Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to explain to the listening persons and those in our galley why we are here today. The other side has consistently talked as though this is an energy bill, but let me remind all of us that this is an opportunity for the United States to bring into compliance with pay scales, in compliance with the law of 1963 for women who, as my colleague Ms. DeLauro pointed out, comprise 40 percent of the workforce. This legislation cures a wrong that has cost many women between $400,000 and $2 million, not only in the lost wages they should have been paid had there been equality, but also indirectly their pensions and their Social Security in many cases. This hurts families, Mr. Speaker. This hurts single parents who are trying, oftentimes doing two jobs, to try to keep food on the table. All the statistics show, which absolutely astonished me, that more women who are single heads of household than men are under the poverty line. One reason for that is they did not get equal pay. We have to right this wrong. We have to do it today. I can't express enough my gratitude for Congresswoman DeLauro and the Women's Caucus for all the work that they have done. But it has been since 1963, 45 years ago, when the law was passed demanding equal pay. And here we are in 2008, Mr. Speaker, and we still don't have it. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on the previous question, yes on the rule, and, by all means, yes on the underlying bill. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 1388 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6566) to bring down energy prices by increasing safe, domestic production, encouraging the development of alternative and renewable energy, and promoting conservation. All points of order against the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority leader, and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by the Majority Leader or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an Opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would like to inform my colleague that I have no further speakers and would reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1388 provides for consideration of H.R. 1338, the Paycheck Fairness Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor. The rule makes in order six amendments which are printed in the Rules Committee report, and the rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, our great Nation recently celebrated the 160th anniversary of the 1848 Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York. This groundbreaking convention was dedicated to the key principle in the Declaration of Independence that we are all created equal. Women have had a hard time to recognize that because it took more than 70 years for us to pass legislation giving women the right to vote. But in the years since Seneca Falls, generations of courageous women have made great strides towards equality. From securing a woman's right to vote in 1920 to serving our country in World War II, American women have come a long way. In this Congress alone, we have much to celebrate. Speaker Pelosi is the first woman to lead this esteemed body. And Senator Clinton made ``18 million cracks'' in the Nation's highest glass ceiling as the first woman to run a formidable Presidential campaign. Yet as we celebrate these important milestones and look back on all we have achieved since 1848, we know full well that our journey toward gender equality is not complete. Despite the strong leadership of several generations of women, we are still struggling to achieve equality in the workplace. Among the most distressing disparities is the significant gap in pay between American men and women as they work side by side doing the very same work. Mr. Speaker, 45 years ago President John F. Kennedy signed into law the Equal Pay Act to address the unconscionable practice of paying women less for the same job. That was 45 years ago and we still struggle. At that time when this bill was signed, women were earning 59 cents for each dollar earned by a man in a comparable job. While the wage gap has narrowed, today the working women in America still earn only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. In other words, let me put it this way, 18 cents more has been achieved in the past 45 years. According to the Department of Labor, which maintains data on over 300 job classifications, men are paid more in each and every category. This is so important, I'm going to say it again. The Department of Labor says in 300 job classifications, men are paid more in each and every 1 of them. Even in what they call the female-dominated industries where women comprise 70 percent of that labor force, women earn 20 percent less than their male coworkers. Experts estimate that the average woman worker will lose anywhere from $200,000 to $2 million over her lifetime as a result of the wage gap. Over time women earn significantly less than men, and lower wages translate into less income that counts in calculating pensions and in some cases Social Security benefits. Closing the wage gap will have a long-term impact on the women's economic security, especially in retirement. To all the cynics who dismiss equal pay as just another women's issue, I want to point out that the wage gap not only hurts women, it hurts families. It hurts children being raised by single moms who have to work two jobs to make ends meet when one might suffice were she to be paid equally with her male coworkers. It hurts families with two working parents who are struggling as one partner makes 20 percent less than her male colleagues. Currently, single women who are heads of households are twice as likely to be in poverty as single fathers. Again, currently single women who are heads of households are twice as likely to be in poverty as single fathers. That is a fact that we must face here and remedy. And we know that pay equity for women is closely linked to eradicating poverty. For families who live below or near the poverty line, the equal pay for women will make a significant difference to the well-being of American families. And after all, Mr. Speaker, isn't that why we are here? Despite these statistics and shocking data that indicates that men make over 20 percent more than their female colleagues on average, the Supreme Court dealt a blow to working women last year when it decided Ledbetter v. Goodyear. In that case, former Goodyear employee Lilly Ledbetter, an employee of 28 years, sued the company after she left the company after discovering she had been paid significantly less than male employees doing the same job during her nearly two decades of employment. And remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was in effect at that time. Though Ms. Ledbetter was clearly treated as a second-class employee, although she got wonderful ratings and compliments on her job, the Supreme Court let Goodyear off the hook on what I think is a misrepresentation of the law. The Supreme Court ruled that in order to enforce her right to be paid fairly, Ms. Ledbetter would have had to file a wage discrimination complaint within 180 days of when the discrimination began. Now, imagine that. You're new on the job. You're happy to be there. You're