Or was it intentional?

Last week, the House of Representatives agreed to a gradual hike in the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 by 2009.  At first blush, one might think that’s a good thing.  At least it gives the impression that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is keeping to her promise of producing a certain amount of key legislation within the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress.  Right?

But not so fast.  It wasn’t until after the vote that a disturbing fact about the minimum wage legislation came to light.  It seems that little American Samoa was exempted from the wage hike mandated by the bill.  Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post reports:

Under the minimum-wage increase approved by the House this week, employers on the Northern Marianas would for the first time have to pay their workers the minimum wage, which would rise from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour. For years, Republicans—with the help of convicted lobbyist Jack A. Abramoff—have fended off efforts to bring the islands under federal labor laws.
[…]
The bill would leave American Samoa as the only territory not covered by the $7.25 rate….

Why is that such a big deal?  Well, it’s a big deal because 75 percent of American Samoa’s population work at two tuna packing plants that are located on the island.  One of those plants is owned and operated by StarKist Tuna (the other is owned by Chicken of the Sea).  StarKist Tuna’s parent company is Del Monte Foods.  And?

And Del Monte Foods is headquartered in San Francisco, California—Nancy Pelosi’s home district.  According to NewsMax:

After the exemption came to light, Pelosi said she had asked the Education and Labor Committee ‘as we go forward with the legislation to make sure that all of the territories comply with the U.S. law on the minimum wage.’
[…]
She also said she has never received any campaign contributions from Del Monte.

As we go forward with the legislation?  Well, Speaker Pelosi, if that was your original intent, why did the American Samoan exemption appear in the legislation in the first place?  Or is it just another example of a Congresswoman trying to sneak something underhanded into a bill in the hope that no one would notice?

Indeed, with the frantic pace Ms. Pelosi has set for the House of Representatives during the highly touted first 100 hours, she had every reason to expect that the exemption would be overlooked.  NewsMax continues:

Some GOP House members who voted in favor of the wage hike bill didn’t learn until after the vote that the legislation did not include American Samoa.
[…]
‘My intention was to raise the minimum wage for everyone,’ Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, R-Ill., told the Times. ‘We shouldn’t permit any special favors or exemptions that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate.’  (Emphasis added by Effluent.)

And to think Speaker Pelosi’s own House introduced H.R. 14, “The Congressional Integrity and Pension Forfeiture Act of 2007”, on January 4 of this year.

Really?  Is it sensible to include the words congressional and integrity in the same sentence?  Come to think of it, is it even legal?

Technorati Tags: House of Representatives, gradual hike, minimum wage, $5.15, $7.25, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, key legislation, first 100 hours, 110th Congress, legislation, American Samoa, wage hike, bill, tuna packing plants, StarKist Tuna, Chicken of the Sea, parent company, Del Monte Foods, San Francisco, California, home district, exemption, Congresswoman, underhanded, frantic pace, overlooked, H.R. 14, Congressional Integrity, Pension Forfeiture, Act, sensible

Bookmark: