Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6159, the Deafy Glade Land Exchange Act.

The Fouts Springs Youth facility has been managed by Solano County, Colusa County, and their partners for nearly fifty years. The bill before the House today guarantees that they can continue their good work.

Fouts Springs has helped rehabilitate California's young offenders, and provided youths from across the state with much-needed structure and significant vocational education opportunities.

Presently, Solano County operates Fouts Springs on behalf of several other California counties under a special use authorization.

H.R. 6159, the Deafy Glade Land Exchange Act, will give Solano County the 82 acres that they use at Fouts Springs, and in exchange would give to the Mendocino National Forest 160 acres of nearby land known as Deafy Glade.

The Deafy Glade property has access to the Snow Mountain Wilderness Area, and has been a high priority for acquisition by the Forest Service since at least the early 1990s. As we learned in testimony before the Natural Resources Committee by Solano County Supervisor John Vasquez, the Deafy Glade parcels would be a key addition to the Mendocino National Forest's trail system.

The bill before the House today contains several small changes from the legislation as introduced, which should ensure that Solano County can continue to operate Fouts Springs as they do today.

I want to thank Chairman Nick Rahall, Subcommittee Chairman Raul Grijalva, and the Natural Resources Committee staff, for all of the time and energy they have spent with me and with my staff to improve this legislation and help move it forward. I also want to thank Ranking Members Don Young and Rob Bishop for their efforts. In particular, I want to recognize the efforts of Meghan Conklin and David Watkins from Chairman Grijalva's staff, as well as the work of my legislative director, Ben Miller.

I urge my colleagues to support the Deafy Glade Land Exchange Act, and I look forward to passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor and privilege that I rise in support of H. Res. 1464, in commemoration and recognition of the AARP's 50th anniversary of providing outstanding service and advocacy on the behalf of America's aging citizens.

In what started as a campaign to attain affordable healthcare for retired teachers, AARP founder Ethel Percy Andrus began a movement that has become a committed organization championing the needs of nearly 40 million members and all Americans over the age of 50.

The AARP has enjoyed 50 years of nonpartisan advocacy for consumer rights, has provided trusted research and information that continues to shape public policy, and has addressed consumer needs of the elderly, contributing immensely to the greater necessities of some of our most vulnerable citizens.

This national organization exemplifies the ideals of service and outreach, and has been a tremendous force in enhancing opportunities for older Americans in their search for quality healthcare, pension and retirement security, financial and overall well-being.

I would like to extend my congratulations and appreciation to the AARP for their exceptional dedication and service, and I wish this organization continued success in the great work that they do for years to come.

I would also like to thank and congratulate AARP's CEO, Bill Novelli, and the countless volunteers and staff, for their leadership and commitment to furthering the organization's mission of a healthy and secure elderly population in the United States.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of final passage of S. 3406, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

Since 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act has provided protection from discrimination for millions of productive, hard-working Americans so that they may fully participate in our Nation's schools, communities and workplaces.

Among other rights, the law guaranteed that workers with disabilities would be judged on their merits and not on an employer's prejudice.

But since the ADA's enactment, several Supreme Court rulings have dramatically reduced the number of individuals with disabilities who are protected from discrimination under the law.

Workers like Carey McClure, an electrician with muscular dystrophy who testified before our committee in January, have been determined by an employer be ``too disabled'' to do a job, yet courts have said that these individuals are not disabled enough. This is the terrible ``catch-22'' that Congress will change with passage of this bill.

S. 3406, like H.R. 3195 passed in June, remedies this situation in several ways by reversing flawed court decisions to restore the original congressional intent of the ADA. Workers with disabilities who have been discriminated against will no longer be denied their civil rights as a result of these erroneous court decisions.

We expect that individuals will find it much easier to meet the determination of disability under the amended ADA.

In order to achieve the remedial purpose of the ADA as a civil rights law, S. 3406 re-establishes the scope of protection to be generous and inclusive. The bill returns the proper emphasis to whether discrimination occurred rather than on whether an individual's impairment qualifies as a disability.

S. 3406 ensures that individuals who reduce the impact of their impairments through means such as hearing aids, medications, or learned behavioral modifications will be considered in their unmitigated state.

For people with epilepsy, or diabetes, or other conditions who have successfully managed a disability, this means the end of the ``catch- 22'' that Carey McClure and so many others have encountered when seeking justice.

For our returning war veterans with disabilities, S. 3406 will ensure their transition back to civilian life will not include another battle here at home--a battle against discrimination on the basis of disability.

And students with physical or mental impairments will have access to the accommodations and modifications they need to successfully pursue an education.

Much of the language contained in S. 3406 is identical to the House- passed H.R. 3195. This includes provisions concerning mitigating measures, episodic conditions, major life activities, treatment of claims under the ``regarded as'' prong, regulatory authority for the definition of disability, and the conforming amendments to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

In the House Committee Reports on H.R. 3195, we clarify that an individual who is ``regarded as having such an impairment'' under the third prong of the definition is not subject to the functional test (i.e., required to establish that the perceived or actual impairment substantially limits a major life activity) set forth in the first prong. Thus, an individual with an actual or perceived impairment who is disqualified from a job, program, or service and alleges that the adverse action was based upon his or her impairment is covered by the ADA as a member of the protected class, and therefore entitled to bring a claim.