learning your job. And you have no idea what other people are paid or whether you're being discriminated against. That shows you the grave mistake made by the Supreme Court. But since pay practices typically take place in secret, it would be impossible for a woman to discover discrimination within a 180-day window that she has to file a claim. Justice Ginsberg, the only woman serving on the Court, wisely noted that the Ledbetter decision essentially gutted legislative protections against discriminatory pay practices. Again, that would have been the law of 1963. In its Ledbetter ruling, the Supreme Court has all but endorsed gender discrimination in employment by robbing women of a legal remedy to enforce equality. One certainly understands that we need more women on the United States Supreme Court. To overcome these efforts to nullify the Equal Pay Act, we must redouble our efforts to insist that Lilly Ledbetter and the countless hardworking women like her in America are compensated fairly. Earlier this month I was proud to join Speaker Pelosi, Senator Clinton, Rosa DeLauro, Lilly Ledbetter, and many of my colleagues at an event in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act. This legislation we are debating today prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who discuss salary information with coworkers. Can you imagine that in most companies that is against the rules? It puts gender-based discrimination sanctions on equal footing with other forms of wage discrimination by allowing women to sue for compensatory and punitive damages, and it will help prevent future pay disparities by requiring the Department of Labor to expand outreach to employers and to continue to collect and share wage information based on gender. Finally, it creates a grant program to strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women to help our daughters fight for the compensation to which they are entitled. Today, we have an historic opportunity to stand up for the women of America and say, You deserve equal pay for equal work. Today, we have an opportunity and an obligation to stand up for our mothers and daughters and sisters and nieces who are making less than their male counterparts for the exact same work. Today, even though it is late in the day, we have an opportunity to secure the promise of America so that tomorrow our daughters and sons and granddaughters and grandsons will all have equal opportunity to achieve the American dream. Until we do, we will never reach the gender equality that women and men present at the 1848 Women's Rights Convention aspired to achieve. Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to the working women in our lives and to the generations of hardworking women who came before us to support this legislation. It is my sincere hope that this bill will soon become law, and I implore my colleagues to vote for it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the author of this legislation, an outstanding Member, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to a member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1388.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1388 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a valued member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 520 and 521. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 520 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 521. H.R. 6545, On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, rollcall No. 520--``Yea.'' H.R. 6545, To Table the Motion to Reconsider, rollcall No. 521-- ``Yea.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 528, had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Sadly after 1929, all the safeguards that President Roosevelt put on to have no more bank failures in the United States have almost all been removed. He recognized, President Roosevelt did, the strength of a great nation depends on the strength of its working families, and our strength is about exhausted. Everything that he did, as I say, has been done away in the past 7 years, and I think that restoring some of the safeguards that he put on financial institutions would be a start. The legislation we are considering today was forged by bipartisan consensus, and it will take bipartisan consensus to focus on future legislation to address the issues. This is a short-term solution today to a large and long-term problem. In these troubled times, righting the housing crisis is an important first step to getting our country back on track. Quite simply, ladies and gentlemen, we need stronger regulations, we need real teeth, we need oversight, and we have to clean up the mess. I'm happy that Members on both sides are dedicated to doing that. I implore my colleagues to commit to increased oversight. Together we have to make sure this does not happen again.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I certainly thank the gentlelady for yielding and for her exemplary service on the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, we know today that we are in a crisis without question. Families all across this great Nation are wondering if they're going to lose their house, what they're going to do next, burdened by a mortgage crisis that we have not seen in a generation, and it makes me angry. As America's families call out for relief, we have this bipartisan bill before us today to try to address it. As we consider this legislation, we have to ask ourselves why are we in this position and how did we get into this situation in the first place? If we don't know the answer to that, we're not going to be sure that the next generation is not going to be asked to bail out the wealthy. Mr. Speaker, the past 7 years brought some of the most egregious financial blunders this country has ever seen. On a daily basis we discover new evidence of incompetence. Americans have been blindsided by the mortgage crisis just as they were blinded by the savings and loan crisis. Due to the lack of oversight by this administration and the previous Congresses believing that most businesses and agencies should simply police themselves, American families are paying the price at the same time as the cost of gasoline and groceries skyrocket and foreclosure rates continue to climb. We're seeing the evidence of this administration's failed policies play out in neighborhoods across the country. From California to New York, from Texas to Michigan, millions of hardworking families, mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, grandmothers, and grandfathers have had their homes foreclosed, their dreams shattered, and many of them find themselves homeless. Mr. Speaker, recent reports estimate that 1.4 million homes will enter into foreclosure this year alone. It was reported in May that there were 157 new mortgage foreclosures filed every day in New York City. In my district in New York, the housing vacancy rate in Buffalo has risen 46 percent over the past 6 years, and soon the city will own one out of every 12 or 13 homes. That is 7,000 to 8,000 homes. Despite these staggering numbers, our President, the optimist, continues to insist that our financial systems are ``basically sound.'' I have to wonder if the Americans who poured their lives and savings into their