[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 129 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H7681-H7704]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1388 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 1338.

                              {time}  1636


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 1338) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the 
payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Capuano in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
43\1/2\ minutes remain in general debate. The gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) has 23 minutes remaining. And the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) has 20\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, at this time I 
would like to recognize a true champion of women in the House and the 
author of the Paycheck Fairness Act, the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. Rosa DeLauro), for 6 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I want to thank Chairman George Miller for his dedication to this 
cause. We never could have come this far without his tenacious 
leadership.
  We are grateful, Chairman Miller.
  Mr. Chairman, the Paycheck Fairness Act is about valuing the work 
that women do in our society. One of our Nation's most enduring 
principles, one of our greatest aspirations, has been ensuring equality 
of opportunity for all. There is no more important American promise 
that allows us to be a country of dreams and of success, and today we 
can take another important step toward finally honoring that promise.
  I want to thank Speaker Pelosi, whose leadership today continues to 
build on the legacy of those who preceded us, those pioneers at Seneca 
Falls as well as the women who blazed a path in the House of 
Representatives, Jeanette Rankin, Mary Norton. Even President Kennedy's 
Equal Pay Act grew out of the Commission on the Status of Women led by 
Eleanor Roosevelt. Forty-five years later our Speaker has celebrated 
that history by making this movement an absolute priority. Her message 
has been clear: It is time to stand up for working women and their 
families.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, we can do that today by supporting the Paycheck 
Fairness Act, reasserting the principle that women and men should be 
paid the same when doing the same work and making it real by allowing 
female employees to sue for compensatory and punitive damages. It does 
so without imposing the arbitrary caps women face under title VII. It 
protects employees from retaliation for sharing information with their 
coworkers about their salary, with some exceptions. And it establishes 
a grant initiative to provide negotiation skills training programs for 
girls and women.
  Some will have you believe that the wage gap for women is a myth, 
that we already have laws in place to make discrimination on the basis 
of gender illegal. But just because something is illegal does not mean 
that it does not continue to happen. According to the Department of 
Labor, women still earn only 77 percent of what men earn.
  Opponents insist that this figure does not take into account 
education and experience. But the truth is the gap barely closes among 
women with college degrees. Recent research by the American Association 
of University Women found that just one year after college graduation, 
women earn only 80 percent of what their male counterparts earn. Ten 
years after college graduation, women fall further behind, earning only 
69 percent of what men earn. So what is the message? No matter how 
advanced their degree or how hard they work, women will not be 
compensated fairly.
  The marketplace alone will not correct this injustice. We need a 
solution in law, just as our country has done in the past to bring down 
discriminatory barriers. Others will insist that we cannot open the 
door for increased litigation, but in the light of day, it is clear 
that the current system is rife with loopholes that have allowed 
employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay scales.
  We all know Lilly Ledbetter's story. For so many years she was 
shortchanged by her employer. And years later she was shortchanged 
again by the Supreme Court ruling of 5-4 against her discrimination 
claim, drastically limiting women's access to seek justice for pay 
discrimination based on gender.
  We have an obligation to ensure that this does not go on any longer, 
and we must begin today by toughening remedies in the Equal Pay Act to 
give America's working women the opportunity to fight against wage 
discrimination and receive the paycheck they have earned. No one should 
be forced to consider a trade-off between a full wage, a family life, 
and a good job.

[[Page H7682]]

  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we are so fortunate to come 
to work every day in this extraordinary institution. We are blessed. 
Different regions of the country we come from, different backgrounds, 
and different experiences. We are men and we are women and we are paid 
equally. Every woman in this country deserves the same. Every family 
deserves to know that this institution will act today to make it real.
  It is about ensuring that women who work hard and productively and 
carry a full range of family responsibilities are paid at a rate they 
are entitled.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Paycheck Fairness Act. We should 
not underestimate the power of a big idea whose time has come.
  So many employers and companies do the right thing as a matter of 
course, but passing this bill today says that this is now a matter of 
right and wrong, that discrimination is unacceptable anywhere, and we 
are all diminished when we fall short. But today we have a chance to 
make all men and women whole and contribute to the richness of America.
  In 1963 President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act, saying that it 
would ``add to our laws another structure basic to democracy'' and 
``affirm our determination that when women enter the labor force, they 
will find equality in their pay envelope.''
  Today we have another opportunity to make good on that promise. Those 
days come only few times in our tenure in the United States Congress.
  I have always been proud to serve in this institution, and I revere 
those lawmakers before us who on previous days took a stand for health 
care for the elderly or the Civil Rights Act or Family and Medical 
Leave and made such an impact on people's lives. They changed people's 
lives. That is the whole reason why we serve in this institution.
  It is my hope today that the House of Representatives passes this law 
and makes history for our country.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. McKEON. I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I want to thank Ranking Member McKeon for his work on this 
bill. I find it very interesting that our colleagues have such hubris 
that they think we are going to solve all of the problems of the world 
here in the Congress. I wish that it were so.
  I worked all my life for equal rights for women, and I don't take a 
back seat to anyone on this floor or in this body for that. But I want 
to say that this bill is not going to solve the problem that we face in 
terms of equal pay for equal work.
  My colleagues have reviewed very well the existing law. They have 
stated well why this bill is not needed. But I have to say that the 
Democrats have been very clever in the way that they have named bills 
here this year. The Free Choice Act, which takes away the choice of a 
secret ballot for voting for unions, does exactly the opposite.
  This bill, the Paycheck Fairness Act, will not do what the Democrats 
purport that it will do. It will help trial lawyers. Those in charge of 
the House of Representatives, I believe, are being controlled by trial 
lawyers, union leaders, and radical environmentalists.
  I think this bill will make it easier for trial lawyers to cash in. 
It includes several steps that will make it more lucrative for trial 
lawyers to pursue sex discrimination claims under the EPA. This may be 
good for lawyers, but it will be costly for businesses and their 
workers.
  I agree, discrimination against anyone is wrong. No one who serves in 
this House or who lives in this country wants to see that. But I want 
to quote from an article by Carrie Lukas, and I will put the entire 
article in the Record. The subtitle is: The Paycheck Fairness Act, and 
the title is: Feminists Meddle with the Market. It's in National 
Review.
  ``Today is a rare moment when Congress has the potential to 
meaningfully address a real economic problem, rising energy prices, 
with sensible legislation to allow more drilling to increase energy 
supplies. So what has Congress slated for consideration this week? The 
Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill that is the equivalent of throwing sand 
into the wheels of our economic machine.''
  She goes on to say, ``Of course, no congressional legislation would 
be complete without a healthy serving of waste, and the Paycheck 
Fairness Act doesn't disappoint. It would create a new grant program to 
instruct women on salary negotiation tactics and require the Department 
of Labor to train employers in strategies for eliminating pay 
disparities. It seems almost quaint to ask, but where in the 
Constitution is Congress granted the power to engage in this type of 
activity? Taxpayers should be outraged that their money is being put to 
such use.''
  If we are really concerned about working women and wanting to see 
them treated fairly, the Democrats in charge would bring up the 
American Energy Act and let us vote to create more sources of energy, 
thereby bringing down the cost of oil and gas and other forms of 
energy. This would do a lot more to help working women than this bill 
is going to do.

                  [From NRO Contributor July 30, 2008]

      Feminists Meddle With the Market--the Paycheck Fairness Act

                           (By Carrie Lukas)

       When an economic issue makes headlines, you can usually 
     count on Congress to respond, more often than not with an 
     over-reach that creates more problems than it solves (think 
     Sarbanes-Oxley or the recent housing bailout bill). Today is 
     a rare moment when Congress has the potential to meaningfully 
     address a real economic problem--rising energy prices--with 
     sensible legislation to allow more drilling to increase 
     energy supplies. So what has Congress slated for 
     consideration this week? The Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill 
     that is the equivalent of throwing sand into the wheels of 
     our economic machine.
       Underlying the bill are the assumptions that our workplace 
     is systematically hostile to women and that existing laws 
     don't provide enough protection for women. As committee 
     chairman George Miller (D., Calif.) said when celebrating the 
     passage of the bill out of his committee: ``This is a 
     historic day in the fight for equal rights for women. If we 
     are serious about closing the gender pay gap, we must get 
     serious about punishing those who would otherwise scoff at 
     the weak sanctions under current law.''
       The committee's press release, like essentially every 
     public statement supporting expanded ``equal pay'' laws, 
     cites the statistic that women earn just 77 percent of men's 
     earnings. This ``wage gap'' is considered proof that the work 
     world's deck is still stacked against women and government 
     needs to do more to make sure that everyone plays fair.
       Yet a statistic that simply compares the wages of the 
     median full-time working man and the full-time working woman 
     tells us nothing about the existence (or lack thereof) of 
     systematic wage discrimination. Many factors contribute to 
     how much one earns, from occupation and area of specialty to 
     education and years of experience. Not surprisingly, once 
     those factors are taken into account, the wage gap shrinks.
       Men tend to take jobs that are dirtier, more dangerous, and 
     distasteful than those performed by women. Overwhelmingly, 
     men are the ones working in our sewers, guarding our prisons, 
     laying concrete in the scorching sun, and catching and 
     gutting our fish. They work more graveyard shifts and longer 
     hours, in fact, the Department of Labor estimates that even 
     full-time working women spend about a half an hour less each 
     day on the job than men do. Women disproportionately work 
     indoors, in safe, climate controlled buildings, with regular, 
     or even flexible, hours. More people are interested in 
     working in libraries and school buildings than on the fishing 
     boats featured in Deadliest Catch, which is why physically 
     strenuous, dangerous jobs pay higher salaries.
       Feminist activists tend to be frustrated with this 
     analysis, and the explanation that the market (not nefarious 
     men) is primarily responsible for women earning less. They 
     don't think it's fair that jobs that require an education, 
     like social work or teaching, are less valued in the 
     marketplace than positions in trucking and sanitation work 
     that require only characteristics like stamina and a high 
     tolerance for filth.
       They've long championed policies, dubbed as ``comparable 
     worth,'' that would give government officials the power to 
     supersede the market to make sure that women's contributions 
     aren't undervalued. The Paycheck Fairness Act takes steps in 
     that direction. The Department of Labor would issue 
     ``guidelines'' that compare the wages of different jobs to 
     give employers a sense of what is considered ``fair.'' The 
     guidelines may not have the force of law (yet) but certainly 
     would be a powerful specter hanging over employers seeking to 
     avoid costly litigation.
       And employers would have additional reason to fear that 
     they would be targets for litigation if the Paycheck Fairness 
     Act becomes law. This bill would subject employers to 
     unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, even for 
     unintentional pay disparities, creating potential paydays 
     certain to inspire trial lawyers to action. The bill would 
     also strip employers of the ability to defend differences in 
     pay as based on factors other than sex, such as experience 
     and performance, leaving courts to dictate what constitutes a 
     legitimate pay structure.

[[Page H7683]]

       Of course, no congressional legislation would be complete 
     without a healthy serving of waste, and the Paycheck Fairness 
     Act doesn't disappoint. It would create a new grant program 
     to instruct women on salary negotiation tactics and require 
     the Department of Labor to train employers in strategies for 
     eliminating pay disparities. It seems almost quaint to ask, 
     but where in the Constitution is Congress granted the power 
     to engage in this type of activity? Taxpayers should be 
     outraged that their money is being put to such use.
       Federal law already outlaws sex discrimination. This 
     legislation would afford women few new protections against 
     actual sex discrimination, but would raise the cost of 
     employment and discourage workplace flexibility. It is 
     exactly what women--and the economy--don't need. If this is 
     what we can expect from the rest of this Congress, Americans 
     should hope for an early recess.