In clarifying the scope of protection under the third prong of the definition, we also established that reasonable accommodations or modifications do not need to be provided for those individuals who qualify for coverage only because they have been ``regarded as'' having a disability. We are confident, as is the Senate, that individuals who need accommodations or modifications will receive them because those individuals will now qualify for coverage under the first or second prongs (under the less demanding interpretation of ``substantial limitation'') when accommodations or modifications are still required. Our clarification regarding the provision of modifications here does not shield qualification standards, tests, or other selection criteria from challenge by an individual who is disqualified based on such standard, test, or criteria. As is currently required under the ADA, any standard, test, or other selection criteria that results in disqualification of an individual because of an impairment can be challenged by that individual and must be shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity or necessary for the program or service in question.

Other small differences in the findings and purposes in S. 3406, as well as the rule of construction related to the broad coverage of the act, correspond to similar language in H.R. 3195 and support the objectives as described in the House Committee Education and Labor Report.

As such, our committee report continues to reflect the intent of the legislation and should be regarded as a valid interpretation, with one exception--the definition of ``materially restricts.''

This difference between the two bills resides in the attempt to correct the current interpretation of ``substantially limits.''

The EEOC regulations define the term ``substantially limits'' as ``unable to perform'' or ``significantly restricted.'' In the Toyota case (Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002)), the Supreme Court interpreted ``substantially limits'' to mean ``prevents or severely restricts.''

Both the House and the Senate clearly expect the courts and the agencies to apply a less demanding standard when interpreting ``substantially limits,'' even though the two chambers took divergent, but not inconsistent, approaches.

S. 3406 rejects both of these definitions as too demanding and too narrow, and directs the courts and the agencies to interpret the term ``substantially limits'' consistently with the findings and purposes of the ADA Amendments Act.

H.R. 3195 defines ``substantially limits'' to mean ``materially restricts.'' While the committee believed inclusion of this language would send a strong signal that ``while the limitation imposed by an impairment must be important, it need not rise to the level of severely restricting or significantly restricting the ability to perform a major life activity'' (House Committee on Education and Labor Report 110-730 part 1, at 9), our colleagues in the Senate disagreed.

In his statement, Senator Kennedy notes that the term ``materially restricts,'' and the House committee report's references to a

spectrum or range of severity ``set an inappropriately high standard for the determination of whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity and pose the risk of confusing the threshold determination of who is covered by the act.'' (154 Cong. Rec. S8355 (daily ed September 11, 2008)). This was certainly not our intention.

We also agree with the Senate managers that ``such terms encourage the courts to engage in an inappropriate level of scrutiny as to the severity of an impairment when determining whether an individual has a disability.'' (Senate Statement of Managers to Accompany S. 3406, Endnote 14.) We intend that the ADA Amendments will have the opposite effect, by reducing the depth of analysis related to the severity of the limitation of the impairment and returning the focus to the question of discrimination.

S. 3406 also includes a restatement of current law related to fundamental alterations in order to assure institutions of higher education that the ADA Amendments Act does not change the principle that entities need not make modifications to policies, practices or procedures that would fundamentally alter the nature of programs or services, as is true under current law.

For example, a university would not be expected to eliminate academic requirements essential to the instruction being pursued by a student, although the school may be required to make modifications in order to enable students with disabilities to meet those academic requirements. Current regulations provide that ``Modifications may include changes in the length of time permitted for the completion of degree requirements, substitution of specific courses required for the completion of degree requirements, and adaptation of the manner in which specific courses are conducted.'' (Senate Statement of Managers to Accompany S. 3406, Endnote 14)

Educational, testing, certification and licensing entities covered by the ADA also maintain discretion to establish appropriate and reasonable documentation requirements related to the determination of disability, as is true under current law. In June 2008, the Department of Justice offered that ``a testing entity should accept without further inquiry documentation provided by a qualified professional who has made an individualized assessment of the applicant. Appropriate documentation may include a letter from a qualified professional or evidence of a prior diagnosis, accommodation, or classification, such as eligibility for a special education program.'' (Examinations and Courses, 73 Federal Register 34539 (June 17, 2008))

Once an individual has established that he or she experiences (or has a record of) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, such individual is entitled to reasonable and appropriate modifications in policies, practices or procedures so long as the modifications in question do not fundamentally alter the nature of the program or service.

We expect that the less demanding standard applied to the definition of disability will allow students and licensure candidates with documented disabilities to more readily access appropriate accommodations on examinations when needed.

Last, we must remember that the ADA definition of disability applies also to our public elementary and secondary schools. We believe that most schools currently operate in a manner consistent with the original congressional intent of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA and should be minimally affected by the change in definition. We do not anticipate a need for extensive changes to the current regulations and published guidance provided by the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education.

This legislation has broad support: Democrats and Republicans, employers, civil rights groups, and advocates for individuals with disabilities. I'm pleased we were able to work together to get to this point.

In particular, I would like to thank the members of the Employer and Disability Alliance, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Epilepsy Foundation, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, HR Policy Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Society for Human Resource Management for their hard work and long hours of negotiation with each other and with our staff.

Of course, much credit is due to Majority Leader Hoyer and Congressman Sensenbrenner for their leadership and tenacity in the House; and Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch for their skill in moving this legislation through the Senate with unanimous support.

It is time to restore the original intent of the ADA and ensure that the tens of millions of Americans with disabilities who want to work, attend school, and fully participate in our communities will have the chance to do so.

I look forward to passage of this legislation.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just want my colleagues to fully understand.

This is a bill that is designed for environmental education. I understand the gentleman doesn't like the bill. He voted against it in committee, one of the few Republicans that did. He doesn't like it. They are disappointed because we passed comprehensive energy reform and they have lost their energy debate.

But most importantly this: under this amendment, a school could not get money for environmental education. The Governors Association could not get money for environmental education, universities could not get money for environmental education, so who the hell would get the money for environmental education because

under this amendment the very organizations that are supposed to be developing the program are prohibited because they hire lobbyists. Yes, the Governors have a lobbyist; universities have a lobbyist; school districts have lobbyists for the State or what have you. They are immediately excluded.

