Paycheck Fairness Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1388 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1388.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1388 provides for consideration of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule makes in order six amendments which are printed in the Rules Committee report, and the rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, our great Nation recently celebrated the 160th anniversary of the 1848 Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York. This groundbreaking convention was dedicated to the key principle in the Declaration of Independence that we are all created equal. Women have had a hard time to recognize that because it took more than 70 years for us to pass legislation giving women the right to vote.

But in the years since Seneca Falls, generations of courageous women have made great strides towards equality. From securing a woman's right to vote in 1920 to serving our country in World War II, American women have come a long way. In this Congress alone, we have much to celebrate. Speaker Pelosi is the first woman to lead this esteemed body. And Senator Clinton made ``18 million cracks'' in the Nation's highest glass ceiling as the first woman to run a formidable Presidential campaign.

Yet as we celebrate these important milestones and look back on all we

have achieved since 1848, we know full well that our journey toward gender equality is not complete. Despite the strong leadership of several generations of women, we are still struggling to achieve equality in the workplace. Among the most distressing disparities is the significant gap in pay between American men and women as they work side by side doing the very same work.

Mr. Speaker, 45 years ago President John F. Kennedy signed into law the Equal Pay Act to address the unconscionable practice of paying women less for the same job. That was 45 years ago and we still struggle. At that time when this bill was signed, women were earning 59 cents for each dollar earned by a man in a comparable job. While the wage gap has narrowed, today the working women in America still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. In other words, let me put it this way, 18 cents more has been achieved in the past 45 years.

According to the Department of Labor, which maintains data on over 300 job classifications, men are paid more in each and every category. This is so important, I'm going to say it again. The Department of Labor says in 300 job classifications, men are paid more in each and every 1 of them. Even in what they call the female-dominated industries where women comprise 70 percent of that labor force, women earn 20 percent less than their male coworkers.

Experts estimate that the average woman worker will lose anywhere from $200,000 to $2 million over her lifetime as a result of the wage gap. Over time women earn significantly less than men, and lower wages translate into less income that counts in calculating pensions and in some cases Social Security benefits. Closing the wage gap will have a long-term impact on the women's economic security, especially in retirement.

To all the cynics who dismiss equal pay as just another women's issue, I want to point out that the wage gap not only hurts women, it hurts families. It hurts children being raised by single moms who have to work two jobs to make ends meet when one might suffice were she to be paid equally with her male coworkers. It hurts families with two working parents who are struggling as one partner makes 20 percent less than her male colleagues. Currently, single women who are heads of households are twice as likely to be in poverty as single fathers. Again, currently single women who are heads of households are twice as likely to be in poverty as single fathers. That is a fact that we must face here and remedy. And we know that pay equity for women is closely linked to eradicating poverty. For families who live below or near the poverty line, the equal pay for women will make a significant difference to the well-being of American families. And after all, Mr. Speaker, isn't that why we are here?

Despite these statistics and shocking data that indicates that men make over 20 percent more than their female colleagues on average, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to working women last year when it decided Ledbetter v. Goodyear. In that case, former Goodyear employee Lilly Ledbetter, an employee of 28 years, sued the company after she left the company after discovering she had been paid significantly less than male employees doing the same job during her nearly two decades of employment. And remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was in effect at that time. Though Ms. Ledbetter was clearly treated as a second-class employee, although she got wonderful ratings and compliments on her job, the Supreme Court let Goodyear off the hook on what I think is a misrepresentation of the law.

The Supreme Court ruled that in order to enforce her right to be paid fairly, Ms. Ledbetter would have had to file a wage discrimination complaint within 180 days of when the discrimination began. Now, imagine that. You're new on the job. You're happy to be there. You're learning your job. And you have no idea what other people are paid or whether you're being discriminated against. That shows you the grave mistake made by the Supreme Court. But since pay practices typically take place in secret, it would be impossible for a woman to discover discrimination within a 180-day window that she has to file a claim.

Justice Ginsberg, the only woman serving on the Court, wisely noted that the Ledbetter decision essentially gutted legislative protections against discriminatory pay practices. Again, that would have been the law of 1963. In its Ledbetter ruling, the Supreme Court has all but endorsed gender discrimination in employment by robbing women of a legal remedy to enforce equality. One certainly understands that we need more women on the United States Supreme Court.

To overcome these efforts to nullify the Equal Pay Act, we must redouble our efforts to insist that Lilly Ledbetter and the countless hardworking women like her in America are compensated fairly.

