Alice Paul Women's Suffrage Congressional Gold Medal Act

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

I would like to begin by expressing my great appreciation to my very dear friend, the distinguished and very able Chair of the Committee on Rules, my friend from Rochester (Ms. Slaughter).

And with all due respect to my distinguished committee Chair, I am compelled, not surprisingly, to rise in the strongest possible opposition to this rule.

Over the last 1\1/2\ years, my colleagues Messrs. Diaz-Balart, Hastings, and Sessions have stood right here at this lectern and opposed many, many deeply flawed rules. We began this Congress very inauspiciously as the leadership jammed through the opening week agenda before even bothering to set up the Rules Committee, allowing Ms. Slaughter to become Chair of that committee. From the very outset, there has been no pretense of concern for due process, not an inkling of respect for the rules of this House.

While we started at a low point, we have sunk lower and lower with each subsequent rule. One by one the Democratic leadership has trampled the rules and traditions of this body in an effort to shut down debate, cut both Republicans and Democrats out of the process, and jam through poorly constructed bills that rarely, rarely, if ever, become public law. I frequently marvel at each new low and assume that we have reached the rock bottom. As we have considered new forms of restrictive rules crafted under an ever-more restrictive process, I have often thought, ``This one takes the cake. The Democratic leadership couldn't possibly stoop any lower than this.'' Until the next comes, shutting down due process to an even greater degree.

So this time I'm not going to say that this rule is the absolute bottom of the barrel. I don't doubt that with a little more time and effort, based on the track record we've seen, the Democratic leadership will find a way to trample the rules and traditions of this House even more thoroughly. I will say that this is clearly the worst example that we've seen in the last 17 months since they have been in charge.

But before I get into the details of this egregious rule, Madam Speaker, I think it's important to discuss why it even matters what kind of a process is used to craft legislation and hold votes. I know the inner workings of the Rules Committee are thought to be so arcane that even some of our colleagues consider them to be a little too ``inside baseball.'' In fact, the distinguished Chair just spent all of her time talking about the bill itself. She didn't talk about the fact that they're trampling on the rights of Republicans and Democrats. Start talking about rules and procedure and regular order, and most Americans' eyes, and even some of our colleagues', start to glaze over.

So to illustrate why process matters, I will use another set of rules that are

more widely understood as an example. Even before the advent of the television show Law & Order, most of us were familiar with the basics of our criminal justice system. We're all familiar with our basic rights enshrined in the Constitution. We cannot be held without a charge. We're protected from self-incrimination and unlawful searches and seizures. We must be read our Miranda rights when placed under arrest. These basic rights are fundamental, fundamental, Madam Speaker, to American democracy. We know that there can be no justice without a fair process, and we know that the protection of the rights of the individual is more important than the outcome of any one particular case.

The Bill of Rights and the laws that have been enacted to uphold it aren't just a cryptic system of rules and regulations. They guarantee, Madam Speaker, they guarantee our civil rights and they guard against tyranny. Without a fair process, power is abused and rights are abridged. Process matters, Madam Speaker. Process matters because process is democracy.

The rules of the House were established for the very same reason. They ensure that the American people, through their elected representatives, have a say in the crafting of laws that govern them. The rules guard against abuses of power, and they ensure that the legislative process is transparent and fair. Thwarting due process is not just arcane political maneuvering around obscure, complicated rules that no one should care about. It subverts the principles of representative democracy. Let me say again, Madam Speaker, the rule that we are considering at this moment very clearly subverts the principles of representative democracy.

The Democratic leadership's casual disregard for these rules and principles has faced growing criticism in the media. Last week the Politico accused them of ``breaking promises,'' promises for an open legislative process that followed regular order and the rules of the House. Not surprisingly, the paper cited today's underlying bill, the supplemental appropriations, as Exhibit A in the Democrats' assault on an open and inclusive process, which was promised at the beginning of this Congress. That's not my saying that; that's an independent newspaper that made that statement.

Even before the new lows of the supplemental, another publication, Investors Business Daily, reported recently on the leadership's ``widening power grab,'' accusing them of ``anti-democratic'' behavior, running a ``dictatorship,'' and ``showing little or no concern for holding actual votes or building consensus on issues.'' Now, Madam Speaker, those are pretty harsh charges coming from a newspaper that is clearly a very independent publication. And they go on to say that this is all being done in an effort to ``manipulate Congress.'' Madam Speaker, ``dictatorship'' and ``anti-democratic,'' those are pretty harsh words, but they are clearly warranted.

The process used to craft the underlying supplemental appropriations bill has been atrocious. Committee work was completely abandoned. Without a single hearing, without a markup, without so much as consulting Mr. Lewis and the committee members, this bill was concocted behind closed doors. Zero input, zero deliberation, zero consultation. The Senate, of course, won't stand for that kind of treatment and intends to hold a markup later today before proceeding with its floor debate. But the Democratic leaders in this House apparently deem this to be a lesser body, with no right to due process.

The Democratic leadership intended to bring this bill up last week. They had to pull it from the schedule because fiscally conservative Members within their own caucus were outraged at the contents. A week later, Madam Speaker, a backroom deal has now been struck, bringing the remaining Democratic Members on board. How? Bringing Members on board by imposing a tax on small businesses in this country, which is exactly what this is. You see, Democrats love to stir up class warfare by justifying the small business tax as just a tax on the rich. Unless, of course, we are talking about millionaire farmers, and then they like to give them massive government payouts, which is what they did just yesterday in the farm bill.

To add to their inconsistency, they actually waived their own PAYGO rule to fund the farm bill subsidies, and today they refuse to waive the same PAYGO rule and use it as an excuse to levy massive tax increases on small businessmen and women in this country. Only in Washington would such logic be employed.

We became aware of the rough outline of this tax increase, along with every other provision of this bill, only through press reports. Some have reported a $183 billion price tag on this bill. Others have said it would be costing at least $250 billion. Various outlets reported on various provisions. But we didn't get a chance to see for ourselves what was in this massive bill until 3 p.m. yesterday. In fact, the distinguished former Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, the now ranking member, my good friend, Mr. Lewis, came before us. Within the hour before that 3 p.m. meeting, he had just gotten the copy of the measure.

Most egregious of all, we're not actually considering a bill here today. We will be voting on three amendments to a Senate amendment to an old House bill that has already passed but was never enacted. Did you catch that? If it sounds gimmicky and underhanded, that's because that's exactly what it is. In fact, this morning I heard our colleague Mr. McDermott on National Public Radio, where he said the crafting of this is tantamount to John Kerry's very famous line in which he said ``I voted for it before I voted against it.'' The Democratic leadership knows that a vote on their full package would never pass; so they plotted a way around an actual vote on final passage.