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I would yield 2 minutes to a 
distinguished Member of this body, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. As some of you may know, at one time I was a single 
mother raising three small children. I was working full time, but I 
still wasn't able to put food on the table, pay for doctors' visits, 
and care for the other needs of my children all on my own because my 
paycheck was for a 40-hour week but it did not cover our necessities. 
To make ends meet, I was forced to turn to public assistance.
  That was more than 35 years ago, but today there are still millions 
of single mothers in our country who are struggling to provide for 
their families, many while balancing full-time jobs. In fact, single 
mothers are twice as likely as fathers to raise their children in 
poverty.
  Unfortunately, so long as women continue to receive pennies on the 
dollar compared to their male counterparts, this statistic is unlikely 
to change any time soon.
  I want to thank my friend, Congresswoman DeLauro, for her work on 
this issue, and I would like to remind all of you that the Paycheck 
Fairness Act is about a lot more than fixing a couple of loopholes. 
It's about strengthening families, combating poverty, and finally 
recognizing that equal work deserves equal pay.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, which will provide 
the additional tools that we need to stamp out gender-based wage 
discrimination once and for all.
  Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. It gives me great pleasure to 
yield 2 minutes to a champion of the working class and the Chair of the 
Health, Employment, Labor, and Pension Subcommittee of Education and 
Labor, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I would like to thank my friend from California for 
yielding. This bill is for the woman who runs the office, who makes all 
the important decisions, without whom the place couldn't function; who 
one day comes in and discovers that a man, usually a man younger than 
her, has been brought in and given a higher title, a higher pay, and 
fewer responsibilities. And she goes to work and says, this isn't fair. 
I'm doing a job that is actually more important than this other person 
and getting paid less for it.
  Now it's true that the statutes presently say you have to get equal 
pay for equal work. But it's also true that the remedies are so limited 
under existing law that many women can't get an attorney to represent 
them in their case so it never gets brought.
  The best idea in this bill is for the first time it gives robust and 
full remedies to help that woman so that if she is able to prove her 
claim that she is underpaid relative to the work that she is doing, she 
will be fully and fairly compensated, and out of that compensation will 
come the funds to get her the competent representation that she 
deserves. The woman who's the office manager who doesn't make as much 
as the executive vice president for administration.
  Well, I will tell you, in my life, Mr. Chairman, I benefited from a 
lot of women who are office managers that don't have fancy titles but 
without whom institutions could not run. This bill is for that woman 
and for her daughters so that they do not have the situation where they 
are devalued, debased, degraded, and disrespected in the workplace.
  It is long overdue that we vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I would 
urge colleagues on both sides to do that.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlelady 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Thank you, Mr. McKeon. I want to continue with what I was 
saying before. Republicans are deeply concerned about working families. 
Every day we come to this Congress and we do everything that we can to 
help those working families. We believe that if any worker is subject 
to discrimination in the workplace because of their sex, or for any 
other reason, that that discrimination should be rooted out and 
punished accordingly. That is why current law protections are so 
important. Again, we have outlined why those laws are adequate 
currently.
  We are also concerned about other workplace policies and proposals 
that threaten workers' wages, flexibility, and freedom. However, 
unfortunately, Democrats have once again stifled debate in the House 
and blocked the minority from offering amendments that address the real 
concerns of working women and families.
  They have done the exact opposite of what they promised to do in 
2006, make this the most open Congress ever, make this the most ethical 
Congress ever, make this the fairest Congress ever. It has been just 
the opposite of that.
  Again, what we should be doing today is we should be debating how we 
can bring down the price of gasoline and heating oil and all of those 
things that are harming working Americans every day, but instead we are 
dealing with bills that are going to do nothing but line the pockets of 
trial lawyers and create what I call high-priced welfare, which are 
high-priced bureaucratic jobs which don't really do anything to help 
working men and women in this country, especially working women, 
increase their pay.
  We will be stifling businesses. It seems as though they hate business 
and industry, and want to do everything that they can to shut it down 
in this country. This bill will certainly help do that.
  So I say we vote ``no'' on this bill because this bill doesn't do 
what the title pretends it does, and in fact harms working women. What 
we need to do is be doing something to bring down the price of energy.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. It's a pleasure to yield 2 minutes 
to a member of our committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Linda T. Sanchez).
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I rise today in strong support of 
the Paycheck Fairness Act, to protect the right of all Americans to 
equal pay for equal work. I want to begin by thanking my colleague, 
Representative DeLauro, for introducing this bill, and Chairman Miller 
for steering it through committee and onto the floor. It is long 
overdue.
  After years of neglect under the former majority, this House has 
boldly taken on the challenge of trying to solve longstanding economic 
problems so that hardworking families can really achieve the American 
Dream instead of just dreaming about the American Dream.
  Women across America are still only paid 77 percent of what men are 
paid. Does this mean that women are only 77 percent as valuable as 
their male counterparts? Certainly not. It means there are, 
unfortunately, still lingering remnants of an earlier time in our 
history when women didn't have the same rights as men.
  Though we have made great strides toward fair and equal treatment for 
women in the workplace, our work is still not done. This bill continues 
our progress by creating more opportunities for women and their 
families. Nearly 7\1/2\ million of America's poverty-stricken children 
live in female-headed households. This bill will help those families 
rise out of poverty by ensuring the hard work of female-headed 
households is rewarded equally and fairly.
  Much has been said about this bill lining the pockets of trial 
lawyers. Let's not lose focus of what this bill is about. It is saying 
to women that if you have been wronged, if you have

[[Page H7684]]

been discriminated against, you will have a fair day in court.
  So, for yourselves, your wives, your sisters, your daughters, and the 
children of America, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
vote ``yes'' on this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. McKEON. How much time do we have left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) has 15 
minutes. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has 11\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. It's a pleasure to yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. I thank our chairman from the Labor Committee. I want to 
urge our Members here today to vote on this very important bill, H.R. 
1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. Our colleagues, Rosa DeLauro, and 
others, have championed this bill for many years. But Rosa has really 
dedicated herself to this movement. I am happy to be a cosponsor of 
this bill. She understands, as we know and many woman know, that we 
have to recognize that there are inequities that exist in our 
communities, and especially among women and women of color.
  Some of you may know that while women overall only receive 77 cents 
on the dollar, Latinas only average 57 cents on that dollar, and 
African American women only get 68 cents on the dollar.
  Indeed, there are disparities that exist and continue. We have an 
obligation here in this House to do the right thing.
  Just today, this morning, Arnold Schwarzenegger, our Governor, cut 
the payroll for many State employees. Many of them are women. They are 
the earners for their households. They have to put food on the table. 
Now they are going to be making Federal minimum wage, which is less 
than what the State of California's minimum wage is. What an atrocity.
  I am not going off message, I am just trying to strike home a point 
that it's important to take care of all those that work in our society, 
but particularly women because they are the ones that are mostly 
discriminated against, and we have to cut that out.
  Again, I want to wholeheartedly offer my support and have my 
colleagues know that I stand first and foremost for pay equity for all 
of us. I ask you to vote for H.R. 1338.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, let me yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to put it on the record that I like women. I have been married 
almost 46 years, and we have three daughters and we have three sons, 
and I would not want the daughters to be discriminated against, I would 
not want my sons to be discriminated against.
  I wish we could do something here that would end for all time all 
discrimination. Unfortunately, I guess when there are people involved 
in different things, some of them will tend to discriminate. That is 
why the law was passed in 1963, to level all pay. I want to just on the 
record make sure that everybody understands when we throw everybody 
into a pot and then add up all of their salaries, we are not talking 
about equal pay for equal jobs.
  One of the things that we learned when we had the hearing last year, 
when we are talking about actual people and actual jobs, is that many 
women ended up going into, after graduating from college, many of them 
go into teaching, many of them go into social work. Many men go into 
jobs, some of them go into teaching. If they go into teaching, they are 
hired, they make the same exact wage. If the men go into social work 
and women go into social work, they make the same wage. But if a person 
goes into banking at a level that pays higher or into law at a level 
that pays higher, again, a woman going into law will make the same as a 
man. But when they throw all of these jobs into the same pile, that is 
where you get some differentiation in the pay.
  Again, if we could just hold to equal pay, same job, same pay, I am 
totally supportive of that. That is what the law says, and that is what 
we should enforce. And the numbers that I quoted earlier, the pay is 
almost exactly the same. Where there is some discrimination, we should 
go after it, we should enforce the law. That is what I would encourage 
us to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. I thank the chairman for recognizing me.
  First I want to pay tribute to a great, great Member of the House and 
someone that we are so, so proud and grateful to, and that is 
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. Your mother is proud, Rosa. We are all 
proud. You have really paid for your keep here by making such a 
contribution. And also to the great George Miller, who saw this 
legislation through.
  I want to make a couple of observations. My friend from California 
just went through a whole discussion that really is not a part of this 
bill, and it is all about comparable worth. That is not what is in this 
bill.
  I also want to make another observation. There are very few on the 
other side that are coming to defend the case that is being made over 
there.
  Mr. McKEON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ESHOO. No, because I don't have that much time.
  Mr. McKEON. I would yield you more time.
  Ms. ESHOO. My other observation is that the case being made by our 
friends on the Republican side really states very fully that you are on 
the wrong side of history. What this bill does is to give women the 
tools that they need legally so that an employer can no longer 
discriminate against them.
  Have any of you heard of Lilly Ledbetter, of that case and what 
happened to that woman?
  Mr. McKEON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. ESHOO. No, I am not yielding. I told you, I don't have enough 
time. I would like to be able to say everything that I want to say.
  Mr. McKEON. I said I would be happy to yield you more time.
  Ms. ESHOO. What this bill does is it says to employers today that you 
cannot punish employees any longer who discuss or disclose salary 
information with their coworkers. I think that is a pretty important 
thing. This bill also says today that employers will have to give a 
satisfactory explanation for paying a man more than a woman for the 
same job, and that they are going to have to demonstrate that the 
disparity is not sex-based, but job related.
  So, today we are trying to even out the playing field. I think if my 
mother were sitting up there, she would be applauding. I think that 
mothers and daughters and fathers and grandparents and legislators and 
people across the country today, the last day of the month, are saying 
that the last now are going to come first, and we know in our society 
that women have not come first. Today we are talking about the 
waitress. We are talking about what Mr. Andrews talked about, and that 
is the woman that heads up the office. We are talking about the Lilly 
Ledbetters.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. ESHOO. So today I think that we are making the Union stronger and 
better by recognizing that there have been disparities and by 
recognizing the way we fix the disparities, and I salute those who have 
been on this effort for a long, long time.
  America, it is a good day, July 31st, 2008, in the House of 
Representatives, thanks to Rosa DeLauro rewriting history, Chairman 
Miller for pushing it the way he has, and thank God for the Speaker 
that makes all of this possible, Nancy Pelosi.
  I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 1338, the Paycheck 
Fairness Act and I salute Congresswoman DeLauro and Chairman Miller for 
their important leadership to bring us to this day.
  With the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act the Congress will make 
the Equal Pay Act a more effective tool in combating gender-based pay 
discrimination.
  Today, if an employer can name any factor that has determined an 
employee's pay other than gender, they can defend unequal pay in

[[Page H7685]]

pay discrimination cases. The employer's reason doesn't even need to be 
related to the job in question. Under H.R. 1338 employers will have to 
give a satisfactory explanation for paying a man more than a woman for 
the same job and they will have to demonstrate that the disparity is 
not sex-based, but job related.
  Employers will also now be barred from punishing employees who 
discuss or disclose salary information with their co-workers.
  Under current law women who have been discriminated against may only 
recover back pay or in some cases double back pay. The Paycheck 
Fairness Act will finally put gender-based discrimination on the same 
level as other forms of wage discrimination by giving women the 
opportunity to sue for compensatory and punitive damages.
  The wage gap between men and women has narrowed since the passage of 
the landmark Equal Pay Act in 1963, but according to the U.S. Census 
Bureau, women still only make 77 cents for every dollar earned by a 
man. it's time to close the gap and pass this law.
  I'm very proud to support this bill and I urge a yes vote on the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  First let me thank Chairman Miller for his leadership and for being 
such a strong supporter of pay equity and women's rights, not only 
today or last year, but throughout his life. Thank you, Chairman 
Miller.
  Also, I just have to say to my colleague, Congresswoman DeLauro, 
sometimes, oftentimes a lone voice in the wilderness, but today we pay 
tribute to the women of America, thanks to Rosa DeLauro. Thank you so 
much, Congresswoman DeLauro. You have been a champion for women and 
working families since before your career here in Congress began. So we 
salute you.
  In 1963, and I know these statistics have been repeated earlier, but 
I have to say them again because it is so important to remember where 
we were, where we are and where we need to go, and that is what today 
is about. In 1963, women who worked full time made about 59 cents on 
average for every dollar earned by men. For every dollar earned by men 
in 2006, women earned about 77 cents. The wage gap has narrowed by less 
than half a cent per year. Clearly we have a long way to go.
  The wage gap is most severe for women of color. It is absolutely 
inexcusable that women, and especially minority women, earn a fraction 
of what men earn from the same job. African American women earn just 63 
cents on the dollar, and Latinos earn far worse at 57 cents. In my own 
State of California, black women working full time year-round earn only 
61 percent and Latinos 42 percent of the wages of white men. This is 
outrageous.
  The wide disparity begins at the start of a woman's work life and 
grows wider as women age. In the long term, combined with a decrease in 
pension income and Social Security benefits, which is what happens, 
many women are at risk of falling into poverty as they get older, 
because this disparity began when they first started working.
  H.R. 1338 takes immediate steps to close the wage gap for all women 
by amending and strengthening the Equal Pay Act so that it will be a 
more effective tool in combating gender-based discrimination.
  So let's help close that gap today. Let's stand up by making the 
Paycheck Fairness Act the law of the land. This should have been the 
law of the land many years ago. Many of us remember when we first 
started working and how that male counterpart in our job was making 
twice as much as we were making. I remember those days, and, as result 
of that, many women now will have less in their Social Security and 
their pensions.
  Thank you, Congresswoman DeLauro; thank you, Chairman Miller, for 
today.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman that spoke earlier, a good friend of 
mine from California, said that I gave a long description of equal pay 
for equal job, and I thought that that is kind of what the debate was 
about. People keep talking about wanting equal pay for equal job. They 
want to have the same pay for the woman as for the man for the same 
job.
  Now, if we are just talking about we want just women paid the same as 
men for whatever job, then that is kind of the figures being used. But 
I think most of us know, we fly a lot, the pilot usually makes more 
than the flight attendant. Whether the flight attendant is male or 
female, they are paid the same. The pilot, whether he is male or 
female, they are paid the same. But the pilot is not paid the same as 
the flight attendant. We understand that, and I think that is probably 
not what we are arguing about here, but it seems like that is the way 
the debate is going.
  I support equal pay for the same job, men, women. With this bill, 
apparently the debate is equal pay for men and women, and I thought 
that is what we were talking about, because that is what the debate is. 
But as the gentlewoman said, that is not what this bill does.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of our 
committee.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the Paycheck Fairness Act. I also want to applaud Congresswoman DeLauro 
and Chairman Miller.
  When I was growing up, women only had a few career options. You could 
either be a teacher, a nurse, a secretary or a social worker, all very 
noble and difficult professions, but which don't pay nearly enough, 
mostly because a disproportionate number of women still do these jobs. 
But when my granddaughter enters the workforce, she will be able to 
work in any field she wants. So we have come a long way. But we still 
have, as many have said, a long way to go.
  The tragedy is that our daughters and granddaughters will do the same 
jobs as men on a number of occasions in a number of fields, but will 
only earn something like 77 percent of what their male colleagues earn 
for the same work. So despite the progress that we have made over the 
past four decades, many employers continue to overlook and occasionally 
even intentionally ignore the contributions of their female employees.
  It is about transparency. That is what we are talking about today, to 
give women who traditionally have stood by and been hesitant about 
taking full credit for their hard work the tools that they need to be 
certain that they are recognized in the workforce for what they are 
actually accomplishing.
  Employers must recognize all of their employees for this important 
work that they do and reward them with fair compensation. 
Unfortunately, despite what we are hearing, it is not happening on its 
own. Our daughters and our granddaughters need this legislation. I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, again, it sounds like we are talking equal pay for 
equal work, and, again, I support that. I oppose discrimination. I 
support equal pay for equal job.
  If we are saying that nurses should make the same as doctors, if the 
doctor is a female and the nurse is a male, should they make the some 
money? Or if the doctor is a male and the nurse is a female, should 
they make the same money? No. I think all nurses should make the same 
money. Doctors should make the same money if they are doing the same 
work. Not even all doctors make the same. Some surgeons make more than 
others, depending on their specialty, depending on what they do.
  We understand that in our economy what the work does decides on what 
the pay is. I think if you take everybody working and divide up all of 
their pay, and you have more women that are serving in occupations that 
pay less, as my good friend just pointed out, women didn't have I guess 
the same opportunities in the past as they do now, and so if you took 
those figures and you had more women working in lower-paid fields, that 
is how you get the 77 percent discrepancy.
  But if you took all of the same jobs, added up what they are paid, 
maybe 40 years ago, 50 years ago there was a lot more discrimination 
than now, but I think now if you look across the field and equal pay 
for equal job, you would

[[Page H7686]]

find there is, if anything, very little difference.

