Jared Polis

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Is the House here this week spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money to repeal the Affordable Care Act because it actually believes that that will occur while Barack Obama is in the White House or because freshman Republicans want to score political points back home?

Mr. POLIS. I trust the American people will respond to these questions.

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Is it correct that the House Republican budget maintains $1.2 trillion of tax increases included in the Affordable Care Act and $716 billion in cuts of Medicare; and, in fact, this very budget that we operate under would not have balanced without including these savings in taxes from ObamaCare?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS. Has the House ever voted to repeal in whole or in part another piece of legislation 37 times, like we are doing here today--in this case, a piece of legislation that makes it illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against a woman if she becomes pregnant and makes sure that children under the age of 26 can stay on their parents' health care plan?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from California for highlighting the argument of economic growth and the critical nature of economic reform. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as who how much time remains?

Mr. POLIS. We have the unique opportunity here in the United States Congress to reflect the will of the American people. The will of the American people is clear in this regard. In my time here, seldom, if ever, have I seen an issue where 80 percent, 75 percent, 84 percent of the American people agree. And here we are, the faith community, the civil liberties community, the human rights community, the education community, the business community and the labor community all coming together to say, Congress, do something. And by the way, Congress, not do something like create some new program or do some new policy. It's, Congress, fix this. Only you can do it, Congress. The States can't do it. The States don't have control over this. Some nonprofit or private organization can't do it. Only the Federal Government and only the United States Congress can replace our broken immigration system with one that works for our country, one that reflects our country's need for human capital, for talent, for ideas and for innovation, one that helps make sure that we attract the best and brightest and hardest- working people from across the world to deploy their talents here to make our country stronger in a legal way, one that restores the trust with law enforcement, improves public safety in our communities, allows community policing and police officers to win the trust that's so critical for them to fight crime that affects all of our communities. Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to talk about a commonsense issue that's received a lot of discussion in the press and continues to be on many of our minds, and that's how we can reduce violent crime in this country, gun violence and senseless murder and deaths that occur. Now, this is no easy question. My focus here has always been improving education. I truly believe that improving our schools and making sure that our kids have access to the great opportunity that this country offers is the best way that we can reduce crime. But we can do more, Mr. Speaker. We can do more in a commonsense way to make it harder for criminals to acquire weapons. Now, how can we do this? Many States have already led the way. My home State of Colorado has long had a rule that has closed the gun show loophole and made sure that people that buy guns at gun shows have the same type of background check they would at a gun dealer. I think that's a commonsense rule that we should do nationally. I also think we need a national way to make sure that when somebody buys a gun, that there's a background check. In doing so, we need to make sure that there's no national registry of gun owners. We need to protect gun owners' privacy. We want to make sure it doesn't inconvenience law-abiding Americans who want to be able to buy guns at dealers--and have done so and will continue to do so. But this is easy to accomplish. The Senate discussed such a bill. I understand there are several proposals, as well, in this body. And I have seen data. This has broad support from the American people, and it should be a commonsense idea for many of us. There are people in this country who have lost the right to bear arms because they've committed a crime--armed robbery or rape--and as part of a judicial sentence they have lost that right. They may have lost the right to vote as well. Now, you're not going to stop them from getting a knife or a gun--no law will stop them from doing that--but we should make it harder. We should make it so they can't just go to a gun show and buy a gun for cash. There should be a background check to make sure that the person buying the gun is a law-abiding American and has the right to do that. I think law-abiding Americans want to protect their Second Amendment rights and want to make sure that it's not abused by criminals. I think that's a common step measure that I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take up and pass to help reduce violence in this country. Mr. Speaker, I also want to talk about the urgent need to improve our schools. Across our country we have schools that many parents would be proud to send their kids to. We also have schools that continue to fail year after year, that anybody who has the means to have choice-- meaning, they're able to afford to be able to drive their kids somewhere else or pay a private school tuition--would never send their kids to that school. Thus, families that are essentially forced to have their kids go to that school have no choice, have no alternative. It's incumbent upon our school districts, our States, and, yes, our Federal Government because we, too, fund part of public education through