Earlier this month I was proud to join Speaker Pelosi, Senator Clinton, Rosa DeLauro, Lilly Ledbetter, and many of my colleagues at an event in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

This legislation we are debating today prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who discuss salary information with coworkers. Can you imagine that in most companies that is against the rules? It puts gender-based discrimination sanctions on equal footing with other forms of wage discrimination by allowing women to sue for compensatory and punitive damages, and it will help prevent future pay disparities by requiring the Department of Labor to expand outreach to employers and to continue to collect and share wage information based on gender.

Finally, it creates a grant program to strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women to help our daughters fight for the compensation to which they are entitled.

Today, we have an historic opportunity to stand up for the women of America and say, You deserve equal pay for equal work. Today, we have an opportunity and an obligation to stand up for our mothers and daughters and sisters and nieces who are making less than their male counterparts for the exact same work.

Today, even though it is late in the day, we have an opportunity to secure the promise of America so that tomorrow our daughters and sons and granddaughters and grandsons will all have equal opportunity to achieve the American dream. Until we do, we will never reach the gender equality that women and men present at the 1848 Women's Rights Convention aspired to achieve.

Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to the working women in our lives and to the generations of hardworking women who came before us to support this legislation. It is my sincere hope that this bill will soon become law, and I implore my colleagues to vote for it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Rules Committee and also from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the author of this legislation, an outstanding Member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

I yield an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a valued member of the Rules Committee.

I would like to inform my colleague that I have no further speakers and would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to explain to the listening persons and those in our galley why we are here today.

The other side has consistently talked as though this is an energy bill, but let me remind all of us that this is an opportunity for the United States to bring into compliance with pay scales, in compliance with the law of 1963 for women who, as my colleague Ms. DeLauro pointed out, comprise 40 percent of the workforce.

This legislation cures a wrong that has cost many women between $400,000 and $2 million, not only in the lost wages they should have been paid had there been equality, but also indirectly their pensions and their Social Security in many cases. This hurts families, Mr. Speaker. This hurts single parents who are trying, oftentimes doing two jobs, to try to keep food on the table.

All the statistics show, which absolutely astonished me, that more women who are single heads of household than men are under the poverty line. One reason for that is they did not get equal pay. We have to right this wrong. We have to do it today. I can't express enough my gratitude for Congresswoman DeLauro and the Women's Caucus for all the work that they have done. But it has been since 1963, 45 years ago, when the law was passed demanding equal pay. And here we are in 2008, Mr. Speaker, and we still don't have it.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question, yes on the rule, and, by all means, yes on the underlying bill.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1388 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6566) to bring down

energy prices by increasing safe, domestic production,

encouraging the development of alternative and renewable

energy, and promoting conservation. All points of order

against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill

equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority

leader, and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if

offered by the Majority Leader or his designee, which shall

be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for

40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an Opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

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

I thank my friend, the Republican whip.

On Monday, the House will meet in pro forma session at 11 a.m. On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour and 12 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.

We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business tomorrow, as is the custom.

I tell the Members that we will also consider the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs fiscal 2009 appropriations bill; H.R. 1338 the Paycheck Fairness Act; additional energy legislation; and any conference report available, possibly including the Higher Education conference report, the Amtrak conference report and the Consumer Product Safety Commission conference report.

We expect it to be an open rule, but we do expect to ask that amendments be prefiled so that Members will have notice of amendments.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Our thought is that both sides should have notice of what amendments are going to be considered, that all Members have notice of what is going to be considered. Obviously, there is no constraint on what amendment somebody might want to offer, but we believe that it would be helpful if Members had notice of what the substance of the amendments are so they can, if they want to support it, support it on the floor, if they want to oppose it, have the opportunity to come here and do so. But I think it will be our intention to ask that there be a notice requirement without restriction on the amendments that are asked but simply to give notice as to what the amendments are going to be.

Thank you for yielding.

I would certainly anticipate more appropriations legislation coming to the floor in September, yes.

We have a number of pieces of legislation that are obviously pending. First of all, we are very hopeful that we will pass the extenders legislation which we sent to the Senate some, actually months ago, a couple of months ago, I think, which, as you know, ensures tax credits for alternative energy. Wind is particularly important. Boone Pickens was here, as you know, on the Hill talking to both Democrats and Republicans, the importance of that. Others have talked about that as well. As you know, they're trying to dispose of some of the ``Coburn holds'' as we call them. Some of those may be back. Obviously we will have to consider a funding resolution for government after we leave. My expectation is that will be a point of business. We're also talking about obviously, as you have read in the paper, and as I think, I'm not sure you and I have talked about a jobs bill and some continuing economic assistance to make sure our economy hopefully grows and does not certainly fall any deeper into recession. Those are some of the pieces of legislation.