For anyone who missed that, let me repeat. The House of Representatives will not be permitted a vote on the full underlying proposal. When Investors Business Daily calls this a dictatorship, they seem to have a point.

So what exactly is in this $183-250 billion bill that comes to us without any due process and will pass without a vote? Who can say for sure? But I know that at least $62 billion in new entitlements are included; $11 billion in unemployment insurance, and our friend Mr. Weller will be talking about this in a few minutes; and at least $51 billion in benefits for veterans. Clearly, these are very, very important issues that need to be addressed.

I don't doubt that the Democratic majority will try to claim that Republicans don't care about our veterans or those facing economic hardship. We hear that time and time again. To the contrary, these are such critically important issues for us that we passionately believe that we must address them in a serious and deliberative way. It is simply not good enough to slap together a proposal without a single moment of testimony or debate, throw some money at our problems, and call it a day.

The very critical issues addressed in this bill, from funding for Iraq and Afghanistan to international food assistance to the tremendously important domestic programs, all of these deserve a substantive, deliberative process. We should have an opportunity to examine which of these are truly emergencies and which should be included in the regular appropriations process. And all of them should have the benefit of an open debate to ensure that we are addressing our priorities effectively.

This rule allows for none of this, Madam Speaker. It thwarts the rules and traditions that were put in place to guard against abuses of power, and it blocks consideration of even a single amendment, including the very thoughtful and responsible alternative proposed by the man sitting to my right here, the distinguished ranking member of the committee, Mr. Lewis. He's offered a clean supplemental appropriations bill which simply provides our troops the funding they need without bogging it down with all kinds of unrelated items or adding new policy that prevents them from carrying out their mission.

Our hope is to get this critical funding to our troops before Memorial Day, which is fast approaching. That's not an arbitrary deadline and it's not a gimmick. Our military commanders have told us that they desperately need this funding now, and we want to be able to go home for Memorial Day and tell our veterans and our military families that we passed a clean bill that funds our troops and their mission. We

want to tell them we crafted a bill without regard to politics, without regard to providing political cover or fodder for political ads. We simply gave the troops the funding they desperately need. Now, Madam Speaker, that's exactly what the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Lewis, should be able to provide, and I'm going to seek an opportunity for him to do just that.

But, unfortunately, the Democratic majority can't advance their flawed policies without shutting down the process. So they prefer closed rules to open debate. They prefer backroom deals to the transparent committee process. They prefer hollow, ill-gotten victories that die after the House vote to substantive, bipartisan legislation that is enacted into law. That's exactly what we need to do, Madam Speaker.

So I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I notice my colleague doesn't spend any time at all talking about the rule which is being considered at this time and shutting down democracy which we all aspire to in Iraq and other places in the world.

With that, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the author of the very important measure that will be made in order if we are able to defeat the previous question, a clean supplemental, my good friend from Redlands, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Lewis.

Will the gentlewoman yield for a question?

I would just like to remind my colleague that 82 percent of the people who fall in the category about what she has just mentioned are small business men and women. And I think we need to realize this is a small business tax.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, my friend from Janesville, Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

I am happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, let me say in the name of saying they are taxing the rich, the facts show it. Eighty-two percent of the people who fall in that category are small businessmen and women. That's just the facts.

With that, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my good friend from Morris, Illinois (Mr. Weller), the ranking member of the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee of Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side.

In light of the fact there is much more time remaining on the other side, may I ask the distinguished Chair if she might proceed and yield some of her time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I understand that my good friend from Cleveland was unable to get time from his side of the aisle.

And so at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Cleveland, the Democratic Presidential candidate, Mr. Kucinich.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire again how much time is remaining on each side.

Madam Speaker, with that, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentlewoman from Brooksville, Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Yes, we have a couple of speakers and then I am going to close.

Let me yield to my very good friend from Wichita, who is a member of the Appropriations Committee and who has worked long and hard here, for 1 minute.

(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Will the gentleman yield?

That is not my goal, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds.

Let me begin by apologizing to my friend from Wausau. The notion of engaging in debate on the House floor is something I feel strongly about, and I am always happy to yield to people when they make requests for me to yield. I was simply asking my friend to

yield because of the fact that the $40 billion post-9/11 supplemental about which my friend complained and referred to as ``this crowd'' came to this floor under unanimous consent, a bipartisan agreement.

And the three supplemental appropriations, Madam Speaker, about which my friend referred, never, never, denied a motion to recommit to the minority. And I ensured as chairman of the Rules Committee at that time the right of the minority would, in fact, be maintained.

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to yield 1 minute to my friend from Auburn, Washington, the former sheriff, David Reichert.

I inquire, is the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee the final speaker for the majority?

Madam Speaker, let me yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me say at the outset, and again the last thing I want to do is offend my friend from Wausau by asking him to yield at any point, but I would be happy to yield to him if he wants to respond to what I am about to say. And that is, the fact of the matter is we have in this Congress the single highest number of closed rules in the 219-year history of the Republic. Never before has this, has the United States Congress had such a period of closed rules. I will tell you, it is absolutely outrageous. Why, because we were promised something that was much, much different than that.

On a supplemental appropriations bill, my good friend, the chairman of the committee said, ``The majority leadership decide to obliterate the legislative process. They discarded a bipartisan committee product, and they threw in unrelated, partisan political items that characterized a full partisan agenda. They have taken abusive power to a new level.''

Madam Speaker, let me say that when we did that, we provided the minority a right to have a bite at the apple, a motion to recommit. They had an opportunity to offer a proposal. I will tell you it is just plain wrong to see what has been taking place here.

I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question so I can amend the rule to simply give Republicans one simple bite at the apple, something we always guaranteed the now-majority.

Mr. Lewis, the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, introduced a bill on Tuesday, H.R. 6062, a clean supplemental, to provide troop funding without strings and extraneous spending. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to make in order an alternative motion to concur by Mr. Lewis which would simply state that the House concurs in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of H.R. 6062. This way the House has the opportunity to send the Senate a clean supplemental to get our troops the money that they desperately need without the hocus-pocus, three-in- one vote political gamesmanship that we have before us at this moment.

It's simply the right thing for us to do to send that clean supplemental.

Madam Speaker, at this point I would like to ask unanimous consent to have the text of the extraneous material and the amendment included in the Record.

Madam Speaker, it's just one simple bite at the apple, something we always guaranteed the Democrats when we were in charge. It's one amendment. We're just trying to help the Democratic majority become the majority that they promised that they would be. It's not too late. Let them do it, Madam Speaker.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

How much time do we have left?

Mr. Chairman, let me yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to put it on the record that I like women. I have been married almost 46 years, and we have three daughters and we have three sons, and I would not want the daughters to be discriminated against, I would not want my sons to be discriminated against.