IDEA, special education, to ensure that those schools don't continue to operate the way that they have been. That's why I introduced last session and will introduce again a school turnaround bill. This bill will help address the lowest 5 percent of schools, the bottom performing 5 percent. We're talking about high schools that are dropout factories, where half the kids that go in the front door in 9th grade don't graduate in 12th grade. We're losing half of them. And what options do you have in life to support yourself and your family if you don't have a high school degree? It's hard, and it's getting harder in the 21st century information economy, Mr. Speaker. We need to turn around these schools, make the tough choices, empower the superintendents of those school districts to use the creativity that they have to turn those schools around. And we need to make sure that they take action. As I told one of our local superintendents in Colorado, our goal, through public policy at the Federal level, should be to give you, the superintendent, the flexibility for you to be able to do what works but not the flexibility to do nothing, because we know that in doing nothing we will fail to change models that fail. And whether the model that works is turning it into a charter school or extending the learning day or closing it down and opening three new schools in the same building, there's a lot of options, and many more, that a superintendent can choose from and apply, depending on the community needs and the buy-in from parents and families, which are important to make any education reform work. But it's critical that they take action, because without taking action, they're guaranteed more of the same. Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support comprehensive immigration reform today. In my time on the floor in the last hour--and I could continue for even longer to articulate all of the reasons why comprehensive immigration reform benefits our country. Whether one cares about the safety of our communities from crime, whether one cares about the public health and infectious disease, restoring the rule of law, securing our borders, preventing terrorism, growing our economy, high-skills jobs, making sure that our farmers can thrive and grow, making sure that families stay together so that their American kids can grow up in wholesome family homes, for all these reasons and more, I call upon my colleagues to support comprehensive immigration reform. I thank the Speaker for the time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from California for sharing that information. What better way can we grow our economy, create jobs for Americans, reduce our national debt, reduce the deficit than if we simply accomplish comprehensive immigration reform. Many colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed concerns about how we can make sure that Social Security is viable and there for young people when they retire. Well, guess what? Making sure that we have our younger new immigrants paying in will help make sure that occurs and that today's seniors and tomorrow's seniors will be taken care of in their old age. I think that comprehensive immigration reform is absolutely critical towards job growth and creation. And the gentleman from California talked about the difference between a 6.1 and 4.5 percent growth. That represents millions of jobs, millions of jobs for Americans. That's what's at stake with this discussion. I want to ask the gentleman from California to talk about how important jobs are in his district and how you'd benefit from that additional 2 percent growth. What would that mean to folks in Riverside and folks in California?

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, today I'm proud to rise in strong support of comprehensive immigration reform. There are many of my colleagues that have fought these battles long before I arrived in Congress, but today I join my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, in strong support of comprehensive immigration reform. Comprehensive immigration reform is the single most important thing we can do to grow our economy. It will also help make sure that our laws reflect our values as Americans. We are, after all, a Nation of laws and a Nation of immigrants, and the two can and must be made consistent through comprehensive immigration reform. I want to acknowledge the work of many of my colleagues both in the Senate and House in working towards this worthy goal. I've said in my district and here on the floor of Congress that never in my limited time here have I ever been more optimistic about getting immigration reform done than I am now. Immigration reform is long overdue, and should this Congress fail to rise to the challenge, Mr. Speaker, the issue will not go away. There may be 10 million or 11 million people here without papers to be able to work, and that doesn't solve itself, so let's take this on. Let's take this on on behalf of the American people, on behalf of Americans of all ideologies, arm in arm with faith-based groups, with civil rights groups, with law enforcement, with the business community, all of whom have come to Washington and met with Members back home imploring on us the urgent need for action. There is a strong economic argument about how immigration reform spurs innovation, helps create jobs. We need to also make sure employers play by the same set of rules and some employers don't benefit by dealing under the table in an illegal way. This happens today. I've spoken out about some of the steps that States and Congress have taken in the absence of comprehensive immigration reform because those measures simply don't work. Let's take, for example, programs like 287(g) and Secure Communities. These draconian laws have actually made our communities less safe by making our immigrant communities less likely to report crimes. Failure to access health care makes our communities less safe by deteriorating public health. A recent poll showed that almost 30 percent of U.S.