Adopting rules for the One Hundred Eleventh Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking my good friend from Rochester, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. And I congratulate her and all of our colleagues on their membership in the 111th Congress.

As we have heard from the speeches delivered by the Speaker and the Republican leader, today marks the start of the 111th Congress, a new beginning for the first branch and for the people's House.

As was stated, 2 weeks from today we are going to be making history with the inauguration of Barack Obama. President-elect Obama has already reached out to congressional Republicans, expressing his desire to work with us in this new Congress.

We all know very well what an honorable campaign Mr. Obama ran. While I didn't support his candidacy, I, like many of my colleagues and fellow Americans, was inspired by his message of hope, unity, and change for the future.

He laid out a vision that replaces bitterness with bipartisanship, cynicism with a sincere commitment to a brighter future.

Of course, there is a great divergence of opinion on the details of exactly how we reach that brighter future. Congressional Republicans have our agenda. We feel very strongly about it. We are committed more than ever to the principles for which we stand. But we wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Obama that the way forward is through open, inclusive debate, a strong spirit of bipartisanship and the sincere pursuit of common ground.

Unfortunately, the high-minded rhetoric of the Presidential campaign only highlights the pure cynicism of this rules package that we are considering today. The Democratic leadership of this House is poised to consider, as its very first legislative act of this Congress, a rules package that literally shreds the Obama vision.

I am going to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The package that we are going to be voting on today literally shreds the Obama vision. Fourteen days before he is even inaugurated into office, the President-elect's plan for unity and bipartisanship is being obstructed by his own party.

This rules package takes the abysmal record of the last Congress and actually makes it more restrictive. You will hear a lot today about arcane procedural tactics and wonder how it has any relevance to the problems that we face as a nation. But these changes, Mr. Speaker, have enormous consequences for the conduct and outcome of our policy debates.

Mr. Speaker, process is substance. As we tackle enormously important issues like, as everyone has said, getting our economy back on track, we cannot achieve a good outcome without a good process. We are very attuned to the concept of history being made right now and 2 weeks from today, so perhaps we should look at history.

The motion to recommit, as we know it today, was granted to the minority 100 years ago following a rebellion against the most dictatorial Speaker of the last century, Joseph Gurney ``Uncle Joe'' Cannon. This motion ensures that the minority gets at least one opportunity, one opportunity to offer an amendment or an alternative. During the Democrats' 40-year reign, they routinely denied Republicans, often dozens of times in a Congress, the single bite at the apple, one opportunity to offer an alternative. Mr. Speaker, when we took the majority in 1995, we guaranteed the right of the motion to recommit, and we never, we never denied it.

This body has always been governed by majority rule. The majority has a number of tools at its disposal, not least of which is the Rules Committee itself, on which I am privileged to serve. That's how they advance their agenda. An effective majority can abide by the rules and traditions of the House and still succeed legislatively.

By contrast, in the 110th Congress, the Democratic leadership chose, instead, to resort to procedural gimmickry to advance their agenda. They had every legislative advantage as the majority party, and yet they felt compelled to trample the traditions of the House, rather than build consensus or engage in actual deliberation. They went so far as to shut down the appropriations process to avoid open debate. Mr. Speaker, as for the motion to recommit, that one single opportunity, that one single opportunity for minority input, the Democratic leadership

frequently resorted to legislative tricks to deny it.

Now, the Democratic leadership is no longer content to shut down debate on an ad hoc basis. They are making it official with this rules package. The underlying resolution contains a host of new procedural gimmicks to stifle debate and to perpetuate partisanship. This resolution changes the rules of the House to formally limit, to formally limit, the motion to recommit. This limitation prevents any bill from being returned to committee for further deliberation. It restricts Members' ability to strip out tax increases. Apparently, the Democratic majority believes tax increases are sacred, but open debate is not sacred.

This rules package also manipulates our budget rules, once again, to protect tax increases, as well as to protect spending increases. You see, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic leadership not only spent the last Congress shutting out Republicans, they also had to find clever ways to shut out fiscally conservative Democrats. Trying to build consensus within their own party was very time consuming. They learned their lesson, though. This rules package guts the budget rules that many Democrats hold so dear.

