Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my good friend from Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. And I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, discrimination is wrong. And I, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, are horrified, absolutely horrified at the thought of discrimination taking place. And like Lilly Ledbetter, we want to ensure, as she very selflessly said, that as we look to future instances of potential discrimination, that no one is ever treated as she was.

But I will say that this rule and the underlying legislation are a very, very bad signal in our attempt to address this question.

From a substantive point, this bill is only the most recent salvo in the Democratic majority's assault on entrepreneurship and the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. From a process standpoint, this bill continues their assault on this institution and, by virtue of that, the rights of the American people.

After a campaign last November that was founded on a commitment to openness, deliberativeness and responsible legislating, this bill and the process by which it has been addressed are just another example, another addition to the ever-growing list of broken promises that have been made to the American people.

In crafting the underlying bill, the Democratic leadership all but abandoned the committee process itself. It shunned the input of experts, raced to bring their shoddy, sloppy work to the House floor, and shut down, by virtue of what we are doing, any possibility of meaningful debate by denying any amendments whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, the most unfortunate part is that far from being an anomaly, this process, as was evidenced by the last rule that we just debated, is emblematic of what this Democratic majority has been doing.

Now, as my friend, the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Sessions), said in management of the last rule that was just before us, the Democratic majority has considered twice as many measures under closed rules as the Republican had by this point, July 30, in the last Congress.

I say that because we, as Republicans, were constantly maligned and berated because we had closed rules. Yes, we did have closed rules. Some were warranted. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? We may have overreached in some of the closed rules that we had. But I find it very interesting that as we saw that level of criticism leveled at the Republican majority, a promise was made to the American people that there would be greater openness and opportunity for more deliberation and a degree of accountability the likes of which did not exist when Republicans were in charge.

What is it that has happened, Mr. Speaker? We now have twice as many closed rules as we had at this point, July 30, at the beginning of the last Congress.

This rule seems to keep up that new philosophy that the Democratic majority has articulated more than once last week in the Rules Committee. The statement was as follows: if you don't support the bill, you shouldn't be given the opportunity to amend it. If you don't support the bill, you shouldn't be given an opportunity to amend it. That is what has regularly been propounded by our colleagues upstairs in the Rules Committee.

Apparently, you have to be a ``yes man'' if you want to have an opportunity to be heard or participate in the legislative process. You have to make an absolute commitment that you are going to support the legislation if you want to have a chance to improve it. That is exactly what happened in an exchange with the distinguished former chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, the now ranking member, my California colleague, Mr. McKeon.

Of course, they tried to conceal their bad policy and sloppy work by claiming this bill is about ending discrimination in the workplace. As I said, we all want to ensure that we end discrimination in the workplace. We are all horrified by any instance of discrimination in the workplace. They claim that it is about righting wrongs, that the Supreme Court overturned long-settled protections in the Ledbetter case and that this bill simply restores the proper legal precedent.

Well, Mr. Speaker, those claims are patently false. This bill would introduce utter chaos into the courts. Utter chaos. It is so vaguely and so poorly constructed that it would open the floodgates of dubious, dubious claims and frivolous lawsuits.

The distinguished ranking member of the Education and Labor Committee simply tried again to offer an amendment that would have dealt with this vagueness and that would have addressed the sloppy assembly of this legislation. And because he didn't make a commitment that he would support the legislation at the end of the day, he was denied, as was every other Member who wanted to have an opportunity to amend the legislation, they were denied a chance to do that.

The result of what it is that they are doing would be to obfuscate real cases of discrimination. Again, we want to ensure that any instance of discrimination is addressed. But what they are doing here, Mr. Speaker, would obfuscate real cases of discrimination and cripple business owners, who are the job creators in our economy.

Now, this may be a trial lawyer's dream, but it would be a nightmare for any small business owner, not to mention anyone with a legitimate case of workplace discrimination

Again, we want anyone who has a legitimate case of workplace discrimination to be able to come forward and to

address that grievance. Obviously, preventing discrimination and punishing it when it happens are critical goals of our labor laws. We all share a commitment to combating discriminatory treatment of any worker. It is precisely with this goal in mind that our laws have been designed to deal with discrimination in a timely and expeditious way. No one benefits when we allow violations to continue on indefinitely with a completely open-ended potential for years or decades to go by before the issue is addressed.