                              {time}  1715

  Should it be no difference? You bet. And I think you would probably 
find in some occupations you have women making more than men. And I 
guess men should probably claim discrimination in that case, but I 
don't think they should. I think the reason women are paid more is they 
are probably worth more.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Could the Chair apprise how much 
time I have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the chairman for the priority consideration given 
this bill throughout, and Rosa DeLauro for her indefatigable 
perseverance on this bill.
  This bill has not been updated for 45 years, and yet we have seen the 
transformation of the American workforce. It needs a 21st century 
makeover. I wasn't there at the birth, but I was there when I chaired 
the EEOC and worked with President Carter to bring the Equal Pay Act to 
the EEOC. The whole point of doing that was to bring this, the first of 
the great civil rights statutes, into line with title VII, which was 
passed thereafter. We have never done that. This is the first time we 
have done that, Mr. Chairman. That makes this an historic bill.
  Seventy-five percent of women in the work force today have small 
children. Women are backsliding now. They are stuck on 76 cents for 
every male dollar. With the economy in the worst condition in a 
generation, women need every tool, and it is not too much to ask that 
they have the tool of equal rights.
  Mr. McKEON. I am happy to yield at this time to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Price), a member of the committee, such time as he may 
consume.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, we talk about family values. 
And the most important way that we can show that we value families is 
to ensure that a woman earns a fair day's pay.
  Most women work outside the home, including over 70 percent of all 
mothers. Yet among full-time workers, women earn only 77 percent 
compared to men. Unequal pay practices hurt not only women but their 
entire families. The typical wife brings home about one-third of her 
family's income.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act will help prevent, regulate, and reduce 
discrimination against women. It will prohibit employers from 
retaliating against employees who share salary information with their 
coworkers, as we saw in the Lilly Ledbetter case.
  Women's work should be valued equally. This bill is an important step 
towards gender equality. And I thank my colleagues, Rosa, George, and 
many others, for their hard work on it.
  Most women are in the labor force, including over 70 percent of all 
mothers. Yet, women continue to earn less than men even if they have 
similar educational levels and work in similar kinds of jobs.
  A 2003 Government Accountability Office (GAO) study that I 
commissioned showed that when occupation, marital status, job tenure, 
industry, and race are accounted for, women still earn 80 cents for 
every dollar men earn.
  Research has found that women's choices cannot explain about 40 
percent of the wage gap between men and women.
  Pay discrimination hurts not only a working woman, but her entire 
family--especially in the face of rising prices for basics, like food 
and gasoline.
  The typical wife brings home about a third of her family's total 
income. Over the past three decades, only those families who have a 
working wife have seen real increases in family income: Families 
without a working wife have real incomes today that are nearly 
identical to what they were over 35 years ago.
  Congress passed the Equal Pay Act nearly half a century ago, yet 
women still experience pay discrimination.
  According to the National Committee on Pay Equity, working women 
stand to lose $250,000 over the course of their career because of 
unequal pay practices.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act will prevent, regulate and reduce pay 
discrimination for working women nationwide. It will help women become 
better negotiators, enforce equal pay laws for federal contractors, and 
require the Department of Labor to work with employers to eliminate pay 
disparities.
  As we saw in the Lilly Ledbetter case, if a woman doesn't know how 
much her male colleagues earn, she cannot know that she is being 
discriminated against.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act will prohibit employers from retaliating 
against employees who share salary information with their co-workers.
  Women need to know the true value of the jobs that they do and this 
is an important step towards gender parity.
  I strongly urge you to vote yes on this bill.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Someone on the other side said this bill isn't about equal pay for 
equal work, but I know others have said it is about equal pay for equal 
work. I have Mr. Hoyer's statement here, the majority leader, and he 
began his statement saying equal pay for equal work. That is the 
principle that we are talking about.

[[Page H7687]]

  The Paycheck Fairness Act is a clever name. Who doesn't support 
paycheck fairness? Unfortunately, that is not what this bill is 
offering.
  No, Mr. Chairman. If this bill becomes law, it will make the system 
fundamentally unfair by putting the interests of the trial lawyers 
above the interests of the workers.
  As I mentioned earlier, we did try to offer an amendment. I don't 
think it was totally out of line to think that we should maybe limit 
the trial lawyers working on these cases to $2,000 an hour. But every 
Democrat voted against that. And then they didn't let that amendment be 
placed in order to discuss here on the floor. I am sorry that we 
weren't able to do that.
  This bill will expose family businesses to unlimited liability even 
if there is no intentional discrimination. The Democrats' fig leaf 
amendment doesn't change the fact that trial lawyers stand to receive a 
big payday by lowering the bar on costly jury awards.
  This bill will encourage class-action lawsuits, treating the EPA as a 
litigation factory. This bill will make it harder for businesses to 
defend against legal challenges, inviting unscrupulous trial lawyers. I 
say unscrupulous; I have many good friends who are trial lawyers, and I 
exclude them from that definition. But the unscrupulous ones will 
pursue baseless claims.
  Now we know what the bill would do. But what about what it fails to 
do? It doesn't prohibit discrimination under the law. We did that 45 
years ago, as Mr. Price so eloquently explained. It doesn't offer 
working women new flexibility so that they can balance work and home.
  Mrs. McMorris Rodgers had a bill earlier that she wanted to present 
that she has never been given the chance to do so. But it would give 
women the opportunity to take compensatory time, the same as government 
workers can do now. If you work overtime, you can be paid time-and-a-
half in cash; but if you want to take that time in compensatory time, 
we do not give people the opportunity to do that. We should do that.
  It certainly doesn't do anything to bring down the price of gasoline, 
which is the number one issue many working families are struggling with 
today.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad bill. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Roybal-Allard) for a unanimous consent request.
  (Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Forty-five years ago, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act to end wage 
discrimination against women, who on average earned only 60 cents to 
every dollar earned by men.
  Since then, women have made extraordinary achievements, contributing 
to the illusion women have indeed reached parity in the workplace.
  That illusion is created by such events as the historic election of 
the first woman Speaker of the House, and by increased numbers of women 
heading Fortune 500 companies.
  The reality is, however, that in spite of these achievements women 
have not reached wage parity.
  Pay inequality is perhaps the most glaring example of how women 
continue to be discriminated against.
  Despite enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, today women doing the 
same work earn only 77 cents to every dollar earned by their male 
counterparts.
  This unfairness often has devastating economic consequences to a 
woman, especially upon retirement, when pensions and Social Security 
benefits are based on her life earnings.
  This disparity often costs a woman anywhere from $400,000 to $2 
million in lifetime earnings, contributing to the disturbing fact that 
today women make up 70 percent of older adults living in poverty.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Paycheck Fairness Act 
because it will close loopholes that often destroy the economic 
security of women.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have come to the 
end of a long debate, but let's get something very clear. This is all 
about equal pay, and this is all about whether or not women are going 
to receive equal pay. What this legislation does is recognize the 
barriers that have been put up in front of women trying to enforce the 
existing law.
  It is rather interesting that the Secretary of Labor sent us a 
letter, and in her random audits of businesses working with government 
contractors she found systematic discrimination and she collected $51 
million, and this is a record year, and it is the third record year in 
a row because of systematic discrimination.
  Now, everybody has come to the floor and said they are all against 
this discrimination. Yes, we all are against that. Nobody is suggesting 
that anybody isn't. But if you can't enforce your rights, then you 
suffer the discrimination. Random audits, $51 million was denied to 
these individuals. And these are just people working with government 
contractors. Think what it is nationwide, and the people don't get a 
random audit, they don't get the Secretary of Labor, they don't get the 
Department of Labor. What they get is discrimination in their pay. That 
is what they get.
  Today, we are going to decide whether or not these women are going to 
be able to collect the pay that is owed them, whether they are going to 
be able to enforce the law that requires as a matter of national policy 
and law the equal pay for women. That is the issue here. It is not 
complicated. It is not complicated.
  Study after study has determined that pay discrimination exists 
whether you are in the workforce 10 years, whether you are starting out 
in the workforce, no matter what your life experiences are. When they 
control for all of that, there still is discriminatory pay against 
women in the American workforce, and today this House is going to 
change that.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1338, the 
Paycheck Fairness Act.
  In 1963, President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law in order 
to promote workplace equality for women. Since then, women have made 
great gains in workforce participation, compensation, and advancement, 
but a significant wage gap still exists between women and men. Women 
working full-time year-round earn on average 77 cents for every dollar 
earned by a man. The wage gap is even wider in Michigan: On average, 
women in Michigan are paid only 67 cents for every dollar earned by a 
man.
  Wage discrimination is not just a women's issue--it is a family 
issue. With a majority of American households depending on two incomes 
to make ends meet, the wage gap is more relevant than ever. The current 
pay disparity may cost a woman anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million in 
lifetime earnings relative to a man performing equivalent work. The 
cost is often borne not just by an individual, but by all the members 
of the household who rely on that income. Congress must respond to this 
injustice.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act updates and strengthens the Equal Pay Act 
in light of more than 45 years of real-world experience. Courts have 
interpreted the Equal Pay Act more narrowly than other employment 
discrimination laws, counter to the intent of Congress. The Paycheck 
Fairness Act clarifies that the factors used by employers to justify 
wage disparities must be related to the employee's work or to the 
business. The bill also redefines the standard for comparing employees' 
compensation, reducing a frequently prohibitive burden of proof for 
plaintiffs.
  Data collection is key to tracking women's relative compensation in 
the workplace, but the federal agencies charged with enforcing 
employment discrimination laws have little information about wage 
disparities. The Bush administration, furthermore, has halted or tried 
to halt many efforts to collect data. The Paycheck Fairness Act ensures 
that the Bureau of Labor Statistics will collect data on wage 
disparities, and it requires the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission to offer guidance in order to enhance enforcement of federal 
law. These measures will help shed light on wage discrimination that 
would otherwise go unseen.
  This legislation takes vital steps toward realizing the goals 
established 45 years ago in the Equal Pay Act. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting the bill.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives 
passed H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act, sponsored by 
Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT). H.R. 1338 amends the Equal Pay 
Act, one of the primary laws addressing pay discrimination. Since 
becoming law, loopholes and weak remedies have made the Equal Pay Act 
less effective in combating wage discrimination. The Paycheck Fairness 
Act, strengthens and improves the effectiveness of the Equal Pay Act.

[[Page H7688]]

