Floor Statements

Would the gentlewoman from Colorado yield?

I want to thank the gentlewoman for introducing this amendment. It's an important amendment so that we can preserve the quality of these programs, and we can make sure that they remain accessible to all those who want to participate.

This will help such grantees as the Boys and Girls Club of America, the Student Conservation Association, and so many other organizations that are responsible for covering this cost. This will help them out in that effort.

They clearly are putting their own resources into this program. This is the Federal Government providing up as a good partner to increase the opportunities that the gentlewoman from Colorado has supported and spoken to the committee about.

We support the amendment. Thank you.

Will the gentleman yield for 30 seconds?

I just want to commend him for offering this amendment, for all of his work on behalf of not only our veterans, but service people on active duty and in support of his constituent from Indiana that came up with this idea to start sending care packages to our troops in service in the theaters of battle.

We clearly think this is a consistent use and allowable use under the National Service Act, and we welcome the amendment and support it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank him for bringing this to the committee and offering this amendment.

All of us in our congressional offices know how thin the support services for the veterans as they seek out occupational opportunities, therapy opportunities, all of the needs that our returning veterans have. The gentleman is making a great contribution to this legislation, especially since this is the first time that we have fully integrated veterans into the national service corps of this Nation. These kinds of services are in desperate need in so many areas of the country. This is a very important amendment to making sure that our veterans are able to proceed with all of their needs when they return home.

I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, and I urge passage of the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I am against it, but I will not oppose it.

Members of the House, I want to begin by thanking all of you for your support for this legislation, for the bipartisan support we have received throughout the committee deliberations in our committee, and the support that we received both in the Rules Committee and on the floor today.

As we went through the amendment process, Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle spoke in favor of this most important American value, and that is service to our country, service to our neighbors, service to our communities, and that's what's reflected in this legislation. It is a rather remarkable mosaic of organizations and individuals from every corner of this country, from large cities to small rural towns that have responded to the needs of others, and they have responded without question. They have responded with their skills, their talents, and they have come forth to build a stronger America and a better community.

Earlier today at an event that we had with many of the volunteers to discuss this legislation, we were honored with the presence of Captain Scott Quilty, who retired from the Army after 10 years of service as a decorated infantry captain and Army Ranger during his tour in Iraq, where he led a platoon assigned to train, assess and build the operational capacity of a 460-man element of the Iraqi Army.

In that tour of duty, he lost an arm and a leg. When he returned to America, as if he hadn't given enough service to America, he immediately joined the organization of Survivor Corps to help our returning vets when they come back to this country after serving in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the world, to reintegrate with their families, their communities, their schools, their jobs, their friends, their neighbors.

We were honored with Scott Quilty. And at that very same service, a gentleman walked up to me and handed me these, many of us see this when we tour our Army bases or our Air Force Bases or meet with the troops, it's called the Young Marines, and they do much of the same service. They give their time to our veterans. But they are not the only ones. We have senior grandparents, we have Teach For America, we have Jumpstart, we have Americans doing all of this.

We have Americans in the AmeriCorps that organized over 300,000 hours of volunteer service when the floods hit Iowa. They were there first. They came with their first responders in California with the wildfires and with the floods. They showed up early and they stayed late with Katrina and Rita.

This is what we celebrate with this legislation, and I want to thank you for your support and your good words on behalf of these people, Americans all, who step forward every time one of us needs them or the community needs them.

This legislation will strengthen and enable more Americans to be able to do so. It will tie in an educational benefit so that young children can have a service experience in middle school and high school and schools will become the center of service for young people in their communities.

Now let me get to the motion to recommit. I think, as we have only seen it for a few minutes, I think most of the motion to recommit is, in fact, already covered in statutes, regulations and the grant agreements that are issued. We are well aware of these issues. The Members on both sides of the aisle have spoken to them, and they have offered statutes, not only in this act, but in other acts, making sure that people who get these grants don't engage in activities that they should not be.

So we plan to accept this amendment. I appreciate the gentlewoman offering it, and we will take it to conference.

But, again, I want to thank you for supporting this legislation in advance of your support, and I would ask that you feel free to vote for the motion to recommit.

Again, I ask for passage of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 1388, back to the House with an amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 1388, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering, cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings, and that the Clerk make the correction that I have placed at the desk.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for bringing this legislation to the floor. I particularly want to strongly support those items for title 16 of the Reclamation Act for water recycling and reuse. The projects in this bill are very good projects that are not in my district. They are all over the State in the southwest that have been authorized, but it's most important, as we enter again the third year of this drought, with continued stress put on all of the water systems throughout the West and the Southwest, that we get into recycling and reuse, this will allow communities to take control of their water resources to be more efficient in the use of them. It allows us to develop, just in this legislation alone, that these projects go forward and there is money in the stimulus for this. There was money in the appropriations bill for this.