The laundry list of rules changes goes on. They cut term limits for committee chairmen, they scrap Medicare cost-containment measures. And if all this weren't enough, they include completely closed rules, completely closed rules for the two bills that will be considered later this week without ever having the Rules Committee meet. Apparently, the Democratic leadership scoured the House rules for accountability and transparency measures and systematically dismantled what they found.

So much, Mr. Speaker, for the Obama vision. While he is calling for the most transparent administration in our Nation's history, his congressional Democrats are launching the most closed Congress in history.

But I believe that President-elect Obama is sincere. Since the day he was elected, he has been reaching out to Republicans. He has called many of us individually to express a sincere desire to move beyond the divisiveness of politics and to work together. I can only imagine the chagrin at his own party, their attempt to undermine his best efforts. Today's rules package is a huge step backward. It sets the stage for even more closed, bitter, rancorous debate.

The next major item on the agenda is more than a $1 trillion stimulus package. Republican Leader John Boehner has laid out several modest, but critically important, requests for an open process. There should be public hearings. The text should be available online for a full week prior to a vote. There should be no special-interest earmarks.

These are commonsense guidelines that are widely supported by the American people. They understand that our response to the economic crisis is too important to allow it to be slapped together in secret behind closed doors and rammed through the House. Both Democrats and Republicans have a number of good ideas that should be considered and debated.

Today I will be pursuing an economic recovery package that focuses on pro-growth policies. I am introducing a trio of bills aimed at growing our economy by simplifying and reducing the tax burden on individuals and job creators, jump-starting our housing market and reviving the auto industry.

I hope we can move forward on these kinds of policies, but neither I nor my colleagues ask to prejudge the outcome of those debates. We simply ask that that debate take place.

Majority Leader Hoyer agrees, and said so on an interview that he had this past Sunday. We can only hope he is able to convince the Speaker to keep the process open and transparent. If her leadership's first legislative act of this Congress is any indication, it won't be a fruitful endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, today's new beginning is nothing more than a new low for the Democratic majority. Their cynicism and manipulation is all the more dismal against the backdrop of President-elect Obama's vision for hope, unity and change for the better. The Democratic majority's actions today do not represent change that fulfills hope. This is change that denies hope.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rules package.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Miami, the hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

I will say as I do that, Mr. Speaker, that we would never have contemplated denying the then-minority what is being denied us under this measure.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the spirit of the debate here, refusal to yield, is indicative of exactly what this rules package consists of.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to our very good friend from Springfield, Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Richmond, Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the distinguished Republican whip.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to our very good friend from Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Columbus, Indiana (Mr. Pence), the Chair of the Republican Conference.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentlewoman how many speakers she has remaining on her side, and how much time is remaining on both sides for this debate?

At this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my friend from San Antonio, Mr. Smith.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Chester Springs, Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Roanoke, Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time, let me just inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

At this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to our great, relatively new Member from New Orleans (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that it doesn't appear that we have any other speakers on our side.

Is the gentlewoman prepared to close debate on hers?

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, we've had a fascinating debate here. I've repeatedly asked my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to yield to me so that we could engage in an exchange on this, and no one chose to yield to me at all, indicating exactly what this rules package is all about. We've repeatedly had academics quoted here over the past hour about the use of ``promptly'' and the fact that it kills legislation. Time and time again from the Chair, the Speaker of the House has ruled that a measure that is recommitted to a committee promptly is not killing the bill. Until the Chair says that, it is not killing the bill.

We know that the last Congress was the single-most restrictive, closed Congress in the history of the Republic, and it is very, very sad to have this sacrosanct right being obliterated that is granted to the minority, as Thomas Jefferson outlined in his manual, talking about the procedures and the rights that the minority should have. It is outrageous in the wake of Barack Obama's pledge to the American people that he wanted to have greater transparency and accountability.

Now, Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of this debate on the package, I'll be offering a motion to commit, which could be the majority's last opportunity to freely decide the form of the motion to recommit. Included in the motion will be an amendment. This amendment is the minority's attempt to restore some of the Obama vision of openness, inclusiveness and transparency to the underlying rules package.

First, it would restore the motion to recommit, which I've discussed. It is an important tool that ensures that the minority gets at least one chance, one bite at the apple, so that 100 million Americans represented by Members of the minority here can be heard.

Second, it would restore term limits for committee chairmanships.