-born Latinos, Americans, are scared to report a crime, even if they're a victim, out of fear that they'll be asked about their immigration status or the status of their family and friends. In order to begin to address this important public safety issue, we have to pass comprehensive immigration reform and restore trust to community policing across the country. There is a political imperative facing the United States Congress because a vast majority of Americans want to see us pass comprehensive immigration reform. Over 70 percent--a majority of self-described conservatives, of liberals, of moderates, majorities of Democrats, of Republicans, Independents--83 percent of Americans support a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who pass a background test and want to learn English and play by the rules. I've heard some of my colleagues say, Oh, why don't they get in line? Well, the truth of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there is no line. Immigration reform is about creating a line. Of course, those who are here illegally will be in line behind those who are in the process legally. There's never been a question about that. But we need to create a line to have an orderly way of doing what is under the table and done extralegally today. The American public wants us to act now and continues to demand that of this Congress, because the American people are wise. They know that nothing will help us grow our economy more, will shore up the budget deficit and the entitlement programs that we worry about, will reestablish the rule of law, will help us secure our borders and facilitate trade. Nothing will do that better than bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform. I'm proud to say that the Senate markup of immigration reform is now underway. As we move forward, we'll be talking out for and against various amendments that support or undermine our principles. I think what's critical is to protect a pathway to citizenship for 11 million aspiring Americans living in the shadows, and we need to make sure that there's a realistic way for that to happen. Let me be clear: no version of comprehensive immigration reform confers citizenship on anybody. Citizenship is earned over time. This is about creating a line and a process by which people have provisional status, maybe some day a green card, and then maybe some day if they want to learn English and take the citizenship test and forgo their foreign allegiances, we'd be happy to have them as our American brothers and sisters. If other immigrants choose not to and choose to work here for a period of time legally and return to another country, that is fine, too. This country has been built by immigrants from across the world. My own great-grandparents came to these shores, and today, I have the deep honor of serving in the United States Congress. We need to make sure that immigration reform keeps families together, strengthens our family-based visa program for future immigrants, has realistic wait times that are consistent with people's lives so that parents can be with their kids as they grow up. Nothing can be more inhumane than the way immigration laws play out today in our country where an American child, an American citizen, returning home from school might find that their mother or father is in an indefinite detention process, and not because of anything their kid did. Why? Maybe they had a taillight out. Maybe they were going 10 miles over the speed limit. Is that really a moral justification for tearing up a strong family unit, Mr. Speaker? I've met with many of these kids and I've met with their parents. We need to be a Congress that supports families. We need to be a Congress that helps parents have time to spend with their kids, make sure no kid has to worry about their parent, who has no criminal violation--we're only talking about civil violations, no criminal violation--and suddenly being missing for months or being sent to a country that the child might never even have been to. There's a number of reasons in addition to the moral ones for immigration reform. Many of our fast-growing companies cry out for a skilled workforce. For America to be competitive, for innovative companies in the technology industry to be successful, for innovative companies in advanced manufacturing to be successful, we need to compete in the global talent pool. We are precluded. American companies are precluded from doing that today. And we wonder why jobs are being outsourced. Why are companies growing in India? Why are companies growing in England? Why are they growing overseas in Chile? Well, you know what? Many of those companies would rather grow here and hire people here, and our current laws prohibit them from doing so because they can't get the people they want. I represent a district with two fine universities, great institutions: Colorado State University in Fort Collins, the University of Colorado at Boulder. Right down the road is the School of Mines in Colorado, DU. All these schools are educating the next generation of engineers, of mathematicians, of computer programmers, of scientists, some of whom are foreign nationals legally here on student visas. But once they're trained, once that young man from India, that young woman from France gets that advanced degree in computer science and a master's degree and is ready to go into a good job, guess what our government says? Our government says, Guess what, you've got to leave. You've got to take that job to France. You've got to take that job to India. You've got to take that job to Canada. Our government is saying we don't want that job in our country. Well, Mr. Speaker, through comprehensive immigration reform, this Congress can make a statement that we do want that job here in America. We want to grow our economy stronger. We want to make sure that the people who have had the great benefit of learning at one of our premier institutions of higher education can employ their talents here to make our country stronger and grow our economy. That's what comprehensive immigration reform is all about. I'm also optimistic