We are seeing a savings of about half a million to a million acre feet of water in the West. That's real water. It's valuable water, and we have the ability to reuse it.

I want to thank the gentleman for this legislation and the subcommittee Chair, Mrs. Napolitano, a champion of water recycling and reuse. And I would

be remiss if I didn't mention the fact that this bill also protects the beautiful Passaic Falls in Paterson, New Jersey.

Madam Speaker, in the three times that I have visited Afghanistan, the commanders in charge of our military-NATO combined effort in Afghanistan have said to the delegation that their problem is across the border in Pakistan, that al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan other than at such times as when the Taliban brings them to engage our soldiers for practice and for training. Yet we see the government of Pakistan entering into an agreement with the Taliban in the Swat in the northern frontier areas of Pakistan to turn that rather large geographical area of Pakistan over to the Taliban and to dismantle the military presence in that area.

What we have seen since this agreement was reached, an accommodation to the Taliban, is that the training camps have expanded, people have been tortured and murdered, the military has removed from the area, checkpoints have been set up so that the Taliban can examine everybody who moves in and out of the area of whether they are pro-Taliban or anti-Taliban, and somehow we are told that this is good for Pakistan and this is good for America. It can't be, and we had better be careful before we send any more money to the Pakistani government.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, I was called to the White House for a series of meetings with the President on health care reform. Accordingly, I missed two votes, that on H. Res. 146 (rollcall vote No. 98) and H. Con. Res. 14 (rollcall vote No. 99). Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of both resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Omnibus Appropriations Act.

The legislation before us today invests in key priorities for our country from energy to education, and will help address critical needs that were ignored under the previous Administration.

In addition to the other important work that this Omnibus Appropriations Act will do alongside the Recovery Act to make our economy stronger, I want to call special attention to the work this legislation will do to respond to the serious drought that we face in California.

The bill before us today provides significant funding for the federal water reclamation and reuse program administered by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. That program, known as Title XVI, helps local water managers to treat wastewater and use the clean water that results for commercial irrigation and industrial processes. Under Title XVI, the federal investment in water recycling is matched many times over by monies from state and local agencies, so it's not only environmentally sustainable, it's cost-effective.

The Title XVI funding in today's bill builds on the historic investment in the program that was contained in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I am hopeful that this important program will continue to thrive under President Obama and Secretary Salazar.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, including in Pittsburg in my congressional district, water managers have put together a regional planning effort to invest in water recycling infrastructure. This bill bolsters that regional cooperative effort by providing $8 million for the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. On behalf of my constituents and the communities around our region, I want to sincerely thank Chairman Obey, Chairman Visclosky, Ranking Members Lewis and Frelinghuysen, and especially the Committee staff, for their support for this important funding. The funds will quickly create and sustain jobs, and will provide a reliable water supply for local planners and residents.

I look forward to working with the Bureau of Reclamation to ensure that they expeditiously enter into individual agreements with the local implementing agencies so that the Bay Area projects are quickly funded through the Bay Area Clean Water Agencies or its successor. I also know that some of the local water agencies in the Bay Area had to begin their projects before this bill was completed so that they did not lose their state and local funding matches. It is my understanding that the authorized federal funding may be used for reimbursement of construction costs already underway and carried out. As the Bureau works with the local agencies to disburse the funding in this bill, those agreements should provide for reimbursement of the projects' construction costs as necessary.

I strongly support the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution to honor the life and accomplishments of Paul Newman, a truly great American and a man I am proud to have called my friend.

Sadly, Paul passed away late last year. Paul was a magnificent human being. While he played the anti-hero on the silver screen, in real life he was a true hero. Like his character Cool Hand Luke, Paul Newman was not afraid to rock the boat.

Paul never limited his horizons--in his acting, his advocacy, or his vision of our world. He once admonished some of his colleagues who shied away from politics, he said, ``Do you abdicate the responsibilities of citizenship merely because you carry a Screen Actors' Guild card . . . Or do you dig deeply and become as knowledgeable an expert as you can and speak your piece and hope your weight was being thrown on the right side?''

I knew Paul before he knew me, and when our friend, Lizzie Robbins, introduced us to one another, I realized I had never met anyone like him in public life before. He was modern despite his age, he remained curious throughout his life, he had an enormous passion and steadfast commitment. He started the Hole in the Wall Gang kids camp for kids with life-threatening diseases, and they attended the camp free of charge.