  There should be little doubt that such improvements are necessary. 
More than four decades after the enactment of the Equal Pay Act, women 
still make only 77 cents for every dollar made by their male 
counterparts, a wage disparity that cannot be explained by differences 
in qualifications, education, skills, training, responsibility, or life 
choices. Rather, in many cases, the pay differential has resulted from 
unlawful sex discrimination.
  The consequences of this discrimination are severe and predictable. 
The pay disparity forces single-mother households and families 
dependent on two wage earners to live on less than they rightfully 
deserve, while simultaneously reducing women's retirement earnings. In 
short, unfair pay disparities perpetuate women's economic dependence 
and deprive them of economic opportunity and equal protection of the 
laws.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act provides for compensatory and punitive 
damages only ``as appropriate,'' with no further limitation or 
arbitrary cap being necessary. The modest provisions for compensatory 
and punitive damages in the Paycheck Fairness Act bring remedies for 
victims of sex-based wage discrimination in line with those available 
for victims of wage discrimination based on race and national origin.
  I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Miller, and 
Subcommittee Chairwoman Woolsey and Congresswoman DeLauro for 
championing this important wage discrimination legislation.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the Paycheck Fairness Act is an important 
step in eliminating the gap that exists between the compensation of men 
and women, a gap that has existed for decades and persists to this day 
despite the gains made by women.
  Among other things, the bill will close a loophole that some 
employers exploit to avoid compensation discrimination lawsuits, and 
will put gender discrimination on a par with other types of 
discrimination.
  Men and women are equally important to the health and vitality of the 
American economy, and it is high time that compensation reflect this 
fact.
  Women who work full time continue to make roughly 25 percent less for 
equal work and with equal qualifications to their male counterparts.
  This means that a woman makes significantly less money based on one 
single factor: Her sex. This is sexist, unconscionable and 
discriminatory.
  This discrimination impacts women in their struggle for economic 
independence, and their ability to care for their families and 
themselves. It continues to promote the backward thinking that 
undervalues and devalues women in the United States and around the 
world.
  I support H.R. 1338 because I believe it moves us in a direction that 
closes the discriminatory wage gap. It is long overdue.
  I look forward to the day when everyone in the labor force is treated 
equally.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. I am an original cosponsor of this 
bill because I believe it is time that we end gender discrimination in 
the workplace.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act addresses one of the most evident and 
detrimental aspects of gender discrimination: Wage disparity. As we 
know from the U.S. Census Bureau, women across the country earn, on 
average, only 77 cents for every dollar a man receives for the same 
work. That 23-cent difference can add up to between $400,000 and $2 
million over a working lifetime. In Illinois, where the average working 
woman earns 75 cents for every dollar earned by a man, the wage gap and 
the cost to women are even larger.
  In today's economy, wage discrimination hits women particularly hard, 
whether they are the heads of households or the second or even third 
wage earner in a family. With higher food, energy, health care, 
transportation and housing costs, women are struggling to stretch every 
dollar in order to meet their family's needs. Wage discrimination 
unfairly shrinks those dollars, especially for women of color and self-
employed women who suffer from a higher-than-average wage gap. It 
deprives women of dollars that they have earned but, because of the 
paycheck gap, do not get.
  While there are many economic arguments for H.R. 1338, there are 
other considerations as well. I urge my colleagues to consider the 
views of the American Psychological Association, which argues that wage 
discrepancies create economic disadvantages that ``affect the 
psychological and physical health of women and their families.'' As the 
APA says, ``The link between depression and low-income women can be 
attributed to increased stress caused by living in poverty, as well as 
minimal social support. Additionally, low-income pregnant women receive 
less prenatal care, and are more likely to deliver low-birth weight 
babies.''
  We should pass H.R. 1338 to ensure that women are fairly paid for 
their work, not economically disadvantaged because of their gender. We 
should pass H.R. 1338 because it will help families deal with the 
current economic crisis. We should pass H.R. 1338 because it will have 
positive health impacts for women and families. It is the right thing 
to do, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, there is no excuse for the wage gap that 
still exists between men and women in today's workforce. Equalizing 
wages will provide women with equal pay for equal work and improve the 
standard of living for millions of American families. That is why I 
rise today in strong support of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  The need for the reform of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) is obvious. More 
than four decades after Congress enacted it, hard-working women still 
earn only 77 cents for every dollar made by men. This is certainly an 
improvement over the 58 cents women earned when the EPA was passed in 
1963, but it is hardly enough. And it still will not be enough when the 
day comes that women earn 99 cents for every dollar that a man earns. 
``Equal'' is not a word that allows room for negotiation, and nothing 
short of women being paid the same wages as men should be acceptable.
  We are here today to vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act for the 
fourth time since it was first introduced in 2005. That is three times 
too many. We took jobs as Representatives of the House with the promise 
to represent our constituents to the best of our ability. I don't see 
how it is possible to do that when we neglect to ensure that something 
as basic and fundamentally important as fair pay is granted to the 
working women of our districts.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act contains the tools necessary to achieve 
EPA's goal. It will increase penalties for employers who pay different 
wages to men and women for equal work, require employers to prove that 
payment disparities among men and women are job related and consistent 
with business necessity, and protect employees from retaliation after 
sharing salary information.
  In a country that prides itself on equality for all, it is 
unconscionable that women who do the same work as men receive less pay. 
I urge my colleagues to bring the ``fairness'' back into the workplace 
by supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1338, 
``The Paycheck Fairness Act.'' This legislation will help our Nation 
take the final steps in its long journey towards ensuring that men and 
women receive equal pay for equal work. The Congress first committed 
itself to remedying the scourge of pay discrimination in 1963, when it 
passed the Equal Pay Act. At that time, full-time working women were 
paid on average 59 cents on the dollar earned by their male 
counterparts. In the ensuring 43 years, the wage gap between men and 
women has narrowed. In 2008, women earn about 77 percent of what men 
earn. While this is a dramatic improvement, the 23 cent gap that exists 
still exemplifies that gender discrimination is a real and contemporary 
problem in our labor market.
  H.R. 1338 would attack this problem in a comprehensive manner. It 
builds on many of the innovative policies found in the original EPA and 
adds provisions specifically crafted to address the realities of 21st 
century offices. H.R. 1338 will:
  Strengthen the EPA by making it unlawful for an employer to pay 
unequal wages to men and women who have substantially similar jobs that 
are performed under similar working conditions within the same physical 
location of business. Under the original EPA, employers can justify 
unequal pay if it is based on: Seniority; merit; quality or quantity of 
production; or ``any factor other than sex.'' This legislation 
clarifies the ``any factor other than sex'' defense, so that an 
employer trying to justify paying a man more than a woman for the same 
job must show that the disparity is not sex-based, is job related, and 
is necessary for the business;
  Prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who discuss or 
disclose salary information with their co-workers. However, employees 
such as HR personnel who have access to payroll information as part of 
their job would not be protected if they disclose the salaries of other 
workers;
  Strengthen the remedies available to include punitive and 
compensatory damages. Under the EPA currently, plaintiffs can only 
recover back pay and in some cases double back pay. The damages would 
not be capped;
  Require the Department of Labor to improve outreach and training 
efforts to work with employers in order to eliminate pay disparities;
  Enhance the collection of information on women's and men's wages in 
order to more fully explore the reasons for gender-based wage gap and 
to assist employers in their efforts to rectify pay disparities; and
  Create a new grant program to help strengthen the negotiation skills 
of girls and women.

[[Page H7689]]

  Mr. Chairman, I was shocked when I heard last year about the case of 
Lilly Ledbetter, the Goodyear Tire plant employee who suffered from pay 
discrimination for nearly two decades. After learning that she had been 
victimized by her employer, she brought an Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission complaint against Goodyear. Unfortunately, a majority of our 
anti-worker, pro-corporate Supreme Court denied her claim, ruling that 
employees can only file a wage-discrimination complaint within 180 days 
of a discriminatory payroll decision. Ms. Ledbetter, a clear victim of 
discrimination, was left without recourse in a country founded on a 
respect for the rule of law. For this, we should be ashamed.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that our courts are our last line of defense 
when it comes to protecting the fundamental rights enshrined in our 
Constitution and in our civil rights laws. With our marketplace and 
court systems unwilling to correct obvious injustices, we need a 
legislative solution that will ensure that the universal values of 
fairness, respect, and decency continue to be a part of the American 
workplace. To this end, I urge my colleagues to step up for ``equal pay 
for equal work'' and pass H.R. 1388.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
strong support of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  It has been 45 years since the passage of the landmark Equal Pay Act 
of 1963, and while pay disparities have narrowed, a strong wage 
disparity still exists. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau 
women still make only 77 cents on the dollar to their male 
counterparts.
  We cannot deny that this gender disparity exists, and it is essential 
that we close the loopholes that allow it to continue. The Paycheck 
Fairness Act helps close these loopholes by increasing enforcement and 
accountability in cases of discrimination. This bill provides relief 
for women who face retaliation for standing up for equal pay, and it 
requires the Department of Labor to increase their effort to end pay 
disparities.
  This is not only a bill for women, but a bill for children and 
families. For the millions of working mothers in America--many of whom 
are heads of households--it offers financial stability. This wage 
disparity is costing women between $400,000 and $2 million over a 
lifetime.
  Lower wages factor into long-term financial planning. Retirement and 
Social Security is based on income. Retirement aged women today are far 
less likely to receive a pension, and rely on Social Security benefits 
to survive. The wage discrimination women are facing today will 
continue to follow them well into retirement.
  We cannot continue to simply accept this disparity, and the Paycheck 
Fairness Act is a strong statement that this type of discrimination 
will not be tolerated. I would like to thank Congresswoman DeLauro for 
offering this important piece of legislation, and commend Chairman 
Miller and the Democratic leadership for bringing this bill to the 
floor.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. My dear friend and colleague, 
Representative Rosa DeLauro, has worked for more than ten years on this 
legislation to close the disparate pay gap between men and women. I 
thank her for her tireless efforts.
  President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act 45 years ago. I, like many 
others, am left scratching my head, wondering why the wage gap has 
narrowed by less than half a cent a year. Today, women earn only 77 
cents for every dollar earned by men, compared with 59 cents on the 
dollar in 1963. At this rate, it would take another 50 years to reach 
parity between men and women. I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 
1338, which builds on the progress of the Equal Pay Act by improving 
legal recourses for women who are being discriminated against in the 
workplace, providing more effective remedies for claiming punitive and 
compensatory damages--bringing them in line with those for race or 
national origin discrimination, demanding from employers a business 
justification for a gender-based pay difference, and prohibiting 
employers from retaliating against employees who share salary 
information with their co-workers.
  As a husband, father of daughters and grandfather of granddaughters, 
closing the pay gap is an issue I care deeply about. After cosponsoring 
the Paycheck Fairness Act for nearly a decade, I am pleased to be 
finally able to vote in favor of it here on the House Floor.
  Over the years, I have studied the pay gap in depth. Representative 
Carolyn Maloney and I have commissioned two Government Accountability 
Office studies on the matter. The conclusion we have come to is sad and 
disappointing, that even when controlling for all factors, women simply 
lag behind men. This is most certainly not because women work less hard 
than men--we know nothing could be further from the truth. Yet, 
something is keeping women behind. This is why I am also a cosponsor of 
the Equal Rights Amendment, which is a long overdue amendment to the 
Constitution to finally give women the standing necessary to address 
their grievances.
  The pay gap is too often seen as a ``women's issue.'' In fact, this 
is not a women's issue, it is a family issue. The simple fact of the 
matter is that it often takes two incomes to make it in this country. 
This is especially true during an economic downturn like we face today. 
When women are not paid fairly, our families suffer.
  I am proud to be here today voting in favor of the Paycheck Fairness 
Act and sincerely hope this critically important legislation is signed 
into law this year.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1338, 
the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  I would like to acknowledge our colleague, Representative Rosa 
DeLauro (D-CT), for her leadership on this issue and for bringing this 
bill to the Floor.
  Kofi Anan once said ``When women thrive, all of society benefits, and 
succeeding generations are given a better start in life.'' In a period 
of tough economic times, this bill and this quote could not be timelier 
or more relevant. Despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963 
women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. In a 
society where women are increasingly the heads of households, pay 
inequity harms not only the individual woman but her children and other 
family members as well.
  H.R. 1338 increases the penalties for gender discrimination, and puts 
gender discrimination sanctions on equal footing with other forms of 
wage discrimination, including those based on race, disability, or age. 
The bill prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who 
share salary information with their co-workers. The fact of the matter 
is that, for every woman who comes forward and speaks out against pay 
discrimination, there are scores of other woman who remain silent for 
fear of retaliation. This legislation sends a strong message to women 
that their elected officials recognize the discrepancy in pay and are 
doing everything in their power to remedy pay discrimination.
  In closing, I would like to quote Betty Friedan, world renowned 
feminist and author of the book The Feminine Mystique: ``A girl should 
not expect special privileges because of her sex but neither should she 
adjust to prejudice and discrimination.'' There is no room in this 
society for gender discrimination, which harms the greater community 
because when we uplift one segment of society, we uplift our entire 
society.
  For all the single mothers, working mothers, and young women entering 
the workforce, I lend my full support to H.R. 1338, the Paycheck 
Fairness Act.
  This is a sound piece of legislation, a critical piece of 
legislation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1338, 
the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Paycheck Fairness Act--for the basic promise of equality it upholds for 
America's women and the faith it keeps with the best of who we are as a 
nation.
  The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963 to enshrine into law the basic 
principle of equal pay for equal work.
  Forty-five years later, we are here today because American women 
still only make $.77 cents for every dollar a male counterpart earns 
when performing equal work. Worse, African-American women earn only 
$.66 on the dollar, and Hispanic women a mere $.55.
  This continued and persistent wage gap between men and women cannot 
be explained by differences in education, qualifications or experience. 
It is both unacceptable and un-American. And it must stop.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act will move us towards our ultimate goal of 
eliminating wage disparity in the United States by clarifying that any 
employer's decision to pay a male employee more than a female employee 
must not be based on gender, must be job-related and must be consistent 
with business necessity. To avoid a repeat of the facts presented to 
the Supreme Court in the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber case, 
this legislation also prohibits employers from retaliating against 
employees who discuss or disclose salary information with co-workers. 
And it strengthens the remedies made available to women who have been 
subjected to gender-based wage discrimination.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to recognize my good friend and 
colleague Rosa DeLauro for her tireless leadership on this legislation. 
We owe it to our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters to pass it 
without delay.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1338, 
the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would narrow the wage gap between men 
and women. As a cosponsor of this bill, as well as a cosponsor in 
previous Congressional sessions, I am pleased to see this legislation 
finally debated on the House floor.

[[Page H7690]]

  H.R. 1338 would strengthen the Equal Pay Act, which makes it unlawful 
for an employer to pay unequal wages to men and women that have similar 
jobs within the same establishment. The Paycheck Fairness Act would 
allow women to sue for punitive damages, as well as compensatory 
damages. Currently, women who seek compensation for unequal pay can 
only recover back pay, or in some cases, double back pay. While this 
bill would increase penalties for employers who pay different wages to 
men and women for equal work, it also provides incentives such as 
training programs for employers to eliminate pay disparities and grant 
programs to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women.
  Some may argue that these changes are not necessary, but the numbers 
speak for themselves. Despite greatly increased commitment to the labor 
force over the past 45 years, women working full time make 77 cents for 
every dollar earned by a man--less than a 20 percent increase since the 
Equal Pay Act was signed into law in 1963. Even more troublesome, 
African-American women earn 66 cents to the dollar and Latina women 
earn 55 cents to the dollar. According to a Census Bureau study, male 
high school graduates earned $13,000 more than female high school 
graduates in 2006. Women with a bachelor's degree employed year-round 
earned $53,201, while similarly educated men earned an average of 
$76,749. This same study also noted that the pay difference between men 
and women grows wider as they age.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that women 
like Lilly Ledbetter do not have to argue their case for equal pay all 
the way to the Supreme Court, so that single mothers do not have to 
worry whether or not they are being treated fairly by their employers 
while they provide for their children, and so that daughters entering 
college can reach their full potential when they graduate.
  Finally, I would like to thank my friend Congresswoman DeLauro for 
her many years of leadership on this issue, as well as inspiring women 
of all ages across our country.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in very strong support 
of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was 
a critical step forward in the ongoing struggle for equal rights for 
women. The time has come to make common sense adjustments to the act in 
order to make it more effective in fighting gender-based employment and 
pay discrimination.
  The American dream is undermined daily as women are denied equal pay 
for their work. Improvement has come too slowly over the past 45 years, 
with women's wages rising from 59 cents for every dollar earned by a 
man in 1963 to 77 cents per every dollar earned by a man in 2008. This 
gap is even worse for minority women, with Latinas earning 52 cents to 
every dollar--the least of all racial and ethnic minorities as compared 
to white men. The Paycheck Fairness Act will facilitate the achievement 
of equal pay between the sexes.
  A 2003 study by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that 
when all the key factors that influence earnings are controlled for--
demographic factors such as marital status, race, number and age of 
children, and income, as well as work patterns such as years of work, 
hours worked, and job tenure--there is a 23 percent pay gap between 
women and men that cannot be explained or justified.
  Women now comprise 59 percent of the work force, compared to about 
one-third when the Equal Pay Act was first passed. All working people 
deserve the same opportunities to succeed professionally and 
personally. The Paycheck Fairness Act will solidify our commitment to 
this equality and bring us closer to achieving the ideals put forth in 
so long ago in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by closing loopholes in the 
law that have allowed employers to evade liability, providing tools to 
improve outreach and training efforts to work with employers, 
strengthening the negotiation skills of girls and women, and enhancing 
the collection of information on women's and men's wages.
  It is simply unacceptable that in the past 40 years the wage gap has 
narrowed by less than 20 percent. We have the opportunity to aid 
millions of American workers to achieve the American Dream, and so I am 
proud to support H.R. 1338.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as cosponsor of this 
legislation for multiple Congresses, I rise in strong support and urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  This legislation would take meaningful steps to empower women to 
negotiate for equal pay, to create strong incentives for employers to 
follow the law, and to strengthen federal outreach and lenforcement 
efforts.
  According to the 2006 Census Bureau, women still earned only about 77 
percent as much as men did. Women of color were worse off--African 
American women made 66 cents on the dollar compared to the highest 
earners, white men, while Hispanic women made only 55 cents. As a 
result, according to the Institute of Women's Policy Research, working 
women stand to lose anywhere between $400,000 and $2 million dollars 
over the course of their career because of unequal pay practices. While 
women's wages and educational attainment hve been rising, there is 
still a sizeable gender wage gap. Only a portion of the difference in 
pay can be explained by experience, education, or qualifications.
  Using data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census 
Bureau between 2004-2006, my own state of Texas ranked 7th in the 
nation in gender based wage equity, with women earning on average 80.7 
percent of what their male counterparts earned. Although this is 
slightly better than the national average, it is obvious that there is 
still work to be done. At the current rate of wage growth for men and 
women in Texas, the National Committee on Pay Equity estimates that it 
will take another 38 years before this wage gap is closed.
  It is well past time for something be done to close the gender wage 
gap so that men and women have the same opportunity to a decent working 
wage. The original Equal Pay Act signed by President Kennedy 45 years 
ago called for ``equal pay for equal work''. Although it has come a 
long way, the fight for equal pay and treatment is still an ongoing 
struggle.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act would help address these conditions by 
amending and strengthening the EPA, so that it will be a more effective 
tool in combating gender-based pay discrimination. H.R. 1338 will close 
numerous loopholes in the 45-year-old law that has enabled employers to 
evade liability. It will also create a new grant program to help 
strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women.
  Congress must pass this legislation to help ensure that this goal 
becomes a reality, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
H.R. 1338.
  Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1338, 
the Paycheck Fairness Act of which I am a proud cosponsor.
  Every April I participate in ``Equal Pay Day'' with my friend, 
Representative Rosa DeLauro, and other colleagues. This is the time of 
year when wages paid to American women ``catch up'' to the wages paid 
to men from the previous year. In other words, because the average 
woman earns less, she must work longer for the same amount of pay. The 
legislation before us today addresses this unacceptable reality.
  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women only make 77 cents for 
every dollar earned by a man. This wage disparity will end up costing 
women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost 
wages. Making matters worse, the wage gap grows wider as women age and 
move through their careers, creating serious economic security 
concerns.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act will strengthen pay equity laws by closing 
the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility for 
discriminatory pay, and help build economic and retirement security for 
women.
  It is in the best interest of all Americans to ensure that every 
worker is treated fairly and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 
I commend Ms. DeLauro for introducing the legislation and for her 
leadership on this issue over the past decade.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1338, the 
Paycheck Fairness Act. This legislation is needed to strengthen the 
Equal Pay Act of 1963. I thank Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for 
sponsoring this bill and fighting for its passage year after year and 
Chairman George Miller for championing this bill through the committee 
and on the House floor.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act has garnered tremendous support from 230 
cosponsors and over 200 national, state, and Iocal organizations. While 
the Equal Pay Act was intended to prevent pay discrimination in the 
workplace, 45 years after it was signed by President Kennedy, women, 
and especially women of color, continue to take home significantly less 
pay than men for the same work. Single women and female heads of 
households fare the worst in the current system. These women earn less 
than their male colleagues during their careers, which in turn 
adversely affects their ability to save and accrue retirement benefits.
  As a representative of the second Congressional district of Hawaii, I 
have the great honor and responsibility of continuing the important 
work of my predecessor, Patsy Takemoto Mink. Congresswoman Mink's 
personal struggles as a woman in a culture dominated by men inspired 
her to work tirelessly for equal rights for women and girls. She faced 
obstacles in pursuing her education and career, but she was not 
deterred--instead, she broke down barriers, becoming the first 
Japanese-American woman admitted to the bar in Hawaii and the first 
woman of color elected to national office in this country when she was 
elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1964. Today, women 
continue to break down barriers in the workplace, but they still 
receive only a fraction of the pay men receive for the same work.

[[Page H7691]]

  Although the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was passed to prevent pay 
discrimination based on sex, the law clearly has not had the intended 
result, even after 45 years. Women still make only 77 cents for every 
dollar earned by men for equal work. This bill will strengthen 
enforcement of the law, thereby fulfilling its intended purpose.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to stand up for the right of women to 
receive equal pay and support the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1338 and I want to 
thank Congresswoman DeLauro for her leadership on this important bill.
  She has fought for paycheck fairness for women during every Congress 
for the past decade and should be commended for her tenacity.
  We are a nation with a constitution and bill of rights.
  It is sad to admit that in a country as prosperous as ours, women 
only earn 77 cents to every dollar that men earn.
  It's even worse for minority women: with African American women 
earning 66 cents to the dollar of Latinas earning 55 cents to the 
dollar.
  This bill corrects this injustice by making it illegal for employers 
to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform equal work.
  In 1923, women's suffragist Alice Paul, wrote the Equal Rights 
Amendment which would guarantee ``equal justice under law'' to all 
citizens. I was proud to sponsor a bill that would honor Alice Paul 
with a congressional Gold Medal for her heroic leadership in fighting 
for the ERA and in working to achieve women's right to vote. My bill, 
H.R. 406 passed the house with 406 cosponsors, a historic record of 
support! While the ERA was never ratified, the Paycheck Fairness Act 
brings us closer to achieving its intent.
  Wage discrimination keeps women down and harms the overall economy. 
It also represents the worst of America. We must confront 
discrimination head on and ensure that all Americans, regardless of 
gender, receive equal pay for equal work.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the 
purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered 
read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                               H.R. 1338

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Paycheck Fairness Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over 
     the past 50 years.
       (2) Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, 
     many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men 
     for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the 
     private and governmental sectors. In many instances, the pay 
     disparities can only be due to continued intentional 
     discrimination or the lingering effects of past 
     discrimination.
       (3) The existence of such pay disparities--
       (A) depresses the wages of working families who rely on the 
     wages of all members of the family to make ends meet;
       (B) undermines women's retirement security, which is often 
     based on earnings while in the workforce;
       (C) prevents the optimum utilization of available labor 
     resources;
       (D) has been spread and perpetuated, through commerce and 
     the channels and instrumentalities of commerce, among the 
     workers of the several States;
       (E) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in 
     commerce;
       (F) constitutes an unfair method of competition in 
     commerce;
       (G) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing 
     commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
       (H) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods 
     in commerce; and
       (I) in many instances, may deprive workers of equal 
     protection on the basis of sex in violation of the 5th and 
     14th amendments.
       (4)(A) Artificial barriers to the elimination of 
     discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex 
     continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.).
       (B) These barriers have resulted, in significant part, 
     because the Equal Pay Act has not worked as Congress 
     originally intended. Improvements and modifications to the 
     law are necessary to ensure that the Act provides effective 
     protection to those subject to pay discrimination on the 
     basis of their sex.
       (C) Elimination of such barriers would have positive 
     effects, including--
       (i) providing a solution to problems in the economy created 
     by unfair pay disparities;
       (ii) substantially reducing the number of working women 
     earning unfairly low wages, thereby reducing the dependence 
     on public assistance;
       (iii) promoting stable families by enabling all family 
     members to earn a fair rate of pay;
       (iv) remedying the effects of past discrimination on the 
     basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are 
     afforded equal protection on the basis of sex; and
       (v) ensuring equal protection pursuant to Congress' power 
     to enforce the 5th and 14th amendments.
       (5) The Department of Labor and the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission have important and unique 
     responsibilities to help ensure that women receive equal pay 
     for equal work.
       (6) The Department of Labor is responsible for--
       (A) collecting and making publicly available information 
     about women's pay;
       (B) ensuring that companies receiving Federal contracts 
     comply with anti-discrimination affirmative action 
     requirements of Executive Order 11246 (relating to equal 
     employment opportunity);
       (C) disseminating information about women's rights in the 
     workplace;
       (D) helping women who have been victims of pay 
     discrimination obtain a remedy; and
       (E) being proactive in investigating and prosecuting equal 
     pay violations, especially systemic violations, and in 
     enforcing all of its mandates.
       (7) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the 
     primary enforcement agency for claims made under the Equal 
     Pay Act, and issues regulations and guidance on appropriate 
     interpretations of the law.
       (8) With a stronger commitment by the Department of Labor 
     and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to their 
     responsibilities, increased information about the provisions 
     added by the Equal Pay Act of 1963, wage data, and more 
     effective remedies, women will be better able to recognize 
     and enforce their rights.
       (9) Certain employers have already made great strides in 
     eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their 
     achievements should be recognized.

     SEC. 3. ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL PAY REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Bona-Fide Factor Defense and Modification of Same 
     Establishment Requirement.--Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No employer having'' and inserting ``(A) 
     No employer having'';
       (2) by striking ``any other factor other than sex'' and 
     inserting ``a bona fide factor other than sex, such as 
     education, training, or experience''; and
       (3) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(B) The bona fide factor defense described in 
     subparagraph (A)(v) shall apply only if the employer 
     demonstrates that such factor (i) is not based upon or 
     derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (ii) 
     is job-related with respect to the position in question; and 
     (iii) is consistent with business necessity. Such defense 
     shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that an 
     alternative employment practice exists that would serve the 
     same business purpose without producing such differential and 
     that the employer has refused to adopt such alternative 
     practice.
       ``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), employees shall be 
     deemed to work in the same establishment if the employees 
     work for the same employer at workplaces located in the same 
     county or similar political subdivision of a State. The 
     preceding sentence shall not be construed as limiting broader 
     applications of the term `establishment' consistent with 
     rules prescribed or guidance issued by the Equal Opportunity 
     Employment Commission.''.
       (b) Application of Provisions.--Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1)) is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``The provisions 
     of this subsection shall apply to applicants for employment 
     if such applicants, upon employment by the employer, would be 
     subject to any provisions of this section.''.
       (c) Nonretaliation Provision.--Section 15 of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``employee has 
     filed'' and all that follows and inserting ``employee--
       ``(A) has made a charge or filed any complaint or 
     instituted or caused to be instituted any investigation, 
     proceeding, hearing, or action under or related to this Act, 
     including an investigation conducted by the employer, or has 
     testified or is planning to testify or has assisted or 
     participated in any manner in any such investigation, 
     proceeding, hearing or action or in an investigation 
     conducted by the employer, or has served or is planning to 
     serve on an industry Committee; or
       ``(B) has inquired about, discussed or disclosed the wages 
     of the employee or another employee.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply to instances in 
     which an employee who has access to the wage information of 
     other employees as a part of such employee's essential job 
     functions discloses the wages of such other employees to 
     individuals who do not otherwise have access to such 
     information, unless such disclosure is in response to a 
     complaint or charge or in furtherance of an investigation, 
     proceeding, hearing, or action under section 6(d) or an 
     investigation conducted by the employer. Nothing in this 
     subsection shall be construed to limit the rights of an 
     employee provided under any other provision of law.''.
       (d) Enhanced Penalties.--Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``Any employer who violates section 6(d)

[[Page H7692]]

     shall additionally be liable for such compensatory damages or 
     punitive damages as may be appropriate, except that the 
     United States shall not be liable for punitive damages.'';
       (2) in the sentence beginning ``An action to'', by striking 
     ``either of the preceding sentences'' and inserting ``any of 
     the preceding sentences of this subsection'';
       (3) in the sentence beginning ``No employees shall'', by 
     striking ``No employees'' and inserting ``Except with respect 
     to class actions brought to enforce section 6(d), no 
     employee'';
       (4) by inserting after the sentence referred to in 
     paragraph (3), the following: ``Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of Federal law, any action brought to enforce 
     section 6(d) may be maintained as a class action as provided 
     by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.''; and
       (5) in the sentence beginning ``The court in''--
       (A) by striking ``in such action'' and inserting ``in any 
     action brought to recover the liability prescribed in any of 
     the preceding sentences of this subsection''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, 
     including expert fees''.
       (e) Action by Secretary.--Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(c)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence--
       (A) by inserting ``or, in the case of a violation of 
     section 6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages,'' 
     before ``and the agreement''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or 
     such compensatory or punitive damages, as appropriate'';
       (2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period 
     the following: ``and, in the case of a violation of section 
     6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages'';
       (3) in the third sentence, by striking ``the first 
     sentence'' and inserting ``the first or second sentence''; 
     and
       (4) in the last sentence--
       (A) by striking ``commenced in the case'' and inserting 
     ``commenced--
       ``(1) in the case'';
       (B) by striking the period and inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) in the case of a class action brought to enforce 
     section 6(d), on the date on which the individual becomes a 
     party plaintiff to the class action.''.