I have mentioned some of the things that we hope to get from conference next week, mental health parity being one of those, higher education, the consumer products safety. Hopefully many of those may be dealt with next week. But if they were not, it is my expectation we would do those in September as well.

So those are some of the major things that I foresee for September. What we will have done next week obviously won't be on September, but if we haven't done them we will try to get them done in September.

As you know, we have considered a number of pieces of legislation which we were hopeful would move us in the direction of, A, producing more domestic energy through encouraging further drilling in those leaseholds already available, approximately 88 million acres that are currently available. We considered the Consumer Energy Supply Act today. Unfortunately, that didn't get sufficient votes. It got a lot of votes. It got a significant majority of the House. It did not get the two-thirds so we could move it to the Senate. We considered the DRILL Act which also received a majority of the votes which provided for both the 10.4 million acres in Alaska and the National Petroleum Reserve to be encouraged to be moved forward as quickly as possible to drill in that area, produce oil and petroleum in that area, which also encouraged, as you recall, the building of additional pipelines, both for natural gas and for petroleum products.

Next week, we will be considering--many people are very concerned about the fact that the price spikes which don't seem to go down consistent with the price of oil by the barrel, which has reduced significantly, but the gasoline price hasn't reduced. There is significant concern about the impact of speculation. We are going to consider that bill, I think, next week, as I indicated.

You say you have introduced this bill. I'm sure it will go to the committee. I haven't seen the bill. I will certainly talk to the various chairmen. I don't know how many committees will have jurisdiction over the bill. You say it's a comprehensive bill, maybe multijurisdictional, but I will certainly talk to the Chairs about the substance of the bill.

Let me say, the American public is obviously very concerned. Our position is we ought to drill. We ought to drill where we've given leases that exist.

Your position essentially is, well, that is fine, but there are other places where we could drill as well. We believe that is accurate as well. It's been very controversial. As you know, Governor Schwarzenegger, the Republican Governor of California, is not too interested in proceeding with drilling off his shore. There are differences of opinion. We really do believe that we ought to drill, we ought to drill now and we ought to drill where there is not controversy and where we do have leases. I think that is the difference between us, apparently, not that any of us oppose drilling. It is where you drill first. If that proves, from my perspective, not to be fruitful, then perhaps at that time we ought to look at alternatives. But the President, of course, has indicated and made it very clear that he believes wherever you drill is not going to make a substantial difference in the next 5 to 10 years.

So we believe we ought to start drilling right now so that we can move ahead as soon as possible. There are 107 billion barrels currently speculated to be in the identified areas of that 88 million acres to be available. We use about 21 million a day, about 14 billion a year. That is a pretty good supply, about 7\1/2\ years of supply. We would hope we would move ahead on that. But we haven't done that yet. We understand that.

But we ought to have a legitimate debate on it. I think all of us want to get to the same place--energy independence for our country and the use of alternative and renewable energy sources to not only help our energy supply but also help our environment. So I will certainly encourage the committee to look at that bill.

Will my friend yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

As my friend clearly knows, as you know, we've been operating under two moratoria: One has been the executive moratorium which was just lifted which was placed on by the first President Bush. As you know as well in the Interior bill year after year in the 6 years your party was in charge and then last year in the Interior bill, that moratorium was continued. So under both parties, Governor Schwarzenegger, Governor Bush of Florida, both very, very strong proponents effectively of not drilling off their shores. So this is not a Republican-Democratic difference. In fact, both parties were supporting--I presume, I don't want to speak for your party--our party was supporting drilling where we have current leases.

I would disagree with my friend, and we may disagree on the definition of deep water. They are drilling now in the Gulf of Mexico, as you know, at depths of 1,000 feet. Additionally, there are 33 million acres available in the gulf now on the Outer Continental Shelf and available for drilling right now.

I would say further to my friend, if you wanted to drill tomorrow anywhere, there is not a drill available in the world. Now my presumption is there is not a drill available in the world that is not being used because they are pretty pricey items and you can make a pretty good profit providing those drills. My presumption is that people have not requested those drills be made available and have not asked to purchase them. As you heard me say, Exxon made $40 billion. These drills are pretty expensive items, and they bought no drills with that $40 billion.