He was an advocate of nuclear disarmament, early childhood development, and a healthy environment. He even helped to pioneer alternative fuel technologies to cut carbon emissions.

It was an honor to be on the receiving end of his exultations, his missives, his opinion pieces for the vision that he and I shared for peace and justice for this world--even while the right wing tried to punish him in the marketplace for his willingness to speak his mind. But the right wing could never win that argument because America knew Paul Newman, and they trusted him.

With Paul's enormous success in acting and business where he raised over $250 million for the charity of his Newman's Own brand--and that's in addition to giving away half of his income a year.

In giving away half his income to causes he supported, it was especially striking how humble Paul had remained throughout his life. But Paul was the first to acknowledge luck in his life. He said, ``The beneficence of it,'' he said, ``in many lives and the brutality of it in the lives of others, especially children, who might not have a lifetime to make up for it.''

Paul once asked what he owed his fans after all of these years, to which he humbly replied, ``Thank you.'' And that's exactly what the world owes him.

I want to thank Congressman Cohen for introducing this resolution, and I want to offer, obviously, my best wishes to Paul's family--the kids and the grandkids--and to that magnificent partner of his in a magnificent relationship, Joanne, and thank them for sharing Paul with us during his great life.

Madam Speaker and Members of the

House, we all know, and the people know, that the American economy is in a crisis. It's not that this bill in and of itself will fix the American economy, but this bill takes a major step to fill in the huge gap, and that is the loss of spending at the local level among our school districts, our water districts, our cities, our counties, and our States. Why is that happening? Because they're hemorrhaging a huge loss. And over the next couple of years, over $2 trillion will be missing in economic activity. This is a bill that's designed to stimulate those local economies.

In the education area, there's $56 billion that's available to local school districts for the rehabilitation, the repair, and the renovation of school buildings so that children will go to school in safe, well- lighted, modern facilities so that they will be green. They can put in new heating, new air conditioning systems, $600 million for new technologies so every school in this country will be connected to the best technology in the world. They will be able to engage in curriculums that now are impossible for them. They can have modern labs. That's the promise of America in this.

And who will do those jobs? Local contractors, heating contractors, electricians, plumbing contractors, building contractors from our local communities who will hire other people in our local communities. That's what will happen with this legislation. That's the promise of this legislation.

It will help school districts from keeping to lay off teachers. In the matter of a few weeks, California will start issuing its advanced pink slips. Hundreds of thousands of teachers across this nation will be in this same situation. Now, school districts will know that they're going to get $13 billion in title I in IDA money that will help them reduce the number of people who will be unemployed if we do nothing.

If we do nothing, unemployment will continue, and we know that it will continue for the next few months. But we're trying to mitigate against the increased unemployment through school construction, through highway construction, making sure the students can stay in college as their families are under pressure because of the loss of jobs, the diminished work hours, the loss of pay. We want to make sure that they can stay there so we provide an additional increase in the Pell Grant.

This is very important to this Nation. It's very important to our students, and it's very important that we have an opportunity to create in this economic crisis a 21st century education plan.

You know, it's just amazing. We always hear that history repeats, and here we see it again. And if you go back and you look at Arthur Schlesinger's study of the failures of the Hoover administration leading up to the elected of 1932, this book, ``Crisis of Old Order,'' we see that today, history is repeating itself.

Today, when this country cries out to help this economy, to help America's families who are unemployed, who are losing income, who are losing jobs, President Obama stepped forth with the American Recovery Act. The Republicans stepped forth with saying ``no.'' That was reflected when Minority Leader John Boehner gave instructions to his colleagues to oppose the bill. Even as President Obama was traveling the Hill to meet with them and discuss this bill with them, they decided in advance of that meeting they would say ``no.''

Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia has said that ``no'' is going to be the Republican strategy on this economic crises. ``No'' is going to be their strategy, he said.

The Republican national spokesman of late, radio host Rush Limbaugh, added that ``no'' is the strategy by asserting on the air that he wants President Obama to fail. Does he understand if President Obama fails that the American families lose income, they lose their jobs, and the crisis continues? And here we see the repeating of ``no.''

It was President Hoover in the midst of the Depression with his policy that the Federal Government could do nothing to help this Nation, and he was so wrong. He asked Will Rogers to think up a joke that would stop hoarding by the American public. He asked Rudy Vallee, Can you sing a song that would make people forget the Depression? I will give you a medal. He asked Christopher Morley, Perhaps what this country needs is a poem.