     SEC. 4. TRAINING.

       The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office 
     of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, subject to the 
     availability of funds appropriated under section 11, shall 
     provide training to Commission employees and affected 
     individuals and entities on matters involving discrimination 
     in the payment of wages.

     SEC. 5. NEGOTIATION SKILLS TRAINING FOR GIRLS AND WOMEN.

       (a) Program Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor, after consultation 
     with the Secretary of Education, is authorized to establish 
     and carry out a grant program.
       (2) Grants.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary of 
     Labor may make grants on a competitive basis to eligible 
     entities, to carry out negotiation skills training programs 
     for girls and women.
       (3) Eligible entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant 
     under this subsection, an entity shall be a public agency, 
     such as a State, a local government in a metropolitan 
     statistical area (as defined by the Office of Management and 
     Budget), a State educational agency, or a local educational 
     agency, a private nonprofit organization, or a community-
     based organization.
       (4) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under 
     this subsection, an entity shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary of Labor at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary of Labor may 
     require.
       (5) Use of funds.--An entity that receives a grant under 
     this subsection shall use the funds made available through 
     the grant to carry out an effective negotiation skills 
     training program that empowers girls and women. The training 
     provided through the program shall help girls and women 
     strengthen their negotiation skills to allow the girls and 
     women to obtain higher salaries and rates of compensation 
     that are equal to those paid to similarly-situated male 
     employees.
       (b) Incorporating Training Into Existing Programs.--The 
     Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall issue 
     regulations or policy guidance that provides for integrating 
     the negotiation skills training, to the extent practicable, 
     into programs authorized under--
       (1) in the case of the Secretary of Education, the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6301 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical 
     Education Act of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), and other 
     programs carried out by the Department of Education that the 
     Secretary of Education determines to be appropriate; and
       (2) in the case of the Secretary of Labor, the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), and other 
     programs carried out by the Department of Labor that the 
     Secretary of Labor determines to be appropriate.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall prepare and 
     submit to Congress a report describing the activities 
     conducted under this section and evaluating the effectiveness 
     of such activities in achieving the purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 6. RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH.

       The Secretary of Labor shall conduct studies and provide 
     information to employers, labor organizations, and the 
     general public concerning the means available to eliminate 
     pay disparities between men and women, including--
       (1) conducting and promoting research to develop the means 
     to correct expeditiously the conditions leading to the pay 
     disparities;
       (2) publishing and otherwise making available to employers, 
     labor organizations, professional associations, educational 
     institutions, the media, and the general public the findings 
     resulting from studies and other materials, relating to 
     eliminating the pay disparities;
       (3) sponsoring and assisting State and community 
     informational and educational programs;
       (4) providing information to employers, labor 
     organizations, professional associations, and other 
     interested persons on the means of eliminating the pay 
     disparities;
       (5) recognizing and promoting the achievements of 
     employers, labor organizations, and professional associations 
     that have worked to eliminate the pay disparities; and
       (6) convening a national summit to discuss, and consider 
     approaches for rectifying, the pay disparities.

     SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL AWARD FOR PAY EQUITY IN 
                   THE WORKPLACE.

       (a) In General.--There is established the Secretary of 
     Labor's National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace, which 
     shall be awarded, as appropriate, to encourage proactive 
     efforts to comply with this Act.
       (b) Criteria for Qualification.--The Secretary of Labor 
     shall set criteria for receipt of the award, including a 
     requirement that an employer has made substantial effort to 
     eliminate pay disparities between men and women, and deserves 
     special recognition as a consequence of such effort. The 
     secretary shall establish procedures for the application and 
     presentation of the award.
       (c) Business.--In this section, the term ``employer'' 
     includes--
       (1)(A) a corporation, including a nonprofit corporation;
       (B) a partnership;
       (C) a professional association;
       (D) a labor organization; and
       (E) a business entity similar to an entity described in any 
     of subparagraphs (A) through (D);
       (2) an entity carrying out an education referral program, a 
     training program, such as an apprenticeship or management 
     training program, or a similar program; and
       (3) an entity carrying out a joint program, formed by a 
     combination of any entities described in paragraph (1) or 
     (2).

     SEC. 8. COLLECTION OF PAY INFORMATION BY THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 
                   OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.

       Section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e-8) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f)(1) Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall--
       ``(A) complete a survey of the data that is currently 
     available to the Federal Government relating to employee pay 
     information for use in the enforcement of Federal laws 
     prohibiting pay discrimination and, in consultation with 
     other relevant Federal agencies, identify additional data 
     collections that will enhance the enforcement of such laws; 
     and
       ``(B) based on the results of the survey and consultations 
     under subparagraph (A), issue regulations to provide for the 
     collection of pay information data from employers as 
     described by the sex, race, and national origin of employees.
       ``(2) In implementing paragraph (1), the Commission shall 
     have as its primary consideration the most effective and 
     efficient means for enhancing the enforcement of Federal laws 
     prohibiting pay discrimination. For this purpose, the 
     Commission shall consider factors including the imposition of 
     burdens on employers, the frequency of required reports 
     (including which employers should be required to prepare 
     reports), appropriate protections for maintaining data 
     confidentiality, and the most effective format for the data 
     collection reports.''.

     SEC. 9. REINSTATEMENT OF PAY EQUITY PROGRAMS AND PAY EQUITY 
                   DATA COLLECTION.

       (a) Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Collection.--The 
     Commissioner of Labor Statistics shall continue to collect 
     data on women workers in the Current Employment Statistics 
     survey.
       (b) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs 
     Initiatives.--The Director of the Office of Federal Contract 
     Compliance Programs shall ensure that employees of the 
     Office--
       (1)(A) shall use the full range of investigatory tools at 
     the Office's disposal, including pay grade methodology;
       (B) in considering evidence of possible compensation 
     discrimination--
       (i) shall not limit its consideration to a small number of 
     types of evidence; and
       (ii) shall not limit its evaluation of the evidence to a 
     small number of methods of evaluating the evidence; and
       (C) shall not require a multiple regression analysis or 
     anecdotal evidence for a compensation discrimination case;
       (2) for purposes of its investigative, compliance, and 
     enforcement activities, shall define ``similarly situated 
     employees'' in a way that is consistent with and not more 
     stringent than the definition provided in item 1 of 
     subsection A of section 10-III of the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission Compliance Manual (2000), and shall 
     consider only factors that the Office's investigation reveals 
     were used in making compensation decisions; and
       (3) shall reinstate the Equal Opportunity Survey, as 
     required by section 60-2.18 of title 41, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, designating not less than half of all 
     nonconstruction contractor establishments each year to 
     prepare and file

[[Page H7693]]

     such survey, and shall review and utilize the responses to 
     such survey to identify contractor establishments for further 
     evaluation and for other enforcement purposes as appropriate.
       (c) Department of Labor Distribution of Wage Discrimination 
     Information.--The Secretary of Labor shall make readily 
     available (in print, on the Department of Labor website, and 
     through any other forum that the Department may use to 
     distribute compensation discrimination information), accurate 
     information on compensation discrimination, including 
     statistics, explanations of employee rights, historical 
     analyses of such discrimination, instructions for employers 
     on compliance, and any other information that will assist the 
     public in understanding and addressing such discrimination.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 to 
     carry out this Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order 
except those printed in House Report 110-807. Each amendment shall be 
considered only in the order printed in the report; by a Member 
designated in the report; shall be considered read; shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not be subject to 
amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Bean

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 110-807.
  Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Ms. Bean:
       Page 8, line 23, strike ``(b) Application of Provisions'' 
     and all that follows through page 9, line 4.
       Page 9, line 5, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''.
       Page 10, line 12, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 11, line 18, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(d)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1388, the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Bean) and a Member opposed will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
  Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 
1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  First, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of Congresswoman 
Rosa DeLauro, Chairman Miller, and so many others in our Congress who 
worked long and hard to address the issue of pay equity. Having worked 
20 years in the private sector before coming to Congress, where I am 
now uniquely guaranteed equal pay, along with all Members who are 
Representatives, I understand the significance of this legislation 
before us today.
  The amendment I am offering would strike section 3(b) titled 
Application of Provisions from the Underlying Bill. In doing so, this 
amendment would prevent the expansion of the Equal Pay Act to include 
job applicants.

                              {time}  1730

  Under the current Equal Pay Act, only employees can raise a claim on 
pay discrimination. However, the underlying bill, in its current form, 
would, for the first time, allow job applicants to file suit, even if 
they do not accept a position for pay discrimination under the act. 
This is a significant expansion of the act, especially in the context 
of a bill that is otherwise focused on strengthening existing rights 
already provided to employees under the Equal Pay Act.
  While in principle I oppose expanding the Equal Pay Act rights to 
applicants, the very nature of extending these rights to applicants 
leads to several practical complications. The bill is unclear on how to 
deal with those complications.
  For example, H.R. 1338 fails to clarify for employers how long they 
would be liable to an applicant who is offered lower wages than an 
individual subsequently hired. First, there is no certainty that that 
initial offer is representative of what a negotiated final offer might 
have been.
  In addition, if an employer originally offers a job at, say, $10 an 
hour, but raises the offer to $12 a few months later because she was 
unable to find a qualified applicant, is the employer potentially 
liable to every prior applicant of the opposite sex? How far back would 
that liability extend?
  Even more concerning is that without better defined rules for how 
applicants would be covered under this act, employers might be 
deterred, out of an abundance of caution, from raising the salary 
offered for a job opening when they are unable to initially fill a 
position.
  For these reasons, and others, I believe this bill should be narrowed 
to provide protections to employees, not applicants, in keeping with 
the original structure of the Equal Pay Act.
  It is important to note, if this provision is struck, applicants 
would continue to have protections under title VII, which also protects 
against discrimination. And if job applicants who are offered lower pay 
than a male counterpart were to accept a job, they would be protected 
by the underlying bill and eligible to file a claim for any pay 
discrimination as an employee.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and if my 
amendment is adopted, I urge them to support final passage of the 
underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the Republican time to speak on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will not oppose the gentlelady's amendment, but I wish to make 
clear, as with the other Democratic amendments to this bill that we are 
likely to debate today, this amendment makes the most minor of 
improvements to a fundamentally flawed bill. I will not oppose the 
amendment, but its adoption does not change my strong opposition to the 
underlying bill.
  As I understand the gentlelady's amendment, it would strike from the 
underlying bill a provision which would extend the Equal Pay Act to 
cover not only employees, but even applicants for employment. I agree 
that striking this provision is the right thing to do.
  Under current law, and since 1963, the Equal Pay Act has required 
that employers pay equal wages earned for equal work performed. It is 
hard to imagine how the law was ever meant to cover the payment of 
wages which have not yet been earned for work that has not yet been 
done. Frankly, the provision should not have been included in the bill 
in the first place, and I support its deletion.
  That said, I stress again that this change is, at best, cosmetic and 
too little too late to address the fundamental flaws in the underlying 
bill. Put more simply, this amendment is the equivalent of putting 
lipstick on a pig. At the end of the day, it doesn't change things 
much.
  You know where I got that from.
  I will not oppose the amendment, but I remain opposed to the bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 110-807.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order 
by the rule.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       Page 12, after line 20, insert the following:
       (f) Conditional Implementation.--
       (1) Conditional effective date.--Subject to subparagraph 
     (3), this section and the amendments made by this section 
     shall become effective on the date that is 90 days after the 
     Secretary transmits to Congress the report required under 
     subparagraph (2).
       (2) Study on recruitment and hiring of employees.--The 
     Secretary shall conduct a study to determine the effect of 
     the requirements of this section and the amendments made 
     under this section on the ability of employers to recruit and 
     hire employees irrespective of gender, and not later than 90 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act, shall transmit 
     to Congress a report containing the findings of such study.
       (3) Determination by secretary.--This section and the 
     amendments made by this section shall not take effect if the 
     Secretary finds that the requirements of this section may 
     significantly hinder employers' recruitment and hiring of 
     employees irrespective of gender.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1388, the gentleman from

[[Page H7694]]

Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment because I 
believe it gives veto power over this legislation to the Secretary of 
Labor.
  The premise of this amendment is we need to study more and let the 
Secretary of Labor decide whether we need stronger legal protections 
for women to earn equal pay for equal work. I don't think we need to 
study it at all. I think the fact that women are earning 77 cents for 
every dollar that a man earns is evidence of why we need this law.
  I think the fact that 10 years out of college, when you adjust for 
different family factors such as child rearing, that women are earning, 
on the average, 12 percent less than men in similar professions shows 
that we need this law.
  I think the fact that studies have shown that women are shorted 
millions of dollars, anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a 
lifetime because of inadequate enforcement of the law for equal pay for 
equal work, I think it makes it crystal clear that the idea of 
subordinating our responsibility and giving the Secretary of Labor the 
opportunity to subvert what we are doing here today is unjustified and 
unwarranted.
  So I would urge the defeat of this amendment because I believe it is 
unnecessary, and I think it substitutes the judgment of the Secretary 
of Labor for the judgment of the elected representatives of the people. 
We should defeat this amendment, support this bill.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding and rise 
to oppose the amendment and in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Today, this House moves America's working women into the 21st 
century. And, in so doing, I believe it is important to place on the 
record the story of our mother, Anastasia, who when she began work back 
in the middle of the last century as a counter waitress as Liberty 
Lunch on Broadway in Toledo, Ohio did not even earn the minimum wage. 
That was made possible only by the Fair Labor Standards Act passed in 
1938. But even when that Act passed, her boss would then cash her check 
and deduct the increase from her, and pocket it himself.
  I am privileged that I now, as a Congresswoman, came from a family 
that did not spare its children the story of hardship and struggle that 
still characterizes the lives of millions of women in our country 
today. In passing this act, I do so in memory of our mother and 
millions and millions of American women who ask only to be treated 
fairly in the workplace and earn equal pay for equal work and get that 
check.
  It is a commentary on the struggle of working people everywhere that 
it takes a Nation centuries to enact into law what is decent and right 
on the merits. Today we do what is morally right and economically just. 
Today we give America's working women a real dose of liberty.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank you for yielding me time today, oppose this 
amendment but strongly support this measure.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 2 minutes. The gentleman 
from California has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I will reserve.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would just join in what my 
colleagues have already said, that I don't think this needs further 
study. And I think, certainly, the idea of basing whether or not this 
law will be enacted on a single study by this Secretary of Labor within 
90 days, when we have a decade of studies, very few that have been 
challenged for their accuracy, that continues to tell us that, while 
the situation has improved, we still have this huge disparity between 
the pay of men and women for the same jobs, for the same 
responsibilities.
  And this legislation is designed to rid us of that disparity. It is 
designed to rid us of that discrimination, and it is designed to give 
women the tools that they need to go in and to enforce their rights. 
And I would hope that we would support this legislation, that we would 
reject this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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.