I wish we could do something here that would end for all time all discrimination. Unfortunately, I guess when there are people involved in different things, some of them will tend to discriminate. That is why the law was passed in 1963, to level all pay. I want to just on the record make sure that everybody understands when we throw everybody into a pot and then add up all of their salaries, we are not talking about equal pay for equal jobs.

One of the things that we learned when we had the hearing last year, when we are talking about actual people and actual jobs, is that many women ended up going into, after graduating from college, many of them go into teaching, many of them go into social work. Many men go into jobs, some of them go into teaching. If they go into teaching, they are hired, they make the same exact wage. If the men go into social work and women go into social work, they make the same wage. But if a person goes into banking at a level that pays higher or into law at a level that pays higher, again, a woman going into law will make the same as a man. But when they throw all of these jobs into the same pile, that is where you get some differentiation in the pay.

Again, if we could just hold to equal pay, same job, same pay, I am totally supportive of that. That is what the law says, and that is what we should enforce. And the numbers that I quoted earlier, the pay is almost exactly the same. Where there is some discrimination, we should go after it, we should enforce the law. That is what I would encourage us to do.

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

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I would yield you more time.

I said I would be happy to yield you more time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman that spoke earlier, a good friend of mine from California, said that I gave a long description of equal pay for equal job, and I thought that that is kind of what the debate was about. People keep talking about wanting equal pay for equal job. They want to have the same pay for the woman as for the man for the same job.

Now, if we are just talking about we want just women paid the same as men for whatever job, then that is kind of the figures being used. But I think most of us know, we fly a lot, the pilot usually makes more than the flight attendant. Whether the flight attendant is male or female, they are paid the same. The pilot, whether he is male or female, they are paid the same. But the pilot is not paid the same as the flight attendant. We understand that, and I think that is probably not what we are arguing about here, but it seems like that is the way the debate is going.

I support equal pay for the same job, men, women. With this bill, apparently the debate is equal pay for men and women, and I thought that is what we were talking about, because that is what the debate is. But as the gentlewoman said, that is not what this bill does.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, again, it sounds like we are talking equal pay for equal work, and, again, I support that. I oppose discrimination. I support equal pay for equal job.

If we are saying that nurses should make the same as doctors, if the doctor is a female and the nurse is a male, should they make the some money? Or if the doctor is a male and the nurse is a female, should they make the same money? No. I think all nurses should make the same money. Doctors should make the same money if they are doing the same work. Not even all doctors make the same. Some surgeons make more than others, depending on their specialty, depending on what they do.

We understand that in our economy what the work does decides on what the pay is. I think if you take everybody working and divide up all of their pay, and you have more women that are serving in occupations that pay less, as my good friend just pointed out, women didn't have I guess the same opportunities in the past as they do now, and so if you took those figures and you had more women working in lower-paid fields, that is how you get the 77 percent discrepancy.

But if you took all of the same jobs, added up what they are paid, maybe 40 years ago, 50 years ago there was a lot more discrimination than now, but I think now if you look across the field and equal pay for equal job, you would

find there is, if anything, very little difference.

Should it be no difference? You bet. And I think you would probably find in some occupations you have women making more than men. And I guess men should probably claim discrimination in that case, but I don't think they should. I think the reason women are paid more is they are probably worth more.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am happy to yield at this time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of the committee, such time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Someone on the other side said this bill isn't about equal pay for equal work, but I know others have said it is about equal pay for equal work. I have Mr. Hoyer's statement here, the majority leader, and he began his statement saying equal pay for equal work. That is the principle that we are talking about.

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a clever name. Who doesn't support paycheck fairness? Unfortunately, that is not what this bill is offering.

No, Mr. Chairman. If this bill becomes law, it will make the system fundamentally unfair by putting the interests of the trial lawyers above the interests of the workers.

As I mentioned earlier, we did try to offer an amendment. I don't think it was totally out of line to think that we should maybe limit the trial lawyers working on these cases to $2,000 an hour. But every Democrat voted against that. And then they didn't let that amendment be placed in order to discuss here on the floor. I am sorry that we weren't able to do that.

This bill will expose family businesses to unlimited liability even if there is no intentional discrimination. The Democrats' fig leaf amendment doesn't change the fact that trial lawyers stand to receive a big payday by lowering the bar on costly jury awards.

This bill will encourage class-action lawsuits, treating the EPA as a litigation factory. This bill will make it harder for businesses to defend against legal challenges, inviting unscrupulous trial lawyers. I say unscrupulous; I have many good friends who are trial lawyers, and I exclude them from that definition. But the unscrupulous ones will pursue baseless claims.

Now we know what the bill would do. But what about what it fails to do? It doesn't prohibit discrimination under the law. We did that 45 years ago, as Mr. Price so eloquently explained. It doesn't offer working women new flexibility so that they can balance work and home.

Mrs. McMorris Rodgers had a bill earlier that she wanted to present that she has never been given the chance to do so. But it would give women the opportunity to take compensatory time, the same as government workers can do now. If you work overtime, you can be paid time-and-a- half in cash; but if you want to take that time in compensatory time, we do not give people the opportunity to do that. We should do that.

It certainly doesn't do anything to bring down the price of gasoline, which is the number one issue many working families are struggling with today.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the Republican time to speak on the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will not oppose the gentlelady's amendment, but I wish to make clear, as with the other Democratic amendments to this bill that we are likely to debate today, this amendment makes the most minor of improvements to a fundamentally flawed bill. I will not oppose the amendment, but its adoption does not change my strong opposition to the underlying bill.

As I understand the gentlelady's amendment, it would strike from the underlying bill a provision which would extend the Equal Pay Act to cover not only employees, but even applicants for employment. I agree that striking this provision is the right thing to do.

Under current law, and since 1963, the Equal Pay Act has required that employers pay equal wages earned for equal work performed. It is hard to imagine how the law was ever meant to cover the payment of wages which have not yet been earned for work that has not yet been done. Frankly, the provision should not have been included in the bill in the first place, and I support its deletion.

That said, I stress again that this change is, at best, cosmetic and too little too late to address the fundamental flaws in the underlying bill. Put more simply, this amendment is the equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig. At the end of the day, it doesn't change things much.

You know where I got that from.

I will not oppose the amendment, but I remain opposed to the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think that we have heard in this debate today, 70 percent, 77 percent, over and over and over and over. And when we had a hearing last year, we had a lot of different figures that were given. It seems to me that it is important to have an outside source look at this, and I think the Secretary of Labor should do this study so that we don't do more harm than good.

I think this is a good amendment. I thank the gentleman for offering it, and I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the Republican time to speak in opposition.

I will not oppose the gentleman's amendment. As I understand it, the gentleman's amendment

does two things: First, it provides a 6-month delay in the effective date of the bill; and second, it directs the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to develop materials to assist small businesses in complying with the law's new requirements.