So as a practical matter, tomorrow, if everything were available, there would be no drilling because there are no drills available. My presumption is that the oil companies believe there is sufficient supply available. There are no lines at any of the gas stations that I go to. I have not seen any gas lines. I am old enough, I know you're not, but I'm old enough to remember the lines in the 1970s. They were long. That was an artificially created shortage by OPEC, as you recall. But notwithstanding that, I don't see any lines. I don't see any shortage of product available. What I see is a healthy price at the pump. And in my opinion, when you get more supply, the price comes down. I think some people are pretty happy with the price. None of my consumers are happy with the price. None of the people who pull up to the pumps in my district are happy with the price, but I can't believe that the oil companies are unhappy about the price. I don't see them complaining about their high profits.

So when you say if we could drill in the deep water, I don't know what you mean by deep water. It could be more than 1,000 feet which is where we are drilling now in some places in the Gulf of Mexico. But we do have 33 million acres available on the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico available for drilling right now. And if the drills were available and the inclination were available, I would hope that the companies would pursue, either the large companies or small companies. The problem with small companies is that it is a very expensive proposition, as the gentleman knows.

We agreed with your premise, and we offered a bill to have that happen, and it was Use It or Lose It which said we have 107 billion barrels identified, speculated to be available on presently held leases, a 14-year supply in the United States of America. And what we wanted to direct the administration to do was start leasing that land right now because we agreed with your premise that the psychological effect would be that those who have the petroleum and are frankly selling it very dear, and many of our consumers are being really hurt, we understand that, our premise was either by drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve now or drilling in the 68 million acres available in the lower 48, including 33 million in the gulf now, that it would have exactly the effect that you projected.

Unfortunately, we also believe that releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which in 1991 and two other years, I don't have the exact years, we have done it three times, including once under this administration after Hurricane Katrina, in 1991 price went down 33 percent. It went down less when SPR was released after Hurricane Katrina.

Our view is you are correct. Psychologically, that would have a real effect on the market. Unfortunately, we couldn't pass that. We wanted to pass it as quickly as possible. How do you pass something as quickly as possible? You put it on suspension and give it to the Senate. Unfortunately, large numbers on your side of the aisle determined that was not a policy that they wanted to pursue. So they had no psychological effect, which we thought would have been, as you do, a psychological effect and may well have had an immediate impact on pricing by the barrel, and hopefully then would be converted to price at the pump.

I want to thank Ranking Member McKeon for his work on this bill. I find it very interesting that our colleagues have such hubris that they think we are going to solve all of the problems of the world here in the Congress. I wish that it were so.

I worked all my life for equal rights for women, and I don't take a back seat to anyone on this floor or in this body for that. But I want to say that this bill is not going to solve the problem that we face in terms of equal pay for equal work.

My colleagues have reviewed very well the existing law. They have stated well why this bill is not needed. But I have to say that the Democrats have been very clever in the way that they have named bills here this year. The Free Choice Act, which takes away the choice of a secret ballot for voting for unions, does exactly the opposite.

This bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, will not do what the Democrats purport that it will do. It will help trial lawyers. Those in charge of the House of Representatives, I believe, are being controlled by trial lawyers, union leaders, and radical environmentalists.

I think this bill will make it easier for trial lawyers to cash in. It includes several steps that will make it more lucrative for trial lawyers to pursue sex discrimination claims under the EPA. This may be good for lawyers, but it will be costly for businesses and their workers.

I agree, discrimination against anyone is wrong. No one who serves in this House or who lives in this country wants to see that. But I want to quote from an article by Carrie Lukas, and I will put the entire article in the Record. The subtitle is: The Paycheck Fairness Act, and the title is: Feminists Meddle with the Market. It's in National Review.

``Today is a rare moment when Congress has the potential to meaningfully address a real economic problem, rising energy prices, with sensible legislation to allow more drilling to increase energy supplies. So what has Congress slated for consideration this week? The Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that is the equivalent of throwing sand into the wheels of our economic machine.''

She goes on to say, ``Of course, no congressional legislation would be complete without a healthy serving of waste, and the Paycheck Fairness Act doesn't disappoint. It would create a new grant program to instruct women on salary negotiation tactics and require the Department of Labor to train employers in strategies for eliminating pay disparities. It seems almost quaint to ask, but where in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to engage in this type of activity? Taxpayers should be outraged that their money is being put to such use.''

If we are really concerned about working women and wanting to see them treated fairly, the Democrats in charge would bring up the American Energy Act and let us vote to create more sources of energy, thereby bringing down the cost of oil and gas and other forms of energy. This would do a lot more to help working women than this bill is going to do.

[From NRO Contributor July 30, 2008]

Feminists Meddle With the Market--the Paycheck Fairness Act

(By Carrie Lukas)

When an economic issue makes headlines, you can usually

count on Congress to respond, more often than not with an

over-reach that creates more problems than it solves (think

Sarbanes-Oxley or the recent housing bailout bill). Today is

a rare moment when Congress has the potential to meaningfully

address a real economic problem--rising energy prices--with

sensible legislation to allow more drilling to increase

energy supplies. So what has Congress slated for

consideration this week? The Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill

that is the equivalent of throwing sand into the wheels of

our economic machine.

