This week’s votes on the floor, hearings, and markups

Each week I get the opportunity to represent you in Congress by: 1) voting on legislation that comes to the House floor; and 2) participating in committee hearings and markups for the Committee on Financial Services. 

Key House Floor Votes

“No” to Handouts for Trial Lawyers:
On Friday January 9th, I voted against HR 11 and HR 12. Both bills, which passed, represent a massive boon to trial layers which will lead to further frivolous litigation in our already overly-litigious society. HR 11 waives the statute of limitations on claims of employment discrimination and allows individuals to file lawsuits going back decades even though the business named in the lawsuit may no longer exist and even though many of the employers may have since passed on.

Rather than ensuring equal pay for men and women, which is already law under the Equal Pay Act of 1963, HR 12 automatically presumes wage discrimination and will expose employers to a deluge of lawsuits with unlimited compensatory and punitive damages without having to show intent to discriminate. It would also lead to wage controls by instituting federal guidelines about the comparable worth of different jobs. Furthermore, the legislation does not take into account the variety of reasons that determine salary including but not limited to education, specific job responsibilities, prior relevant experience, salary history, continuous time in the workforce, tenure with the same employer, industry, region-specific labor markets (and rural/urban disparities), occupation, title, and schedule flexibility (f/t versus p/t and willingness to work longer hours), all variables that affect salary determinations.

HR 12 would prohibit the ability of employers to make pay decisions on factors described above and would eliminate an employer’s ability to defend legitimate pay differences between employees, specifically those companies with various offices throughout the country. The legislation would also give rise to litigation stemming from claims that wages do not reflect “comparable worth” opening up a number of unforeseen and unintended consequences and regulatory hurdles. “Comparable worth” would then be determined irrespective of the nature of the work, working conditions, and the supply and demand for “comparable” jobs.   

HR 11 combined with HR 12 will invite a flood of lawsuits into our courts by setting the bar of provable discrimination low and lead to a delay in justice for those who have suffered real employment discrimination.    

“Yes” to Israel’s Right to Defend Herself and to the Resumption of Peace Talks:
On Friday, January 9th, I voted in favor of H Res 34 which passed the House by a vote of 390 to 5, with 22 voting “present.” H Res 34 recognizes Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirms the United States’ strong support for Israel, and supports the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The full text of the bill can be read here: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr111-34

Committee on Financial Services

Bernard Madoff Scandal Investigation:
On Monday, January 5th, the Committee on Financial Services held a hearing entitled “Assessing the Madoff Ponzi and the Need for Regulatory Reform.” Key panelists included David Kotz, Inspector General of the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) and Steve Harbeck; President and CEO of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation. The purpose of the hearing was to examine how Mr. Madoff’s ponzi scheme, which included $50 billion fraud against investors, could have gone undetected by the SEC and what steps should be taken to prevent similar occurrences in the future.     

New House Rules Limit Minority Input in Crafting Legislation

Change to Arcane House Rules makes it Harder to Prevent Tax Increases:
As many of you who have subscribed to my e-newsletter know by now, I use this opportunity to communicate: 1) important policy initiatives being introduced in Congress; 2) how I voted on key legislation and why; 3) committee activity including hearings and markups; 4) and other pressing issues. In this first e-newsletter of 2009, however, I would like to write about very important, though obscure, rules changes that House Democrats passed for the 111th Congress that will further limit minority input in legislation that passes the House – even as they expanded their majorities in the recent elections.

When the Democrats passed the rules package for the 110th Congress, they included a requirement that all spending and tax legislation be subject to pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules which requires bills to be budget neutral (i.e., includes offsets such as cuts in other discretionary spending or tax increases). This is a good idea, in theory, unless your intention is to pay for runaway spending by slyly passing massive tax increases.

Do as I Say, not as I am doing:
In this rules package, the Democrat majority made it easier for them to waive PAYGO in “emergency” situations as they determine, making such decisions ripe for abuse. Also, they severely limited the ability of Republicans to offer alternative bills by banning outright the use of “promptly” motions to recommit which we used effectively in the 110th Congress as a procedural tactic to prevent Democrats from raising taxes on the American people. The motion to recommit, a procedural motion used in the House, is the only tool a minority party has to amend a bill once it has reached the floor. “Promptly” motions to recommit allow the minority party to amend the bill and send it back to the committee of origin for retooling. Henceforth, only “forthwith” motions to recommit, which amend the bill immediately and require a vote within minutes, will be allowed. Unfortunately, under our arcane rules, “forthwith” motions to recommit are not allowed to be used to challenge tax increases in bills on the floor. This effectively strips any chance for those who may oppose tax increases of the opportunity to remove them from bills.   

“Take it or Leave it” Way of Doing Business becomes Entrenched in House Rules:
Prior to the Democrat takeover of the House in 2007, it had been the tradition of the House to allow members of the minority party to offer alternative substitutes to the majority’s bill on the floor and to offer a limited number of amendments. Those days are now long gone. Severely limiting the use of the motion to recommit will mean alternative plans to solve America’s problems will be less likely to be considered. The Democrat leadership is also likely to rely on a tactic known as the suspension calendar to bring up bills – something they resorted to during the entire Summer of 2008 to prevent Republicans from introducing “All of the Above” energy legislation to break our dependence on foreign energy and lift the moratorium on exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Bringing up bills under suspension of the rules (usually reserved for noncontroversial bills to name post offices, etc.), disallows any amendments or motions to recommit and must be voted on with very limited debate. 

Open Your Pockets and Insert the Congressional Vacuum:
My real concern is the incredible faith the American people must now put in the Democrats to hold the line on tax increases considering they have proposed no less than $2 trillion in new spending – and, you can bet the tax hikes to “pay for it” are just down the road. I believe we can move to a balanced budget by keeping taxes low and capping the rate of growth in non-defense/non-homeland security discretionary spending rather than increasing taxes to cover new projects and programs.

Democrats Turn an Old Leaf as They Reverse Their Own Reforms from 2007:
In 2007, the Democrats came to power promising “the most open, honest, and ethical Congress in history.” This year, not only did they strengthen their own ability to waive PAYGO, they have reversed a rule they campaigned on that will now make it easier to hold open votes for hours and twist arms on the floor to get the desired result.

Déjà Vu All Over Again:
In 1995, one of the reforms implemented by House Republicans in the Contract for America was limiting House members to six years service as a committee chair. The Democrats rules package resurrects the days of the “Old Bulls” and harkens back to a time when a select few reigned over the House and consolidated power in their virtual policy fiefdoms. In some cases, Congressmen served 10 or 20 years as chairmen and often times they gave up the gavel only upon their death or retirement. Now, after 14 years of six year terms for committee chairmen, we will revert back to the old days of provincial warlords exercising vast influence over the policy process.

This week in history

In 1782, the first American commercial bank (Bank of North America) opens.

In 1790, President Washington delivers the first State of the Union Address in New York City.

In 1870, Standard Oil is incorporated by John D. Rockefeller.

In 1964, President Johnson declares a “War on Poverty.”

In 1965, President Johnson speaks of his “Great Society” during the State of the Union Address.

I am honored to represent the 24th District of Texas, and appreciate your interest in my e-newsletter.  Please contact my District or DC office with any further questions you may have or visit my website at www.marchant.house.gov.