Employee Verification Amendment Act of 2008

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.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, equal pay for equal work is currently the law of the land, and it has been since the passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Generally, businesses do a tremendous job paying employees fairly, regardless of gender. But the bill before the House today treats wage discrimination as systemic, and is a boon for trial lawyers. It also fails to address the very real challenges affecting Americans' wages and the purchasing power of their paychecks. That is why we Republicans are offering this motion to recommit, in order to expose the errors of this Democrat majority.

The first half of this motion points out the simple fact wages are being stretched thin by the price of gasoline, and this Democrat majority has repeatedly failed to take action. The

high price of gasoline is squeezing family budgets, and no one is being hit harder than working women and families. Yet, this Congress has yet to cast a vote during this energy emergency to expand exploration and production of American-made energy.

Republicans have a plan to increase production and open up access, to provide tax credits to promote clean and reliable sources of energy, and encourage conservation to ease the demand for gasoline. With this productive plan, a positive plan to open up access, provide tax credits, to promote clean and reliable sources of energy, and encourage conservation to ease demand, roadblock after roadblock has been erected in this Congress.

Exploration and development of the Outer Continental Shelf, deep sea exploration. Rejected. New refining capacity on closed military bases. Denied. Facilitating clean coal-to-liquid technologies. Absolutely not. Reduce regulations in the number of boutique fuels. Not a chance. And producing oil and gas resources in ANWR. Forget about it.

Of course, this doesn't come as a surprise to the American people or this Congress. Most of our friends across the aisle have repeatedly rejected efforts to expand domestic energy capacity. All you have to do is take a look at the record, the facts.

Exploration and development of the Outer Continental Shelf, 83 percent of House Democrats have routinely opposed it. Facilitating coal-to-liquid technologies, 78 percent of them rejected it. And producing oil and gas resources in ANWR, 86 of percent of House Democrats have fought the proposal time and time again.

But maybe, just maybe, if we naively believe long enough that drilling it not necessary because all Americans need to do is inflate our tires and get a tune-up, all of these problems will go away. But they won't. And it's why the American people and Republicans are asking for one vote up or down to increase the supply of American-made energy. That is all our constituents ask and that is all we ask this Congress before we adjourn. A vote.

If the Congress is not being responsible by addressing rising energy prices, what are we doing today? Well, we are rewarding one of the majority's favorite special interests, trial lawyers.

Mr. Speaker how much time remains?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As some have correctly described this bill, it's a boondoggle for trial lawyers. They will be able to collect unlimited, unlimited compensatory and punitive damages. This serves no legitimate purpose and turns the Equal Pay Act into a lottery.

It's why the second half of this motion is a simple, commonsense change that caps ``reasonable,'' as described in the bill, attorneys' fees at $1,000 an hour. With a cap on attorneys' fees, it's the intent that lawyers would take cases based on actual discrimination and prevent lawsuit abuse.

Today's litigation system, unfortunately, does little to restrain the filing of lawsuits. It's why lawsuits can result in millions of dollars in lawyers' fees, yet plaintiffs end up with pennies on the dollar. It's why tort costs consume approximately 2 percent, 2 percent of our entire gross domestic product, and why 10 cents of every single dollar spent on health care is attributed to the costs of liability and defensive medicine. Over $200 billion a year.

A cap on attorneys' fees can ensure that victims of discrimination are protected, yet not without financial gain. Without a cap, trial lawyers will be able to interject, distort, and oversee how wages are determined through litigation, and all this will end up doing is increasing expenses for employers and harm current and prospective workers through lower wages and slower job creation.

Let's adopt this motion to recommit. If it's not adopted, the record will reflect that while this Congress stood by and did nothing to address the price of gasoline at the pump, we had ample time to reward trial lawyers.

I yield back.

I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I know the gentleman is not interested in talking about the substance of the motion to recommit. Should not the comments be addressed----

A point of order.