Third, it would change committee membership ratios so that all committees, except the Rules and Ethics Committees, reflect the ratio of Democrats and Republicans in the House. This would help to ensure that the 100 million Americans, as I said, who are represented by Republicans would have some kind of say in this process.

Fourth and finally, it would require that all committee votes be available online within 48 hours, a proposal from the Republican Study Committee.

At the end of the last Congress, the Appropriations Committee filed reports on bills that had been ordered reported months before. The public should not have to wait to know how their Member voted in committee while committee chairmen dragged their feet. These four improvements are about nothing more than exactly what Barack Obama talked about--transparency, accountability and fairness.

Today's historic rules package rolls back reforms made a century ago this month by a bipartisan working group of Members rising against the repressive rule of Speaker Joe Cannon. Two of the reforms that were codified during that historic revolt on opening day in 1909 were a motion of recommittal for the minority party and an increased threshold to set aside Calendar Wednesday. Ironically, we find ourselves here in the same well 100 years

later, fighting to maintain these simple rights and guarantees which have for a century, Mr. Speaker, safeguarded this House from the rise of another tyrannical Speaker.

So it is in that light that I ask Members to join me in supporting the motion to commit. Let us not undo what has been done. Let us learn from our past. Let us move forward with the hope and comity inspired by Barack Obama. Let's show the world that, in this House, the democratic process is alive and well no matter how large the majority. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to commit.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 5(b) of House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 12) 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, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, Members of the House, in 1963, the Equal Pay Act was passed to end the discriminatory practices of paying men and women differently for performing the same job. The law's principle is that women and men should be paid based upon their merits and not on an employer's prejudice.

Before the Equal Pay Act, women in the workplace earned 59 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts. Things have gotten better since the passage of the act, but we still see that women earn only 78 cents for every dollar that is earned by a man doing the same job with the same responsibilities.

It is also very disturbing that African American women earn only 66 cents on the dollar, and Hispanic women earn an astonishing 55 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts in the workplace. This wage disparity will cost women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost wages, and it will follow them right into retirement in the form of smaller pensions and reduced Social Security benefits. It will make their health care even more expensive.

Today, this House will take a critical step forward to ensure that the Equal Pay Act lives up to its promise. Over 12 years ago, our colleague, Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut, introduced the Paycheck Fairness Act. In those 12 years, she was unable to get a hearing in this Congress. But she has now received a hearing, and later today she will receive passage of this legislation that will greatly strengthen the Equal Pay Act and close many of the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay.

Currently, an employer can refute a pay discrimination claim if he or she provides the difference of pay is based upon any factor other than gender, even factors unrelated to the job. That is just unacceptable. An excuse for equal pay that is not related to the job is no excuse at all. H.R. 12 will ensure that employers either provide equal pay for equal work, or provide a real business justification for not doing so. They will have to show that any gender-based wage differential is job- related, not based on or derived from gender-based differential and is consistent with business necessity.

H.R. 12 will also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who discuss their pay. Many employers have policies forbidding employees from talking about their pay. This was the case of Lilly Ledbetter, the subject of the previous legislation that we just considered here this morning.

For years, Lilly Ledbetter was paid less than her male counterparts just because she was a woman, but she was unable to know that because she could not discuss her pay with any of the other supervisors, the people in the place of employment. That is wrong. They should be allowed to do that.

Such policies silence workers and allow employers to hide discriminatory pay practices. Employees should feel free to discuss their pay. It is often the only way that they can discover discriminatory pay practice and seek to rectify them.

The bill will also put gender-based discrimination sanctions on an equal footing with other forms of discrimination by allowing women to sue for punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages, just as business and workers may do under section 1981 for race and national origin discrimination.

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 the current law.

The Paycheck Fairness Act will require the Department of Labor to continue collecting pay information based upon gender. It also creates a program designed to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women.

Any pay gap based on gender is unacceptable, especially during these tough economic times. Single women who are head of households are twice as likely to be in poverty as single men.

For families, especially those working under or near the poverty line, equal pay for women will make a significant difference in their economic well-being.

Allowing wage discrimination to continue will hold down women and their families while further harming the American economy.

And, again, I'd like to thank Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for her passionate advocacy of this legislation and her introduction of this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) a member of the committee.

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds here just to say that I am about to recognize, to speak on this legislation, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut. I think all of us in the House, whether we agree or disagree with this legislation, recognize the incredible advocacy that she has brought to this issue of equal pay for equal work, of paycheck fairness, of women's rights at work, and the protection of low-income American families throughout her entire career in the Congress.