that comprehensive immigration reform will provide a new mechanism for entrepreneurs from across the world to start their companies here. Currently, there is no visa classification for somebody who has an idea, has some backing, venture capital investment, and wants to hire 10 or 20 people. And guess what. It's not just about the 10 or 20 people that they hire. It's about the potential for that company to employ thousands of people years down the road. And again, what does our government say? No, go start that company in Chile; go start that company in China or India. Well, I'm sure all those countries need companies, too, Mr. Speaker; but I, as a Congressman, represent America, and I want that company here. I want it in my congressional district and in my State, but I'll be happy as long as it is in America. So let's provide a way, through a start-up visa, that an entrepreneur from anywhere in the world who has a great idea and that idea is validated by receiving a real investment can come start their company here in our country. Hire Americans; grow that company; bring value to consumers; create jobs; live the American Dream. That's what this country is all about. That's what this country is all about. And let's talk about the dreamers, Mr. Speaker. These are young de facto Americans. Why de facto Americans? They know no other country. Maybe they were brought here when they were 2 or 5 or 1. They didn't violate any law in coming here. What does a 1- year-old know from the law. They grew up here. They played sports with your kids in school. They were cheerleaders with your kids in school. They got good grades. They're going to college. Guess what. They don't have any type of identification that allows them to work in this country. And technically, under the law, they would have to return to another country where they may not even speak the language or know anybody. So while President Obama's deferred action program is a strong step in the right direction, and at least many of these dreamers no longer live in fear of indefinite detention and can go to work, that's only a 2-year timeout. Only Congress can provide a permanent status for these millions of de facto Americans who know no other country, are as American as you or me. American in fact; let's make them American in law. And that, too, should and must be a part of the comprehensive immigration reform package. Our country is about family values and letting parents raise their kids without fear of government intervention, being able to live the American Dream. These are values that transcend our ideologies. These are values that conservative Americans and liberal Americans and moderate Americans can all agree on. When I have town hall meetings in my district--and we always, as you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, attract a broad ideological diversity, as many of us do across this country, everybody from the far right to far left to people in the middle--I always like to ask, Is anybody happy with immigration today? Does anybody here think we're doing a great job; everything's right? Not a single constituent anywhere along the ideological spectrum has raised their hand and said, Yes, we just need to keep doing what we're doing. It ain't working. There are 11 million people here illegally. Countries are violating the law every day. Families are being torn apart. Taxpayers are on the hook. Let's change it. It ain't going to change unless we change it. It doesn't change itself. States have tried to move forward with what they can. They can't solve it. Some States have looked into issuing State work permits or in-State tuition or how they can make sure that people have driver's insurance who don't have Federal paperwork. But look, they're just cleaning up after our mess. That's all the States can do. We need to fix this mess here in Washington. Only the United States Congress has the authority to restore credibility and integrity to our immigration law. Americans of all stripes are joining the call for comprehensive immigration reform now, strengthening our border security, and facilitating legitimate trade and commerce across the border, employer enforcement, making sure that employers aren't let off the hook for hiring people who don't have the right to be here, making sure we have the workers we need to fuel our economy, all kinds of jobs that we need. We talked about technology and programmers. Well, guess what? We also need people in the fields picking tomatoes, in the fields harvesting oranges. We need people who clean buildings at night. We're happy, we're always happy to have Americans do that. I was meeting with a farmer in Larimer County a couple of months ago. He said he'd love to hire Americans. He's never been able to have an American who agreed to keep that job and do that backbreaking labor for more than a couple of weeks. He relies on immigrant labor. He wants us to pass comprehensive immigration reform that includes a way that they can have seasonal workers to meet the needs that they have in the field. I'm joined by one of my colleagues from the great State of California. Congressman Takano, despite being a freshman, has quickly become a vocal advocate for immigrant families. He's shown a strong commitment and true leadership in seeing that comprehensive immigration reform passes in the 113th Congress. I'm proud to welcome and yield time to my colleague from the State of California.

Mr. POLIS. This comprehensive immigration reform helps two ways. One, there's more people paying in, young people. The second way is more economic growth, which means Social Security is funded through a payroll tax. So when you have more people working, lower unemployment, we talked about getting that rate in Riverside down from 11 percent to 9 percent to 8 percent to 6 percent. Everybody working is then paying in, and that also makes Social Security stronger. So this argument about the critical economic growth engine that we need not only creates jobs today but helps ensure that tomorrow's seniors are taken care of in their old age.

