they have already done that, which is another abuse of power.

Mr. Speaker, this Delegate voting is something fishy, and it is another fishy favor put forward by the new Speaker of the House and the new Democrat majority in order to pad their number and further abuse power. We should reject it, and the American people who pay taxes should be angry at this proposal.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to encourage my colleagues to support the troops in harm's way. We are fighting an ongoing war on terror not just in Iraq, but around the globe, and it is immoral for Members of this body to defund troops that are in harm's way.

That is why I commend my colleague Sam Johnson for stepping forward, for a resolution saying that we are not going to defund troops in harm's way, that we are going to stand beside them and fight with them in this war on terrorism and this war in Iraq, because, after all, terror is merely a tactic that Islamic extremists are using to fight the West.

As one of the last great powers in this world, we are the embodiment of the West. Therefore the Islamic extremists are seeking to destroy and undermine our society. So now more than ever we have to stand with our troops in harm's way so that they can defend us and make it possible for us to live in a vibrant, free Nation and a great economy.

Mr. Speaker, more than 20,000 people descended on Washington today as part of the March for Life rally, marking the 34th anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling on Roe v. Wade.

Over 44 million children, little boys and little girls, their lives have been lost since 1973, at this origination of Roe v. Wade. They were never given the opportunity to enjoy life.

As one March for Life participant pointed out today: ``Rain or shine, these unborn children don't have that option. They'll never be able to feel the rain on their heads. They'll never be able to feel the wind on their face. So this is a great opportunity for us to march in their honor.'' And these participants braved cold weather and lots of rain today to participate and stand up for the most vulnerable in our society.

I hope for a more prosperous day when our country respects the lives of the unborn.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pass along some inside information to the American people. By the way, this is the most poorly kept secret in Congress. Big surprise: The Democrats want to raise taxes, again.

Never mind that tax revenues increased by 11.5 percent last year because of strong economic growth, economic growth created by the Bush tax cuts over the last 6 years. Never mind, never mind, the economy is strong. Never mind that last year the U.S. Government took in more revenue than any government in history. Actually, in the history of the planet.

But yet that is not enough revenue for the Democrats' plans, yet they talk about pay-as-you-go in order to tax the American people more.

This is a poorly kept secret, that the tax and spend Democrats are indeed still tax and spend Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, there is something fishy going on here. The Washington Times reported yesterday that ``the Democrats' minimum wage legislation exempts American Samoa, a Pacific island territory, that would be the only U.S. territory not subject to the Federal minimum wage.''

The article goes on to say: ``The loophole pleases StarKist Tuna, one of the two packaging plants that employ over 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island's workforce.

``StarKist's parent company, Del Monte, is headquartered in San Francisco.''

Now, after these press reports came out, the Democrats want to include American Samoa in this legislation, 2 days after it passed this House. Why? Because the American public found out about this special interest scheme.

This is a clear abuse of power for a hometown company. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Madam Speaker, indeed, this is an abuse of power, and there is something definitely fishy going on here.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield for a question?

I just have a question about----

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry does not count against anyone's time.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, inquiry of the contents of this legislation. Would it be appropriate to offer an amendment at this time exempting American Samoa just as it was from the minimum wage bill?

So the gentleman----

Further parliamentary inquiry. Further parliamentary inquiry.

So the Chair is saying that I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa from this legislation.

If the Chair will let me finish my question.

Mr. Speaker, I have one additional parliamentary inquiry.

Is American Samoa exempted from this bill before us on the House floor?

Additional inquiry.

So the gentleman will not recognize me for an additional parliamentary inquiry?

Well, the Chair will not answer my question.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Is there a way by which I can derive whether or not American Samoa, like the minimum wage bill, is exempted from this legislation?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleague from Iowa for his leadership, and I wanted to echo what you were speaking of earlier. And it is interesting what we are experiencing right now in Congress, an interesting time.

The new Speaker comes to office with a new Democrat majority, and what the Speaker pledges is ``respect for every voice,'' and another quote, ``working for all of America.'' Well, all of America except American Samoa, a small island in the South Pacific where they have been exempted from the Federal minimum wage.

Now, Nancy Pelosi during the campaign, then-Minority Leader Pelosi said, ``The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 will increase the Federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over the next 2 years, providing families with additional funds to cover the increasing costs of health insurance, gasoline, and home heating and attending college.''

There actually was a press release just a few days ago when the Speaker of the House issued this press statement. That is good. That is a high honor which the new Speaker had of increasing the Federal minimum wage, and it is a high honor for some politicians in Washington, D.C. to use other people's money to increase other people's wages. It is not coming from the pockets of D.C. politicians; it is coming from small business owners across the America who are going to be impacted and perhaps lose jobs over this.

But the bad item in this is the Washington Times report from just today that ``the Democrats' minimum wage legislation exempts American Samoa, another Pacific Islands territory, that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to the Federal minimum wage.'' That is from the report from the Washington Times today.

Now, it is peculiar. Why, I ask, would American Samoa be exempt from the Federal minimum wage? It seems an oddity, does it not, Congressman King? It seems an oddity that a small island of all of our territories in this great Nation, of all the States in the Nation, that an island is exempt. One island. Why, I ask, would that island be exempt? It just seems perplexing to me. I mean, it seems like good news that the new Democrat majority and the new Speaker want to raise the Federal minimum wage to help people, to help families with their health insurance, gasoline, home heating, as well as attending college.