So here we are again. The gentleman from Maryland has presented a comprehensive bill, a well-thought-out bill that has incredible support across the board by educational organizations and nonprofits and others who want to engage and step up the environmental education in this country. This amendment would absolutely prohibit these organizations from participating.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3406) to restore the intent and protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on S. 3406 into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of final passage of S. 3406, the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008.

Since 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act has provided protection from discrimination for millions of productive, hardworking Americans so that they may fully participate in our Nation's schools, communities and workplace. Among other rights, the law guaranteed that workers with disabilities would be judged on their merits and not on an employer's prejudice.

But since the ADA's enactment, several Supreme Court rulings have dramatically reduced the number of individuals with disabilities who are protected from discrimination under the law. Workers like Carey McClure, an electrician with muscular dystrophy who testified before our committee in January, have not been hired or passed over for promotion by an employer regarding them as too disabled to do the job. Yet when these workers seek justice for this discrimination, the courts rule that they are not disabled enough to be protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act. This is a terrible catch-22 that Congress will change with the passage of this bill today.

S. 3406, like H.R. 3195 passed in June, remedies this catch-22 situation in several ways by reversing flawed court decisions to restore the original congressional intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Workers with disabilities who have been discriminated against will no longer be denied their civil rights as a result of these erroneous court decisions.

To do this, S. 3406 reestablishes the scope of protection of the Americans with Disabilities Act to be generous and inclusive. The bill restores the proper focus on whether discrimination occurred rather than on whether or not an individual's impairment qualifies as a disability.

S. 3406 ensures that individuals who reduce the impact of their impairments through means such as hearing aids, medications, or learned behavioral modifications will be considered in their unmitigated state.

For people with epilepsy, diabetes and other conditions who have successfully managed their disability, this means the end of the catch- 22 situation that Carey McClure and so many others have encountered when attempting to seek justice.

For our returning war veterans with disabilities, S. 3406 will ensure that the transition to civilian life will not include another battle here at home, a battle against discrimination on the basis of disability.

And students with physical and mental impairments will have access to the accommodations and modifications they need to successfully pursue an education.

Much of the language contained in S. 3406 is identical to the House- passed H.R. 3195. This includes provisions concerning mitigating measures, episodic conditions, major life activities, treatment of claims under the ``regarded as'' prong, regulatory authority for the definition of disability, and the conforming amendments to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

We expect the courts and agencies to apply this less demanding standard when interpreting ``substantially limits.'' S. 3406 directs the courts and the agencies to interpret the term consistent with the findings and purposes of the ADA Amendments Act.

We intend that the ADA Amendments Act will reduce the depth of analysis related to the severity of the limitation of the impairment and return the focus to where it should be: the question of whether or not discrimination, based upon the disability, actually occurred.

This legislation has broad support: Democrats and Republicans; employers, civil rights groups, and advocates for individuals with disabilities. I'm pleased that we were able to work together to get to this point.

In particular, I'd like to thank the members of the Employer and Disability Alliance, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Epilepsy Foundation, the American Association of People with Disabilities, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Society for Human Resource Management for all of their hard work and long hours of negotiations with each other and with our staff.

Of course, much credit is due to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner for their leadership and tenacity in the House; and Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch for their skill in moving this legislation through the Senate with unanimous support.

It is time to restore the original intent of the ADA and ensure that the tens of millions of Americans with disabilities who want to work, attend school, and fully participate in our communities will have the chance to do so.

I look forward to the passage of this legislation and encourage my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Judiciary Committee, which also had jurisdiction over this legislation and was very helpful in its passage.

Will the gentleman yield?

I will yield you 30 seconds.

If I might, I just want to recognize the tenacity of Mr. Sensenbrenner in pushing for this legislation, and I wanted to do it while he was in the well and also to recognize the contribution of your wife, Cheryl, who has talked to all of us about this and has been so determined that this bill pass in this Congress. I think without that energy, I'm not sure we would have gotten here today. But certainly what you and Mr. Hoyer have done in the House has been absolutely outstanding, and I want you to know how much I appreciate Cheryl's involvement, also.

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy.

Yes, I would.

As chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, I agree that both H.R. 3195 and S. 3406 reject the holding that academic success is inconsistent

with the finding that an individual is substantially limited in such major life activities. As such, we reject the findings in Price v. National Board of Medical Examiners, Gonzalez v. National Board of Medical Examiners, and Wong v. Regents of University of California.

Yes, I would.

As we stated in the committee report on H.R. 3195, the committee supports the finding in Bartlett. Our report explains that ``an individual with an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity should not be penalized when seeking protection under the ADA simply because he or she managed their own adaptive strategies or received informal or undocumented accommodations that have the effect of lessening the deleterious impacts of their disability.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself 30 seconds to say I think the House addressed many of the concerns, Mr. Shimkus, yesterday in the legislation, the comprehensive energy legislation that we passed that deals with the issues of lowering costs to consumers and taxpayers and increasing the energy resources of the United States.

I would also say if we don't pass this piece of legislation, they won't have any jobs to drive to because they continue to get discriminated against.

With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer. And as he's taking the well, I just wanted to again acknowledge what all of our colleagues have acknowledged and so many people in the disabilities community have acknowledged and known for a long time, his champion of this act. And he has done it year after year after year. He has tended to it, he has watched after it, he has argued about it, and he has encouraged many of us to get involved in these amendments. And these are crucial amendments so that the original intent and the purpose and the opportunities provided by this act are realized. He and Mr. Sensenbrenner did a magnificent job of shepherding this.