I do not object to either of these provisions. Indeed, I have always believed that we should do all we can, all that we should to assist small businesses which are the backbone of our economy and the leading source of job growth in our Nation.

Frankly, I would say that the gentleman's approach is a decidedly second-best option. As we just heard in debate on the prior amendment, I would support delaying implementation of the key provisions of this bill until we have a full understanding of its impact on jobs and on the recruiting and hiring of employees. If Members genuinely want to make sure the businesses, particularly small businesses, are not unfairly penalized by this legislation, they will, I hope, support the amendment previously offered by my colleague, Mr. Price, which will do just that.

I will also say there is a certain irony here. While the gentleman's amendment purports to help small businesses, what it fails to do is address fundamental flaws in the underlying bill, core issues which leave me to strongly oppose this legislation today. As I have said before and I expect I will say again before debate is concluded, the underlying bill offers little to benefit working women and families while threatening to wreck havoc on workers and employers by expanding liability and encouraging costly lawsuits. Nothing in the gentleman's amendment changes that simple fact.

I will not oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I would advise Members to not kid themselves into thinking that compliance assistance for small business in any real way addresses core failings in the underlying bill. Whether this amendment is adopted or not, I remain opposed to H.R. 1338 and urge my colleague to join me in voting ``no'' on final passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will not oppose this amendment. I do want to make clear that as the gentlelady spoke, the Chamber of Commerce supports her amendment, not the bill. They are opposed, as I am, to the underlying bill. I want to be clear that adoption or defeat will not change my position on the underlying bill. The so-called Paycheck Fairness Act, which we're debating today, has nothing to do with making paychecks fairer and everything to do with lining the pockets of trial lawyers.

The gentlelady's amendment tinkers at the margins of just one of the bill's fundamental flaws. Whether adopted or not, it does not change my strong opposition or the Chamber of Commerce's strong opposition to the underlying bill.

The gentlelady's amendment would appear to limit the circumstances in which a plaintiff can recover punitive damages under the bill to those situations where he or she can show that an employer acted with malice or reckless indifference. First, let me point out that nowhere in the Fair Labor Standards Act or Equal Pay Act is this standard of proof, malice, or reckless indifference used. It's an entirely new concept to this statute and one which will no doubt and to no one's great surprise encourage extended litigation to determine its meaning in the context of the Equal Pay Act.

Even more telling is what the gentlelady's amendment does not do. It does not limit compensatory or punitive damages but still puts employers

at risk for unlimited punitive and compensatory damage awards, remedies far beyond those contained in title VII, nor does it require that the plaintiff show the employer engaged in intentional discrimination. Presumably now an employer can be slapped with a multimillion-dollar punitive fine if a jury finds that he or she was indifferent, whatever that means.

When all is said and done, the amendment does little, if anything, to address the radical expansion of liability and the payback to trial lawyers contained in the bill. I'm excited to see what lawyers will do with that in front of a judge discussing indifference and how that pertains to the law. The gentlelady's amendment provides the most modest limitations of the bill's dramatic expansion of liability that one could imagine.

Now some limitation may be better than none at all, but this fig leaf does not come close to addressing core problems in the bill.

I will not oppose the amendment, but I remain strongly opposed to the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise enthusiastically to support this very important rule.

I congratulate the very strategic design of the Appropriations Committee. This is tough, and I thank the Rules Committee for listening to us as we presented our amendments.

But I rise today to say that war is ugly. But we applaud and appreciate the young men and women on the front lines. We forever honor them. Just a few minutes ago I was in a room listening to returning war veterans from Iraq, and they gave us these words, horrible stories, such as calling the

Iraqis hajis or sand niggers, telling us about the impact on their families, how many families were destroyed, how many have attempted to commit suicide.

I offered an amendment that many focused on the idea that everything we have asked the soldiers to do under the 2002 resolution has been done, and, therefore, it should expire. The President has no more authority to continue this war.

Then I wanted to debunk the actions of what happened to the Vietnam vets and call for a national day of celebration, a national day of honor for all the returning war heroes that will come home. This is what we should be doing today as we vote against the funding of this war in Iraq. It is important to stand for these soldiers.

But I am glad that we have extended GI benefits for veterans' education. Some of them were telling us that they are now being denied these benefits because of a general discharge, because of their opposition to the war. Yes, it is valuable because we move on to help Americans in this bill as well, extending unemployment compensation, getting rid of these cuts in Medicaid and making sure that we don't damage specialty hospitals that are in our rural and inner city areas who are helping us.

I am grateful to what the Appropriations Committee did on world and food hunger. It is a disaster, and they moved it up higher than what the President asked for. We had a briefing on world hunger and it was appalling what is going on around the world. I am grad that we have monies for refugee assistance and the Merida funding.

The Merida initiative is funding for this horrible drug war between Mexico and its own citizens that's spilling over into the United States. I am appreciative of these dollars, but, my friends, we have got to stop the utilization of drugs here in the United States.

It looks like it's McDonald's where they send these various drugs. When I say that, I am not talking about McDonald's, but I am suggesting that the pinpoints of where these drugs are dropped off in the United States, it is tragic. As we send more money and more money to Mexico, we have got to begin to devise a new policy for drug opposition here in the United States.

Vote against the funding for the war. The underlying other amendments are very good.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1197, Rule providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2642-- Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008. While I offer my support for amendments No. 2 and No. 3, I must oppose amendment No. 1. While amendments 2 and 3 contain provisions beneficial to the American people, designed to improve our economy and protect our young men and women, amendment 1 continues a disastrous policy of providing unrestricted funding to continue the Bush administration's war in Iraq.

I oppose amendment No. 1 because I stand with the American taxpayers who have paid over $600 billion to finance the misadventure in Iraq. I stand with the 4076 fallen heroes who stand even taller in death because they gave the last full measure of devotion to their country. Last May, I was proud to vote for H.R. 1591, a supplemental spending bill that would have provided funds for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, which included a timetable for the redeployment of U.S. troops. Though this bill passed the House by a clear majority, the President opted to veto this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I must oppose amendment No. 1. This amendment provides a total of $162.9 billion for the Department of Defense for FY 2008 and FY 2009, funds that are handed over without any strings. The amendment does not withhold funding for the Iraq war, a war that so many of my colleagues in Congress oppose, and which only 32 percent of Americans now support. The amendment does not require that war funds can only be used for the responsible redeployment of American troop's home from Iraq.

Madam Speaker, I voted against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution. I am proud of that vote. I have consistently voted against the administration's practice of submitting a request for war funding through an emergency supplemental rather than the regular appropriations process which would subject the funding request to more rigorous scrutiny and require it to be balanced against other pressing national priorities. I cannot support legislation that provides the President with the resources to prolong his ill-advised war effort unrestrained.