If it is not good for American Samoa, how could it be good for the United States to have an increase in the Federal minimum wage? And if it is good for the United States, if it is good for America, why is not American Samoa given the same benefits? It is America, too. Well, perhaps the new Democrat Speaker doesn't think so.

The question I raise, Congressman King, is why could that be? We are just simply asking the question here tonight, why could that be the new Democrat Speaker would want to exempt a single island from a large piece of legislation? In fact, it is one of their six items in their 100-hour program. It is an amazing question to me, Congressman King. It is an amazing question with perhaps a simple answer.

Well, going back to the Washington Times article, if I may quote from there: ``The loopholes please the tuna corporations that employ thousands of Samoans in canneries there at $3.26 an hour. One of the biggest opponents of the U.S. minimum wage is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans or nearly 75 percent of the island's workforce. StarKist's parent company, Del Monte Corp., is headquartered in San Francisco, which is represented by--.'' Well, we will fill in the blank, that is, for someone else to fill in the blank.

But certainly something is fishy. Something is indeed fishy when the Federal minimum wage is good for all Americans as espoused by the Democrat majority, yet we exempt a small, in many terms economically struggling, island.

Now, I submit, Mr. Speaker, if it is good for us in this Chamber to vote to raise the Federal minimum wage, is it not good for all Americans, even in the territories? Is it not a matter of fairness to extend that to all the territories? It is an amazing happening, Congressman King, in these opening hours that I would ask you, why could this be? I mean, if we are going to work for all America as the new Speaker said, why not all of America, even the territories?

Congressman King, there are many questions here, but I raise the question, how could this be in the most ethical Congress in history?

It is also interesting that the parent company that employs 75 percent of Samoans, American Samoans, is headquartered in San Francisco. It is an interesting oddity in press reports that this is raised. And, like I said, Congressman King, I believe it is just fishy. It is very fishy that this would happen in the opening week of a new Congress that espouses really high ethical standards which we all hope for and we strive for as individuals and as a collective body. It is a very strange happening in the Democrats' 100-hour provisions that they even go back on their campaign pledge to have the Federal minimum wage across America, not exempting certain areas or certain islands or certain peoples, but actually have a uniform standard. It is very

fishy that these things happen just at the beginning.

I thank my colleague from Iowa for asking that question. It's an overly broad answer, it seems. Yet the other interesting avenue here on exempting a certain area of America with a certain business interest that is represented by a certain individual, well, it is interesting to me because in many ways what the Democrats promised was an end to earmarks. Earmarks, the American people know very well that earmarks are simply pork-barrel spending. Well, I will tell you something, this may be tuna, but it smells like pork. And this special provision, I would submit to you, should fall under this earmark reform that the new Democrat majority wants to pass on this House floor.

I think it is a high goal for us to have, that is, to have fundamental earmark reform so we eliminate pork-barrel spending programs. But this bill in the first full week of the Democrat majority has an earmark.

And my colleague from New Jersey has joined us, and Congressman Garrett is very involved in the fiscal conservative agenda, as my fellow colleague from Iowa is, Congressman King. Now, would you define this as an earmark, Congressman Garrett?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I thank Congressman Garrett for proffering that. I think it is a wonderful thing because we know that our colleagues perhaps, Mr. Speaker, would be watching this debate and perhaps they could join us and answer some of these questions that we are trying to wrestle with on this important piece of legislation that the House took up just yesterday and passed under a closed rule, under martial law, not allowing any dissenting voices to offer any amendments to perfect it, perhaps extending the Federal minimum wage to even American Samoans or, in fact, change the bill so that it helps small businesses transition with this increase in the Federal minimum wage.

We have many questions, and I would love for our colleagues to join us here on the floor to answer these questions because we need the answers from the Democrat majority who control this place. And I would dare say, if the Madam Speaker would like to come before us here tonight, we would be happy to yield plenty of time for her to explain these actions of this new Democrat majority. We would love to have some input from our other colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In an air of bipartisanship, let's share our time, Congressman King, during this leadership hour and make sure that we have an open dialogue and we answer questions.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding this time.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a critical point that is being overlooked in this debate on the minimum wage. We need to talk about the people that this minimum wage increase will be a barrier to their employment, for example, the physically, emotionally and mentally handicapped in this country.

I have in my district, in Cleveland County, Cleveland Vocational Industries, a community-based organization. What they do is they train workers with disabilities to fulfill certain assembly line packing and labeling projects, what some of us would call menial labor or very simple tasks. But it is a very positive thing. It is a great way to train and employ people that otherwise cannot be trained and employed.

What is going to happen is these are about 8 percent of the total minimum wage earners in this country, those with disabilities. What that is going to do is harm them in their ability to get contracts with businesses.

This is a very nice idea, to raise people's wages, but the impact it is going to have among the least among us will be that they will simply not have a job. I think that is being lost in this debate, and I think that is what we need to be concerned about.

Let's talk about the facts about the minimum wage. That is what is lost here. This is high-minded rhetoric. What the Democrat majority wants to do, Mr. Speaker, is use other people's money to pay other people. Well, that is a very nice thing to do, a nice offer, a very nice thing, to write a check for somebody else.

All right. Let them pay somebody else. That is a nice obligation that we are passing on, this unfunded mandate.

Eighty-five percent of minimum wage earners in this country are teens or adults who live alone or second earners; a married couple, one goes and works part-time. Eighty-five percent of them fall in those categories. So they are talking about making a minimum wage on this and providing for a family of 10, or whatever. It is just empty rhetoric and crazy talk.

So let's talk about affecting and helping people through training and access to health care and support the Republican alternative.