Many people don't know this who haven't been involved, but the negotiations around this legislation were sort of 24-7 for the last year, with a very diverse group of people, all of whom wanted to see the act amended and improved, and finally came together under the leadership of Mr. Hoyer. And that's why we're here today. And that's why the Senate and the House are going to pass this and we're going to have a ceremony with the President signing these amendments. Thank you very much.

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

I fully understand the deep disappointment on behalf of the Republican Members, not all, but those who did not vote for the legislation last night to create a comprehensive energy policy for the future of this Nation. They were intent upon killing it. They fell short. They fell short because it was a bipartisan bill. A number of their Members crossed the aisle to vote for the legislation because they recognize this was about taking us to a new energy future, a future that no longer continued year after year after year, as we have under Republican control, increased dependence upon international oil from nations that are hostile to us in so many ways, of nations who inflate our economy in so many ways.

This legislation will make available billions of barrels of oil that is from the Minerals Management leasing, the administration of oil on the Outer Continental Shelf, more billions of barrels of oil in Alaska, in the National Petroleum Reserve that holds probably more oil than the OCS, that can be opened under legislation. And the royalties that are due this Nation will be put into a trust fund to create the research and the development of renewable and alternative energy resources that are so important if in fact we are going to break our dependence on foreign oil and on fossil fuels as a bedrock of the energy policy of this Nation. It is also going to stop the royalty holidays that oil companies who are making the largest record earnings in history are doing.

With that, I would like to return to the matter at hand and to thank the ranking member from across the aisle, Mr. McKeon, for all his work. I want to thank again Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Sensenbrenner. I certainly want to thank the staffs of this committee, on our side Sharon Lewis who demonstrated great leadership on this issue, Jody Calemine, Brian Kennedy, Chris Brown, our intern Tom Webb; on their side Jim Paretti, Ed Gilroy and Ken Sarafin; and Mr. Hoyer's staff, Michelle Stockwell and Keith Aboshar; and on the Judiciary staff Heather Sawyer and David Lockman. And I failed to mention the Bazelon Center and the Human Resources Policy Association.

I thank the Chair. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Rules Committee for bringing this resolution to the floor so we can debate on the energy bill and vote on the energy bill later today. And I rise in very strong support of this comprehensive, forward-looking bill that will provide relief at the pump, create good jobs in America and finally put our Nation on a path toward a clean, more independent and sustainable energy future. Surely that is something that all of us can support.

America understands the problem: Our Nation is addicted to oil. Consumers are paying record prices to heat and cool their homes and drive their cars and their trucks. Global warming is a real, serious and growing problem. Meanwhile oil companies are making more money than ever before.

That is why Democrats made energy a top priority when they took back the House and the Senate last year. We raised the fuel economy standards for the first time in 30 years, overcoming the objections of the auto industry, the oil industry, the Republicans in Congress and the White House. And we passed one bill after another to improve America's energy policy and its energy future, to expand wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, to increase the efficiency and conservation and our use of energy, to curb speculation in the oil markets so consumers would not be ripped off by the oil speculators, to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so that small businesses, truckers and airlines would not be thrust into economic hardship and to recoup tens of billions of dollars from the oil companies that are unfairly taken from the taxpayers. All of these are thrusting America into the future with respect to its energy resources, its supply and its usage.

But every bill was opposed by a majority of the Republicans in Congress and by President Bush. This is sort of the Goldilocks of the energy debate, too much wind, not enough solar; too much solar, not enough energy; too much going after the speculators, not enough going after the oil companies; too much going after the oil companies, not enough for the energy industry. They could never get it right. And they could never support an energy bill. And they have never been able, in all the time they controlled this Congress, to move America into the future of energy, to move America into renewables, to move America into efficiency. They voted against it all. And they didn't propose it. And at the end of their decade in Congress, gas was $4 a gallon. They controlled the White House, and they controlled the Congress. At the end of their decade, gas was $4 a gallon.

So what are we able to do here today? We're able to help consumers and the taxpayers by ending the subsidies to oil companies, subsidies that President Bush said were obsolete at $50 a barrel. Well they are certainly obsolete today at $100 a barrel or $90 a barrel or $140 a barrel. But the Republicans are going to hold to those subsidies. We are going to end the royalty holiday, a holiday for oil companies where they don't have to pay royalties. Where is the holiday for consumers? Where is the holiday for the person commuting to work? Where is the holiday for the person heating their home? Not from the Republicans. They fought tooth and nail. The President fought tooth and nail to hold on to those royalty holidays.

And finally we are talking about creating jobs for Americans here at home in green industries and the renewable energies of the future, in the efficiencies of the future. That is what the American energy future looks like. And that is what this Congress is going to be able to vote on. And that is what the American people are going to get as a result, a bright, renewable, smart energy future.

I thank the chairman for yielding and thank him for bringing this legislation to this floor. I'm honored to be a cosponsor of this legislation along with Mr. Rahall and Mr. Green.

I rise in very strong support of this comprehensive, forward-looking bill that will provide relief at the pump, create good jobs here in America, and finally put our Nation on a path toward a clean and more independent energy future. Surely that is something that we could all support.

Americans understand the problem. Our Nation is addicted to oil. Consumers are paying record prices to heat and cool their homes and to drive their cars and trucks. Global warming is real; it's serious and a growing problem. Meanwhile, oil companies are making more money than ever before. That's why Democrats made energy a top priority when we took back the House and Senate last year.

We raised auto fuel economy standards for the first time in a generation, overcoming the objections of the auto and oil industries and the Republicans in Congress and the White House. And we passed one bill after another to improve America's energy policy to expand wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources, to increase the efficiency and conservation, to curb speculation and energy markets, and to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and to recoup tens of billions of dollars that oil companies have unfairly taken from the taxpayers as they've exploited the taxpayers' resources on our public lands.