I rise today in strong support of amendment No. 2. This amendment lays out a responsible U.S. policy toward Iraq, requiring that troops begin redeployment from Iraq within 30 days, with a goal of completing the withdrawal of combat troops by December 2009. As a Member of both the Out of Iraq and the Progressive Caucuses, I am proud to vote for legislation that, like other measures passed by this Congress, begins the process of withdrawing U.S. men and women from Iraq.

In addition, Madam Speaker this legislation specifically requires that any agreement between the United States and the government of Iraq committing future U.S. forces must be specifically authorized by Congress. The governments of Iraq and the United States announced their intention to forge a ``strategic framework agreement,'' a long-term, bilateral pact, to be completed by July 31, 2008. This negotiated agreement is to be based on the ``Declaration of Principles for a Long- Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America,'' signed November 26, 2007, by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and President Bush.

Under the Declaration of Principles, the parties will negotiate a security agreement, under which the United States will support the Iraqi government and security forces in providing security and stability and fighting al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The Declaration of Principles envisions an agreement setting forth a wide- ranging set of commitments, which will cover issues including politics, economics, and security. In hearings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, administration officials have indicated that the President intends to negotiate this agreement as an executive agreement, not subject to Congressional approval. It is essential that any agreement which commits future U.S. troops to the defense of Iraq is outside the purview of existing authorizations, and such an agreement must be submitted to the Congress for approval. This legislation also prohibits the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, amendment No. 2 requires that the Iraqi government step up and pay its share of Iraqi reconstruction efforts. I am concerned that the United States has paid and continues to pay a disproportionate amount for Iraq reconstruction, especially when the Iraqi government reportedly has a $25-30 billion budget surplus this year. To date the United States has appropriated more than $45 billion for Iraq reconstruction. American funded reconstruction programs have included: the training and equipping of Iraqi security forces.

Iraq is a resource-rich nation. Though still facing problems including a lack of technology, damage from previous mismanagement, the effects of looting, and water intrusion, Iraqi oil production is currently at around 2 million barrels per day. The price of oil has skyrocketed to over $100 a barrel and Iraqi oil exports are generating an estimated $56.4 billion this year alone, according to the GAO, yet it is U.S. taxpayers who continue to foot the bill for Iraqi reconstruction. The government of Iraq is stashing its money in global banks, including a reported $30 billion in the U.S., instead of investing this money in the development of crucial Iraqi infrastructure. This legislation requires the Iraqi government to take responsibility for the future of its own nation.

There are a number of other key provisions in this amendment. It requires the President to reach an agreement with Iraq to subsidize fuel costs for U.S. Armed Forces operating in Iraq so that our military pays what Iraqis pay. It requires that troop's meet the Pentagon's definition of ``combat ready'' before they are deployed to Iraq; Prohibits troops from being deployed longer than Pentagon guidelines recommend; and requires that troops spend adequate time at home between deployments. This legislation makes substantial strides toward cleaning up contracting in Iraq, expanding current law to make all contractors working in war zones subject to prosecution for offenses that would otherwise be in violation of U.S. law; extending the statute of limitations for fraud cases during wartime; and amending the Federal criminal code to prohibit profiteering and fraud involving contractors overseas. In addition, it prohibits interrogation techniques not authorized in the Army Field Manual, a provision necessary in eliminating torture.

Amendment No. 3

Madam Speaker, the third amendment to H.R. 2642 provides over $21.2 billion for much needed domestic programs and foreign aid. By extending unemployment benefits, expanding veterans' education benefits, and placing a moratorium on the Bush administration's seven Medicaid regulations; this amendment gets us closer to where the Economic Stimulus package should have taken us.

This amendment will provide increased funds for food aid, military hospitals, and the reconstruction of the Louisiana levees.

international food aid

As many of you know, we are facing an international food crisis. According to the International Monetary Fund, IMF, global food prices have increased an average of 43 percent. In fact since March 2007, wheat has increased by 146 percent, soybean has increased by 71 percent, corn by 41 percent, and rice prices have increased by 29 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Many factors have played into this crisis. In China, India, and other emerging markets experiencing rapid economic growth, consumers are increasing their demand for food, oil, and energy supplies. Rising energy costs have directly raised the cost of agricultural production. Adverse weather-related events have lowered crop yields, particularly affecting wheat harvests. Depreciation of the U.S. dollar accounts for part of the increase in U.S. food prices, while increased production of biofuel has raised the price of corn.

Sadly, approximately 1 billion people--or one sixth of the world's population--subsist on less than $1 per day. Of this population, 162 million survive on less than $0.50 per day. Overall, increased food prices particularly affect developing countries, and the poorest people within those countries, where populations spend a larger proportional share of income on basic food commodities.

That is why I, along with other Hunger Caucus members hosted a forum on the food crisis and what it is doing to our children. We met with leaders of the international aid community to come up with pragmatic solutions to the global hunger crisis, both in the short-term and the long-term.

In my district I submitted an appropriations request for the Houston Food Bank to expand their collection and distribution of food to the good people of Houston. We each have to do our part, not only in our district by supporting much needed programs and organizations, but across this great Nation and the rest of the world.

This amendment would give $9.9 billion, $496 million above the President's request for the State Department, USAID and International Food Assistance. It is simply unacceptable in this day and age that children are going hungry. We have millions of dollars to bailout Bear Stearns, let's find that same money to help our families and our children.

Expanded GI Benefits for Veterans Education

As champion for veterans, I am especially pleased to see the expansion of education benefits to veterans under the GI bill.

Extended Unemployment Compensation

The number of Americans looking for work has grown by 800,000 over the last year, and the number of American jobs has declined by 260,000 since the beginning of 2008. This supplemental would extend unemployment benefits for workers who have exhausted their benefits by up to 13 weeks in every state as well as an additional 13 weeks in states with high unemployment.

protecting the medicaid safety net act of 2008 (h.r. 5613)

The Bush administration sought to cut services and payments to American families by adding seven different Medicaid regulations to the stimulus. This amendment places a much needed moratorium on those regulations giving back to our seniors, families, and those with disabilities as well as cut payments to safety net providers.

refugee assistance

$675 million, $454 million above the President's request, to address the refugee crisis in Iraq and elsewhere.

Merida

This amendment would give $461.5 million, $88.5 million below the President's request for the initiative to provide counter narcotics and law enforcement assistance in Mexico, $400 million, and Central America, $61.5 million.

Military Construction

The $4.6 billion for military construction, $2.2 billion over the President's request, including $939 million for BRAC, over $210 million for the military child care centers that the President announced in the State of the Union but never funded, and $992 million for military hospitals to prevent the types of problems that faced Walter Reed.

bureau of prisons

This $178 million urgently needed to meet rising incarceration costs and growing inmate population. The administration would have paid for these costs with cuts to state and local law enforcement funding.