Underlying the bill are the assumptions that our workplace

is systematically hostile to women and that existing laws

don't provide enough protection for women. As committee

chairman George Miller (D., Calif.) said when celebrating the

passage of the bill out of his committee: ``This is a

historic day in the fight for equal rights for women. If we

are serious about closing the gender pay gap, we must get

serious about punishing those who would otherwise scoff at

the weak sanctions under current law.''

The committee's press release, like essentially every

public statement supporting expanded ``equal pay'' laws,

cites the statistic that women earn just 77 percent of men's

earnings. This ``wage gap'' is considered proof that the work

world's deck is still stacked against women and government

needs to do more to make sure that everyone plays fair.

Yet a statistic that simply compares the wages of the

median full-time working man and the full-time working woman

tells us nothing about the existence (or lack thereof) of

systematic wage discrimination. Many factors contribute to

how much one earns, from occupation and area of specialty to

education and years of experience. Not surprisingly, once

those factors are taken into account, the wage gap shrinks.

Men tend to take jobs that are dirtier, more dangerous, and

distasteful than those performed by women. Overwhelmingly,

men are the ones working in our sewers, guarding our prisons,

laying concrete in the scorching sun, and catching and

gutting our fish. They work more graveyard shifts and longer

hours, in fact, the Department of Labor estimates that even

full-time working women spend about a half an hour less each

day on the job than men do. Women disproportionately work

indoors, in safe, climate controlled buildings, with regular,

or even flexible, hours. More people are interested in

working in libraries and school buildings than on the fishing

boats featured in Deadliest Catch, which is why physically

strenuous, dangerous jobs pay higher salaries.

Feminist activists tend to be frustrated with this

analysis, and the explanation that the market (not nefarious

men) is primarily responsible for women earning less. They

don't think it's fair that jobs that require an education,

like social work or teaching, are less valued in the

marketplace than positions in trucking and sanitation work

that require only characteristics like stamina and a high

tolerance for filth.

They've long championed policies, dubbed as ``comparable

worth,'' that would give government officials the power to

supersede the market to make sure that women's contributions

aren't undervalued. The Paycheck Fairness Act takes steps in

that direction. The Department of Labor would issue

``guidelines'' that compare the wages of different jobs to

give employers a sense of what is considered ``fair.'' The

guidelines may not have the force of law (yet) but certainly

would be a powerful specter hanging over employers seeking to

avoid costly litigation.

And employers would have additional reason to fear that

they would be targets for litigation if the Paycheck Fairness

Act becomes law. This bill would subject employers to

unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, even for

unintentional pay disparities, creating potential paydays

certain to inspire trial lawyers to action. The bill would

also strip employers of the ability to defend differences in

pay as based on factors other than sex, such as experience

and performance, leaving courts to dictate what constitutes a

legitimate pay structure.

Of course, no congressional legislation would be complete

without a healthy serving of waste, and the Paycheck Fairness

Act doesn't disappoint. It would create a new grant program

to instruct women on salary negotiation tactics and require

the Department of Labor to train employers in strategies for

eliminating pay disparities. It seems almost quaint to ask,

but where in the Constitution is Congress granted the power

to engage in this type of activity? Taxpayers should be

outraged that their money is being put to such use.

Federal law already outlaws sex discrimination. This

legislation would afford women few new protections against

actual sex discrimination, but would raise the cost of

employment and discourage workplace flexibility. It is

exactly what women--and the economy--don't need. If this is

what we can expect from the rest of this Congress, Americans

should hope for an early recess.

Thank you, Mr. McKeon. I want to continue with what I was saying before. Republicans are deeply concerned about working families. Every day we come to this Congress and we do everything that we can to help those working families. We believe that if any worker is subject to discrimination in the workplace because of their sex, or for any other reason, that that discrimination should be rooted out and punished accordingly. That is why current law protections are so important. Again, we have outlined why those laws are adequate currently.

We are also concerned about other workplace policies and proposals that threaten workers' wages, flexibility, and freedom. However, unfortunately, Democrats have once again stifled debate in the House and blocked the minority from offering amendments that address the real concerns of working women and families.

They have done the exact opposite of what they promised to do in 2006, make this the most open Congress ever, make this the most ethical Congress ever, make this the fairest Congress ever. It has been just the opposite of that.