This economic crisis will not be solved by a song, a poem, or a good joke. It will be solved by this Congress going to work with this new President to meet this crisis head on. It will be solved when we provide jobs in this country, when we free up the credit markets, when we force the banks to lend as they should be doing, and we provide this stimulus bill.

All Members of Congress should be very proud to vote ``aye'' on this legislation and yield to the cries and the needs of American families and workers.

Madam Speaker, in response to the gravest economic crisis to face our country in generations, Congress is on the verge of approving President Obama's economic recovery package to save or create between three and four million jobs and put our country on a path toward economic growth. That is a good thing. And it is happening despite the opposition of every one of my Republican colleagues in the House. Their opposition is rooted in the history of saying no to government intervention in times of crisis; they were wrong during the Great Depression and they are wrong today.

The public is being told by critics of this plan, which invests in education, renewable energy, transportation, and health care, that it spends too much money and is not the answer to what ails our economy. The critics say that we would be better off relying on the private sector and tax cuts--the same strategy that got us into this mess in the first place. It was this very same Republican strategy that turned a record budget surplus into a record budget deficit and sent the economy into a nose dive.

When the House approved president Obama's plan last week, not a single Republican in the House of Representatives voted

for it. When the Senate approved it this past weekend, only three Republicans there voted for it.

For months now, economists from across the political spectrum have warned Congress and the President that we had to act in a bold and swift manner to rescue the economy. The economy, they said, was literally shutting down.

The housing and banking crises froze the credit markets, sent our economy into a tailspin, and wiped out trillions in personal wealth. Nearly 600,000 Americans lost their jobs in January of this year alone, and 3.6 million Americans have lost their jobs since December of 2007. These numbers are staggering, and they are only going to get worse.

In the face of this crisis, the President called on the nation to heed the advice of the economists and pass his economic recovery plan. It is true, this is a very expensive plan that we will vote on again tomorrow, costing nearly $800 billion over the next two years.

But the economy will lose far more value than that over the same period of time if we do not act. President Obama has said, and I agree, that doing nothing is not an option. Similarly, he has been honest by saying that he cannot promise that this plan alone will turn our economy around.

The plan we will approve tomorrow over the objections of my Republican colleagues is not a silver bullet. Alone, it will not right the wrecked ship that is our economy. However, along with a strong plan to unfreeze the credit markets and help homeowners afford their mortgages, this plan will help rescue the economy and put people back to work.

Unemployment will continue to rise in the near future no matter what we do. That is always the case in a recession. But if we enact this plan, the unemployment rate will not rise as fast. Fewer people will lose their jobs if we act now, and many more people will have economic opportunity ahead when the economy does recover.

Madam Speaker, it is regrettable that despite the evidence of the need to act, the other party has chosen as their response to America's problems to stay the course and just say ``No.'' They are saying in effect, we will not help you. You are on your own.

They do this much like their predecessors did when they faced the Great Depression. The Republicans were wrong then and they are dead wrong now. And the American people should not for a minute be fooled into thinking otherwise.

If people will remember back to the days before President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, rescued the economy from the grips of the Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover looked into the economic abyss and said, don't worry.

For 75 years, Republicans have carried the sad mantle of Hooverism because of their obliviousness to the severity of the coming Depression of the 1930s and the need for government action.

Today, as in the 1920s, Republicans are trying to frame Democrats as wasteful spending interventionists and themselves as guardians of the U.S. Treasury and the private sector.

Not only are they misleading the public and hiding their own record of deficit spending, they are severely misreading the public mood for bold action.

My Republican colleagues, for reasons of antiquated ideology and partisan opportunism, have failed to appreciate the urgency of the situation.

I encourage my colleagues to dust off the book, Crisis of the Old Order, historian Arthur Schlesinger's study of the failures of Hoover leading up to the election of 1932. It is instructive of the mistakes Hoover made then and points to the grave errors the Republicans are making today.

When the country called out for action, the President Obama answered, the Republicans said ``No,'' as reflected by Minority John Boehner's instructions to his colleagues to oppose the bill, even as President Obama came to the Capitol to extend his hand and urge their cooperation.

The Minority Whip, Eric Cantor of Virginia, said the ``no'' was going to be the Republicans' strategy to the economic crisis. The Republican national spokesman of late, radio host Rush Limbaugh, added to the ``No'' strategy by asserting on air that he wanted President Obama to ``fail.''

From Schlesinger's book, we see that in 1931-32, as the economic crisis was worsening, President Hoover similarly was clueless. ``Nobody is actually starving,'' he said. ``The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been. One hobo in New York got 10 meals in one day.''

Hoover shunned the idea of strong government action, as Obama is calling for today. ``What the country needs is a big laugh,'' he said in 1932. ``If someone could get off a good joke every 10 days, I think our troubles would be over.''