Cleaning up Contracting (H.R. 3928 and H.R. 5712)

Increases accountability and transparency in Federal contracting by requiring companies that receive more than 80 percent of their revenue from the Federal Government to disclose the names and salaries of their top officers, and requires Federal contractors to report violations of Federal criminal law and overpayments on contracts over $5 million.

Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule. I also rise to oppose the way that the House majority, the Democratic majority, is managing this legislation, bringing forward a fiscal year irresponsible supplemental bill.

I would note, as I recall, on January 29, the Speaker of the House made a statement on the bipartisan economic stimulus package that was about to pass, and Speaker Pelosi said, ``Let's hope for the Senate to take their lead from us and be disciplined, focused, fiscally responsible, and act in a timely, temporary, and targeted way on behalf of meeting the needs of the American people.''

I agree with the Speaker that we should act in a way that is timely, temporary and targeted.

Unfortunately, that's not what the House is being offered today. In addition to a large tax increase, the bill before us today includes an untargeted and overly expensive extension of unemployment benefits.

Consistent with the Speaker's call for targeting help to those who need it most, I introduced legislation and offered an amendment in the Ways and Means Committee to focus extended unemployment benefits on people and States with relatively high or fast-rising unemployment rates.

Combined with regular unemployment benefits available in all States under my amendment, a total of 39 weeks of benefits would be available to unemployed workers whose jobs are hardest to find. On Main Street U.S.A. that helps those who need the help most. Yet this targeted approach was rejected by our Democratic colleagues, the majority on the committee.

Why target benefits? Why target benefits to only relatively high unemployment States? For the same reason, the Democratic legislation proposes longer benefits in high unemployment States because workers there have a harder time finding new jobs and thus are in need of extended benefits.

Targeting is especially important today since today's national unemployment rate is a low 5.0 percent with a third of all States having unemployment rates below 4 percent. That national unemployment rate is well below the lowest prior level when such a program was created in the past. I have a note in 2002 it was 5.7 percent, and, again, today's unemployment rate is 5 percent.

This targeted approach that I offered is also more fiscally responsible. The untargeted Democratic approach costs at least twice as much as a targeted approach and, as the Congressional Budget Office has reported, the Democrat legislation will require State tax increases to pay those additional costs.

The bill before the House would require State tax increases, State tax hikes, totaling $1 billion over just next 5 years.

If this program is extended, as all such temporary programs have been, the tax increases required will only grow. The Speaker was right, we need to act in a way that is fiscally responsible and targeted.

Unfortunately, this legislation before us today achieves neither of these goals and adds to budget deficits and requires payroll tax increases. We can and should do better than this.

Congress Has never Extended Unemployment Benefits at Today's Low

Unemployment Rate

Democratic leaders want to extend unemployment benefits nationwide, with the Federal Government picking up all of the $16 billion tab.

Since the 1950s, Congress has created 7 special or ``temporary'' extended benefits programs, which can double the length of total unemployment benefits from the 26 weeks to 52 weeks--or longer--per laid off worker. The logic of these programs is to provide additional weeks of benefits when jobs are relatively hard to find.

Today's national unemployment rate is a relatively low 5.0 percent. Congress has never created a temporary extended benefits program at such a low unemployment rate. The next lowest unemployment rate when such a program was created in U.S. history was when the last such program was created in March 2002. The unemployment rate then was 5.7 percent--significantly higher than today's 5.0 percent unemployment rate.

Today's U.S. Unemployment Rate Is significantly lower Than Average Rate

At Start of Prior Extended Benefit Programs

It is also useful to compare today's relatively low 5.0 percent unemployment rate with average rates when prior special Federal programs started. When such programs started, average unemployment rates were far higher than the Nation's unemployment rate today.

Today's unemployment rate (5.0 percent) is more than 2 percentage points below the average unemployment rate in the month when Congress chose to start such special programs (7.3 percent).

Today's Unemployment Rate Is below the Average for All of the 1980s and

1990s

The current unemployment rate is so low it is actually below the average of entire recent decades.

If you look at the 1980s and 1990s--two decades that saw record job creation in the U.S.-- and average all the months, you find those decades actually had higher average unemployment rates than today's 5.0 percent rate.

If such a program should exist today--when the Nation's unemployment rate is quite low by historical standards--when should it not? Creating such a program now is in effect an argument for permanently extending unemployment benefits, which would require at least $12 billion more per year in Federal spending and payroll taxes, in addition to State payroll tax hikes.

Today's 5.0 Percent Unemployment Rate Does Not Reflect an ``Emergency''

The Democratic leadership is suggesting that a special ``emergency'' nationwide extended unemployment benefit program is needed because today's job market is so weak.

Actually, only 20 percent of all months in the past four decades had unemployment rates below today's level. So if today's job market constitutes an ``emergency,'' then the U.S. economy has almost always been in a similar or even worse emergency situation throughout the past four decades. That's a hard case for even the biggest economic pessimist to make.

Today's Unemployment Rate Is below the Average throughout the Clinton

Administration

Democratic Members are always trying to take credit for the strong economy of the 1990s, even though it was the Republican Congress and its policies of tax relief, spending restraint, and welfare reform that actually promoted record economic growth and budget surpluses.

But let's accept the Democratic rhetoric for a minute that the Clinton era economy was just about the best ever.

What was the average unemployment rate during the 8 years of the Clinton Administration? 5.2 percent--which is above today's 5.0 percent rate. Did a special extended benefits program operate throughout the Clinton Administrations? No. Did a special extended benefits program operate during all the months when the unemployment rate was 5.0 percent or higher? No again.

Current Employment Conditions Are better Than in 1996--Which President

Clinton Called the ``Healthiest'' Economy ``In Three Decades''

It's worth considering another reason why Democratic leaders are so determined to argue that today's economy is so bad: Politics.

Compare today with 1996: 20 million more employees; a lower unemployment rate; a lower long-term unemployment rate; and fewer average weeks of unemployment. All better today than the 1996 levels.

But what did President Clinton, then running for a second term, think about the U.S. economy in 1996? In his State of the Union Address that year he said: ``Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.'' (January 23, 1996) So when a Democrat is in the White House running for reelection, the economy is healthy and strong. And of course no one calls for a special extended benefits program.

But with a Republican in the White House, and despite better economic statistics today,

Democrats portray the current economy as another Depression. Here's how Senator Chuck Schumer put it: ``The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover.'' (Press Release, March 7, 2008)

The Democratic ``Emergency'' Extended Benefits Program Is poorly

targeted

Despite today's relatively low unemployment rate, there are reasonable, arguments for extending unemployment benefits in areas where jobs are scarce. That's the approach Republicans proposed in the Ways and Means Committee, but which Democratic Members rejected. This approach would expand a current program that targets Federal funds for extended unemployment benefits on States with high unemployment rates. Temporarily expanding that program would provide more help to workers where jobs are scarce and the added help is needed most.

Early on, Speaker Pelosi seemed to agree with the need for such a ``targeted'' approach. In her January 29, 2008 statement on the bipartisan economic stimulus check package, the Speaker said: ``Let's hope for the Senate to take their lead from us and be disciplined, focused, fiscally responsible, and act in a timely, temporary, and targeted way on behalf of meeting the needs of the American people.''

Unfortunately, the proposed Democratic program does not follow this ``targeted'' approach. Nearly all of its benefits--more than $12 billion of the $14 billion in total benefit spending (not counting administrative costs) in the coming year--would be paid regardless of local unemployment rates. That's poorly targeted, and not fiscally responsible.

Under the Untargeted Democratic Program, Federal Benefits Would Be Paid

in Many States with very low Unemployment Rates

One key reason why the Democratic program is poorly targeted is because extended unemployment benefits would be paid in all states, regardless of the availability of jobs there.

In March 2008, a full 15 States had unemployment rates under 4 percent. Another 17 States had unemployment rates between 4.0 and 4.9 percent. That makes 32 States--two thirds of all States--with current unemployment rates under 5 percent. Those are very low unemployment rates by any measure. Another 13 States have unemployment rates between 5.0 and 5.9 percent.

That leaves just 6 States with unemployment rates of 6 percent or higher, which is the Democratic Members' own definition of ``high unemployment.'' Under their own criteria, 45 States today are ``low unemployment'' and only 6 are ``high unemployment'' (includes D.C.). But all States would receive Federal funds to pay extended benefits to workers.

Current Long-Term Unemployment Rate Is below the average Since 1980

Democratic Members have suggested that record numbers of workers today have been out of work for long periods. Actually, the current share of all workers who are long-term unemployed--defined as those who have been out of work for more than 6 months--is below average.

The average long-term unemployment rate for all months since January 1980--covering nearly three full decades, and including two of the longest expansions in U.S. history--was 1.0 percent. So in the average month in the past generation, 1 percent of the labor force had been out of work for more than 6 months.

How does that compare with today? The long-term unemployment rate in April 2008 was 0.9 percent--below the average for the past generation. That means fewer current workers are long-term unemployed than in the typical month in the past 28 plus years.

That's hardly the case Democratic Members have been making for what an ``emergency'' situation this is. In fact, current conditions are better than average when it comes to assessing how many American workers are unemployed for long periods.

Long-Term Unemployment Today Is below Level in 1994 When Democratic

Leaders ended the Extended Benefits Program They Created

Some Democratic Members seem to think whether you support creating a special extended benefits program--and under what terms--determines whether you support workers or not. One even said it was ``unconscionable'' to try and target extended benefits to only those in high unemployment States, as Republicans have proposed and even the AFL-CIO apparently supports.

Yet when Democrats last held a majority in Congress in 1994 they created a special Federal extended benefits program. The Democratic Majority in Congress back then allowed that program to expire in April 1994. But back then a significantly GREATER share of unemployed workers were long-term unemployed than today--21 percent then versus less than 18 percent today.

Was it ``unconscionable'' to ``turn off' that prior special program in April 1994? Weren't they ``leaving workers out in the cold'' or ``shutting them out'' or whatever metaphor Democratic Members use now against those who support a more targeted approach today, when conditions are objectively better in terms of long-term unemployment?

The Untargeted Democratic Extended Benefits Program Would drain federal

unemployment accounts

Some Democratic Members claim there are ``plenty'' of Federal funds to pay for these benefits. Are they right?

To answer that, you have to ask ``what are the chances this special program will last only 12 months as advertised?'' A key fact is since 1970 none of the 5 special programs created by Congress ended as originally proposed; every one was extended. So chances are high that program created now wouldn't stop after just 12 months, either.

In fact, the average total duration of such programs is about 30 months. The untargeted Democratic program would cost about $1 billion per month. So if its length is ``average,'' the total cost will reach $30 billion. That's almost the balance in the Federal unemployment trust funds today.

But remember this program would start at a record low unemployment rate. Also, such programs tend to operate until the unemployment rate falls to the level where it started, or less. So let's assume the program starts now and runs as long as one following the 2001 recession that started and stopped only when the unemployment rate fell below 5.0 percent. That program would operate for 47 months--from now until April 2012--cost $47 billion or more and fully drain the Federal unemployment trust funds, which currently hold just $35 billion.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I will offer to this piece of legislation. I was going to attempt to refrain from further comment on the legislation, but I think that some light needs to be shed on the discussion that has been going on here.

Equal pay for equal work is the law of the land. It is the law of the land. It has been for 45 years. What our friends on the other side want to do, and some of them have been very candid in coming down to the well and commenting about it, and that is to open up a huge opportunity for one of their grand friends, group of friends, the trial lawyers.

Now, let's be honest about this. I have here the bill that we are going to vote on, H.R. 1338, and you could go to any page but I will just pick a couple.

Page 10, lines 17 and 18. Be liable for such compensatory damages or punitive damages as may be appropriate.

Page 11, line 3. Except with respect to class actions.

Page 11, line 7. Any action brought to enforce.

Page 11, lines 13 and 14. In any action brought to recover the liability prescribed.

Page 11, line 17. Including expert fees.

Page 11, line 23. Additional compensatory or punitive damages.

Page 12, lines 2 and 3. Or such compensatory or punitive damages as appropriate.

Page 12, lines 6 and 7. Additional compensatory damages or punitive damages.

Page 12, lines 18 and 19. In the case of a class action suit brought to enforce section 60.

And it goes on and on and on.

Mr. Chairman, this issue isn't about equal pay for equal work. Equal pay for equal work is the law of the land. There isn't a single American Representative in this Chamber--I was going to say there probably isn't a single American, but I won't speak for them. But there is not a single Representative in this Chamber who believes that there ought to be unequal pay for equal work. Nobody. That is not what we are debating here.

We are debating whether this majority party, whether this Democrat majority party is once again going to bring a bill to the floor and reward their cronies in the trial bar. That is what it is. That is what it is. Take a peek at the bill. Line after line and line. That is what it is all about.

So for those of us who love our mothers and love our daughters and love our sisters, and have grandmothers and great-grandmothers who were remarkably successful in the work that they did, please don't be misunderstood; we believe strongly in equal pay for equal work. We believe strongly that this Nation stands on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

What we don't believe is that the trial bar ought to be the ones deciding what the pay ought to be in a private business. What we don't believe is that the Federal Government ought to insert itself into every single aspect of every single life of every single contract in this Nation. Should we do that, then we will destroy the greatest nation on the face of the earth.

Mr. Chairman, this bill isn't about equal pay for equal work. Equal pay for equal work is the law of the land. We all support equal pay for equal work.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes implementation of the new wage discrimination provisions in this bill contingent upon a study that demonstrates that these provisions do not hinder recruiting and hiring.