homes feel the same way. Make no mistake about it, this crisis didn't jump out of the woodwork yesterday. It has been years in the making. But instead of taking meaningful action to protect Americans, their investments, their livelihood, and the American economy, the administration and the previous Congress has insisted the problem didn't exist. They told Americans a story of a healthy robust economy while the reality they were living told them something quite different. Pervasive greed has replaced the public good. This is the administration that led us into war in Iraq, that won't address global warming, and built an energy policy based on the Enron loophole. Insisting upon living in a dreamworld, this administration failed to take any meaningful action to rein in the housing crisis until it was spiraling completely out of control. The failure to accept the reality of the situation has led us to this problem we're in today. Crucial opportunities were missed to investigate the risky lending practices that Americans are suffering the consequences of today. Opportunities to instill safeguards to ensure that Americans are able to afford their mortgages were lost. Mr. Speaker, the mortgage crisis is complex, and there is enough blame to go around. But it is clear that the lack of oversight allowed, if not encouraged, this crisis, and at the same time, the heads of the GSEs were paid millions of dollars in salary and millions of dollars in bonuses every year for not overseeing the work they were hired to do. At the very least, thorough oversight would have uncovered how risky the lending and investment practices at the root of this crisis actually are--serving as a warning sign to the likely participants. Instead of oversight, they encouraged deregulation. Instead of holding hearings, they allowed big business to run rampant over protecting the most vulnerable Americans. Instead of strengthening our critical safeguards, they looked the other way while our Nation entered into a mortgage meltdown. For the past 7 years, this administration has ignored the needs and security of the American people. Should Americans working every day pay the price for this recklessness? Should retired Americans who depend on their homes for their retirement pay the price for their troubling risks? Should future generations lose their shot at the American dream because of this incompetence? Mr. Speaker, the Congress is not going to stand for it. Like President Franklin Roosevelt, who led this Nation out of our last great economic crisis, this Democrat-led Congress is committed to helping families out of this crisis and ensuring the situation never happens again.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Protectives Co. 1 of Rochester, New York as they approach their 150th anniversary. Ever since their formation on August 23, 1858 these volunteer citizens have spent thousands of hours a year protecting the property of their neighbors from fire, smoke and water damage thereby reducing the costs to the businesses and citizens of Rochester in their most distressing times. Formed as part of a general reorganization of a fractured and dysfunctional Rochester Fire Department, the Protectives Property Protection and Salvage Company instilled a sense of security that the community it served had been missing. Before its inception, the citizens of Rochester relied on ten separate, and often bickering, fire departments to protect their homes and businesses from fires. The Protectives helped bring about a renewed commitment to protecting the community. The original Protectives Property Protection and Salvage Company has not only saved countless dollars in property damage over the years, but has also saved the lives of many individuals and firefighters from out of control fires. The Protectives No. 1 operates as a volunteer unit under the Rochester Fire Department assisting them with salvage, ventilation, lighting and holding fire hoses as ordered by the fire Chief, thereby relieving the firefighting manpower at the scene of an active fire. The Protectives have been there supporting the Greater Rochester community throughout some of its most trying times, including the Great Sibley Fire of 1904 which totaled 4 million dollars worth of damage at the time. And today they continue to work many of the most fundamental and underappreciated jobs including pumping out flooded basements, and setting up and operating fans and lighting during salvaging efforts. Each and every day they subscribe to their motto, ``we strive to save.'' The Greater Rochester Area owes them a debt of gratitude for their dedicated work and thousands of hours of volunteer services. So it is with great pride and appreciation that I congratulate the Protectives Co. 1 for 150 years of great service, and may it continue to serve as a model of volunteer service and community activism for the citizens of Rochester, NY and across America.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 1281 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. The waiver would apply to any rule reported on the legislative day of June 19, 2008, that provides for consideration or disposition of a measure making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 2008. Madam Speaker, with the passage of this rule, the House would move one step closer to taking up the supplemental appropriations bill, a bill forged in bipartisan compromise that provides funding for our troops currently on the ground, critical domestic savings for Americans calling out for relief, and a dramatic expansion for veterans' educational benefits. The same-day rule will allow us to do all of this in an expedited manner. Later today, the Rules Committee will report out a rule that will give the Chamber the opportunity to debate the bipartisan legislation dealing with some of the most pressing issues facing our Nation today. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I just want to make one inquiry: Is the massive tax increase you're talking about the extension of unemployment benefits?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will be happy to yield.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, just one response to my good friend from California and my dear friend, that had the Republican Party voted for the last supplemental bill which funded the troops, it would not be necessary to be here today.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Madam Speaker. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1281.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1284 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one brief remark and that is in answer to what my dear friend and colleague Mr. Dreier said about only the United States of America could afford this war. I'm not sure what kind of bookkeeping allows him to say that. Obviously the fact we are in such extraordinary debt, as one speaker on your side already pointed out today, this is an unprecedented debt. In the history of the Republic we have never been so far in debt and to say that we can afford to continue to do this, not just in money, not just in treasure, but what we are losing in lives and young people whose lives will never be the same because of the life-threatening wounds that they are bringing home.