In 1932, Hoover asked Will Rogers to think up a joke that would stop hoarding. He told Rudy Vallee, ``If you can sing a song that would make people forget the Depression, I'll give you a medal.''

And he told Christopher Morley, ``Perhaps what this country needs is a good poem . . . Sometimes a great poem can do more than legislation.''

Compare those comments to what Roosevelt said. ``We need to correct, by drastic means if necessary, the faults in our economic system from which we now suffer . . . The country needs . . . and demands bold, persistent experimentation . . . Above all, try something.''

Hoover declared he wanted ``to solve great problems outside of Government action.'' For the federal government to act would undermine ``the very basis of self-government.''

The Depression, Hoover declared, cannot be solved ``by legislative or executive pronouncement. Economic wounds must be healed by the action of the cells of the economic body.'' Again, suggesting the private sector in all circumstances needs to solve economic crises.

Republicans for generations have stood on the sidelines, and they are doing it again, when the country is calling for their assistance. Tragically, they are deaf to the needs of the American people, they remain locked in ideological indifference and partisan politics, taking as their model the failed Hooverism of the 1930s which let the nation slide into Depression while waiting for poems and songs instead of taking bold action.

They brought nothing but negativism and political posturing to the table when President Obama offered an opportunity to join in a bipartisan effort to rescue the nation.

Their actions are a tragedy. Fortunately, however, my Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate, and a small number of courageous Senate Republicans, have joined President Obama's call to action and will this week answer the pleas from average Americans for help. We will act now, and we will continue to act until we have turned the economy around for the benefit of every American and our nation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 87, I call up the Senate bill (S. 181) to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on S. 181.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives meets to give final approval to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and send it to President Obama for his signature. What a difference a new Congress and a President make.

Nondiscrimination in the workplace must be a sacred American principle. Workers should be paid based upon their merits, not an employer's prejudices. Yet, more than 40 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Supreme Court dramatically turned back the clock on this bedrock principle. Instead of abiding by decades of long-standing law, a narrow majority of the Supreme Court decided to commit legal jujitsu to satisfy a narrow ideological agenda. The Supreme Court simply told bad employers that to escape responsibility for pay discrimination all they need to do is keep it hidden for the first 180 days.

The Ledbetter ruling has already dramatically impacted how Americans can remedy discrimination. It has been cited in hundreds of cases over the past 19 months since the ruling. Not only have pay discrimination cases been adversely impacted, but even fair housing protections and title IX complaints. The Supreme Court sent these lower courts backwards down the wrong path, and today the Congress will correct that course by passing this bill.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would simply reset the law as businesses, most courts, employers and employees and the EEOC had understood it before the Court's 2007 ruling. Under S. 181, every paycheck or other compensation resulting, in whole or part, from an earlier discriminatory pay decision or other practice would constitute a violation of title VII. In other words, if an employer keeps issuing discriminatory paychecks, that employer will keep restarting the clock for filing charges. That's only fair. As long as workers file their charges, as Lilly Ledbetter herself did, within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck, the charges will be considered timely. The legislation also clarifies that an employee is entitled to up to 2 years backpay as provided in title VII already.

Finally, S. 181 ensures that these simple reforms extend to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act to provide these same protections for victims of age and disability discrimination.

Correcting pay discrimination poses significant challenges to workers, made all the harder with the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision. This is best illustrated by Lilly Ledbetter's own words from an Education and Labor Committee hearing in 2007: ``What happened to me is not only an insult to my dignity, but it had real consequences for my ability to care for my family. Every paycheck I received, I got less than what I was entitled to under the law.

``The Supreme Court said that this didn't count as illegal discrimination, but it sure feels like discrimination when you are on the receiving end of that smaller paycheck and trying to support your family with less money than the men are getting for doing the same job. And according to the Court, if you don't figure things out right away, the company can treat you like a second-class citizen for the rest of your career. This isn't right.''

I agree with Lilly Ledbetter: what happened to her wasn't right.

Unfortunately, it's too late for Lilly Ledbetter to receive justice. But today, thanks to Lilly's incredible courage and perseverance, and thanks to millions of Americans making their voices heard, Congress will reject this ruling for the millions of Americans suddenly now subject to legal discrimination.

The Ledbetter v. Goodyear Supreme Court ruling was a painful step backwards for civil rights in this country. Today, the House will correct this injustice and send President Obama his first bill to sign into law. All victims of discrimination are entitled to justice, and I urge my colleagues to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

I yield myself 15 seconds just to say, according to the analysis done by the Congressional Budget Office, there is no new cost associated with this legislation because it creates no new cause of action, and no anticipated increase in litigation in spite of the remarks of the gentleman from the other side of the aisle. And that's what the independent analysis shows of this legislation.