Again, what we should be doing today is we should be debating how we can bring down the price of gasoline and heating oil and all of those things that are harming working Americans every day, but instead we are dealing with bills that are going to do nothing but line the pockets of trial lawyers and create what I call high-priced welfare, which are high-priced bureaucratic jobs which don't really do anything to help working men and women in this country, especially working women, increase their pay.

We will be stifling businesses. It seems as though they hate business and industry, and want to do everything that they can to shut it down in this country. This bill will certainly help do that.

So I say we vote ``no'' on this bill because this bill doesn't do what the title pretends it does, and in fact harms working women. What we need to do is be doing something to bring down the price of energy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-considered and over- reaching legislation.

Proponents of this bill claim it simply reverses a May 29, 2007, U.S. Supreme Court decision and further clarifies congressional opposition to wage discrimination against employees in the workplace. In reality, however, it will set into motion unintended consequences that its supporters simply are not willing to acknowledge.

At the outset, let me make it clear that opposition to discrimination of

any type, be it gender discrimination, racial discrimination, or any other type of discrimination inside or outside the workplace is not confined to one party or the other. Every Member of this Chamber stands in strong opposition to the unfair treatment of any worker, but at the same time we must stand firmly behind a process that ensures justice for all parties, and that includes protecting against the potential for abuse and over-litigation. That, I believe, is where the two parties diverge on the bill before us. We aren't taking sides for or against discrimination in the workplace; rather, we're staking out different positions on fair and equitable justice and the rule of law.

For more than 40 years, title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has made it illegal for employers to determine an employee's pay scale based on his or her gender. And this is a principle upon which all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, can agree. As such, current law provides that any individual wishing to challenge an employment practice as discriminatory must first file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the applicable statute of limitations, which is either 180 or 300 days, depending on his or her state of employment after the alleged workplace discrimination occurred.

The statute of limitations was clearly established in the law to encourage the timely filing of claims, which helps prevent the filing of stale claims and protects against abuse of the legal system.

Consider these worst case scenarios, for example. Without a statute of limitations in place, an employee could sue for discrimination resulting from an alleged discriminatory act that might have occurred 5, 10, 20, 40, or even more years earlier. And without a statute of limitations in place, it is entirely conceivable that a worker or retiree could seek damages against a company run by employees and executives that had nothing to do with the initial act of alleged discrimination that occurred dozens of years ago.

H.R. 2831 would essentially dismantle the statute of limitations and replace it with a new system under which every paycheck received by the employee allegedly discriminated against starts the clock on an entirely new statute. While fair-minded and principled, this dramatic change in civil rights law would have incredibly far-reaching impact, one that supporters of the bill have yet to take the time to thoroughly and appropriately consider. And B, under H.R. 2831, the worst case scenarios I just described would become commonplace. And let's not kid ourselves; our Nation's trial lawyers would seize upon them.

Because H.R. 2831 would dismantle the critical statute of limitations, the Bush administration last week threatened to veto, should the bill ever arrive at his desk. Specifically, the administration noted that the legislation ``would serve to impede justice and undermine the important goal of having allegations of discrimination expeditiously resolved.''

Furthermore, the effect of elimination of any statute of limitations in this area would be contrary to the centuries' old notion about limitations, period, for all lawsuits.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the Statement of Administration Policy into the Record

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, July 27, 2007.

Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2831--Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay

Act of 2007 (Rep. Miller (D) CA and 31 Cosponsors)

The Administration supports our Nation's anti-

discrimination laws and is committed to the timely resolution

of discrimination claims. For this and other reasons, the

Administration strongly opposes the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of

2007. H.R. 2831 would allow employees to bring a claim of pay

or other employment-related discrimination years or even

decades after the alleged discrimination occurred. H.R. 2831

constitutes a major change in, and expanded application of,

employment discrimination law. The change would serve to

impede justice and undermine the important goal of having

allegations of discrimination expeditiously resolved.

Furthermore, the effective elimination of any statute of

limitations in this area would be contrary to the centuries-

old notion of a limitations period for all lawsuits. If H.R.

2831 were presented to the President. his senior advisors

would recommend that he veto the bill.

Meaningful statutes of limitations in these sorts of fact-

intensive cases are crucial to the fair administration of

justice. The prompt assertion of employment discrimination

permits employers to defend against--and allows employees to

prove--claims that arise from employment decisions instead of

having to litigate claims that are long past. In such cases,

evidence often will have been lost, memories will have faded,

and witnesses will have moved on. Moreover, effective

statutes of limitations benefit employees by encouraging the

prompt discovery, assertion, and resolution of employment

discrimination claims so that workplace discrimination can be

remedied without delay.