Mr. POLIS. That's a good point because I, like yourself, I'm sure many of us sometimes hear from American workers. American workers say, hey, I'm frustrated because there are people that are here illegally working for less than minimum wage or working for cash. What I say to those American workers is, I say, that's exactly why we need comprehensive immigration reform. We need to make sure that people aren't allowed to compete under the table for cash. We're actually creating, by the failure of our own laws, an entire underground labor economy. And by the way, those workers aren't protected from abuse by their employers. Sometimes they do the work and they're not paid, and they can't sue. I have some very exciting news to announce, to break some news. This just broke on CNN that the bipartisan House group has reached an agreement on immigration reform, announced by Republican Representative Mario Diaz-Balart. So I know that the group has been working for some time. Many of us have encouraged them and supported their work. We certainly hope to be able to see the bill soon. So as the Senate continues the markup, hopefully there is a great additional dose of enthusiasm for us that it looks like here in the House our efforts will hopefully be moving forward as well on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership on this issue. I agree that for Congress to ever be a trusted institution, it needs to solve problems. It needs to come up with practical, commonsense solutions. It's clear what that route is for immigration. It's not too different from what President Bush talked about that President Obama supports. It has long had bipartisan support. It's a comprehensive approach, not this piecemeal approach some talk about, oh, let's build a wall and then talk about something else, or let's do something in high tech and then talk about something else. Look, those are band-aids and the patient is bleeding. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POLIS. Like yourself, obviously, I refrain from any particular comments about the House package until I see it, but I'm confident that with bipartisan support, like the Senate bill has, hopefully this House package will address a lot of these issues that you and I have discussed today, making families stronger, restoring the rule of law, reducing crime, creating economic growth and improving Social Security. Hopefully those benefits are included in this package, which I am very excited to examine and look at in the days and weeks ahead. Hopefully, we can join our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol in dealing with this critical issue. Again, over 84 percent of the American people support a pathway to citizenship. You can't get 84 percent of the American people to agree on anything. And yet on this pathway for citizenship and immigration reform, you have 84 percent support. I hope that Congress heeds that call. I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) is a leader in getting our colleagues to hear that call. He is joined by many of our friends, and it will take all of us working hard to ensure that Congress lives up to the expectations that the American people are setting and takes the right course on this for our country and for economic growth. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. POLIS. The gentleman from California has also been a leader in opposing the chained CPI adjustment to Social Security. Don't you think that this immigration reform concept is a better way to shore up Social Security than trying to change the formula to a chained CPI?

Mr. POLIS

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so we can bring up the Paycheck Fairness Act. I urge a ``no'' vote on this restrictive rule and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, which should be called the More Work, Less Pay bill. As my colleagues know, last week Majority Leader Cantor outlined his party's agenda for the month of May. The words he used to describe it was as a ``full legislative agenda,'' yet here we are only debating this bill on the floor of the House and I think finishing the business of the House around 1:30 p.m. today with plenty of time for Members of Congress to play golf, to go to the beach, whatever they want to do. This is hardly a full legislative agenda. Let me add, Madam Speaker, that this bill is about overtime. Under this current legislative agenda, Congress wouldn't even come close to qualifying for overtime at a time when we have increasing national needs, balancing the budget, moving forward with jobs and the economy, comprehensive immigration reform. There are so many issues crying out for our attention, but here we are debating yet another bill that not only won't go anywhere, but also would actually make life harder and more unpredictable for American families. This bill claims to provide working families flexibility, but in reality it allows employers to avoid paying overtime and get interest- free loans from their own employees. There are many hourly employees who struggle holding two or three jobs, depending on overtime to pay bills, to keep food on the family table. If this bill were to become law, employers would be able to save a couple of bucks by essentially requiring people, in effect, to take comp time instead of overtime pay if they want extra hours. Many American workers want to work more, not less. Under this bill, people's paychecks would be reduced and people don't have a real choice. It's no wonder that the vast majority of labor unions and workers oppose this bill and are not asking for this bill or this ``kind of help.'' I also want to correct something that has been claimed by my Republican colleagues, that somehow this bill gives private sector employees the same protections as public sector employees. That is not true. Most public sector workers are already protected against arbitrary and unfair treatment by civil service laws. Private sector workers don't have anything like that kind of protection. That's why my colleague, Mr. Tim Bishop of New York, offered an amendment in committee specifying that private sector employers could provide comp time instead of overtime if they provided the same job security protections that public employees already receive. But this amendment was voted down in the Rules Committee yesterday, and we're not even allowed here on the floor of the House, where we're going to finish by 1:30 p.m., to have a debate. Somehow, there is not even enough time. Ten minutes is all we asked for on Mr. Bishop of New York's amendment. Madam Speaker, the presentation of this bill is not consistent with the content of the bill. Of course it sounds good. Why wouldn't employees want the choice of being able to choose how they take their time? It all sounds good. But like so many things that Congress does, the devil is in the details. Contrary to what this bill says, employers can already give their employees time off if they so choose. Many do. We had Representative Joe Courtney in our Rules Committee yesterday who talked about when he was in the private sector and he had employees who had to attend school meetings, et cetera, he gave them time off. That's what most responsible employers do. We don't need legislation to tell employers it's okay to give their employees comp time. Contrary to what the majority party here in the House says, employees wouldn't get paid under this bill until the end of the year for saved comp time--at no interest. No interest. So effectively, an interest- free loan to the company. Let's say an employee does overtime, works 45 hours a week for 3 weeks, accruing 15 hours of overtime. If they want this so-called flexibility that's provided under this bill, they choose to say, ``I may use this as comp time.'' That's their choice. However, they pay dearly for that choice in a number of ways. Number one, if they don't use that comp time after a year, they get paid the original amount by the company. While it is true that if they got a raise in the intervening period, they get paid at that level of the raise, there is no accounting for interest or the net present value of those dollars. That's less of an impact when inflation is 1 or 2 percent, but still, it's an interest-free loan to the company. There's a much greater impact should interest rates ever return to their historical norms. And it wasn't that long ago that interest rates were in the high single digits, even double digits, effectively taking money from the worker and giving it to the company. Number two, let's say the employer does want to use this comp time. Effectively, the employer has a unilateral veto over that. All they have to do is show that it creates undue disruption. That's the standard of unilateral employer veto. Now, this is nothing like what occurs under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the FMLA. We've heard them say it's the same; it's not. Under FMLA it's a factor that leave doesn't create undue disruption. There's a variety of factors. It's not a sole determinant as determined by the employer. In this case, the language is wide open to effectively provide a complete veto right of when that employee takes their time off. So again, our friend works 45 hours a weeks for 3 weeks, accrues 15 hours of overtime, and they get sold on this program. They say, ``I'll set aside the 15 hours.'' They try to take it off for their kid's birthday, they try to take it off when their kid is home from school. The employer says, ``No, you can't take it off that week.'' So it turns out that at the end of the year they still have their 15 hours. They finally get paid, but because of net present value and interest, they are out 2 or 3 percent of that. Again, with higher interest, they could be out 10 percent. They could be out 15 percent of that. We can and must do better for American workers. This bill would have a devastating impact for workers in my home State of Colorado. Me and my staff talked to Debbie Olander from United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 7. Debbie is a leader in our community, and she told me that wage step is already a big problem for workers in Colorado, and this bill would make it easier for employers to avoid overtime obligations and make it harder for employees who need those hours to pay those bills. What happens if the employer goes out of business in the intervening year? Of course, the person whose wages are due can line up with other creditors, but who has the time or, if you're living paycheck to paycheck, the ability to wait to see if you ever get paid by a bankrupt employer? Instead of improving the lives of working families by giving greater flexibility, this bill allows employers to avoid paying overtime. My Democratic colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee and I agree that we must give working families flexibility to meet workplace and family needs. That's why we support bills like the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would help ensure that women are paid as much as men in the workplace, and the Healthy Families Act, which would establish a national paid sick day standard. I've also heard from hundreds of workers from my district and across the country who support the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which would prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In more than half of the States, it's still perfectly legal in this day and age for an employer to fire an employee just because they're gay and what they do in their off work time. It's none of the employer's business who an employee is dating. To think that in this day and age it's legal in half the States for an employer to fire an employee because of who they're dating is absolutely absurd. We need to solve that by passing the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. American workers are asking for these kinds of protections, unlike this sort of program that's being discussed today, which workers oppose or don't see as necessary. Well, you know, based on again the schedule for Congress, me and my colleagues aren't about to accrue any overtime anytime soon unless things change around here. Here we are, examining bills that are catchy, have good titles, might sound good on the surface, but don't address any of the real issues faced by American workers, the American economy, or our country as a whole. We need an agenda that's consistent with the needs of working families. Madam Speaker, despite this fixation on changing the image and appealing to voters, many on the other side of the aisle seem to be recycling old ideas. In fact, an identical version of this bill was introduced in 1996, 1997, and 2003. It failed to pass the House each time. Madam Speaker, what this body needs is not just new branding, it needs new ideas, ideas that will actually help working families and make our country stronger. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POLIS. Before further yielding, I yield myself a moment to respond. I thank the gentlelady for the correction. What I was referring to is the vote in the Rules Committee yesterday on an open rule which we voted on in committee. Had we considered this bill under an open rule, I or Mr. Bishop, or any other Member of this body, could have brought forth his amendment. You're correct, it was not submitted to the Rules Committee. It was offered in the committee of jurisdiction, on which I also serve. And I argued, you might recall, to the chair yesterday that this bill is a fine candidate for an open rule. Given that there's nothing else this body's doing today and we're getting done at 1:30, we might as well allow amendments like Mr. Bishop's and others to be able to be debated by the House and considered by the full House. I also want to discuss something that the gentlelady said, something about how a mischaracterization of the opponents of this bill is somehow saying the private sector is bad or the government's good. I haven't heard anybody argue that. The private sector is great. The private sector is a chief engine of economic growth. This discussion is about the private sector. In fact, it's the other side that's somehow trying to model policies that they say already exist in the public sector and force the private sector to comply with them. We're not here seeking to try to copy what exists in the public sector and apply it to the private sector. The private sector is the primary engine of economic growth. I think where perhaps we disagree is that I hear from many on the other side that somehow government is bad. I believe, and many on my side believe, that the minimum amount of government is necessary to ensure the success of the private sector, to ensure the rules are followed and there's an open and competitive environment that allows the private sector to thrive and succeed and create jobs for American families. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 377, Representative DeLauro's Paycheck Fairness Act. To discuss her bill, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. POLIS. Before further yielding, I want to address this fallacious concept that the gentlelady from North Carolina has brought up in previous debate as well as this one that somehow the White House discriminates against women. Again, that's been proven as untrue. We actually have a young lady on our Rules Committee staff who worked for the White House and tells us she earned the same amount as men. Of course, for the same job, women get paid the same amount. That's what paycheck fairness is about. It doesn't say if you do a different job you get paid the same amount, and it doesn't mean that every man and every woman is compensated the same. It's just for the same job, same pay. As for the Obama administration, every one of their actions and the White House's actions have been consistent with that. We believe it should apply to the private sector because, of course, not every woman in the country has the privilege of working for the White House. We're talking about American families with real private sector jobs out there, not these government jobs that the other side keeps alluding to. With that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps.)

Mr. POLIS. Before further yielding, I want to again address this great and sudden desire that the gentlelady from North Carolina has expressed to make sure that government policies apply to the private sector, to try to say somehow the way that government employees are treated needs to be the way that every private sector employee is treated. Usually it's the private sector that leads the way, not Big Government like the gentlelady from North Carolina is arguing. In fact, it's even a misinterpretation of what the public sector does. The public sector has civil service protections for its employees. That's something that doesn't exist in the private sector. That's why, if we had been able to, under an open rule--which we don't have because, of course, somehow this body has to finish up by 2 p.m. so everybody can go home. But if we were allowed to have an open rule and actually bring forth amendments on this, we would be able to introduce Mr. Bishop's amendment, which would have facilitated this discussion of, well, if it's good enough for the goose, it's good enough for the gander. If the Republicans are so keen to apply public sector personnel policy to the private sector, then why not apply civil service protections to the private sector? Again, the truth of the matter is there's a night-and-day difference between the types of protections and policies that public sector and private sector employees have. One of the goals of the Civil Service Act was to add a degree of professionalism to public sector jobs, to take away the patronage components that had a corrupting influence on the system. By and large it succeeded in that goal, to its great credit. It's a very different set of rules that we have with regard to the private sector. So, again, I think that that is, to a certain degree, a false analogy, and I hope that the information I provided helps correct that in the eyes of those who are listening. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a colleague of mine.

Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. POLIS. I would just like to indicate I have one remaining speaker. With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).