James Traficant: “Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. I believe the gentleman's argument is in order, save for the possible precedents of an unusual…”

“Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. I believe the gentleman's argument is in order, save for the possible precedents of an unusual situation. Although it is not existing law, the authorizing committee of this body being the body of the full House, has already voted on the issue and spoken on the issue. That should make it subject to a parliamentary ruling that is quite different from an individual bringing out of the blue a minimum-wage increase with no prior authorizing foundation. Mr. Chairman, we do not here make decisions for the other body. We can only make those decisions for ourselves. We have already made that decision. The House has technically authorized, if you will, and placed in motion the authorization of a minimum-wage increase. I do not believe we are striking new territory, and if such a precedent is needed, then maybe a precedent should be voted on. Now, I do not want to challenge the ruling of the Chair, and I fully respect the ruling of the Chair; but I want a minimum wage increase in this bill, and I am going to give it that shot. My final argument is this: when the House votes and authorizes, is it not a fact that one cannot have anything other than that authorization by law in an appropriation bill? So by law, if the appropriators put the Traficant language passed in H.R. 3846 in this bill, it could not have been stricken.”