Equal pay for equal work, as has been mentioned multiple times today, is the law of the land. It is now and it has been since the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963. And generally, businesses do a tremendous job paying employees fairly, regardless of gender.

But the plan before the House today treats wage discrimination as systemic. Consequently, the conclusion of the majority party is to take this measure and turn power over to bureaucrats and to trial lawyers to interject, distort and oversee how wages are determined through lawsuits and regulations. If this happens, employment opportunities may actually become more limited, and flexible job structures may become more scarce or a thing of the past. In short, the very real problem that this legislation attempts to correct may, in fact, exacerbate others, very real challenges, already facing American workers.

With these reforms, there would be less incentive for employers to offer a variety of working situations like flex time or more limited travel if doing so puts an employer at risk of being sued, and this bill would do that.

Such rigidity and limitations means increased expenses for employers. Current and prospective workers then suffer through lower wages and slower job creation, or simply fewer opportunities to meet individual workers needs. Overall, it may prove to be a drag on the economy by adding additional friction to labor markets.

This amendment calls on the Secretary of Labor to study the impact of these new wage discrimination provisions on the ability of employers to recruit and hire employees, regardless of gender.

A strong contention, I believe, can be made that these changes will have a detrimental effect on labor markets, increased lawsuits, unlimited damages may discourage hiring and perhaps further segregate employment preferences for one gender in favor of another.

In order to determine this, the Secretary should have time to quantify and evaluate the bill's impact on recruitment and hiring decisions. This is information that everyone should want, I believe, in this House, prior to voting on an implementation of this bill. If there is no harm to job creation, then these provisions would go forward.

All that this amendment is asking is 90 days for the Secretary to undertake an informed review. The impetus for this bill's passage shouldn't rest on faulty comparisons of male and female median annual earnings that do not take into account all sorts of things, such as education or experience or occupation.

Mr. Chairman, equal pay for equal work is already the law of the land. The revisions before us today are a departure from this standard, and may radically alter how labor markets work through increased litigation and regulation. If that happens, it is best for all of us to have a clear understanding of its impact beforehand.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?

I will reserve.

I would just say to my friend from Ohio, who I see is off the floor, but the egregious example that she gave, all of us agree is wrong, and it is already illegal. It is not addressed with this act. Equal pay for equal work is already the law of the land.

This amendment asks for a 90-day study by the Secretary to determine whether there are adverse effects on hiring and recruitment of employees. It is a simple amendment, commonsense amendment.

With that, I am pleased to yield to my friend from California for such time as he may consume.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would just say in closing that, in fact, there is evidence that, in fact, 70 cents on the dollar may not be an accurate figure. I don't know what the accurate figure is. But I do know that there is disagreement about what it is.

I would like to put into the Record an article from Independent Women's forum talking about just that.

As such, I believe that a study is indeed appropriate. That is all that the amendment does, requests a study, 90-day study, and then report back and move forward if there is no evidence of difficulty in hiring and recruitment.

A Bargain at 77 Cents to a Dollar

[From Independent Women's Forum, April 3, 2007]

(By Carrie L. Lukas)

Why are politicians again championing the Equal Rights

Amendment--newly minted as the Women's Equality Amendment--

when the speaker of the House, secretary of state and the

Democratic presidential front-runner are women, and when

women are making gains in education and the workforce? One

reason is that many claim women are systematically

discriminated against at work, as the existence of the so-

called wage gap proves.

Talking about wage discrimination against women is a

political mainstay. Last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton

expressed consternation that women continue to make ``just 77

cents for every dollar that a man makes'' and reintroduced

legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act, that would give the

government more power to make ``an equal paycheck for equal

work'' a reality.

This statistic--probably the most frequently cited of the

Labor Department's data--is also its most misused.

Yes, the Labor Department regularly issues new data

comparing the median wage of women who work full time with

the median wage of men who work full-time, and women's

earnings bob at around three-quarters those of men. But this

statistic says little about women's compensation and the

influence of discrimination on men's and women's earnings.

All the relevant factors that affect pay--occupation,

experience, seniority, education and hours worked--are

ignored. This sound-bite statistic fails to take into account

the different roles that work tends to play in men's and

women's lives.

In truth, I'm the cause of the wage gap--I and hundreds of

thousands of women like me. I have a good education and have

worked full time for 10 years. Yet throughout my career, I've

made things other than money a priority. I chose to work in

the nonprofit world because I find it fulfilling. I sought

out a specialty and employer that seemed best suited to

balancing my work and family life. When I had my daughter, I

took time off and then opted to stay home full time and

telecommute. I'm not making as much money as I could, but I'm

compensated by having the best working arrangement I could

hope for.

Women make similar trade-offs all the time. Surveys have

shown for years that women tend to place a higher priority on

flexibility and personal fulfillment than do men, who focus

more on pay. Women tend to avoid jobs that require travel or

relocation, and they take more time off and spend fewer hours

in the office than men do. Men disproportionately take on the

dirtiest, most dangerous and depressing jobs.

When these kinds of differences are taken into account and

the comparison is truly between men and women in equivalent

roles, the wage gap shrinks. In his book ``Why Men Earn

More,'' Warren Farrell--a former board member of the National

Organization for Women in New York--identifies more than

three dozen professions in which women out-earn men

(including engineering management, aerospace engineering,

radiation therapy and speech-language pathology). Farrell

seeks to empower women with this information. Discrimination

certainly plays a role in some workplaces, but individual

preferences are the real root of the wage gap.

When women realize that it isn't systemic bias but the

choices they make that determine their earnings, they can

make better-informed decisions. Many women may not want to

follow the path toward higher pay--which often requires more

time on the road, more hours in the office or less

comfortable and less interesting work--but they're better off

not feeling like victims.

Government attempts to ``solve'' the problem of the wage

gap may in fact exacerbate some of the challenges women face,

particularly in balancing work and family. Clinton's

legislation would give Washington bureaucrats more power to

oversee how wages are determined, which might prompt

businesses to make employment options more rigid. Flexible

job structures such as the one I enjoy today would probably

become scarcer. Why would companies offer employees a variety

of work situations and compensation packages if doing so puts

them at risk of being sued?

Women hearing Clinton's pledge to solve their problems and

increase their pay should think hard about the choices they

have made. They should think about the women they know and

about their career paths. I bet they'll find that maximizing

pay hasn't always been the top priority. Eliminating the wage

gap may sound like a good campaign promise, but since the

wage gap mostly reflects individual differences in

priorities, it's a promise that we should hope a President

Hillary Clinton wouldn't try to keep.

Carrie Lukas is vice president for policy and economics at

the Independent Women's Forum and the author of ``The

Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.''

This article was first published in The Washington Post.

I encourage adoption of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.