As I had mentioned earlier in this debate, she introduced this legislation some 12 years ago and has been unable to get a hearing on the legislation. We provided that hearing, and I think it

was compelling to almost all of the members of the committee that this wage disparity and these actions could not continue and deny women their full opportunity to participate in the American economy on equal footing.

So it's with a lot of pride and a great sense of honor just to recognize her to speak on behalf of this legislation which she has introduced and she is the primary author of.

I recognize the gentlewoman from Connecticut for 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, this motion is a little bit unbelievable in the sense that it suggests that we should be setting the attorneys' fees, even though the amount that the gentleman is asking us to set far exceeds what would be ordinary hourly wages fees in these kinds of cases across the Nation. At the same time, it makes no differentiation for geography, complication of cases, number of attorneys necessary in a case or even the number of firms that may be. We don't know if this applies to all of the attorneys in the case with multiple plaintiffs; whether this applies across the firm if multiple attorneys in a firm are on a single case if it's a complicated case and, in many cases, these are very complicated cases because they go in to business practices that are disguised in terms of trying to justify unequal pay in the name of equal pay.

I find it rather interesting that the supporters of this amendment across the aisle all stood up and talked about how they support the idea of equal pay, how they want their daughters and their granddaughters to be treated equally, how they want to make sure that they're treated fairly in the workplace and they really support the concept; they just don't support this bill which would make that the law.

But then what did they decide to do? They decided when those granddaughters aren't treated fairly in the workplace, they will discriminate against them in an ability to have an attorney. They will discriminate against them because they will say that their attorneys' fees are going to be capped according to this law, as opposed to letting the judge and the Court work out what are reasonable fees in that court case.

Why do they discriminate against them? The gentleman is jumping to his feet. Because there's no cap on the attorneys' fees of the people who discriminated against them, on the employer who made the conscious decision to pay this person less in the workplace, to treat them in a discriminatory fashion, to not recognize their inherent value and the comparability of their skills and their talent. They've decided that those employers can pay $5,000 an hour, $25,000 an hour, or $250,000 and they can hire as many firms as they want, New York firms, Chicago firms, Los Angeles firms. They can do whatever they want. But your daughter, granddaughter, wife, they're limited. They're limited with the kind of legal talent they can get.

How about in a large case in this country today where regional vice presidents, there's 39 of them in the organization, 10 percent of them are women, the men were paid $41,900. The women were paid $27,900. The district managers, the men were paid $23,900. The women were paid $17,000. You think you ought to have the right to go to court and have a good attorney and have the Court determine what are reasonable fees? You ought to be able to prosecute your case in the face of an employer that may have multiple law firms on permanent retainers to deal with this, as many of these defendants do?

Yes, I think you should, and so do the people of this country and I hope so do the Members of this Congress.

I would like to yield to Mr. Andrews, the subcommittee Chair.

I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment, to keep the purpose and the intent and the constitutionality of the underlying legislation, and that we should now pass, after many, many years of waiting, the Paycheck Fairness Act.

And I ask a ``no'' vote on this.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-considered and overreaching legislation. Proponents of this bill claim it simply reverses a May 29, 2007, U.S. Supreme Court decision and clarifies congressional opposition to wage discrimination. In reality, however, this bill will set into motion a series of unintended consequences that will ripple through the economy and plague workers, small businesses, and the judicial system with a vast new legal minefield.

At the outset, let me make it clear that opposition to discrimination of any type, be it gender discrimination, racial discrimination or any other type of discrimination inside and outside the workplace, is not confined to one party or the other. Every Member of this Chamber stands in strong opposition to the unfair treatment of any worker.

At the same time, I believe we must stand firmly behind a process that ensures justice for all parties, and that includes protecting against the potential for abuse and over-litigation. It is my commitment to those principles that requires me to vote no on this bill today.

For more than 40 years, title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has made it illegal for employers to determine an

employee's pay scale based on his or her gender. This is a principle upon which all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, can agree. As such, current law provides that any individual wishing to challenge an employment practice as discriminatory must first file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the applicable statute of limitations, which is either 180 or 300 days, depending on his or her state of employment after the alleged workplace discrimination occurred.