The gentleman's comments should be addressed to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will not oppose this amendment. I don't know that any Member of the House would or could. It is simply a restatement of current law. I strongly believe that every employer and every worker should comply with our Nation's immigration laws. Indeed, I have long argued that our immigration laws need to be strengthened, that we need to get serious about reasserting control of our borders, enforcing the laws that are on the books and enhancing those laws which are failing if we truly want to secure our borders.

No one is as committed to those goals as I am.

That said, that is a debate for another day, and not the issue presented to us in this bill. We are not debating the question of immigration reform, but rather, whether we should adopt a trial lawyer bonanza under the guise of ``paycheck fairness.'' As I have said before, this bill does nothing to promote fairness in pay, and everything to invite costly, and often frivolous, litigation.

Whether the gentleman's amendment is adopted today or not, that fact will not change. This is an ill-conceived bill, based on flawed and demonstrably false economic theories, and sure to lead to unintended consequences for workers and employers.

The gentleman's amendment is inoffensive, but it is not particularly meaningful. I will not oppose the amendment, but it does not change my strong opposition to the underlying bill, nor my intention to vote ``no'' on final passage.

I would like to address the gentlelady that spoke on the amendment just before. When she concluded her statement, she commented on her fact of having been a small businesswoman and running a family business. I had the same experience for many years before I came here to Congress. It's good to see other small businesspeople come to Congress, and I appreciate her amendment that she presented.

And I also want to restate again the fact that, even though the Chamber did support her amendment, that we're strongly opposed to the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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 move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6633) to evaluate and extend the basic pilot program for employment eligibility confirmation and to ensure the protection of Social Security beneficiaries.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H.R. 6633. This bill, negotiated by Members of both parties, will extend the basic pilot, otherwise known as the E-Verify program, for 5 years, while also ensuring that the Social Security Administration can continue to participate in the program without endangering its core mission of providing needed benefits to our seniors and the disabled. Without this bill, the authorization for the basic pilot program would expire this November.

H.R. 6633 also commissions two studies, which should help Congress evaluate the basic pilot program as it continues to work through the issues raised by the electronic employment eligibility verification systems. One of the studies seeks the causes, the remedies, and the effects of tentative non-confirmations of employment eligibility. Implicit in the concept of false negatives is the converse; false positives. We naturally contemplate that the GAO study will address the question of erroneous confirmations as well.

To understand the effectiveness of the basic pilot, we must not only know about U.S. workers falsely denied the authority to work, we must also know when it clears people who are not authorized to work.

This Congress has been very active on the issue of electronic employment verification. Several committees, including the Judiciary and Ways and Means Committees, have held no less than five hearings on the subject. The Judiciary Committee alone held three hearings over the past year on electronic employment verification.

In those hearings, we have learned that because the Department of Homeland Security relies on the Social Security Administration's databases and staff to query work authorization and fix erroneous records, the basic pilot program places significant burdens on the Social Security Administration. We don't want to jeopardize SSA's ability to carry out its core mission, which is to provide benefits to America's senior citizens and disabled Americans.

We confirmed that electronic employment verification systems pose complicated issues; issues with serious consequences for American workers who could lose their jobs and even their right to work if employment verification isn't done right.

We heard testimony in April, 2007, from the Service Employees International Union, in which we learned that, and I quote, ``Unless database errors are cured, 24,000 of the 300,000 estimated workers in each congressional district would be erroneously denied eligibility to work by basic pilot.'' That is 24,000 Americans and legal workers in each of our districts who could be stripped of their right to work because the government can't design a proper verification system.

An independent evaluation of the basic pilot program commissioned by the Department of Homeland Security and conducted by Westat identified numerous issues with how the basic pilot program works. The Westat report documented abuse and misuse of basic pilot by employers. For example, 22 percent of employers who responded to Westat's survey recorded that they restricted work assignments to employees contesting tentative non-confirmations. It also noted significant privacy concerns in the program.