Virtually no statute of limitations at all is the potential problem with this legislation. By the same token, Mr. Speaker, we have to guard against an unlimited window for the introduction of those claims. As I said, frivolous, unfounded complaints are already a huge drain and take focus away from the very legitimate and important cases that are out there.

Mr. Speaker, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found reasonable cause last year in a mere 5.3 percent of the 75,000 complaints it received. Again, I believe that Lilly Ledbetter was absolutely right when she talked about the need to ensure that those who face discrimination in the future, in fact, do have an opportunity to have their wrong righted.

The EEOC, by its own numbers, receives 20 times as many unreasonable complaints as legitimate claims. Let me say that again: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has stated that they receive 20 times as many unreasonable complaints as legitimate claims. Furthermore, it found absolutely no cause whatsoever in over 60 percent of the cases that have been brought forward. This means that a large majority of its work is already wasted in investigating entirely unfounded complaints.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the tragic thing is that with this legislation, the waste and abuse will increase exponentially. We have already seen the impact of frivolous lawsuits on competitiveness of American entrepreneurs and business owners. I am sure we have all read about the District of Columbia, the D.C. ``pants suit,'' the family-owned dry cleaner that faced a $67 million lawsuit over a pair of pants. That family has been nearly ruined by hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills, even though they won their case. This is the ultimate nightmare for any business owner, let alone the small family-run business that bolsters our economy and our communities, as well.

Mr. Speaker, this bill protects neither those who suffer from discrimination nor the innocent who are wrongly accused. Furthermore, the claim that long-held and long-settled legal precedent was reversed by the Ledbetter ruling is utterly spurious. The very plaintiff, the alleged victim in this case, Mrs. Ledbetter, asserted her case based in part on the wildly disparate rulings on the legal matter at issue in her lawsuit. Her attorneys argued to the Supreme Court that there was ``considerable conflict and confusion.'' Again, in arguing on her behalf before the United States Supreme Court, her attorney said that there was ``considerable conflict and confusion.''

Mr. Speaker, what is more, this legislation goes far beyond the limited scope of the Ledbetter case, far beyond that case. While that case dealt solely with the issue of intentional discrimination, the underlying bill expressly removes this distinction and in fact opens the floodgates on nonintentional disparate impact discrimination cases as well. The bill's authors admit as much in their own committee report.

So, Mr. Speaker, when the Democratic majority claims this bill simply restores the precedent that was reversed by the Supreme Court, they are wrong. When they claim this bill will give greater protection to those who suffer from workplace discrimination, they are wrong.

This bill is wildly ill conceived, based on specious claims. It would turn discrimination litigation into the Wild West of jurisprudence. It would inflict irreparable harm on countless businesses and take precious resources away from real cases of discrimination.

I will say again, Mr. Speaker, we want to do everything that we can to ensure that everyone who is victimized has their opportunity to be heard. But this legislation would take the resources to allow that to happen away from those who really face discrimination.

Unfortunately, but predictably, this is the kind of bad policy that inevitably comes from bad process. By irresponsibly and hastily throwing this legislation together, the Democratic majority has concocted a bill that would accomplish none of what they claim it will. Instead, it would unleash a flood of unintended consequences that will hurt the very people they purport to help. They will be hurting the workers of this country. They will be hurting the people that they purport to help. Once again, that sloppy work has produced very, very dangerous policy.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and, just as was the case in the last measure, I am going to, as Mr. Sessions did, encourage a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Why? So that we will be able to do something that I know they will argue, as Ms. Castor did when we were debating the last rule, is completely unrelated.

What it is we are going to offer if we are able to defeat the previous question is a chance for us to take steps to ensure that terrorists do not have the tools to kill Americans. By that, I mean we are hoping, if we can defeat the previous question, to ensure that the very thoughtful legislation that has been introduced by our colleague from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) will be able to be considered.

What does that do? It finally gives us a chance to modernize the nearly three-decade-old, very antiquated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We have seen such tremendous, tremendous changes in technology. On a daily basis we see that. We all know about those changes. Moore's Law made it very clear that you see in a 6-month period all kinds of equipment being outdated and antiquated.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have seen terrorists have the ability to take advantage of the tremendous changes, and all we are asking is that the recommendations that have been put forward by the Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, by the Director of the CIA, Mike Hayden, by the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, that we see a chance for the concerns that they have understandably raised on the inability to make sure that we can monitor the actions of foreigners in foreign countries, that we have the ability to do that. That is all we are asking.