The statute of limitations was clearly established in the law to encourage the timely filing of claims which helps prevent the filing of stale claims and protects against the abuse of the legal system. Consider these ``worst case'' scenarios, for example:

Without a statute of limitations in place, an employee could sue for pay discrimination resulting from an alleged discriminatory act that might have occurred, 5, 10, 20 or even 30 years earlier.

And without a statute of limitations in place, it is entirely conceivable that a worker or retiree could seek damages against a company run by employees and executives that had nothing to do with the initial act of the alleged discrimination that occurred dozens of years ago.

The bill before us would dismantle the statute of limitations and replace it with a new system under which every paycheck received by the employee allegedly discriminated against starts the clock on an entirely new statute. While fair-minded in principle, this dramatic change in civil rights law would have an incredibly far-reaching impact, one that supporters of the bill have yet to take the time to thoroughly and appropriately consider. Indeed, if this bill becomes law, the worst case scenarios I just described could become commonplace. And let's not kid ourselves: our Nation's trial lawyers would seize upon that.

Madam Speaker, this bill is not a matter of tinkering around the edges as its supporters would have the American people believe. Rather, it is a fundamental overhaul of longstanding civil rights laws.

The last major change to these laws occurred more than 15 years ago, and after several years of debate. Yet, here we are, just hours into the 111th Congress, and without having held legislative hearings, a committee markup, or even an open-debate process on the floor, voting on a highly flawed bill without any regard to its long-term ramifications.

I'm opposed to discrimination in the workplace, and I believe that workers must have a protected right to avail themselves of legal protections when such discrimination occurs. That right exists today in carefully crafted civil rights law that ensures fairness and justice for all parties. Unfortunately, the bill before us is neither fair nor just, and for that reason, I will oppose it. I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers, so I will reserve our time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As we debate this legislation, Madam Speaker, I must point out that the myths propagated by our friends in the majority are almost too much to take, so I'd like to take a few moments to dispel some of their more disingenuous claims.

We've heard them claim, for example, that H.R. 11 merely restores prior law by reversing the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision. If indeed this bill was intended simply to reverse the decision, it would have been written to do just that. However, it wasn't. As we have discussed, current law provides that an individual wishing to challenge an employment practice as discriminatory must first file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the applicable statute of limitations.

Let's be perfectly clear. This was the law both before and after the 2007 Supreme Court decision. This bill would dismantle that statute of limitations and replace it with a new system in which every paycheck received by the employee allegedly discriminated against starts the clock on an entirely new statute. In other words it restores nothing. Rather, it totally guts current law and leaves the door open for trial lawyers to have a veritable field day.

Supporters of this bill also tell us that with hundreds of charges of gender-based pay discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission each year, numerous claims will never be brought to justice without this legislation.

Once again, nothing could be further from the truth. The right to each and every EEOC pay discrimination claim exists today, just as it has since the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This bill does not restore any rights because these rights never were taken away. Current law allows an individual to challenge an employment practice as discriminatory by first filing a charge with the EEOC within the applicable statute of limitations. This bill does not establish any new rights, and its supporters know this perfectly well.

Finally, the bill's supporters claim that unless this bill becomes law, victims of pay discrimination will have no recourse unless they file a claim within 180 or 300 days of that decision. Unfortunately, the majority refuses to acknowledge clear protections against such a scenario.

First, employees who believe they are victims of pay discrimination may also have recourse under the Equal Pay Act, which is not subject to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 180 to 300 days filing requirements.

Through a variety of legal doctrines, courts already allow plaintiffs to file claims outside the statute of limitations where it is fair and equitable for them to do so. For example, a court may choose to do so in a case where an employer withheld critical information or otherwise misled an employee into sleeping on his or her rights.

In short, Madam Speaker, the lack of candor from this bill's proponents is clouding the debate, and I feel it is my duty to set the record straight.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how many further speakers there are?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, these are serious times. The economy is facing challenges like none we've faced in decades, and this time those challenges are on a global scale.

The U.S. Department of Labor released its December jobs report this morning, and the news is jarring. The U.S. economy shed some 524,000 jobs in the month of December, and total job losses for 2008 have reached 2.6 million. There are now 11 million Americans out of work, and the unemployment rate has climbed upward to 7.2 percent, the highest level since 1993.