Every bill we passed was opposed by a majority of the Republicans in Congress and by President Bush. And at the end of all of their objections, gas rose to $4 a gallon. Think how different this debate would have been if in the previous decade when the Republicans controlled this House and the 8 years when they controlled the White House and the Congress if they had pushed forward on energy in those days. Think how different the automobile industry would have been today had they not caved in to the oil industry and the auto industries and moved those standards. But no, it took 30 years, and we did it in this Congress with the Democratic leadership.

Think how different this discussion would be on renewables and alternatives if the Republicans had chosen that. But no. Every time they brought an energy bill to the floor, they looked to the past. They said that we could drill our way out of this problem, we're just another drop of oil away from the problem. And at the end of that decade, we ended up more dependent upon foreign oil than at any other time in our history.

So that's why we're here today. We're here to help consumers, to drive down the price of energy, to expand the energy resources in this Nation that are available to all consumers all across the country, and to create good American jobs in the process of doing that and to put us on that path to energy independence and to greater diversity in our sources of energy.

We are not going to succumb to the old interests that tell us we have to continue to give away the public's resources and not provide the royalties that the public is entitled to, that the public, with all due respect, in most every other nation in the world gets when they give their resources to be exploited.

We're going to stop the days of the royalty holidays, royalty holidays for oil companies that are making record profits because of their record ingenuity and their skill and their talent. But the fact of the matter is there is no royalty holiday for the ratepayers, for the people paying at the pump, for people trying to heat and cool their homes. And that's why this legislation must pass because this legislation speaks to the future, to a sustainable and renewable energy policy for this country for the first time in over a decade.

Madam Speaker, I rise today along with my colleague, Congresswoman Ellen O. Tauscher, to commemorate and celebrate the life and accomplishments of life-long Contra Costa County resident and untiring social service advocate, Ms. Susan Prather. For over 30 years, Susan Prather successfully battled the establishment at all levels of government on behalf of our most vulnerable citizens--our homeless. Sadly, on July 29th, she lost her own battle with cancer, and we all lost a true treasure in our community.

Susan's commitment to the needs of the homeless began in 1976, when she was working at a senior meals program and was confronted with the struggles of the homeless and poor of Contra Costa County. Using her own financial resources, she began by single-handedly providing what help she could. She held down multiple jobs to support herself during the day; after hours she traveled the streets of Richmond, Concord, and Berkeley helping the homeless one client at a time. Her commitment to her clients of all ages often took her to their encampments with city and county officials and even Members of Congress in tow. She is well known for the tremendous pressure she put on public officials to make the concerns of the poor and homeless a top priority and increase both funding and services nationwide. She wanted to make sure that those in positions of power could put a face to the problem of homelessness.

In 1999, the City of Walnut Creek hired Susan to initiate the outreach program now known as Fresh Start. Under Susan's direction the program proved highly successful. When the funding ran out a short 2 years later, Susan transitioned Fresh Start into a private non-profit organization and it flourished under her leadership, In her role as Founder and Executive Director of Fresh Start, Susan provided her clients with clothing, meals, showers, counseling and other critical social services. She has helped countless residents find jobs and establish homes for themselves and their families.

Over her years of service, Susan Prather has been recognized by a long list of government agencies and private organizations for her outstanding community work. In 1994, the California State Assembly recognized her efforts in a formal resolution. In 2002 she received the ``Women Working for Justice'' award from the Contra Costa County Commission for Women. In 2004, she was Honorably Mentioned at the Contra Costa County Humanitarian of the Year Awards Ceremony. Also in 2004, the Walnut Creek Journal named Ms. Prather one of the ``Six People Who Made Our Lives Better in 2003''. Susan certainly made life better for the countless poor and homeless residents of Contra Costa County and in doing so, she raised the quality of life for us all.

To Susan's family and friends, we extend our heartfelt condolences. Your loss is shared not only by those who knew Susan personally, but also by all who have been touched by the work she has done. We will be forever grateful for the courage, compassion, integrity, and tenacity with which she sought to make our community a better place for everyone. Susan Prather will be deeply missed and in her memory, we must vow to continue the work she started.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to the California Conservation Corps' Backcountry Trails Program on the occasion of their 30th anniversary.

The Backcountry Trails Program, created in 1979 by the CCC's current director, David Muraki, is a special program within the CCC and dedicated to preserving our remaining wilderness areas, making them safer and more accessible.

Each spring, the Backcountry Trails Program assembles six widely diverse crews of men and women, hired from all around California and across the United States, who leave behind the conveniences and luxuries of modem life and venture into the mountains to spend five exhausting months doing some of the most challenging and ultimately rewarding work of their lives. The 17 members who comprise each of these crews learn through experience the skills of trail maintenance, construction, and the process of building healthy productive communities. It is extremely hard work and one of our best examples of truly beneficial public service.

Over the past 30 years, the CCC has assembled 145 Backcountry Crews, whose combined efforts have repaired 8,560 miles of trail during 2 million hours of service. That's enough trail to stretch from Sacramento, California to the recent Beijing Olympics, or from Sacramento, California to Washington DC, returning to Sacramento, and then back to Washington DC.

After this year's corps-members complete the program, they will bring the total number of Backcountry Trails Program graduates to 1,954.

Many corps-members discover that a single season working trails in the Backcountry is not enough. Close to 600 Backcountry graduates have been hired by various Federal and State land management agencies to use the skills they've acquired in the program to continue efforts to repair wilderness trails. The CCC's Backcountry Trails Program has become the premier trails apprenticeship program in the Nation. The graduates have been hired by every major national park in America.

