More updates on yesterday’s 26-17 vote by the House Education and Labor Committee to report out H.R. 1338, the Fair Pay Act, which seeks to mandate equal pay based on gender. If employers fail to meet the law’s standards, lawyers are standing by to sue, encouraged by the bill’s lifting of all caps on damages. Expect the bill on the House floor toward the middle of next week.

News release from Chairman George Miller (D-CA), ”House Labor Committee Passes Bill to Help Close Gender Wage Gap“: “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,” said Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the committee. “Any wage gap based on gender is unacceptable, especially during these tough economic times. By allowing wage discrimination to continue, we hold down women and their families while harming the American economy as a whole.”

News release from Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), Ranking Member, “Democrats Favor Trial Lawyers Over Working Families“: “This bill isn’t about paycheck fairness.  It’s already against federal law to discriminate, in pay or other employment practices, on the basis of sex.  And rightfully so,” said Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), the senior Republican on the committee.  “This bill is about making it easier for trial lawyers to cash in under the Equal Pay Act, and making it more difficult for employers to make legitimate employment decisions based on factors other than sex.”

Update from the Washington Labor & Employment Wire from Akin Gump, “Paycheck Fairness Act (H.R. 1338) Passes Out of House Committee.

News release from the ACLU, “ACLU Supports the Paycheck Fairness Act“: “There should be no doubt that improvements to the Equal Pay Act are necessary,” said ACLU Washington Legislative Office Director Caroline Fredrickson. “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 disparity has resulted from unlawful sex discrimination.”

Good thing for the ACLU that inflammatory falsehoods are constitutionally protected. All of the above assertions are demonstrably incorrect. We point you to the diligently documented testimony of the Hudson Institute’s Diana Furchtgott-Roth, an economist, as well as to her op-ed from the New York Sun, “Who’s the Better Feminist?”

Finally, from Secretary of Labor Chao’s letter to the committee: “H.R. 1338 would unjustifiably amend the Equal Pay Act (EPA) to allow for, among other things, unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, even when a disparity in pay was unintentional. It would also require the Department to replace its successful approach to detecting pay discrimination with a failed methodology that was abandoned because it had a 93 percent false positive rate. For these reasons and those outlined blow, if H.R 1338 were presented to the President, I would recommend that he veto the bill.”

Upon President Bush’s signing of H.R. 6304, the ACLU immediately filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking a court order to declare the law unconstitutional and stop it cold. The ACLU’s news release is here. The actual complaint in Amnesty v. McDonnell is available here.

We don’t intend to follow this aspect of the FISA debate because it’s the aggrieved versus government and the issue of civil immunity for the private sector is not raised. (As this New York Sun story notes.) Perhaps that side of the litigation will be handled by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which for now is just protesting the new law in order to raise money.

Although, the congeries joining the ACLU in its suit is interesting and colorful.

The SEIU, eh? They’re just so busy with everything these days.

Reaction and excerpts from statements and news releases on the Senate passage Wednesday of H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act.

• President Bush’s statement, “President Bush Pleased by Passage of FISA Reform Legislation“: “This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they’re saying, and what they’re planning. It will ensure that those companies whose assistance is necessary to protect the country will, themselves, be protected from lawsuits for past or future cooperation with the government. It will uphold our most solemn obligation as officials of the federal government to protect the American people.”

• Sen. Jay Rockefeller news release, “Rockefeller Calls Final Pasage of New FISA Law Critical for National Security“: “Far too often, national security issues have been sidelined or delayed because of accusations and attempts to score political points. That’s what makes today so remarkable. Both sides have come together for the sake of national security and passed a bill that will modernize the nation’s surveillance laws so that they are effective and relevant in the 21st Century.

• Sen. Kit Bond news release, “Bond hails Senate passage of surveillance bill“:  Bond praised his colleagues for rejecting the misinformation spread by left-wing fringe groups like Moveon.org and instead putting our intelligence community back in the business of listening in on foreign terrorist in foreign countries.  Before the final vote, the Senate again rejected attempts to kill the terrorist tracking program by stripping civil liability protection for telecommunications providers.  Bond stressed that it is only right to give these patriotic companies who assisted the government in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks protection from frivolous law suits.  Also, civil liability protection is critical to the future cooperation of our private partners, without whom the terrorist surveillance program could not operate.

• ACLU news release, “Senate Passes Unconstitutional Spying Bill And Grants Sweeping Immunity To Phone Companies“: “This fight is not over. We intend to challenge this bill as soon as President Bush signs it into law,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The bill allows the warrantless and dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international telephone and email communications. It plainly violates the Fourth Amendment.” 

• Electronic Frontier Foundation news release, “Senate Joins House in Caving to White House Immunity Demands…Telecoms Let Off the Hook for Illegal Spying - For Now”: “”We thank those senators who courageously opposed telecom immunity and vow to them, and to the American people, that the fight for accountability over the president’s illegal surveillance is not over,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. “Even though Congress has failed to protect the privacy of Americans and uphold the rule of law, we will not abandon our defense of liberty. We will fight this unconstitutional grant of immunity in the courtroom and in the Congress, requesting repeal of the immunity in the next session, while seeking justice from the Judiciary. Nor can the lawless officials who approved this massive violation of Americans’ rights rest easy, for we will file a new suit against the government and challenge warrantless wiretapping, past, present and future.”

According to published reports, Congress could vote sometime this week on a measure to update federal surveillance authority to intercept foreign communications that may have a U.S. nexus. CQ Politics reported talks among top legislative aides last Friday, and the discusssions continued today. Roll Call reports (subscription only) that the goal is to bring a “compromise package to the Senate floor as early as Wednesday and then to the House floor on Thursday.”

A key compromise being discussed would allow a federal district court to determine the legality of the telecommunications companies agreeing to assist law-enforcement officials with interceptions of suspected terrorist communications after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The telecoms were presented with what they were told were lawfully drawn orders, but now the companies are being sued by a coalition of privacy absolutists, anti-Administration activists and trial lawyers.

The Senate bill, which passed with a bipartisan 68-29, provided retroactive legal immunity to the telecoms, but the measure was blocked by House leadership. Based on the limited press accounts, there’s no way of telling whether the new compromise gives law enforcement and intelligence the ability to effectively monitor threats while respecting the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. Our primary concern remains efforts by the trial bar and its allies to punish the private sector for being good corporate citizens. If a compromise respects the role and intentions of the telecoms, then fine. For now, we’re counting on the good will of the negotiators or at least the salubrious effects of competing political pressures.

The ACLU, not knowing what’s in the deal, is still appalled. But then, that’s their default switch. The angry left is angry, but then…Oh, and this left-wing outfit is attacking Majority Leader Hoyer for selling out for campaign contributions. Hard to see how that helps their case.