The 111th Congress was sworn in this week amid these troubling indicators. What we do on this floor has the potential to help, but it also has the potential to harm. What we do here makes a difference, substantively, of course, but also symbolically. And what signal does it send to the Nation and the world that the first substantive order of business of the 111th Congress is not job creation or tax relief or economic stimulus, but, rather, a trial lawyer boondoggle that could put jobs and worker pensions in jeopardy.

We should have done better, and perhaps we could have done better if we had taken the time to craft a bipartisan bill, or if we would have had an open debate process that allowed all Members of this body to contribute in a thoughtful way.

Had this truly been a narrow fix, as its supporters would have the American people believe, this rush to approval may not have been such a problem. However, this is a major fundamental change to civil rights law, and no less than four separate statutes.

The last change to civil rights law of this magnitude, the 1991 Civil Rights Act, took 2 years of negotiation, debate and partisan accord to accomplish. Instead, what we have before us is a partisan product that is fundamentally flawed. It guts the statute of limitations contained in current law, and in doing so would allow an employee to bring a claim against an employer decades after the alleged initial act of discrimination occurred. Trial lawyers, you can be sure, are salivating at this very prospect.

Madam Speaker, this is a bad bill that is the result of an equally bad process. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Maryland for his statement and yielding me the time to present the opening day's rules package for the 111th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, rarely has our great Nation faced such grave challenges. Millions of Americans are without jobs and consequently also without health insurance. Our troops are fighting two wars overseas. And as our economy spirals downward, Americans from coast to coast are struggling to make ends meet.

But there is reason to hope. In fewer than 14 days, a new President will be sworn in. And President-elect Barack Obama, the House Democrats and I, and my Republican friends are committed to rolling up our sleeves and getting to work immediately to solve the critical challenges that face our Nation.

On this day I am honored to address the House at the beginning of the 111th Congress to present the rules package that will govern this body as we work to meet the needs of American families over the next 2 years.

It is the responsibility of the majority to protect and enhance the integrity of the institution, and that is what this rules package does. Through building upon the important rules changes that Democrats implemented during the last Congress, we are keeping our commitment to the American people to restore accountability and honesty to government.

In the 110th Congress, Democrats put forth critical measures to restore transparency to the House. We banned gifts from lobbyists. We prohibited the use of corporate jets. We mandated ethics training for all House employees. We ensured transparency for earmarks by requiring the full disclosure of earmarks in all bills and conference reports. We established an independent Office of Congressional Ethics. And today we are building on our commitment to the American people to further strengthen the integrity of this institution in the 111th Congress.

By closing the loophole that allowed ``lame duck'' Members to negotiate employment contracts in secret, we are opening the doors of Congress and shedding light upon the process. By codifying the additional earmark reforms adopted mid-term in the 110th Congress, coupled with the ongoing rules that required the Members' signatures and their reasons for their requests, we are permanently strengthening earlier comprehensive reforms,

resulting in even further transparency and accountability in the earmark process.

By making commonsense changes to the motion to recommit, we are helping Congress to function more effectively while preserving the minority's legitimate right to present their policy alternatives through offering a motion that amends the bill or a ``straight'' motion that sends the bill back to committee without amendment.

By removing reference to term limits for committee Chairs from this package, we take away what was from the first a political consideration to eliminate that from the official House rules where they don't belong. And by maintaining strong PAYGO rules, we are demonstrating our strong commitment to fiscal discipline.

These important measures make good sense to protect the integrity of this institution and to enable Congress to help America get back on track. Today, we are not only harnessing the belief that we can continue to restore integrity and accountability to Congress, we are also laying down a strong foundation for House action on the grave challenges that face this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker and my friends on both sides of the aisle, the American people know exactly what's at stake over the next few years, which is why they have resoundingly raised their voices for change, and Democrats are listening. We are ready to help put Americans back to work by investing in job creation initiatives, strengthening our economy. We are ready to fix our broken health care system so that every citizen can get quality, affordable health care that they desperately need and are entitled to. We are ready to cultivate a clean energy economy by turning wind into energy, energy investments into innovation, and innovation into good-paying American jobs.

We are ready to begin responsibly withdrawing troops from Iraq, ready to ensure quality education for our young people, ready to continue making the tough choices that the American people elected us to make.