In addition to clearing trails, the crews have built 121,440 square feet of walls and over 21.5 miles of raised causeway. They have installed nearly 10,000 water bars, 25,883 rock steps, and built over 4.3 miles of stone rip rap, carefully selecting and placing each rock into an exact fit in order to sustain the weight of mules and the ravages of time.

In recognition of the CCC Backcountry Program's significance, the California State Commission has deemed this program an integral part of California's Ameri-Corps portfolio since 1995.

Today, I am extremely proud to commend the California Conservation Corps' Backcountry Trails Program for their 30-year history of improving our wilderness and providing valuable training for so many of our young adults.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to stop the Department of Labor from proceeding with a new proposed rule that would seriously undermine the ability of the Federal Government to protect workers' health. The Department's proposal is the product of a flawed, politicized process.

On July 7, 2008, the Department of Labor submitted a proposed regulation entitled ``Requirements for DOL Agencies' Assessment of Occupational Health Risks'' to the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, for E.O. 12866 regulatory review.

This proposal is being made in contravention of a number of rules and processes. No notice of this rule was published in the semi-annual Regulatory Agenda as required under Executive Order 12866. Furthermore, unlike all other DOL regulatory submissions to OMB, the information provided on the OMB Web site did not originally contain the rule's abstract, legal authority, timetable, agency contact, and other information required by the Executive Order. Although the intent is to finalize this rule before the end of the Bush administration, this submission violated the White House's own directive prohibiting submission of new regulations to OMB after June 1 except in ``extraordinary circumstances.''

What are the ``extraordinary circumstances'' that are being used to rush through this last minute, secret regulation on a subject as arcane and technical as ``risk assessment?'' Assessing risk is the backbone of any OSHA or MSHA standard that addresses hazards posed by chemicals or other health hazards. Changing the assumptions underlying risk assessment to those favored by industry can seriously erode the effectiveness of all future OSHA or MSHA standards far beyond the life of this administration.

The Department claims that this proposal was not published in the most recent regulatory agenda because when the last regulatory agenda was issued, they had not yet decided whether they would issue a proposal. But the Washington Post has revealed that they have been working on this regulation as far back as September 2007, when they paid $349,000 to outside consultants to conduct a study of the risk- assessment process.

The entire proposal appears to have been designed and originated by political appointees at the Department of Labor, bypassing the real experts at OSHA and MSHA. According to the Washington Post, when a draft was finally shown to health scientists in MSHA and OSHA, they objected to both the legality and substance of the proposal and suggested that the proposal not be issued. The political appointees at the Department went ahead anyway.

In the last 7\1/2\ years, the Department has only managed to issue one health standard--and that was done under court order. It has failed to meet its own deadlines on regulations to protect workers against the health effects of silica, against the health effects of beryllium, or against the serious health effects of diacetyl, which causes popcorn lung.

Yet, suddenly, the Department of Labor has decided that further weakening the ability of OSHA or MSHA to issue any future health standards has become its highest priority.

No one is arguing that OSHA or MSHA do not need guidance for risk assessment. But the Department of Labor already has such guidance. This new regulation, however, which clearly has the potential to weaken worker protections, will be codified, binding all future administrations. Other agencies that have such guidance, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, note that ``because the science of risk assessment continues to develop rapidly . . . risk assessments will be modified to use different approaches if appropriate.''

The new Labor regulation, on the other hand, would add an entire additional layer of review to the already overstressed regulatory process by requiring notice and comments for all risk-related studies before a proposal can be issued. This would be in addition to numerous economic reviews, small business reviews, OMB reviews, public comments and public hearings that are already required before a standard is issued.

This Congress will not stand for further weakening of worker protections, particularly when it's done secretly--as this administration heads out of town. This bill would forbid the Department of Labor from issuing, administering or enforcing any rule, regulation, or requirement derived from the proposal submitted to the Office of Management and Budget. The Department's proposal is the product of a flawed, politicized process that has failed to properly consider the views of experts or the consequences for workplace health.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days for Members to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the conference report to accompany H.R. 4137.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1389, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4137) to amend and extend the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 4137, which strengthens and reauthorizes the Higher Education Act. In America, a college degree has always been the ticket to middle class. More and more, our future depends upon our ability to produce well-educated and skilled workers to take the jobs of the 21st century.

Over the past 2 years, this Congress has built a strong record of working in a bipartisan way to make college more affordable and accessible. Last year we enacted the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, which provides for the single largest increase in Federal student aid since the GI Bill.

But we also know that there is still work to do to ensure that the doors of college are truly open to all qualified students who want to attend. The last time the Higher Education Act was authorized was 1998. In those 10 years that have passed, our world and our country have changed, and so have the needs of college-going students.

Today's students face a number of challenges on their path to college, from skyrocketing college tuition prices, to needlessly complicated student aid and application processes, to the predatory tactics of student lenders. This conference report will remove these obstacles and reshape our higher education programs in the best interests of students and families.

To address soaring costs, this legislation will increase the transparency and the accountability of the tuition pricing system, shining a bright light on the prices set by colleges and universities. It requires the Department of Education to create new, user friendly Web sites with helpful information on college prices and the factors that are driving these tuition increases. Colleges with the largest increases in tuition will be required to report their reasons for raising those prices.

This bill will also ensure that States hold up their end of the bargain in

funding higher education by establishing for the first time a maintenance-of-effort requirement on the States that receive Federal funds through the student loan program. This means while we are putting in money from the top from the Federal Government, the States will hopefully stop taking that money out of the bottom and leaving families and students who are borrowing loans to go to college no better off than they were before these actions. This is a dramatic change from the patterns of the past.