I would like now to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the subcommittee Chair of the committee of jurisdiction.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a champion of fair pay and equal pay for women.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act goes to basic and fundamental American values, both in our daily lives and in our workplace, and that is that people ought to be rewarded with equal pay for equal work. It's fundamental, it's

basic to our economy, it's basic to our society. It's basic to our sense of fairness, to our sense of justice, and to our sense of equality.

But in far too many workplaces that's not what is done. Women, in many instances, time and time again, for doing the same job that men are doing in the same manner that men are doing it, are paid less, not because they are not doing the job equally as well as the men, but because somebody decided that they were going to pay them less simply because they were women.

That runs counter to the values of this Nation. It runs counter to the values of our society. It runs counter to the best interests of women. It's rather fascinating that they are suggesting that because of tough economic times some businesses may only be able to survive if they can engage in discrimination. If they can carry out a business plan based upon discrimination, they may be able to survive, so women should underwrite that discriminatory policy and accept less.

Well, let me tell you what it's like when you are trying to support a family, either as a dual wage earner or by yourself, and you are accepting less every week, every day, every hour for the work that you are doing the same as the people alongside of you, but you are getting less because you are a woman. Try that in these tough economic times. Try running your household in these tough economic times where the Republicans would have you believe we should enforce the policy of discrimination, that somehow women should underwrite these difficult times by accepting, being a victim of discrimination.

I don't think so. I don't think the people in this Congress believe that. I don't believe the people in this country believe that, and that's why we're going to pass this legislation.

It's fundamental to the values of this country. Now, they are trying to run up the scare tactics that this gets rid of the statute of limitation, same statute of limitations, 180 days, that somehow if you had waited a long time you would collect more recovery than otherwise. No, you get 2 years of backpay, that's the maximum, and that's it. But they want to suggest otherwise, no, that's what the law says.

And because of that, because we reset the law to what it was, as it was interpreted by courts all over this country and by employers and employees, the CBO in its independent analysis said this does not increase costs because it does not create a new cause of action and they don't expect a lot of litigation as a result of this because we go back to the law as it was.

So let's move along here and get rid of this outrageous discriminatory practice that was sanctified by the Supreme Court in some kind of ideological rampage against women and the treatment and the fairness of them in the workplace.

We have an opportunity to do that now. We will pass this bill today, we will send it to the White House where our new President, Barack Obama, has said he will sign this legislation. And with that signature on this bill, we can change the law in this country to once again make sure that women are provided equal pay for equal work that they do in the American workplace, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to speak against the motion to commit.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, this motion to commit is clearly an effort to not only send this bill back to committee, but to kill this legislation. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognize the situation that we find ourselves in. The House has passed this legislation earlier, in this session, and the Senate has passed similar legislation which we are now taking up. And when we vote in a little while, this afternoon, we will pass this legislation, and it will go to the President of the United States.

So this is a desperate attempt to somehow keep that from happening. And what we will be sweeping is we will be sweeping away a policy of discrimination in the workplace against women who are paid less than their male counterparts for the same work.

The fact of the matter is that there were hearings held both in the Judiciary Committee, in the last session of Congress, and in the Education and Labor Committee, and all sides were allowed to present their views in those hearings.

In the last Congress, it was subject to a full committee markup, which all Members could have offered as many amendments as they like. They offered two amendments. Those amendments were rejected. They could have offered more. They chose not to.

The bill went to the House floor, debated, and was passed on a bipartisan vote of 225-199 in June of 2007. The minority had an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit. They chose not to. The bill went to the Senate, where it was filibustered. Filibustered. And then the bill was reintroduced identical to what the House had already passed earlier this month.

On January 9 of this year, we passed the bill on the House floor again, 247-171, on another bipartisan vote. The minority had another opportunity to offer a motion to recommit. They chose not to.

The bill went to the Senate, where it was subjected to amendment after amendment. The bill was passed on a bipartisan vote of 61-36. And now we are on the cusp of sending this bill to President Obama for his signature. That is what we should do.