Yet in order for us to begin addressing these pressing challenges, we must ensure that Congress continues to put integrity and accountability at the heart of our daily actions. I can think of no better way to do that than by adopting these amendments to the House rules.

Mr. Speaker, it will be a long and difficult journey to strengthen our economy, to reform the health care system, and create a clean energy future worthy of our children and grandchildren. But the rules package before us today is an important first step, one that will ensure integrity in Congress as we move forward on this pivotal path.

It is time to reinvigorate America. It's time to make history. And let us begin.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this commonsense rules package to allow the House to operate more effectively and productively in solving the challenges facing our great Nation while strengthening our integrity in Congress.

Section-by-Section of Rule Changes--111th Congress

The changes in the standing rules of the House made by

House Resolution 5 include the following:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the vice chair of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the chair of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, please let me yield myself 1 or 2 minutes. One minute, I think, would be sufficient. I hadn't planned to do this, but I think the Record requires it.

I want to quote from three of our Republican Members for whom I have great affection and an awful lot of respect. The first one, Representative Tom Davis, who is not with us this year, stated the minority's intent to use ``promptly'' motions to kill legislation during debate on a motion to recommit H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. And let me quote him: ``Let me just say to my colleagues, I think the gun ban in the District is ridiculous, and would join my colleagues in overturning it. The problem is this motion doesn't do that. Instead of bringing it back to the floor forthwith for a vote and send it to the Senate, it simply sends it back to the committee, essentially killing it.''

Representative Joe Barton of Texas likened motions to recommit promptly to gimmicks during debate on H.R. 3693, the Children's Health Insurance Program: ``I will tell my friends on the majority side, it's not going to be a gimmick. I think it will say forthwith, which means if we adopt it, we vote on it.''

I yield myself 30 seconds.

During the debate on Representative Paul Ryan's motion to recommit on H.R. 5501, the Lantos-Hyde HIV/AIDS Act of 2008, Mr. Ryan acknowledged that ``promptly'' motions are intended to kill bills. ``This recommit motion is not intended to kill the bill. This is a forthwith recommit,'' he said.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

I don't have any further requests for time, or at least not from anybody who is presently on the floor, so I will reserve to close.

I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, without any question, all of us who serve in this House love it. We understand our responsibilities to our constituents as well as to this institution. I want to make it absolutely clear, unequivocally clear, that no intention here today is to in any way impede the minority rights. We will defend them to the death.

But we would have to be Alice in Wonderland, saying that she would be able to believe six impossible things before breakfast, if we gave serious thought for one moment to the possibility that a motion to recommit promptly is anything other than a way to kill a bill.

What we are trying to do here is to expedite the process to get the Obama agenda, which apparently we are in solid agreement on, moved forward because the American people are crying out for it. It must be done. We want to do this fairly. We want to do this equitably. I hope we can do it with minds that meet on all of these subjects, but we must remove some of the gimmicks which have done nothing but subvert the will of the House.

So I am really happy to close with this. I hope that everybody in the House--all of the new Members whom I congratulate, people who have been here for some time and those of us who have been moderately here for a long time--will all, please, get together today. There is nothing in here that hurts anyone. We are simply attempting to move forward the business of the United States of America for which we swore an oath not an hour ago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Motion to Commit

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I thank Chairman Miller from California. I thank my friend Mr. McKeon as well for the consideration of this debate.

We've passed this bill before, properly so. Unfortunately, it didn't pass the Senate. It wasn't signed by the President. That will not happen this time. We will pass this bill. My belief is the Senate will pass this bill, and the President of the United States will sign it. Why? Because it's the right thing to do.

I listened to my friend in his conversation, but frankly, it somewhat belies the fact that there came a case to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court had to rule on the case, and the Supreme Court ruled on the statute of limitation.

The value of work, of course, Madam Speaker, lies in a job well done, not in the gender of the worker. I don't think there is a man or a woman in this Chamber who would disagree, but all too often in America, sexism, frankly, cheats women out of equal pay and equal worth. It still robs women of their equal right to earn a livelihood, to provide for their families and to secure the dignity of their labor. It does much of its worst work in the dark.

Frankly, women in this body all know that they make the same thing as the men in this body. Why? Because it's public information, but if it were secret information, notwithstanding the fact that we had a number of women vote against this the last time it was up, I would be shocked that they would do so again if they were put in the position of making $25,000 less than those of us who are males, doing exactly the same job. That is the position, of course, Lilly Ledbetter found herself in.