I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker, so we will be able to make that in order, and to ensure that as we look at this legislative process and move forward, that we don't continue with this very, very dangerous pattern that we have had.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

I never said that equal pay for equal work is an assault on entrepreneurship. What I said is that this legislation would create an open-ended prospect for frivolous lawsuits and undermines the ability of entrepreneurs to be able to succeed and create jobs and ensure the future of our economy.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank my friend. I am really confused with the argument that has just been propounded because the gentleman says every time there is a concern, we bring up the issue of frivolous lawsuits, and the gentleman has just talked about one of the worst cases of a frivolous lawsuit, the $57 million case that was brought against a small business owner. That is a problem.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to join with my colleague from Santa Barbara in saying that we are absolutely committed to doing every that we possibly can to ensure that there is no case of discrimination when it comes to the issue of equal pay for equal work. Obviously we want to do everything possible to make sure that someone like Ms. Ledbetter, who I believe was wronged, does not face this kind of difficulty in the future. That is exactly what Ms. Ledbetter said she wants to have happen.

The problem is this bill has been so poorly put together it creates the potential to actually impinge on the ability of people to bring cases forward. While my friend from Worcester talked about the issue of the Congressional Budget Office's analysis and the lack of an increase in cases, if you look at the mere fact that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said that 60 percent of their cases do not warrant even moving forward, and that is why this creates the potential for even more of these horrible cases, based on the arguments that have been brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. Sessions), my hardworking colleague on the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my very thoughtful colleague from Orlando (Mr. Keller).

Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Santa Clarita, California, the former chairman, the distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague how many speakers he has remaining on his side.

I have just one more speaker, and actually with that, then I'll just plan to wrap up.

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

I would like to begin by saying that, obviously, we feel very strongly about the issue of discrimination, and we feel that cases like this need to be addressed in the future.

I am going to be exchanging, engaging in a colloquy with my friend from Albuquerque. I was just talking with her about the rule and the underlying legislation. She said to me, as we get ready to talk about our quest to address the previous question issue, that she wanted to offer some thoughts.

And so I would like to at this moment yield such time as she may consume to my colleague from Albuquerque for some remarks.

Reclaiming my time, I would like to actually say that clearly the gentleman from Santa Clarita (Mr. McKeon) is going to be about talking about this issue, assuming we do move to the bill.

But I will say that we are going to, as we did in the case of the last bill, seek to defeat the previous question so that we will have a chance to deal with an issue that is critically important, critically important to the security of the United States of America and our allies.

We, for literally months, have been saying that we need to take the very antiquated, 1978, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and have a chance, have a chance to improve and update that so that we could bring that three-decade old legislation into the 21st century with the tremendous technological changes that have taken place.

We have been imploring Members of this House to move legislation so that those who are in the intelligence field, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, will simply have the opportunity, have the opportunity to monitor foreigners on foreign soil without going through the long process of seeking a court order to not, not in any way, engage on the monitoring of telephone conversations of Americans, but of terrorists on foreign soil who want to kill us.

Mr. Speaker, since my colleague from Albuquerque has authored legislation, we will seek, if we can get our colleagues to vote against the previous question, to make this critically important legislation in order, rather than waiting until, rather than waiting until after the August recess.

Tragically, we have just gotten news that the scheduled briefing for the Intelligence Committee that was to be provided at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning by the Director of National Intelligence has just been postponed until after the August recess, more than a month from now. I believe that we have created some very serious problems here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield further to my colleague for some remarks on this.

Reclaiming my time, I would like to ask my colleague a couple of questions on this. She is so expert, as a member of the committee, having worked long and hard on this.

I would like to ask if she is aware of any cases where American lives are already at risk because of the fact that we don't have the ability to monitor, in foreign countries foreigners who are engaging in these kinds of conversations.

Mr. Speaker, in light of that, it is absolutely imperative that we defeat the previous question on this rule so that we will have an opportunity to deal with this horror that will allow us to have a chance to save American lives, as the gentlewoman has just said.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 579 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 579 provides for the consideration of H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This legislation can be summed up in one word, ``fairness.'' And what better summarizes the idea of fairness than equal pay for equal work.

We've all heard it; we've all said it in speeches, but right now we have a real opportunity to make it happen. I wish we did not have to be here today, but the shortsighted and unfortunate recent Supreme Court ruling has forced us to revisit this painful issue from our Nation's past.