In short, we have learned that there is much work still to be done and there are many questions left to be answered. Based on these findings, I do not believe that we can permanently reauthorize the basic pilot program or make it mandatory at this time. But as we continue to work comprehensively to reform our immigration system, we certainly should allow the basic pilot to continue as a voluntary program.

I would like to especially thank my colleagues, Mike McNulty from New York; Lamar Smith from Texas; and Sam Johnson from Texas, for their tremendous efforts in working to negotiate this consensus bill to bring it to the floor today, as well as the author, Congresswoman Giffords, and the principal Republican cosponsor, Congressman Calvert, whose leadership is truly remarkable.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to reform our Nation's immigration laws and to improve the electronic employment verification process. We certainly hope that our efforts will be bipartisan. If all goes well to refine and improve this system going forward, it will not take the 5 years that is provided for in this act. But certainly none of us wants the current system to go away while we continue to work to improve and get an even better system.

I think that this bipartisan bill is necessary to pass. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Mike McNulty has served our country well for many years. He will be retiring at the end of this Congress. One of the things he has stuck up for most was disabled workers who need their Social Security benefits. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, he has worked very hard on this issue.

I would yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize a member of the Judiciary Committee, Sheila Jackson-Lee, for 2 minutes, a valued member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 5 minutes to the author of the bill, a freshman leader in this area of the bill with Mr. Johnson, Congresswoman Giffords from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to recognize Congressman Moore from the heartland of the country, Kansas, for 2 minutes.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, there are lies, darn lies and statistics. Isn't that the joke?

There have been a lot of figures thrown out here today. I think it is important to note that, according to the GAO, of the 7 million employers that are in the United States, less than 1 percent actually use E-Verify.

And the GAO also tells us, based on their analysis, that the SSA records contain errors about 4.1 percent of the time; 4.1 percent over 163 million workers is a lot of folks. So we have our work cut out for us.

I will note that there are 11 different bills that have been introduced by Members of this House with different ways and ideas on how to improve the employment verification system. We need to do an improvement of this system. I hope that that will be a bipartisan effort. But we are not going to get that done between now and November. And so it is important that we extend the existing program so that at least we have this in place.

I would note that Mr. Camarota and the Center for Immigration Studies is not the USCIS. That is sort of a think tank that wants to restrict immigration. It is an advocacy group.

But the real point is that you can track immigration, both legal and unauthorized, into the United States based on the exchange rate between the peso and the dollar. And as our economy weakens, you see less individuals either coming or staying. That doesn't mean that we don't need to get this system improved and that we don't need to have a comprehensive reform of our immigration laws and system, because what we have now is not working as well as it should be in the interests of our wonderful America.

I am happy to support this extension at this time. I have appreciated working with the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Smith, in getting this bipartisan consensus. I hope that we can get this through the Senate promptly.

And as I said in my opening statement, I have every expectation that the necessary improvements to the E-Verify system or the employment verification system will not take 5 years. Hopefully, that will be done well before the 5 years has expired, and that we will be pleased with the necessary improvement that we will craft together.

Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of this, and I would yield back the balance of my time.

It's a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

It's a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of our committee.

Could the Chair apprise how much time I have remaining.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, we have come to the end of a long debate, but let's get something very clear. This is all about equal pay, and this is all about whether or not women are going to receive equal pay. What this legislation does is recognize the barriers that have been put up in front of women trying to enforce the existing law.

It is rather interesting that the Secretary of Labor sent us a letter, and in her random audits of businesses working with government contractors she found systematic discrimination and she collected $51 million, and this is a record year, and it is the third record year in a row because of systematic discrimination.

Now, everybody has come to the floor and said they are all against this discrimination. Yes, we all are against that. Nobody is suggesting that anybody isn't. But if you can't enforce your rights, then you suffer the discrimination. Random audits, $51 million was denied to these individuals. And these are just people working with government contractors. Think what it is nationwide, and the people don't get a random audit, they don't get the Secretary of Labor, they don't get the Department of Labor. What they get is discrimination in their pay. That is what they get.