To better protect students while navigating the often murky world of college loans, this bill restores trust and accountability to the student loan programs by cleaning up the conflicts of interest between the lenders and the colleges. All Federal and private student lenders will be required to provide full and fair disclosure about the terms and conditions of the loans they offer. And to help borrowers' reliance on more expensive private loans, we will help ensure that students and families first exhaust the less expensive Federal loan and aid options before turning to private loans.

It will also help students manage their textbook costs. It provides students and faculties with complete pricing information before each semester so they can shop around for the most affordable deals. For the first time, textbook publishers will be required to offer less expensive versions of each expensive bundled textbook they sell.

This bicameral compromise also simplifies the Federal student aid application process and provides families with early estimates of their expected financial aid packages to help them better plan for their expenses a year ahead of the time.

In addition, H.R. 4137 will make Pell Grant scholarships available year-round for the first time.

It strengthens the TRIO and the GEAR UP college readiness and support programs that are critical to helping so many students stay in school and graduate.

It expands funding for graduate programs at historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and predominantly Black institutions.

It increases college aid and support programs for veterans and military families.

It ensures equal college opportunities and fair learning environments for students with disabilities.

It makes colleges safer for the entire campus community.

It encourages colleges and universities to adopt energy efficient and sustainable practices on their campuses.

I am confident that this legislation will improve the higher education system and make it more affordable, fairer and easier to navigate for students and families. Almost all of these students are borrowing money. Time is money, and time is effort, and we need to make this process more streamlined, fairer to families and fairer to students.

None of this, I want to say, would be possible without the leadership and the passion and the determination of Senator Ted Kennedy, and I would like to thank him for that.

Also, Senator Enzi and Senator Mikulski. Senator Mikulski stepped in when Senator Kennedy became ill and did a magnificent job of shepherding this bill and this conference report through the Senate.

I would also like to thank all the members of our committee for their hard work. And I would especially like to recognize Congressmen Buck McKeon, Ruben Hinojosa, and Ric Keller, and their staffs including Amy Raaf Jones, Moira Lenehan, and Ricardo Martinez.

And, finally, I would like to thank my staff for their tireless efforts on this reauthorization, including Mark Zuckerman, Alex Nock, Denise Forte, Stephanie Moore, Gaby Gomez, Julie Radocchia, Jeff Appel, Sharon Lewis, Margaret Young, Fred Jones, and Arman Rezaee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa), the Subcommittee on Higher Education Chair, who has done a magnificent job in shepherding this bill to the floor.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for a unanimous consent request.

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

I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis).

I would just like to thank the gentlewoman for all of her work on behalf of military families, making sure that they did not pay an additional price for being in the military and lose their eligibility, for her work on that amendment.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) who has been so helpful on this legislation, both in teacher education and in community service and the work study programs.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has been so helpful on this legislation with respect to Historically Black Colleges and Universities and the TRIO program.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

If the gentleman would yield, I would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois about section 725.

I concur completely with the gentleman's understanding. The conferees intend that this reauthorization is to strengthen the ability of both the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Predominantly Black Institutions to develop masters professionals. For this reason, the conferees intend that any appropriated funds be divided proportionately between the sections 723 and 724.

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) who, again, was so helpful in the business partnership agreements.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) who's been a champion on campus safety during this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) who did groundbreaking work and made such an effort to make sure the States meet the responsibility for financing public higher education.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and thank him for all of his work on the foreign language partnerships and the creation of the deputy assistant secretary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) and thank him for his work on the business workforce partnerships and on the textbook rental program.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) and thank him for his work on the Teach to Reach grants and the students success grants for community college students.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and I want to thank him for his work on the cohort default rate and on the year-round Pell Grant.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter) and thank her for all her work on the TRIO program. It is so important to get kids to college and to stay in college.

How much time is remaining, might I inquire of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), and I want to thank him for his work on dislocated workers and on the rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and thank him for all of his work on the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and on the modeling and simulation program.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, families across America and students everywhere, it is a pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, who revolutionized and changed and simplified the student loan application form for all of America's families and students from this day forward, Mr. Emanuel.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and I want to thank him for his work on the sustainability program and creating a summit on sustainability in colleges and universities.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and thank him for his work on the real-time writers program.

May I inquire of the Speaker as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, and members of the committee, I'm very proud of this legislation. I'm very proud of the members of my committee on both sides of the aisle. This legislation doesn't just belong to this committee at this time or to the majority party just at this time, this legislation has been worked on by many people on both sides of the aisle.

When the Republicans were in the majority and Mr. McKeon was the subcommittee chair, he pushed hard for this legislation. And Mr. Kildee has spent many years on our committee working on behalf of higher education. And Mr. Hinojosa authored legislation, along with Mr. McKeon, that made it through the House in the last session.

Why has that been true? Why is this legislation so broadly supported? Because we all understand the importance of a well-educated American population, and we all understand the urgency of this moment. At no time in our history has America needed a better educated population than it needs today.

And we understand the importance of a college education and what it means to America's families, what it means to young people as they start out in their careers, as they start out their families, and their ability to provide for themselves and go to jobs that are interesting, that work for them, that make sense for them, and yet be able to have the skills so they can continue in the American economic system. This legislation does all of those things.

This legislation helps to make college more affordable. It certainly helps to make it more accessible. And it has done that because of the agreements that we have reached on both sides of the aisle. Mr. McKeon has pushed long and hard for increases in the Pell Grants, long and hard for accountability in this system, and long and hard to make sure that the cost of college, that we have greater transparency, that we understand it better, that parents would be able to decipher, that students would be able to decipher and understand it. This legislation improves this act with respect to all of those provisions of the law.

I tried to recognize the contributions made by each Member on our side of the aisle and the programs that they worked on to increase access to college for so many populations that haven't been given the full opportunity in the past that will be able to take advantage of that opportunity.

And finally, this legislation makes it more affordable for many students. It's in combination with what we did in the reconciliation bill, where we provided $20 billion in new resources for students by cutting the interest rates, by providing forgiveness for loans, by increasing the Pell Grants, and providing real-time tuition assistance for those who want to go into teaching.

This is an important piece of legislation; it's important to the Congress, it's important to our Nation, it's important to families and students who struggle mightily to figure out how they can finance an education.

I think this is a big step in assuring that every qualified student should be able to afford college. They may have to borrow some money, but it's well worth that if they can achieve a college education. And I think it's going to make a major contribution to strengthening the American economy.

This is a moment in time legislation and authorization of the Higher Education Act. But for over 45 years, there has been a fixed star in increasing the opportunity for young people to go to college and increasing the wherewithal for families and students to afford a college education, and that was the Senator from Massachusetts, who, unfortunately, is not able to be with us as we pass this conference report today in the House and in the Senate, but he is with us in great spirit. He called the other day to congratulate us with great enthusiasm. He wasn't convinced we were actually going to get it done, and he said he was quite excited that we did. And he was looking forward to the passage of this legislation.

He has been a moving force for opportunity at all levels of society. But he, first and foremost, has understood the opportunity that education provides. Whether it's early childhood education, preschool education, elementary, secondary education, community colleges, 4-year colleges, graduate schools, Senator Ted Kennedy has been a champion of making sure that those doors are open to everybody in this society. And this legislation, I think, honors that commitment that Senator Kennedy has had for so many years as he has continued to sit on the Education Committee in the United States Senate and pound out this legislation that is so important to America's families, to America's students, and to America's economy.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I thanked them earlier, but I want to thank all the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. I want to thank Mr. McKeon for his leadership on this issue, and certainly to all of the staff for their help. And happy birthday to Joe Novotny.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I request 5 legislative days for Members to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on H.R. 1338.

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

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, in 1963 this Nation passed the Equal Pay Act, and it was passed to end discriminatory practices in paying men and women differently for performing the same job. The law's principle is that men and women should be paid based upon their merits, not upon an employer's prejudices.

Before the Equal Pay Act, women in the workplace were paid 59 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts for performing the same jobs. Although the wage gap between men and

women has narrowed since the Equal Pay Act was passed, gender-based pay wage discrimination remains a very significant problem for women.

According to the Census Bureau, women make 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Just as disturbing is that African American women only earn 60 cents on the dollar, and Hispanic women earn an astonishing 55 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts.

Those figures do not just tell us what they lose in their wages on a daily basis, on a weekly basis, and on a monthly basis. But we must also understand that this wage disparity costs a woman anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost wages and will follow her into retirement with lower retirement benefits, and will follow her into the Social Security system with lower Social Security benefits.

These women pay a great price because the law still allows employers to pay these individuals on a discriminatory basis for the jobs that they produce. But today this House has an opportunity to take a critical step to ensure that the Equal Pay Act lives up to its promise: equal work for equal pay, equal pay for equal work.

The Paycheck Fairness Act will strengthen the Equal Pay Act and close many of the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility of engaging in discriminatory pay practices. Currently, an employer can refute a pay discrimination claim if he proves that the difference in pay is based upon any factor other than sex. They can pull any defense out of the air that they want, even if the factors are not related to the job. What we say is that they must provide a real business justification for not paying that equal wage. It must be related to the work.

They will have to show that any gender-based wage differential is job-related, not based on or derived from sex-based differentials, and is consistent with the business necessity.

H.R. 1338 will also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who discuss their pay. We all remember the Lilly Ledbetter case. She did not know that she was being discriminated on every pay period because her fellow employees were unable to discuss their paychecks with her because that's the way the corporation kept the discriminatory practice secret and hidden from Lilly Ledbetter. We would not allow that to continue to happen.

The bill would also put gender-based discrimination sanctions on equal footing with other forms of discrimination by allowing women to sue for punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages, just as business and workers may do under section 1981 for race or national origin discrimination. If we are serious about closing the gender pay gap, we must get serious about punishing those who would otherwise scoff at the current weak sanctions under the current law.

The Paycheck Fairness Act will require the Department of Labor to continue collecting pay information based upon gender. It also creates a program designed to help strengthen the negotiating skills of girls and women.

Any wage gap based upon gender is unacceptable, especially in these tough economic times. For families living near or under the poverty line, equal pay for women will make a significant difference in that family's well-being.

By allowing wage discrimination to continue, we hold down women, their families, and harm the American economy as a whole. Today, we have a chance to rectify those practices. Today, we have a chance to ensure that, in fact, women will receive equal pay for equal work as they do not now receive in the workplace because of the barriers that have been erected to their being able to prosecute those individuals who engage in a discriminatory practice.

Today, we are taking up this bill. And no one is more responsible for the House consideration of this legislation than Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. I thank her for her tireless leadership on this bill, and the 230 cosponsors who are taking a strong stand against unequal pay. Congresswoman DeLauro has worked over a decade trying to get the Congress to pay attention to this problem that women face in the workplace, to this economic devastation that takes place against women in the workplace, the discriminatory practices that women face in the workplace, but there was no response in this body to her pleas. There was no response to the practices against these women in this body. Today there is. Today, this Congress, this House has an opportunity to finally enforce the Equal Pay Act and to make sure that women no longer have to suffer the discrimination of unequal pay.

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