[[Page H7695]]

  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think that we have heard in this debate today, 70 percent, 77 
percent, over and over and over and over. And when we had a hearing 
last year, we had a lot of different figures that were given. It seems 
to me that it is important to have an outside source look at this, and 
I think the Secretary of Labor should do this study so that we don't do 
more harm than good.
  I think this is a good amendment. I thank the gentleman for offering 
it, and I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Altmire

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 110-807.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Altmire:
       Page 21, after line 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 11. SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Effective Date.--This Act and the amendments made by 
     this Act shall take effect on the date that is 6 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act
       (b) Technical Assistance Materials.--The Secretary of Labor 
     and the Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission shall jointly develop technical assistance 
     material to assist small businesses in complying with the 
     requirements of this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
       (c) Small Businesses.--A small business shall be exempt 
     from the provisions of this Act to the same extent that such 
     business is exempt from the requirements of the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act pursuant to section 3(s)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of 
     such Act.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution, 1388, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment serves to assist small businesses in implementing the 
changes made by this bill. Small businesses are the backbone of our 
economy, and we must ensure that this legislation does not place 
additional undue burdens on the very entrepreneurs who continue to be 
the main source of job growth in our communities.

                              {time}  1745

  My amendment provides an additional 6 months for the implementation 
of this Act for those small businesses, and the Department of Labor 
will be responsible for educating small businesses about the law and 
assisting them with compliance.
  The goals of this bill are laudable, and my amendment only seeks to 
guarantee that small businesses are not put at an unfair disadvantage 
when complying with this law.
  Through this amendment, we will give small businesses the time and 
resources they need to adjust to the changes brought on by this bill.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the Republican time to speak in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. I will not oppose the gentleman's amendment. As I 
understand it, the gentleman's amendment

[[Page H7696]]

does two things: First, it provides a 6-month delay in the effective 
date of the bill; and second, it directs the Department of Labor and 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to develop materials to 
assist small businesses in complying with the law's new requirements.
  I do not object to either of these provisions. Indeed, I have always 
believed that we should do all we can, all that we should to assist 
small businesses which are the backbone of our economy and the leading 
source of job growth in our Nation.
  Frankly, I would say that the gentleman's approach is a decidedly 
second-best option. As we just heard in debate on the prior amendment, 
I would support delaying implementation of the key provisions of this 
bill until we have a full understanding of its impact on jobs and on 
the recruiting and hiring of employees. If Members genuinely want to 
make sure the businesses, particularly small businesses, are not 
unfairly penalized by this legislation, they will, I hope, support the 
amendment previously offered by my colleague, Mr. Price, which will do 
just that.
  I will also say there is a certain irony here. While the gentleman's 
amendment purports to help small businesses, what it fails to do is 
address fundamental flaws in the underlying bill, core issues which 
leave me to strongly oppose this legislation today. As I have said 
before and I expect I will say again before debate is concluded, the 
underlying bill offers little to benefit working women and families 
while threatening to wreck havoc on workers and employers by expanding 
liability and encouraging costly lawsuits. Nothing in the gentleman's 
amendment changes that simple fact.
  I will not oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I would advise 
Members to not kid themselves into thinking that compliance assistance 
for small business in any real way addresses core failings in the 
underlying bill. Whether this amendment is adopted or not, I remain 
opposed to H.R. 1338 and urge my colleague to join me in voting ``no'' 
on final passage.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ALTIMRE. I yield the distinguished chairman of the committee as 
much time as he may consume.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I won't take that long.
  I just want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. We've 
discussed it for some time, and your persistence has won out. And I 
think it's a good amendment, and I would hope that the committee would 
adopt it.
  Mr. ALTIMRE. I thank the gentleman from California.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altimre).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ALTIMRE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Giffords

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 110-807.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Giffords:
       Page 10, beginning on line 17, strike ``damages or'' and 
     insert ``damages, or, where the employee demonstrates that 
     the employer acted with malice or reckless indifference,''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1388, the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Ms. Giffords) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as the President and CEO of my family's small tire 
business, I know the challenges that small businesses face in America, 
not just to thrive but truly to survive in a rapidly increasingly 
global economy. Small businesses are truly the backbone of a strong and 
vibrant community, and women are major economic contributors since we 
constitute over 45 percent of small business employees.
  That is why I strongly support H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act, 
because it recognizes women's valuable role in the workplace.
  It is also important, though, to make sure this legislation is fair. 
So today I'm offering an amendment that will clarify the legal standard 
for punitive damages as requiring malice or reckless indifference. This 
commonsense amendment means that businesses will not be subject to 
punitive damages unless they act with malice or reckless intent. This 
standard mirrors the burden that applies in other civil rights laws.
  Today, as we close loopholes in the Equal Pay Act that have allowed 
women to continue to be underpaid for equal work, we must do so fairly. 
It is unacceptable for society to undervalue the work that women do and 
underpay us for equal work. According to the United States Department 
of Labor, American women are earning 74 cents for every dollar earned 
by a man, taking women 16 months to earn what men earn in 1 calendar 
year. This disparity is not just unfair, but it is also a major 
economic concern for millions of hardworking American families.
  Closing the wage gap will also have a long-term impact on women's 
economic security especially during their retirement years. Women, of 
course, are living longer. Men are living longer, too, but women longer 
than men. Over time, lower wages translate into less income that counts 
for calculating pension and Social Security benefits. Older women are 
less likely than older men to receive pension income. And when they do, 
they only receive one-half of the benefits that men do.
  As a cosponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act, I am proud to join with 
229 of my colleagues in showing strong support for this legislation.
  I urge the House to pass this amendment that has been endorsed by the 
United States Chamber of Commerce. It is time that America, the land of 
equal opportunity, recognize equal pay between men and women. I am 
proud to be part of this historic effort.
  I'm particularly proud that my mother is here in the gallery today to 
witness this historic act of Congress.
  So thank you, Congresswoman DeLauro, for your tireless effort over so 
many years, and Chairman Miller as well, for continuing to fight for 
the people that are truly underrepresented in so many ways.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the Republican time to speak on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will not oppose this amendment. I do want to make clear that as the 
gentlelady spoke, the Chamber of Commerce supports her amendment, not 
the bill. They are opposed, as I am, to the underlying bill. I want to 
be clear that adoption or defeat will not change my position on the 
underlying bill. The so-called Paycheck Fairness Act, which we're 
debating today, has nothing to do with making paychecks fairer and 
everything to do with lining the pockets of trial lawyers.
  The gentlelady's amendment tinkers at the margins of just one of the 
bill's fundamental flaws. Whether adopted or not, it does not change my 
strong opposition or the Chamber of Commerce's strong opposition to the 
underlying bill.
  The gentlelady's amendment would appear to limit the circumstances in 
which a plaintiff can recover punitive damages under the bill to those 
situations where he or she can show that an employer acted with malice 
or reckless indifference. First, let me point out that nowhere in the 
Fair Labor Standards Act or Equal Pay Act is this standard of proof, 
malice, or reckless indifference used. It's an entirely new concept to 
this statute and one which will no doubt and to no one's great surprise 
encourage extended litigation to determine its meaning in the context 
of the Equal Pay Act.
  Even more telling is what the gentlelady's amendment does not do. It 
does not limit compensatory or punitive damages but still puts 
employers

[[Page H7697]]

at risk for unlimited punitive and compensatory damage awards, remedies 
far beyond those contained in title VII, nor does it require that the 
plaintiff show the employer engaged in intentional discrimination. 
Presumably now an employer can be slapped with a multimillion-dollar 
punitive fine if a jury finds that he or she was indifferent, whatever 
that means.
  When all is said and done, the amendment does little, if anything, to 
address the radical expansion of liability and the payback to trial 
lawyers contained in the bill. I'm excited to see what lawyers will do 
with that in front of a judge discussing indifference and how that 
pertains to the law. The gentlelady's amendment provides the most 
modest limitations of the bill's dramatic expansion of liability that 
one could imagine.
  Now some limitation may be better than none at all, but this fig leaf 
does not come close to addressing core problems in the bill.
  I will not oppose the amendment, but I remain strongly opposed to the 
underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I'm really proud that 
one of my experiences that I bring to the United States Congress is 
running a family tire and automotive company. There are not that many 
Members of Congress that know what it's like to make a payroll, to know 
what it's like to have laws imposed on them at the local, at the State, 
at the Federal levels, and I think that that background is really 
critical. That's one of the reasons that I am pleased that the United 
States Chamber of Commerce has endorsed this amendment.
  With that, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join 
with me in passing this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Berry). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cazayoux

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 110-807.
  Mr. CAZAYOUX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Cazayoux:
       Page 21, after line 3, insert the following:

     SEC. 11. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       Nothing in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act, 
     shall affect the obligation of employers and employees to 
     fully comply with all applicable immigration laws, including 
     any penalties, fines, or other sanctions.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the House Resolution 1388, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cazayoux) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. CAZAYOUX. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to thank Congresswoman DeLauro for this thoughtful 
legislation that is long overdue. It is imperative that hardworking 
women be fairly compensated and that they are not being shortchanged by 
longstanding practices. Far too long in this country many American 
women have suffered pay inequities that have denied them the earnings 
they deserve. In America, this is unacceptable, and this bill aims to 
rectify those inequities.
  However, as we seek to protect the legal rights of American workers, 
we must also protect their rights from being abused by those who work 
here illegally. The amendment I bring to the floor today serves to 
ensure that nothing in this legislation or in any amendments to this 
legislation will affect the obligations of employers and employees to 
comply with immigration laws. That means that anyone found to be in 
violation of our immigration laws, whether they are employers or 
employees, will be subject to all fines and penalties imposed by those 
laws regardless of the protections for all workers, male or female, 
contained within this Act.
  Again, I thank Chairwoman DeLauro as well as Chairman Miller for this 
meaningful legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment and the underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the Republican time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McKEON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will not oppose this amendment. I don't know that any Member of the 
House would or could. It is simply a restatement of current law. I 
strongly believe that every employer and every worker should comply 
with our Nation's immigration laws. Indeed, I have long argued that our 
immigration laws need to be strengthened, that we need to get serious 
about reasserting control of our borders, enforcing the laws that are 
on the books and enhancing those laws which are failing if we truly 
want to secure our borders.

                              {time}  1800

  No one is as committed to those goals as I am.
  That said, that is a debate for another day, and not the issue 
presented to us in this bill. We are not debating the question of 
immigration reform, but rather, whether we should adopt a trial lawyer 
bonanza under the guise of ``paycheck fairness.'' As I have said 
before, this bill does nothing to promote fairness in pay, and 
everything to invite costly, and often frivolous, litigation.
  Whether the gentleman's amendment is adopted today or not, that fact 
will not change. This is an ill-conceived bill, based on flawed and 
demonstrably false economic theories, and sure to lead to unintended 
consequences for workers and employers.
  The gentleman's amendment is inoffensive, but it is not particularly 
meaningful. I will not oppose the amendment, but it does not change my 
strong opposition to the underlying bill, nor my intention to vote 
``no'' on final passage.
  I would like to address the gentlelady that spoke on the amendment 
just before. When she concluded her statement, she commented on her 
fact of having been a small businesswoman and running a family 
business. I had the same experience for many years before I came here 
to Congress. It's good to see other small businesspeople come to 
Congress, and I appreciate her amendment that she presented.
  And I also want to restate again the fact that, even though the 
Chamber did support her amendment, that we're strongly opposed to the 
underlying bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cazayoux).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Pomeroy). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 110-807.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 21, line 2, strike ``There are'' and insert ``(a) 
     Authorization of Appropriations.--There are''.
       Page 21, after line 3 insert the following:
       (b) Prohibition on Earmarks.--None of the funds 
     appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) for purposes of the 
     grant program in section 5 of this Act may be used for a 
     Congressional earmark as defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI 
     of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1388, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.