Today, we are going to decide whether or not these women are going to be able to collect the pay that is owed them, whether they are going to be able to enforce the law that requires as a matter of national policy and law the equal pay for women. That is the issue here. It is not complicated. It is not complicated.

Study after study has determined that pay discrimination exists whether you are in the workforce 10 years, whether you are starting out in the workforce, no matter what your life experiences are. When they control for all of that, there still is discriminatory pay against women in the American workforce, and today this House is going to change that.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I would just join in what my colleagues have already said, that I don't think this needs further study. And I think, certainly, the idea of basing whether or not this law will be enacted on a single study by this Secretary of Labor within 90 days, when we have a decade of studies, very few that have been challenged for their accuracy, that continues to tell us that, while the situation has improved, we still have this huge disparity between the pay of men and women for the same jobs, for the same responsibilities.

And this legislation is designed to rid us of that disparity. It is designed to rid us of that discrimination, and it is designed to give women the tools that they need to go in and to enforce their rights. And I would hope that we would support this legislation, that we would reject this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I won't take that long.

I just want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. We've discussed it for some time, and your persistence has won out. And I think it's a good amendment, and I would hope that the committee would adopt it.

We have no problem with this amendment. We agree with the gentleman. We think that these grants to increase the negotiating skills of young women and girls, all women, are very important. We would hope and we expect that they would be given on merit by the Secretary under the provisions of the law. We don't expect that they would be earmarked.

Mr. Flake has offered this language so that hopefully it would not be earmarked, and that language hopefully will be respected by other committees of the Congress, and we would accept the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the motion.

You gotta love these guys. They've argued all day that pay disparity doesn't exist in this country, in spite of all the studies by governmental agencies, by their own governmental agencies, the Department of Labor, the EEOC, and all the rest, that a woman today can still make 77 cents on the dollar for every dollar that a man earns. They've argued all day.

Now they've introduced a motion to recommit that accepts the fact of the existence of these pay disparities. They want to argue that they're exacerbated by high energy costs. We grant you that argument.

But then what do they want to do in their last act as they leave for August break? They want to suggest that a woman who has been discriminated against intentionally, unintentionally, discriminated against in pay, paid 77 cents for every dollar, or 20 cents for every, we don't know, that woman is going to have a cap on her attorneys' fees.

They put it at $1,000 to get your blood rushing. But you know who doesn't have a cap? The employer who discriminated against that woman doesn't have a cap on their attorneys' fees. That employer doesn't have a cap of $1,000. Is it $1,000 if it's a complicated case and that woman needs two attorneys or three attorneys or four or five experts to prove this discrimination?

She has a cap on those. The employer needs five experts, no cap; five attorneys, no cap.

Your last act of discrimination in denying discrimination is to make sure that they can't recover the wages that are due them, and you ought not to be able to do this. You ought not to be able to do that on the floor of this House. You simply should not be able to do that.

This is about whether or not women will have the tools necessary to get rid of the wage discrimination that costs them money every hour, every week, every month and every year, and it follows them into their retirement. You've heard it here today. It can cost them as much as $2 million in lost Social Security, in lost retirement benefits, in lost wages. And now they want to suggest that those women who may lose $2 million have a cap on their ability to recover.

I hope Ms. Lilly Ledbetter is watching you guys, because now she understands what your problem was.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, the subject of the amendment is discrimination against women.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, there is no more time. Time has run out. We have seen this discrimination documented time and again in all different kinds of businesses, all different kinds of occupations. It doesn't matter your education or your experience, this discrimination exists, and we have the opportunity with this vote tonight to put an end to it, to allow these women to enforce existing law.

We don't change the law. We give them the right to enforce the law. And if they don't have that right, they have no justice and the law means nothing. That is why we continue to see tens of thousands of cases of wage discrimination where women can't afford to go in and recover the wages.

I ask my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit and with great pride vote for final passage of this legislation to end wage discrimination, and with that vote to recognize the phenomenal work of Rosa DeLauro in seeking out justice for women all across this country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry