What I hadn't twigged to was that, last Tuesday,

The House Appropriations Committee approved a measure that would raise the federal minimum wage standard in phases from $5.15 to $7.25 by 2009. The committee vote was 32-27, with seven Republicans joining Democrats in trying to raise the standard, which hasn't changed since 1997.

(Why weren't lefty blogs jumping up and down about this the same way they were about net neutrality?

Apparently,

the Center of Economic and Policy Research...estimates there are 7.7 million low wage workers in the United States who earn wages at or near minimum wage.

Come back when it's a real problem...)

Not that anyone expects the minimum wage hike to pass, even though it comes just after reps' salaries were automatically boosted by 2%:

The only way that raise does not kick in is with a vote specifically to reject it. A challenge was raised, but the House voted it down 249-167, so the pay raise will go through. It amounts to an increase of $3,300 to a salary of $168,500. That's the seventh year in a row lawmakers have taken the pay raise.

(I can't trace that RCV, by the way. The only recent 249-167 is RC #261 on the previous question on H Res 865, the rule on the transportation appropriations bill.)

[Now, does the bill with the Hoyer Amendment (oh, yes...) get to the floor or not?]

But even to get it to the floor is would be more than the discharge petition for the open rule on HR 2429 managed. (Which is not to decry the use of the petition as a campaigning instrument, just for the avoidance of doubt. It gives those badgering their rep a calling card, which is an excellent thing.)

[However - had my researches been more extensive, I'd had have spotted this:

Hoyer said that House Republicans leaders have decided not to bring the bill to the floor with the minimum wage language.

According to this from Friday,

CongressDaily reported yesterday that “the bill would not reach the floor next week” and “there is a chance it would not come up even the following week, and possibly not at all.”

Now, here's where my knowledge of House procedure lets me down a tad.

The next stage for a normal bill of any significance, once reported out of a House committee, would be a trip over to Rules which would decide the details of its floor proceedings (the length of debate, the amendments (if any) to be allowed, etc).

(Appropriations bills, often, work on different rules to regular bills. I've no idea whether Rules Committee procedures differ between the two types of bill.)

But - according to the TomPaine piece,

Democrats will fight back by voting against the resolution, sent to the floor by the House Rules Committee, that sets the terms for debate on the appropriations bill. If the Rules Committee resolution strips the minimum wage increase from the appropriations bill, Hoyer said, "we are going to make that rules vote a minimum wage vote."

Can the resolution

strip[] the minimum wage increase from the appropriations bill

If so, how does that work?

Looks like some mugging up on Jefferson's Manual may be required.

But later. Have to see a man about a dog...

Meanwhile - here's the rest of the original piece, in italics as a caveat lector:

If ever Pelosi was going to show her value as a House leader, it would be to embarrass the GOP with the minimum wage on the floor.

(I'm not suggesting she can pass it. I am suggesting that she can use it to rally her forces after the Jefferson débâcle and take the fight to the enemy.)

Now, there's much to weep over and ridicule in New Direction. But an increase (which should be a big one - though ND gives no hint about size mattering) in the minimum wage is a solid, New Deal proposal. (And the vote in Appropriations just proved its appeal.)

Where's the ballyhoo from the lefty sphere? Where's the Alito filibuster frenzy, the call your Congressman now, you sons of bitches comment spam?

Minimum wage? That's so 1938...

Update [2006-6-19 15:12:0 by skeptic06]:

Now I understand why the lefty sphere's been so quiet about the minimum wage amendment: it was offered by arch-reactionary Steny Hoyer!]

[Thanks to weatherunderground (comment below) for the Jeeves-like interrogative cough!]

Update [2006-6-19 21:53:47 by skeptic06]:

The question before the court was: Can the Rules Committee strip the Hoyer Amendment from the bill, and, if so, how?

The Rules Committee's own House Floor Procedures Manual chapter on special rules says

One of the most important features of a special rule is what it designates as the base text for purposes of amendment. This often may be the text of the committee-reported amendment in the nature of a substitute, an amendment in the nature of a substitute as modified by another amendment or a completely new text printed in the Congressional Record or in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the rule.

Now, this doesn't come with footnotes, unfortunately. (Though you'd hope the Rules Committee would understand their own, y'know, rules.)

I've had a speculative nose about the more grown up materials.

Rather than (with the Senate) just having the one big book of precedents (the Senate has Riddick's), the House has three (Hind's, Cannon's and Deschler's) plus Jefferson's Manual (this page has links to the somewhat intractable GPO system on which the stuff is available online).

I've looked at (in the sense of peeked into) Deschler's Vol 6 §20. I gain the impression that the rules say that Rules can do what it damned well likes.

For example, in §20.4 (p6), Rules reported a rule on a bill; the referee committee, which had already reported the bill out, issued a supplementary report altering the text of the bill.

The Speaker decided that the rule reported by Rules still covered the bill.

Similarly, in §20.12, Rules reported a rule on a bill which hadn't even been reported out once by its referee committee.

That was decided to be fine and dandy, too.

So - if it turned out that Rules really did have the power to specify whatever text it liked as that to be debated, I shouldn't be at all surprised.

That's all I got, for now.