H.R. 2831 purports to undo the Supreme Court's decision of

May 29, 2007, in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. by

permitting pay discrimination claims to be brought within 180

days not of a discriminatory pay decision, which is the rule

under current law, but rather within 180 days of receiving

any paycheck affected by such a decision, no matter how far

in the past the underlying act of discrimination allegedly

occurred. As a result, this legislation effectively

eliminates any time requirement for filing a claim involving

compensation discrimination. Allegations from thirty years

ago or more could be resurrected and filed in federal courts.

Moreover, the bill far exceeds the stated purpose of

undoing the Court's decision in Ledbetter by extending the

expanded statute of limitations to any ``other practice''

that remotely affects an individual's wages, benefits, or

other compensation in the future. This could effectively

waive the statute of limitations for a wide variety of claims

(such as promotion and arguably even termination decisions)

traditionally regarded as actionable only when they occur.

This legislation does not appear to be based on evidence

that the current statute of limitations principles have

caused any systemic prejudice to the interests of employees,

but it is reasonable to expect the bill's vastly expanded

statute of limitations would exacerbate the existing heavy

burden on the courts by encouraging the filing of stale

claims.

Mr. Speaker, as the President's veto threat makes clear, H.R. 2831 is not a matter of tinkering around the edges as its supporters would have the American people believe. Rather, it is a fundamental overhaul of long-standing civil rights laws. The last major change to these laws occurred more than 15 years ago and after several years of debate. Yet, here we are, barely 2 months removed from a Supreme Court decision ready to grab headlines before we return home for the month of August by advancing a highly flawed bill without any regard to the long-term ramifications it could have should it ever make its way into law.

H.R. 2831 represents bad policy, and even worse processing, and for these reasons I will oppose it. I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from

Texas (Ms. Granger), a member of our elected leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy now to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) 2\1/2\ minutes.

How much time do we have?

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield at this time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) 3 minutes, ranking member on the subcommittee.

It was my understanding we were going to finish up tomorrow.

So you want me to take 30 seconds?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Kline just said, I think we have had a good debate here tonight.

As we did have that hearing on Ms. Ledbetter's case, the bill wasn't before us, but we did hear her story. And all of us I think felt bad for her for the things that happened to her 20, 30 years ago.

But what was also said, as we're sent here to represent all of our constituents, we can't totally let emotion guide our decisions. We have to make good law, sound law, and I think we're worried about losing the statute of limitations. I think that's something we really need to protect against.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Maryland, the majority leader, to tell us about next week's schedule.

I thank my friend for the information.

On the first bill under a rule, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, will that be an open rule?

I thank my friend for that.

In the past, we've had in previous Congresses an open rule on these appropriations bills. I don't recall a prefiling requirement, though I'm sure we will talk about that in the Rules Committee. In appropriations, whatever the amendment is has to be paid for out of the bill so it has always been felt that that provides its own level of constraint. We would certainly argue for that kind of open rule.

I would yield.

I thank you for that information.

This will be the first appropriations bill on the floor this year. Do you anticipate other bills in September?

I would yield.

On that topic of September, since at the end of next week we wouldn't have a chance to talk about the upcoming schedule, does the gentleman have a sense of some of the priority legislation that we might consider in September?

On the extenders package, I'm hopeful we see that bill back here because it is one of the things we could do that would have energy impact. And I hope we could even consider whatever is the maximum time that we would be able to do there is what we should do.

On energy generally, yesterday, Mr. Boehner from Ohio and I, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Putnam and others introduced a bill, the American Energy Act. It's a bill that is broad based and designed to promote American energy, conservation and invest in the future. Is there any opportunity for that act or other acts that we've had discharge petitions on, other bills, coming to the floor? And if not, what kind of energy legislation do you anticipate?

I thank the gentleman for that.

We have other bills that we've started discharge petitions on, some sponsored by Democrats, that we think are part of the solution here. Clearly, based on the understood facts that some of this oil and natural gas gets online quicker than others, it seems to me that that is one of the principal reasons to get started everywhere that is reasonable for us to go as quickly as you can. We're the only country in the world that has the potential for offshore drilling, deepwater drilling, that doesn't do it. And I think any proposal that we've advanced through the Senate in previous years or anybody is making now involves the Governors or the State governments of the affected States having to agree. So if Governor Schwarzenegger and the people of California don't want to drill, don't want the revenue, in fact, even if they don't want the Federal Government to have the revenue from that drilling, they wouldn't have to drill. But if the people of Virginia or North Carolina or any other State did, they're part of that decision- making process.

