Floor Statements

I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue and hosting this hour and pointing out probably one of the most stark pieces of contrast information this early in the session with the poster you have there, where the President-elect said just today, ``Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy.'' It really is remarkable when you think about it. I know the American people believe in themselves strongly, I know we believe

in them, and I know that they know that government isn't necessarily the answer to all of our woes.

We are talking about solutions. We have remarkable challenges, and everybody wants a solution to this. But the root word of ``solution'' is to solve, and to take government money that has been talked about here that is not the government's money, that is the people's money, I am making just a short point on that, this is tax money that we don't have; that we don't have.

People think we are talking about this $1.2 trillion or something like it is sitting over here in the corner and all we have got to do is figure out how to spend it. Well, it is not. It is on the backs of the children, grandchildren and now great grandchildren of the adults in this Nation. That is wrong. That is wrong.

There is a solution. There are positive solutions out there. You and our colleagues have talked about some of them today. They are allowing Americans to keep more of their hard-earned money, making it so that businesses, small and large, can create jobs, unlock the credit crisis, the credit freeze that we have had, and make certain that we move in a direction that allows the economy to expand and allows jobs to grow without spending money that we don't have.

That is one of the huge differences between the folks in charge right now and those of us who believe strongly in the American people and believe strongly in American principle, in American vision and American values, that would embrace a solution that would champion the individual, champion the American people.

So I want to commend you for what you are doing, and just mention that one of the casualties of all of this discussion is the concept of what a zero means. A zero tacked on to a zero tacked on to a zero with a one put in front is a lot of money when you get a lot of zeros, and the American people, frankly, Members of Congress, have lost sight about what a trillion dollars is.

One trillion dollars is virtually one-third of our current revenue that comes into the Federal Government, and when we are talking about trillion dollar deficits, that is spending again money that we don't have for, as the President-elect said today, as far as we can see. That is not the kind of policy that will result in positive improvement for the men and women across this Nation and growth in our economy, which is what we need.

The gentleman from Georgia knows that, having served at the State level and having put in place policies that have created remarkable opportunity for so many people. I wanted to thank you for your leadership.

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a very serious time and a remarkably challenging issue. The good news is that there are positive solutions that are available.

We've been told that the bill before us tonight is a limited bill. I would ask my colleagues, compared to what?

There are many reasons that one might oppose this bill and support some positive, tried-and-true solutions, but I would suggest that the most important issue upon which to oppose this bill is on Page 15, under the authority of the car czar, which says that the President's designee, or the car czar, may prohibit the eligible automobile manufacturer which received the loan, from consummating any such proposed sale, investment, contract, commitment or other transaction. That means, Mr. Speaker, that one individual will have complete authority and power over three private American automobile manufacturers. That's a level of power in one individual, one bureaucrat, that is inconsistent, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, with both American values and with American solutions.

Now, what's the solution? Well, it's a tried-and-true process that thousands of companies, large and small, are able to go through, a legal, a court-ordered, a court-approved reorganization and restructuring. It allows all stakeholders to come to the table and make concessions. It requires all stakeholders to come to the table and make concessions, and that's what's going to be necessary to allow our automobile manufacturers to get through this and come out on the other end vibrant and vital entities in the American marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this and to support a positive, tried-and-true solution.

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

I am.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, environmental education increases awareness and knowledge about environmental issues while providing needed skills to make informed decisions. When utilized appropriately, it enhances critical thinking and problem solving but does so without advocating a particular viewpoint or a course of action.

But the bill before the House today is establishing a framework that could become ripe for abuse, with outside factions directing learning in the classroom. It is why Republicans are offering this motion to recommit in order to ensure there is no undue political influence in the classroom while protecting the interest of taxpayers.

This motion to recommit is a commonsense package of safeguards aimed at protecting taxpayers' wallets, limiting special interest influence, and taking partisanship out of the classroom. Currently, none of those safeguards are present in this bill.

The first safeguard ensures that priority funding goes to local school districts first. Since 1992, more than 50 percent of environmental education grants have gone to nonprofit organizations. American taxpayers are paying for these programs, so it makes sense that their dollars go to local schools and children before third parties.

The second safeguard prohibits funding to any organization that lobbies or retains a lobbyist, especially those special interests that routinely advocate against more American-made energy for Americans. It is no coincidence that the same groups and affiliates which are suing to block oil and gas leases are also lobbying and receiving funds for environmental education.

And the final safeguard makes certain that information in the classroom is fair and balanced. Its aim is to ensure that classrooms remain free of partisan or political influence and that science, not a political or ideological agenda, is what students are taking away from their learning experiences.

In committee I raised the point that certain organizations, textbooks, and curricula have misinformed students by advocating erroneous specific measures to address environmental problems. Even worse, environmental information has been presented with unbalanced or scientifically inaccurate data.

On this side of the aisle, Republicans do not want such uneven portrayal. But there is a greater reason for offering this package of reforms: Republicans do not want the very same radical special interests that are directing energy policy in the United States to have the same influence in our classrooms.

The high price of gasoline is squeezing family budgets. And this Congress has yet to cast a vote during this energy crisis that truly expands exploration and the production of American-made energy.

Republicans have a plan to increase domestic production, provide tax credits to promote clean and reliable sources of energy, and encourage conservation to ease demand for gasoline. But roadblock after roadblock has been erected.

Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly 50 days since the Speaker and this majority, the majority party, turned off the microphones, turned off the cameras, and turned down the lights and silenced the will of the American people on the House floor. Nearly 50 days since the good folks across the aisle made it abundantly clear that election year special interests are more important than the public interests.

Republicans are going to continue to champion for an all-of-the-above energy solution. But this is a moment in which the House can make certain that those who are writing our Nation's anti-energy policies are not directing learning in the classroom as well.

Republicans want to hold these programs to the highest standards of quality, accuracy and neutrality. This will only happen if funding is going to schools first, special interests are not shaping the education agenda, and there is a balanced presentation of information.

In conclusion, this motion to recommit is a trio of commonsense ideas that keeps children at the forefront while maintaining high standards for science in the classroom.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this forthwith motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the most pressing, the most urgent issue facing the American people today is energy policy, gas prices. Yet the strongest Nation, the greatest Nation in the world is 70 percent reliant on foreign oil.

Now, the good news is that there are wonderful and incredible alternatives and opportunities to create American energy for Americans. The problem is that this Democrat bill today will not, will not allow any new supply.

The reason the American people are so disgusted with Congress is because of this style of leadership: closed, unfair, un-American. This is most frustrating and concerning to the American people because they know that there are positive alternatives.

Madam Speaker, fulfill your duty. Allow a vote on the American energy bill. Honor your oath.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my friend from Oklahoma for his leadership on this and so many issues and for yielding me time.

This is an important issue, an important bill. So many of us have worked with groups within our districts all across this Nation who have had family members volunteer, serve, defend our liberty and freedom around the world, many of them on multiple tours of duty. So helping the families and recognizing their sacrifices is extremely important. They fight to defend our liberty, they fight to defend our freedom, they fight to defend our way of life, and yes, they fight to defend our ability to stand on this floor and debate and deliberate the major issues of the day.

Which is why it is with some significant regret that I discuss the issue that is the most important issue facing Americans today at home, and that is the issue of the economy and increasing gas prices and energy policy, and sadly say to my colleagues that the freedom and the liberty and the processes that our military men and women risk their lives to protect are sadly not being honored here on the floor of the House.

We heard with great fanfare last week the Speaker and the Democrat leadership announce to the Nation that they had reached a compromise on energy policy, an issue that we have been, on my side of the aisle, demanding an appropriate deliberative process and a fair and open debate for these many months.

But the Speaker announced they had reached a compromise. The problem, Mr. Speaker, as you well know is the compromise within their own minds, within their own caucus, which is why it saddens me to recognize that the men and women who are fighting to defend our freedom and our liberty and fighting for the ability of our democracy to long survive, and yet we have a process of democracy that's been so distorted it would not be recognized certainly by our Founding Fathers and likely not by any civics class across this Nation.

Because the way in which this energy bill supposedly--I don't know who's seen it--supposedly will be brought to the floor in less than 24 hours is through a closed process, through a secret process behind closed doors; not an open deliberative process, not a democratic process. Dare I say, Mr. Speaker, not an American process.

This is an important bill to recognize the sacrifices of American families all across this Nation whose loved ones stand today and have continued to stand to fight for liberty and freedom. But it saddens me greatly, Mr. Speaker, to not have that process and that fight and that valor honored here on the floor of the House of Representatives in a way that recognizes the history of our Nation, the appropriateness of the deliberative process, the imperative of democracy, the recognition that each and every one of us represents the same number of Americans.

So I support this bill, but I am so saddened and distressed by what appears to be a recurrent theme among this current leadership, and that is not to recognize the imperative of democracy and debate and deliberation in this, the greatest House, the people's House.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank my friend for yielding, and I think the underlying bill has some merit.

I'm curious, my friend from Oregon getting so exercised and excited about this debate. I appreciate his passion. I would, however, correct his amnesia because bill after bill after bill that resulted in legislation passed through this House that would increase American-made energy for Americans did so over the previous 6 years before this Democrat majority came into office and was stymied in the Senate by 41 Democrats. That's all it takes in the Senate, as you know, Mr. Speaker. That's all it takes.

So what we heard over the last 5 weeks--I know it's what my friend from Oregon heard at home--is that the American people are tired of all this. They want action. They want American-made energy for Americans. They want to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and they want action.

And so over the last 2 days we've been debating bill after bill, and they've been some wonderful bills. We've named a number of post offices. We've done a lot of interesting work, but what we haven't done is address the number one issue of the American people, and that is the high cost of gasoline and energy.

So we look forward with great anticipation to the bill that will be rolled out later this week. Granted it hasn't been an open process. Granted it hasn't been a fair process. But we hope that an open rule will allow that bill to come to the floor so that we can have an opportunity to have Members of this House of Representatives, as the rules would allow, have input, to represent their constituents, again, on the most important issue of the day.

We hope that the bill doesn't include remarkable tax increases on domestic

oil producers so this Democrat majority takes us further in the direction of dependence on foreign oil. We hope that isn't the case.

We hope that the bill doesn't include ridiculous components that make it so that it would be impossible to utilize 80 percent of the resources that we have offshore.

We hope that the Democrat majority has listened over the last 5 weeks when they've been home on their vacation. We hope that they've listened to their constituents and recognize that folks at home want us to explore offshore, not just off four eastern States, Mr. Speaker, but off the areas where there is significant resources that we know is there. That means off the western coast of Florida. That means off the west coast. That means utilizing deep sea exploration in Alaska and also onshore exploration.

We hope that the bill contains limitations on the ability to sue and hold up leases. Every single lease that has been let by this administration in the last 2 years is now in court, over a thousand of them, because of the lax laws on liability.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to a commonsense bill. We look forward to an all-of-the-above bill. We look forward to a bill that will answer the number one concern of the American people, that they want American- made energy for Americans now.

Mr. Speaker, it's that time of day in the House business when Members of the House have the right and the privilege to come to the floor and speak to colleagues both here and back in their offices and to constituents via the cameras for a period of 5 minutes. And you've heard some important speeches tonight, some heartfelt speeches, various topics, issues that Members of Congress felt were the most important thing that they could communicate today, and it's their right and their privilege.

Why do I bring that up? Well, on August 1, Friday, August 1, the last day before the 5-week paid vacation that the Speaker sent everybody on from the House of Representatives, the Speaker brought down the gavel at 11:23 a.m. before more than 40 Members of the House of Representatives were given the right and the privilege of addressing this Chamber.

Why? Well, it appeared that the Speaker wasn't interested in having the message that we were concerned about as we were summarily dismissed across this Nation to be delivered. And what was that topic we were concerned about? Mr. Speaker, it is the number one issue for Americans: the high cost of gasoline, the high cost of energy. And the Speaker said, no, go on home.

So what happened then was a spontaneous uprising, a spontaneous speak-in of over 134 members of the Republican Conference who came back and stayed not just that day, but there were members of the Republican Conference every single day here in Washington on the floor of this House, with lights dimmed, with cameras off, with microphones silenced, speaking to constituents about the number one issue of the day: the high cost of energy.

So we've been back in town now a little over 24 hours. Each of us had gone home for a period of that time, that 5-week period of time, and heard from our constituents about their concerns. And their concerns are based primarily on the economy, which is based primarily on the high cost of energy.

So when you see jobs lost, when you see the unemployment rate rise, it's directly related to the inaction of this Congress on the number one issue of the day: increasing gas prices.

We've had a bill that we have put before the House of Representatives that we believe addresses all of the above; that says we ought to embrace all of the solutions that we can as America; that we ought to end our dependence and our reliance on foreign oil; that we ought to increase our domestic production of oil; that we ought to increase our incentives for conservation; and that we ought to rapidly explore alternative fuels and alternative resources. That's what we believe ought to be done. But the Speaker and the Democrat leadership, the majority Democrat Party in this House of Representatives says, no, not going to allow that.

What are they afraid of? What are they afraid of, Mr. Speaker? Well, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, it's just all politics all the time. They believe they are beholden to a group in this Nation that doesn't want to increase American energy. Their friends on the other side of the aisle are saying, as we approach this election season, are you better off now than you were 4 years ago or 8 years ago or they will pick a time.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you, are you better off now than you were 2 years ago? Just 2 years ago. Because what's changed in this 2-year period of time is that we have leadership now in the House of Representatives that refuses to address the number one issue.

We believe that the American Energy Act is what ought to come to the floor. We implore the Speaker to put this bill on the floor and have an up-or-down vote, have debate like it ought to occur in this House, not close debate, not silence Members in this House of Representatives. Have an up-or-down vote on the American Energy Act, an all-of-the-above approach to energy independence.

That is what American people support, an all-of-the-above policy. Over 80 percent of them have said, yes, we ought to do all of these things. We ought to do more conservation. We ought to make certain that we have renewable fuels and explore as much as possible to find those new technologies, and we ought to make certain that we increase American supply of energy for Americans. That's all we ask, Mr. Speaker.

So during this period of time, I thought it was appropriate that since we weren't able to give speeches on August 1, that I come and share the message that is the most important message that the American people want to hear, and that is, that the United States House of Representatives will get down to work and do what the American people desire, and that is pass an all-of-the-above energy policy.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Hope and Light Foundation for their enduring commitment to the elimination of Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

Founded by Aaron and Stephanie Miller after their first child was diagnosed with SMA, this group has tirelessly advocated research and education to eliminate this threat. They have armed families with the latest data and educated public, business, and community leaders about the need for more focus on this genetic disorder.

Thanks in part to their work, such as co-funding the first FDA approved drug trial for SMA Type I and organizing the first Southeastern conference dedicated to SMA care and research, the families and researchers working to find a cure are closer than ever. Out of over 600 neurological disorders analyzed by the National Institutes of Health, SMA is considered the closest to realizing effective treatment.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me and recognize the Hope and Light Foundation for their positive efforts for thousands of

children and families affected by Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

Madam Speaker, point of order.

Madam Speaker, is the Speaker not supposed to be an impartial presiding officer in this body?

Madam Speaker, point of order.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a dear friend and a special American on the occasion of his 90th birthday.

Worthy Coe Hamling was born on August 2, 1918 on the plains of South Dakota. Armed with nothing more than the dogged determination, rugged individualism and unbending family loyalty forged by a birth attended only by his mother and God, Coe embodies the greatest qualities of America.

It was at Hamlyn University in Minnesota that he met his loving wife of 66 years, Betty. His embrace of freedom, family, and the sanctity of every human being is balanced by his unyielding sense of responsibility and self-reliance. Living in Roswell, GA, Coe proudly anchors a family of five children, ten grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, I know the entire House of Representatives joins me in extending a hearty, happy 90th birthday to Coe Hamling--an American treasure!

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to honor a dear friend and a special American on the occasion of his 90th birthday. Worthy Coe Hamling was born on August 5, 1918, on the plains of South Dakota. Armed with nothing more than the dogged determination, rugged individualism, and an unbending family loyalty, forged by a birth attended only by his mother and God, Coe embodies the greatest qualities of America.

It was at Hamlin University in Minnesota where he met his loving wife of 66 years, Betty. His embrace of freedom, family, and the sanctity of every human being is balanced by his unyielding sense of responsibility and self-reliance.

Living in Roswell, Georgia, Coe proudly anchors a family of five children, ten grandchildren, and eight great grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, I know the entire House of Representatives joins me in extending a hearty, happy 90th birthday to Coe Hamling, an American treasure.

I thank my friend and leader from California for yielding.

This do nothing, no energy Congress has perfected changing the rules to suit themselves. But this may take first prize.

Virtually all of us talk about the need for entitlement reform. Entitlement, that's those programs that comprise about 55 percent of the budget. I call it a ``yes'' moment at home. It's when the crowds say, Yes, yes, please. Some reform is needed. And the rules currently in place would allow for some real reform, especially in the area of lawsuit abuse reform, not cuts in Medicare. Not an increase in premiums.

As a physician for nearly 30 years, I understand clearly the need for liability reform, and it's imperative not just to decrease malpractice costs but to end the practice of defensive medicine estimated to be greater than $300 billion annually. That's $300 billion of savings without any Medicare cut, without any increase in premiums.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, this vote today is about fiscal responsibility and ending frivolous lawsuit abuse. Let's work together. Americans want action on this issue, and they want it now. This proposed rules change means no reform.