We should reject this motion to commit, an attempt to kill this legislation, and make sure that this bill goes to the President's desk and ends this discriminatory policy against women in the workplace. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to commit and vote ``aye'' on the passage of the legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

If the gentleman would yield, I want to say to the gentleman I share your concern that women receive equal opportunity to be trained and hired in the types of higher-paid positions that are traditionally occupied by men. The bill provides approximately $4 billion to train workers who need new or additional skills. Job training to train women in nontraditional job retains its priority recognition as under current law.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

The bill also provides $80 million to enhance worker protections on those jobs including through the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, Health and Safety, and wage and hour enforcement.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I must say that I truly admire the courage of my friends on the other side of the aisle. In the middle of the worst economic downturn that any of us can remember, our parents told us about the Depression, an unprecedented and accelerating job loss all across the American economy in every sector, our friends on the other side of the aisle ask us just for one last time to do what they've been doing the last 8 years; to just one more time give the tax cuts to the richest people in the country; to just one more time dive into the tank of fiscal irresponsibility.

They inherited a $5 trillion surplus, and they squandered it to an $8 trillion deficit. They created the slowest job creation since World War II, the slowest job creation since World War II in a recovery. They held middle income wages stagnate. In fact, many families lost ground. The wealthy did the best.

They stood by while banks created liar loans, while banks created no- doc loans, while people on Wall Street played fast and easy with hardworking Americans' money in their pension plans. And what do we get for their 8 years? We see people now getting their returns on their pensions, their 401(k) plans, and 30, 40, 50 percent of their assets are gone and those who are over 55 living in panic about how will they have a retirement. And yet they stand here day after day and say just let us have more of what we were doing in the past.

You know, when that helicopter took off outside here in this plaza, millions of Americans gave that President a wave good-bye because in the middle of this historic downturn, millions and millions of Americans made a decision to go in another direction because what you were doing hadn't worked for them or for their families, hadn't worked for them or their families, because that was your policy.

Mr. Chairman, that was their policy, crude and rude with respect to working Americans in this country and their families.

So what do we have now? We have an incredible consensus of economists who are on the left, who are on the right, who advised Republican candidates in the past, Ronald Reagan, John McCain, and they have said you have got to put together a recovery act where the government spends this money on projects to put people back to work to create jobs. It will not stop unemployment, but it will help. It will help. And that's what we're doing here. That's what we're doing here.

They also said from the right and the left, as they told us that the American economy is shutting down while you're asking to do more of the same, they said don't forget education. We cannot have young people lose a year or 2 years of education because of an economic downturn. You must support education at the local level. Why? Because the States and local governments are hemorrhaging, hemorrhaging the loss of revenues. Because people can't afford to buy a car, they're not buying a car. Because home price values are dropping so fast that they're going in and getting their property taxes reestablished because of the loss of value in homes, and that's costing local governments and school districts money from sales tax and property tax. So we're trying to make sure that those students don't lose that educational opportunity.

We see a number of students are now starting to forego college who are in the middle of their college education because of costs. Yes, we're going to increase the Pell grant so they can stay. We're going to give an income tax credit so they can stay in school. We're going to give them work opportunities on campus so they can stay in school. Because that's what the economists, that's what the venture capitalists said, that's the captains of industry said needs to be done. Don't lose that, because when this economy re-emerges, we need those people to be competitive with the rest of the world.

Yes, we're going to help school districts and school construction so that young students can go to school in a cleaner, better environment, so they'll be connected to the latest technology, so they'll have the educational opportunities. And it will be a safe school. It will be a modern school. Yes, we're going to help them out and do that because they don't have the ability to do that because your economic policies froze municipal bonds and school bonds where people voted to impose taxes on themselves to improve their schools, to improve their cities. But the credit markets are seized; so we're trying to help them out for the time being until those markets unfreeze.

And, yes, $300 billion was given to the Bush administration and Secretary Paulson, and so far it appears it was given without conditions in terms of any effort by the big banks to unfreeze the credit markets to lend to small businesses, to lend to families in need.

Yes, we're changing policy. And we're doing it at the direction of the American people because the policy you gave them for 8 years was a disaster for them, their families, their retirements, their wages, their health care. They want to go in a different direction, and we will take them in a different direction. We will take them to job creation. We'll take them to better education. And, hopefully, we'll take them to a stronger economy on the advice, on the advice, with all due respect, of not the other side of the aisle, but of economists from the left to the right of impeccable credentials who said the

only question about this package really is, is it large enough?

Announcement by the Chair

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Rule XI, Clause 2(a)(2) of Rules of the House of Representatives, I respectfully submit the rules for the 111th Congress for the Committee on Education and Labor for publication in the Congressional Record. The Committee adopted these rules by voice vote, with a quorum being present, at our organizational meeting on January 21, 2009.

The Rules of the Committee on Education and Labor for the 111th

Congress

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honoring Gwen Regalia for her many accomplishments and contributions to the city of Walnut Creek.