And other countries do this. Some of that oil, particularly in the deep water, is going to come online quicker than others. But geologists believe in the deepwater drilling there is roughly an 18-year supply of natural gas and oil. So it doesn't all have to come online at once. Also, my view has been, as my friend knows, that if we just announce that as a country that has some of the most known and plentiful reserves in oil and natural gas that we were going to start in a real effort to go after all of it that was reasonably and safely achievable, that that would have impact on price.

Let me say one other thing, and then I will yield.

The other thing I would say about a full and fair debate, these bills that come under suspension obviously narrow the debate. I guess I understand that. We have had some discussion on the floor, well, let's have all these ideas out there and just see who a majority is for, but 20 minutes of debate on a side of an issue really isn't the kind of full and fair debate we need.

I would like to see a bill come with plenty of debate, with plenty of opportunities for every Democrat that wants to make an amendment to make an amendment, for every Republican, it could be prefiled, it could be anything, and the will of the House would determine which direction the country goes in this real desire for energy, more American energy, American energy created by and producing American jobs. I hope we can get there. There is a real demand in the country for that.

A Member just has to go home to know what is the number one economic issue in a country where people are concerned right now about what to do about the economy.

I would yield.

I thank the gentleman for that observation.

I would say in terms of deep water, I think sometimes I say that rather than make the point that when we talk about drilling on the coast, and the Atlantic and Pacific coast which is where we restrict, and no one else restricts their coastal drilling, I am always talking about something way beyond the line of sight. I can say that as well as deep water.

I think there is drilling in the gulf even significantly deeper than the 1,000 feet to the floor and below that. But there is potential there. If, in fact, people of the various States don't want to drill well beyond their shores even though they get part of the revenue,

that is a decision they'd get to make. I do think that is an issue that is dramatically changing.

I also believe firmly, and every economist that I have read on this topic agrees, that if we announced we were going to drill, it wouldn't matter if anybody had a drill or not. That one signal from the United States where we have at least twice as much readily available oil shale in the Rockies as Saudi Arabia has in its known reserves, readily available, not to count the other amounts that could be available later, just if we were to announce that we were going after that supply, it would have an impact on price.

We had a hearing a couple of weeks ago where we had people from Interior talk about that particular supply, a lot of supply well off the coast on the Atlantic and Pacific coast. And if there is speculation here, I think the best way to deal with speculators would be to get them caught on the wrong side of a market that is going the other way because the United States of America has announced it is going to go after its own resources in a more dramatic way.

There are two prohibitions on the appropriations bill. One is coastal drilling on the Atlantic and Pacific coast, no money can be used to issue a lease, which is another way that legislators say you are not going to get a lease, and one in the oil shale in the Rockies. Removing both of those prohibitions would have a huge impact on price. It would start us in the right direction. The idea that some of this oil won't be available for 3 years, some of it for 5, some of it for 10, we are still going to need oil 10 years from now. Oil that is not available for 10 years is not an unacceptable goal because we know we are going to need oil 10 years from now.

I am convinced, I will tell my good friend, and we are good friends, I am convinced that if we just announced we were going to take those steps, it would have an immediate impact on price at the pump. We both know the reason there is no line at the pump. I went to 12 gas stations in my district on Friday and Saturday. There was no line anywhere, but every person that I talked to, whether they were traveling to Branson, Missouri, on vacation, or filling their car up in Andersonville or Neosho, Missouri, they all had a story as to how these gas prices were affecting their lives in other ways. Members have those stories. We can do something about them. But to do that, it is going to take more than a 20-minute debate on whether we release oil that we have already bought in the short term. If supply matters, long term going after that supply really matters.

I yield to my friend.

I just advance the idea that the moment we are in right now is not a Katrina-analogous moment. There is no temporary disruption of supply that you need to do something about. There is a long-term problem that needs to be solved. In fact, you mentioned those gas lines. Those gas lines in the seventies, the embargo in the seventies, that led us to this idea of a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And at the time we set the reserve up, it is the same size it is now, or when Congress set it up, before many of us were here, at least, at the time Congress set it up, it had a 117-day supply. That same amount of oil is now a 56-day supply because of the amount we now use.

Taking 3 days out of that 56-day supply only postpones, in the view of many of us, the reality of dealing with the long-term challenge that we face. We would like to have a debate on that.

You could bring that bill back to the floor next week under a rule. If a majority wanted to send it to the Senate, they could. But the chance you take is that others with another idea would get at least one amendment on the floor, and that's why we are here with suspension bills as opposed to rule bills because it's a take-it-or-leave-it-this- is-all-of-the-debate kind of approach.

I yield back.