Lilly Ledbetter spent 19 years of her life working at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in its Gadsden, Alabama plant. What she did not know for most of that time was that she had been subjected to systematic pay discrimination over the course of 15 years simply because she is a woman. By the time of her retirement, she was earning $45,000 a year. The lowest paid male supervisor at the plant was making $6,500 a year more.

As the case of Lilly Ledbetter clearly shows, there is still discrimination in the workplace, and it is our responsibility and it is our duty to ensure that every worker in this Nation receives fair compensation for their work.

We had a bipartisan solution to this problem, known as title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While this legislation was groundbreaking and certainly was a giant step forward for our workers, there was clearly a hole in the law, and that is what we are filling today.

Lilly Ledbetter proved her case. A jury found that she had been discriminated against and awarded her the back pay she should have received, attempting to fulfill the purpose of title VII, to make her whole and to discourage other employers from discriminating in the future. But those goals were thwarted by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision earlier this year. The Court held that in order to recover the back wages she was owed, Lilly Ledbetter needed to file a complaint at the time the discrimination began, even though she did not become aware of it until more than a decade later. What we are doing is reclaiming the original purpose, the legislative intent of title VII, which unfortunately the Supreme Court, in one fell swoop, completely, outrageously undermined.

Their decision was as if to say that because Lilly Ledbetter didn't know she was being treated unfairly, that therefore she was not being treated unfairly. This was, of course, irrespective of the fact that the Court and those of us here in this Chamber unequivocally know Lilly Ledbetter suffered the consequences of discrimination throughout the course of her life and her career.

Mr. Speaker, Lilly Ledbetter joined the workforce and worked hard, assuming that she would receive fair compensation for her efforts. But her story and the stories of countless others is not one of fairness or justice.

I will not retell her story because I think we have all heard it and we all understand that she was wronged. Instead, I will share with you some of her testimony before the House Education and Labor Committee in June. And although I was not there to hear her speak, you can feel the passion of someone who knows she was wronged. These are the words of Lilly Ledbetter, and I quote: ``What happened to me is not only an insult to my dignity, but 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 illegal 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.''

Mr. Speaker, what happened to Lilly Ledbetter should not have happened, and today we have an opportunity to make sure it will never happen again.

You know, Mr. Speaker, Lilly Ledbetter could be bitter and angry, and most certainly she has every right to be. But instead, her concern is about what will happen in the future.

And let me quote her again: ``My case is over, and it is too bad that the Supreme Court decided the way it did. I hope, though, that Congress won't let this happen to anyone else. I would feel that this long fight was worthwhile if at least at the end of it I knew that I played a part in getting the law fixed so that it could provide real protection to real people in the real world.''

Lilly Ledbetter's concern is with those workers who come after her who, just like her, will work hard at their jobs and assume that they are receiving equal pay for equal work. This is not something that they should have to hope for; it is something they deserve and are owed under the law. And this Congress owes these workers and their families, because last November they voted for change because they were tired of the economic injustices that people like Lilly Ledbetter had suffered.

Mr. Speaker, the American people expect their government to stand up for fairness and justice. And for this reason, let me say how disappointed I am in our President, who has said he will veto this legislation if it comes to his desk. This is a President who, time and time again, stands up before audiences and claims that he is against discrimination in all forms, yet now we get this threat.

If this Congress is truly committed to ending discrimination in this Nation, we cannot let this President have the final word. If he vetoes this bill for fairness and justice, I hope that this Congress will stand up and overturn his pen stroke that strikes at the heart of what makes this Nation great.

Mr. Speaker, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is not only about changing the way we treat our working men and women; it's about paying rent, putting food on the table, and paying for our children to go to college. For this to happen, we must return to the roots of a Nation and what has made us great and moved us forward in times of strife. Fairness has been at the heart of all that makes America strong, and this Congress cannot turn away from that.

For Lilly Ledbetter and all the workers who simply want to earn a fair wage for the hard work that they do do for their families and for justice, let's pass this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say in response to the gentleman from California's remarks, that obviously we disagree on the importance of this legislation. Many of us on this side, I hope all of us on this side, and a good number of Members on that side, believe this is serious, a serious bill and a very important bill, and that the issue of discrimination is something we cannot tolerate under any circumstances.

The gentleman mentions the promises that the Democrats made when they campaigned in the last election. One of those promises was that we would combat discrimination wherever it existed. That is what we are doing here today.