Gwen Regalia has provided remarkable leadership as a member of the Walnut Creek City Council since 1987. As Mayor of Walnut Creek, Gwen served for an unprecedented five terms and my congressional district has been greatly enhanced by over two decades of her service. Now, as Gwen retires from public office it is my great privilege to pay tribute to her work in the Congressional Record.

Gwen's career began upon her graduation from the University of California at Berkeley. She began teaching elementary school when she moved to Walnut Creek in 1958 and now holds a Life Credential in Elementary Education. Gwen's political career began in 1978 when she ran for the Walnut Creek School District board and served for almost ten years; she also served as president for two of those years.

In 1987 Gwen was elected to the City Council, but her duties did not stop at the Walnut Creek boarder. While in office she also served as President of the Kennedy-King Memorial College Scholarship Fund, she was president and former director of the Diablo Valley Foundation for the environment, she is a forty-year member of the American Association of University Women, member of the League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley, Diablo Regional Arts Association member, as well as other local cultural organizations.

Under Gwen's leadership in the City Council several capital projects were completed, including the Lesher Center for the Arts, the Shadelands Art Center, the Iron Horse Trail Bridge, two gyms, five parks and seven ball fields, as well as the acquisition of 305 acres of open space.

Gwen Regalia's twenty-one years of public service is an example to us all, and we are lucky to have her vision and her commitment to the citizens of Walnut Creek. It is my honor to recognize Gwen Regalia as she retires from public service and I wish her success and happiness in her future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concern over the increasingly grave situation in the Gaza Strip and to express my disappointment that Congress has not spoken more clearly and forcibly in favor of a cease-fire. The latest fighting between Israel and Hamas has led to a humanitarian crisis. According to news reports, quoting various official sources on both sides of the battle, the impact on civilians in Gaza is severe and growing worse.

Madam Speaker, like every Member of this House, I support the right of Israel to defend itself and its people, and, like my colleagues, I strongly denounce Hamas' ongoing indiscriminate destabilizing rocket attacks against civilian populations in southern Israel and Hamas' clear intent to terrorize the people of Israel. In no uncertain terms, I call on Hamas to end its rocket attacks against Israel immediately.

But I also believe in no uncertain terms there must be a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel and it must commence immediately. The loss of life to children and their families, the vast destruction of homes and the enormous suffering in Gaza that is being caused by the escalation of this conflict must end.

Last week, the House spoke out on this latest conflict in the Middle East by passing H. Res. 34 that ``recognizes Israel's right to defend itself against the attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.''

I was disappointed that, as this body has done so often in the past, the House voted only to reiterate its support for Israel and its right to defend itself, rather than also to have used our considerable influence to pressure both sides to agree to a cease-fire in order to protect civilians on both sides caught in this conflict and in order to work toward a lasting resolution of this conflict that will lead to the protection and security of Israel.

I support much of the language in the resolution, but I regret that H.R. 34 in its entirety was not a correct statement for the House to make at the time. The question for the House and the international community is how the Israeli people will be able to live in peace and security without the constant threat of attack from Hamas and others and how the United States and all other nations can assist in achieving that outcome in a lasting manner.

The House has not weighed in on this question. The House of Representatives should throw its considerable weight behind the call for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. The cease-fire is in the best interests of Israel and the United States.

The fact is that there has been a failure of political leadership that has led to this renewed and devastating fighting in Gaza. The Bush administration failed to adequately and successfully address the Middle East conflict during its time in office and during the time in which we knew the cease-fire was coming to an end, and conditions might have been changed so that it could have been extended.

The international community has failed to adequately address the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Experts in the Middle East had warned that a conflict of this nature would eventually come, and will continue to come in the future if conditions on the ground do not change. Their warning went unheeded, and now a new and costly war has broken out.

Hamas rocket attacks against Israel are indefensible. But neither can the disproportionate military response by Israel be defended. The latest fighting was preceded by a lengthy and crushing blockade by Israel of Gaza that caused an humanitarian crisis. Hamas, unfortunately, chose to break the cease-fire and continue shelling of Israel. And Israel chose the breaking of the cease-fire to launch, as it should have, a defense of Israel, but unfortunately, with an all-out attack on Gaza.

Lost in all of this is the answer to the question of how the Israeli people can be assured the protection they deserve. The rocket attacks against Israel continue, albeit lessened now, despite the enormous firepower brought against Hamas by Israel. There is no clear answer as to how Israel will bring this conflict to an end in Gaza or clear what Israel's ultimate goals are in this conflict.

Only a cease-fire and a new international commitment to negotiate a cessation of hostilities between Hamas and Israel can protect the people of Israel.