So many of us know by now that Lilly Ledbetter was precluded from recovery. For almost two decades, from 1979 to 1998, she was a hardworking tire plant supervisor. For much of her career, she suffered from two kinds of discrimination simultaneously--from sexual harassment when a manager said to her face that women didn't belong in a factory to the supervisor who tried to coerce her into a sexual encounter. There was pay discrimination as well. There's no doubt about that. Now, she couldn't recover for it because the Supreme Court said she hadn't acted. By the end of her career, she was making nearly $7,000 less than the lowest paid man in the same position.

Both kinds of discrimination were founded on the belief that women in the workplace are second-class citizens. I hope there are no women in America who believe that, and I would hope there are no men in America who believe that. I say that as a father of three women, as the grandfather of two granddaughters and as the great grandfather of a 2- year-old young woman.

Of the two, the unfair pay may have been the most damaging, between the sexual discrimination and the pay discrimination. The sexual discrimination, obviously, is abhorrent, but the pay discrimination diminished Lilly Ledbetter's opportunities in our country.

There has been a lot said on this floor about ``it's their money, and they know how to spend it better,'' and we've talked about that in terms of tax bills. ``It's their money, and they know how to spend it better.'' If that's the case, then I would hope that this bill would pass unanimously to make sure that their money, which they earn fairly, is paid to them so they then can use it as they see fit.

Ms. Ledbetter might have been in the dark to this day; they may have kept it a secret because people, particularly in the private sector, don't go around, saying, ``Well, I make X and you make Y.'' In fact, a lot of employers tell their employees, ``Don't tell people what you make.'' Lilly Ledbetter didn't know how badly she was being discriminated against.

A coworker, however, gave her proof of what her employer was doing to her. Such silent discrimination is surprisingly common because it is so difficult to identify. After all, how many of us know what the salaries of our coworkers are? As I said, we do. My friend from California knows that she makes the same thing as Mr. Miller makes, and that's appropriate. They are both elected; they both have the same job; they both work hard, and they're paid the same.

Lilly Ledbetter took her employer to court, but the Supreme Court finally ruled against her. So, apparently, there is a problem somewhere, not because she was making it all up but because she had failed to file suit 180 days after her first unfair paycheck. Now, that adopts the premise that the subsequent paychecks somehow were not in violation of the law. They were. Every time she was paid discriminatorily, it was another violation of the law. In fact, the 180 days should have run from the last violation of the law, which, of course, was the last time she was paid in a discriminatory fashion. You have 6 months to find out you're being paid unfairly or you're out of luck for a lifetime.

The Supreme Court's flawed ruling ignored the real-world facts of discrimination, and it has the potential to harm thousands of women, indeed, hundreds of thousands and millions of women and their children and their families and our communities and society, leaving victims of pay discrimination without any recourse.

As Justice Ginsburg said--and she put it in as a strong dissent-- ``Pay disparities often occur . . . in small increments; cause to suspect that discrimination is at work develops only over time. Comparative pay information, moreover, is often hidden from the employee's view . . . Small, initial discrepancies may not be seen to meet the Federal case, particularly when the employee, trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment, is averse to making waves.''

That's what Justice Ginsburg said. So, apparently, Justice Ginsburg thought there was a problem to which we ought to respond, which is what is happening today.

``The ball,'' Justice Ginsburg concluded, ``is in Congress' court . . . The legislature may act to correct this Court's parsimonious reading.''

That is what we are doing today. That is the right thing to do for our country. It is the right thing to do for women. It is the right thing to do for our families, and that is the aim of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

This bill gives employees a fair time limit to take action against discrimination. A 180-day limit will still stand, but the clock is reset after each violation of the law, as it should be, not simply after the first one, and that change fits our commonsense understanding of pay discrimination. It is not a single act but an ongoing practice that is renewed every time the employer signs an unfair paycheck.

Madam Speaker, pay discrimination anywhere is an attack on the dignity of every woman in every workplace in America. When workers face unfair pay, they should find us standing by their side, not throwing up technicalities and roadblocks on the way to equality.

For that reason, I urge every one of my colleagues, male and female, Representatives of all of the people who ought to have equal opportunity under the law. This accomplishes that objective. Vote for this important piece of legislation.