[[Page H7698]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is noncontroversial. I assume 
it will be accepted by the other side. It's similar to an amendment 
that was offered earlier this year on an unrelated bill.
  The amendment simply seeks to ensure that the competitive grant 
program established and authorized by this bill does not become a 
vehicle to be earmarked later. I am not alleging that there are any 
earmarks in this bill; there are not. There's simply a competitive 
grant program established.
  My fear is that later on that this grant--that is a competitive grant 
and it was based on merit for those who apply--will be later earmarked, 
as has happened in other legislation.
  My amendment to H.R. 1338, The Paycheck Fairness Act is a common 
sense amendment that would simply prohibit the earmarking of funds 
authorized by this bill for a new grant program.
  In section five of the legislation, a new grant program is created to 
carry out programs to train girls and women in negotiating tactics.
  This new grant program is explicitly authorized in the legislation to 
make grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities. I offer this 
amendment simply as a precaution in order to avoid future earmarking.
  Earlier this year, a similar amendment was approved by the House of 
Representatives during consideration of the Beach Act of 2007 by a vote 
of 263 to 117.
  When it comes to earmarking, the message is clear: just because 
Congress hasn't earmarked an account or a grant program before doesn't 
mean we won't in the future. My amendment makes no substantive change 
to the grant program included in the legislation and is simply offered 
as a safeguard against future earmarking.
  Judging by the nearly four and a half billion dollars worth of 
earmarks that have been reported out of the Committee on Appropriations 
this summer, it appears that, even with all the talk of earmark reform 
this year, it's business as usual.
  Unfortunately, when it comes to earmarking, business as usual means 
Congressional earmarks showing up in programs and accounts that never 
used to have them.
  The worst example of this is the Department of Homeland Security 
appropriations bill.
  Kept relatively earmark-free from its inception in order to keep 
politics out of spending decisions, the earmarking truce was broken 
when the 2008 omnibus spending bill contained 128 earmarks worth more 
than $400 million in Homeland Security funding.
  Included were 95 earmarks for the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program, a 
competitive grant program with a 70-page guidance document for grant 
applicants that had not previously been earmarked.
  If the Fiscal Year 2009 Homeland Security appropriations bill 
approved by committee becomes law, then the earmarking of the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation Program will continue with nearly 25 million 
dollars, or one third of the program funds, already having been spent 
by Members earmarking funds for their own districts.
  Emergency Operations Centers funding is another example of earmarks 
encroaching into a previously non-earmarked program.
  Created last year by Congress, fifteen million earmark-free dollars 
were appropriated, to be awarded through a formula-based grant program 
for the ``equipping, upgrading, and constructing of Emergency 
Operations Centers.''
  This year's Homeland Security appropriations bill proposes increasing 
Emergency Operations Center funding to 35 million dollars--but also 
would earmark nearly sixty percent of this funding by including 34 
earmarks worth more than 21 million dollars.
  Unfortunately, these examples of earmarking competitive programs are 
not lone cases. Another example is a program funded through the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development called the Economic 
Development Initiative.
  This program started in 1994 as a competitive program with strict 
selection-based criteria to assist with low-income housing and 
neighborhood development. Over time, the program became a prime target 
for earmarkers and, by 2000, the competitive program was not funded and 
the program was entirely made up of earmarks.
  A similar story can be told about the Byrne Discretionary Grant 
program. This program was established in 2006 as a competitive grant 
program where awards are to be evaluated by a peer review system and 
other review processes. Allegedly, the program has remained that way, 
however, the agency that administers the program still calls it a 
competitive program but the account was heavily earmarked last year and 
it appears that earmarking has been adopted as the standard operating 
practice.
  In fact, should the Commerce Justice and Science Committee Report 
approved by the Appropriations become law, there will be 280 earmarks 
for the Byrne Discretionary Grant account, alone.
  The message is clear: just because we haven't earmarked an account or 
a grant program before doesn't mean we won't in the future.
  With few opportunity this session to deal directly with the broken 
earmarking process, the least we can do is explicitly prohibit earmarks 
in programs or accounts that provide funding on a formula or 
competitive basis.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.
  With that, I would like to ask if this amendment will be accepted by 
the other side and reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We have no problem with this 
amendment. We agree with the gentleman. We think that these grants to 
increase the negotiating skills of young women and girls, all women, 
are very important. We would hope and we expect that they would be 
given on merit by the Secretary under the provisions of the law. We 
don't expect that they would be earmarked.
  Mr. Flake has offered this language so that hopefully it would not be 
earmarked, and that language hopefully will be respected by other 
committees of the Congress, and we would accept the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Let me just comment and thank the majority for accepting 
this and also thank the Rules Committee for making this amendment in 
order. I've offered this same amendment on a number of authorization 
bills over the past couple of months, and it has not been made in 
order. So I appreciate the fact, and whatever influence the gentleman 
from California had on the Rules Committee to make this important 
amendment in order, I appreciate.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 110-807 on 
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Altmire of Pennsylvania.
  Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Giffords of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 5 by Mr. Cazayoux of Louisiana.
  The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. 
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 2-minute votes.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Price) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 240, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 551]

                               AYES--188

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)

[[Page H7699]]


     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--240

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cannon
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Fortuno
     Hulshof
     Rush
     Turner
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1835

  Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, HALL of New York, LYNCH, Ms. MOORE of 
Wisconsin, Mrs. CAPPS, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, 
Ms. HARMAN, Messrs. SIRES, FRANK of Massachusetts, Ms. CASTOR, Messrs. 
WATT, MARSHALL, Ms. SPEIER, Mr. KANJORSKI, Ms. RICHARDSON, Ms. 
SCHWARTZ, Messrs. SESTAK, PASTOR, ABERCROMBIE, Mrs. LOWEY, and Mr. 
MORAN of Virginia changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. WALBERG, Mrs. EMERSON, and Messrs. TIAHRT, SMITH of Texas, and 
TANCREDO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Altmire

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 426, 
noes 1, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 552]

                               AYES--426

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)

[[Page H7700]]


     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--1

       
     Johnson (GA)
       

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cannon
     Cole (OK)
     Cubin
     Fortuno
     Harman
     Hulshof
     Rangel
     Rush
     Turner
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (AK)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1839

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Giffords

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona 
(Ms. Giffords) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 397, 
noes 29, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 553]

                               AYES--397

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--29

     Abercrombie
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Filner
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Honda
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     McGovern
     Moore (WI)
     Napolitano
     Norton
     Pastor
     Payne
     Roybal-Allard
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Velazquez
     Waters

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cannon
     Castor
     Cubin
     Fattah
     Fortuno
     Hulshof
     LaTourette
     Rush
     Turner
     Wamp
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (AK)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1844

  Mr. CUMMINGS, Ms. WATERS and Ms. NORTON changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Cazayoux

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Cazayoux) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 410, 
noes 16, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 12, as follows:

[[Page H7701]]

                             [Roll No. 554]

                               AYES--410

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--16

     Baldwin
     Clarke
     Clyburn
     Davis (IL)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hirono
     Honda
     Kucinich
     Lee
     McDermott
     Moore (WI)
     Napolitano
     Serrano
     Solis
     Stark

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Edwards (MD)
       

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barrow
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cannon
     Castor
     Cubin
     Fortuno
     Hulshof
     Peterson (PA)
     Rush
     Turner
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (AK)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is less than 1 minute 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1849

  Mr. CHABOT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Weiner) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pomeroy, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1338) to 
amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective 
remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the 
basis of sex, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 
1388, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted 
by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment 
reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the question is on 
the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Price of Georgia moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1338, 
     to the Committee on Education and Labor with instructions to 
     report the bill back to the House promptly with the following 
     amendment:

       Page 4, line 21, strike ``and''.
       Page 4, line 24, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 4, after line 24, insert the following:

       (J) are exacerbated by the increase in the price of 
     gasoline to unprecedented levels since January 3, 2007, and 
     the failure of the Congress to enact meaningful reforms to 
     lower the price of gasoline at the pump, which has a greater 
     impact on the household budgets of those who earn less.

       Page 11, line 15, strike ``and'';
       Page 11, after line 15, insert the following:

       (B) by inserting ``in an amount not to exceed $1,000 per 
     hour'' after ``a reasonable attorney's fee''; and

       Page 11, line 16, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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

[[Page H7702]]

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?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. You gotta love these guys. They've 
argued all day that pay disparity doesn't exist in this country, in 
spite of all the studies by governmental agencies, by their own 
governmental agencies, the Department of Labor, the EEOC, and all the 
rest, that a woman today can still make 77 cents on the dollar for 
every dollar that a man earns. They've argued all day.
  Now they've introduced a motion to recommit that accepts the fact of 
the existence of these pay disparities. They want to argue that they're 
exacerbated by high energy costs. We grant you that argument.
  But then what do they want to do in their last act as they leave for 
August break? They want to suggest that a woman who has been 
discriminated against intentionally, unintentionally, discriminated 
against in pay, paid 77 cents for every dollar, or 20 cents for every, 
we don't know, that woman is going to have a cap on her attorneys' 
fees.
  They put it at $1,000 to get your blood rushing. But you know who 
doesn't have a cap? The employer who discriminated against that woman 
doesn't have a cap on their attorneys' fees. That employer doesn't have 
a cap of $1,000. Is it $1,000 if it's a complicated case and that woman 
needs two attorneys or three attorneys or four or five experts to prove 
this discrimination?

                              {time}  1900

She has a cap on those. The employer needs five experts, no cap; five 
attorneys, no cap.
  Your last act of discrimination in denying discrimination is to make 
sure that they can't recover the wages that are due them, and you ought 
not to be able to do this. You ought not to be able to do that on the 
floor of this House. You simply should not be able to do that.
  This is about whether or not women will have the tools necessary to 
get rid of the wage discrimination that costs them money every hour, 
every week, every month and every year, and it follows them into their 
retirement. You've heard it here today. It can cost them as much as $2 
million in lost Social Security, in lost retirement benefits, in lost 
wages. And now they want to suggest that those women who may lose $2 
million have a cap on their ability to recover.
  I hope Ms. Lilly Ledbetter is watching you guys, because now she 
understands what your problem was.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I know the gentleman is not interested in 
talking about the substance of the motion to recommit. Should not the 
comments be addressed----
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, the subject of the 
amendment is discrimination against women.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California will suspend.
  The gentleman from Georgia, for what purpose do you rise?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. A point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The gentleman's comments should be addressed to 
the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  The gentleman from California is recognized.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. ANDREWS. The purpose of this amendment is to kill this bill. It 
says to the woman who makes 77 cents to drive a truck when a man makes 
a dollar, wait your turn. It says to a woman who shortly out of college 
makes 90 cents for every dollar a man who majored in the same thing 
makes, wait your turn. It says to women who have lost $2 million 
throughout the course of their working careers, wait your turn.
  If you want our sisters and our mothers and our daughters to wait 
their turn, vote for this motion to recommit. But if you believe, as we 
do, that the time is now, vote down this motion to recommit, vote for 
this bill, and vote

[[Page H7703]]

for justice for the working women of this country.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, there is no more time. 
Time has run out. We have seen this discrimination documented time and 
again in all different kinds of businesses, all different kinds of 
occupations. It doesn't matter your education or your experience, this 
discrimination exists, and we have the opportunity with this vote 
tonight to put an end to it, to allow these women to enforce existing 
law.
  We don't change the law. We give them the right to enforce the law. 
And if they don't have that right, they have no justice and the law 
means nothing. That is why we continue to see tens of thousands of 
cases of wage discrimination where women can't afford to go in and 
recover the wages.
  I ask my colleagues to vote down this motion to recommit and with 
great pride vote for final passage of this legislation to end wage 
discrimination, and with that vote to recognize the phenomenal work of 
Rosa DeLauro in seeking out justice for women all across this country.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Should this motion pass, it could be recommitted 
back to the committee from which it came and brought forth on the next 
legislative day?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has reaffirmed on November 15, 
2007, at some subsequent time, the committee could meet and report back 
the bill to the House.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered, and the motion to 
suspend on H.R. 6633.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 236, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 555]

                               AYES--189

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--236

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cannon
     Cubin
     Hulshof
     Kilpatrick
     Rush
     Turner
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are reminded that 
they have less than 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1922

  Messrs. HOYER and COHEN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to speak out of order.)


                          Legislative Program

  Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I know that all of you 
are concerned about the schedule. There was some hope that we would be 
able to get out late tonight. We have been unable to reach an accord on 
unanimous consent on the adjournment resolution. As you know, the 
Senate has not passed an adjournment resolution. As a result of that, 
we will be here tomorrow. So we are going to proceed in the following 
way: We will have no further votes tonight. I have discussed that with 
the minority, and they are not going to be asking for votes on 
amendments, and so we will be having no further votes tonight.
  We will meet tomorrow at 9. We will be considering whatever 
amendments and the Military Construction and Veterans bill, we will 
vote on that. We will then have a rule on the adjournment resolution, 
and that will be the balance of our business.
  It is my hope, again, not knowing what might transpire during the 
course

[[Page H7704]]

of the day, that we would be able to complete the business that will be 
before us before 1 o'clock tomorrow, perhaps earlier, again, depending 
upon how many votes we have and what action is taken on the floor. I 
wanted all the Members to know that.
  Mr. BLUNT. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to the Republican Whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. If I heard the gentleman correctly; you said that there 
would be no more votes tonight. But there will be one more vote 
tonight.
  Mr. HOYER. Exactly.
  Mr. BLUNT. We will finish up this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. There are two votes apparently left.
  Mr. BLUNT. Two more votes tonight. And then we go to debate the 
Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill and all the amendments, 
with no votes anticipated tonight.
  Mr. HOYER. That is correct.
  Mr. FRANK. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK. I have a minor correction to the leader. There will be no 
more votes on the floor, but there will be five more votes in the 
Committee of Financial Services so we can get it done. So please come 
back.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, not only for his announcement, but 
for the hard work of he and his committee.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will 
resume.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247, 
noes 178, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 556]

                               AYES--247

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--178

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Cannon
     Cubin
     Hulshof
     Kilpatrick
     Rush
     Turner
     Wilson (NM)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1933

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Slaughter). On this vote--we're making 
history here--the yeas are 247, the nays are 178. The bill is passed 
and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

                          ____________________