We think it is wrong that women get paid less than men for doing the same job.

The gentleman says this bill is an assault on entrepreneurship. Equal pay for equal work is an assault on entrepreneurship?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman for his clarification, but the underlying point of this bill is to make sure that there are no more cases like Lilly Ledbetter's case. With almost every piece of legislation that deals with civil rights, the other side always trots out this litigation argument. There will be more lawsuits and more lawsuits and more lawsuits.

We hear the lawsuit in D.C. brought up about this man who is suing a dry cleaners for losing his pants. To the best of my knowledge, that has nothing to do with discrimination. I agree with the gentleman that that is a frivolous lawsuit, but to bring that case up in the context of what we are debating here, which is the civil rights and the equal rights and the equal pay protections for women in this country, I don't think is appropriate, quite frankly.

Reclaiming my time, I guess my confusion was you are bringing up that case in the context of the debate we are having here today with regard to equal pay for equal work.

I should also point out to the gentleman that the CBO expects that this bill would not significantly affect the number of filings with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That appears in the report on the bill.

Again, I say to my colleagues that this issue is very simple. This is about combating discrimination. This is about fairness, and this is the way to do it, and this is the opportunity to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot from the other side about how nobody supports what happened to Lilly Ledbetter, yet it was this Republican President's Solicitor General who argued against Lilly Ledbetter in the Supreme Court. For all of the years I can remember that the Republicans were in the majority in Congress, I don't remember any groundbreaking equal pay for equal work legislation

being brought to the floor to deal with these kinds of issues.

So we can talk all we want about the need to eliminate discrimination in the workforce against women, but unless we back those statements up with our votes on legislation that will change that, then those words ring hollow.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) who spoke before and wanted to know where the Democrats were on this issue. We didn't know we had a problem until George Bush's Supreme Court made this awful decision on this case, and now what we're trying to do today is fix it. We thought, quite frankly, that reasonable judges, rational judges, would interpret the law accordingly and believe that the discrimination against women who were being paid less than men was, in fact, wrong. And so here we are today to try to fix this mess.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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

(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I have the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren) and then myself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I think it's inconceivable that any Member in this Chamber can stand up and say that they are against discrimination and that they are dedicated to equal pay for equal work and vote against the underlying bill.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have talked about how committed they are to this issue of equal rights; yet when they controlled this Congress, I don't recall a single equal pay for equal work bill being brought to this floor.

My friends say that this is an issue they feel strongly about, yet I don't recall hearing a single voice on the other side of the aisle complain when George Bush's Solicitor General argued against Lilly Ledbetter. My friends say this is an important issue to them, yet I don't recall anybody on their side of the aisle standing up and decrying the Supreme Court when they came down with this awful decision against Lilly Ledbetter.

Today's debate has been about justice and fairness. It is hard to believe this is even an issue that needs to be debated. No one argues that Lilly Ledbetter was denied equal pay for equal work. No one argues against the fact that women in this country still only earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men.

No one will refute the fact that, unfortunately, discrimination in the workplace towards too many Americans is still rampant. But today we can send a message that this unfairness in the workplace is unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated.

Those who discriminated against Lilly Ledbetter were wrong, and they deserve to be fired. Because of the insult she suffered, Ms. Ledbetter deserved compensation.

What's amazing is that the Supreme Court doesn't deny this. They recognize the problem, yet a bare majority, for some reason, decided that justice was not to be granted. Justice Ginsburg, in her dissent, stated that the opinion did not, and I quote, ``comprehend, or was indifferent, to the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.'' Justice Ginsburg also made clear that now it

was up to Congress to act. Today we shall.

It does not matter if you suffer pay discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, disability or age. It is wrong. If it happens, there must be a system in place to ensure that justice is accomplished.

As Lilly Ledbetter said, and I quote, ``I wish my story had a happy ending . . . I hope . . . that what happened to me does not happen to other people who suffered discrimination like I did.''

Let's fulfill Lilly Ledbetter's hope today and ensure that what happened to her never, ever happens to another worker in this great country.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in 1997, a Republican-led Congress passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, a program that combines the best of public and private approaches to delivering vital health care coverage to low-income children across the country.

Today this program provides coverage to 6.6 million children and has lowered the insurance rate by nearly 25 percent. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided not to include us in crafting the reauthorization of SCHIP. In addition, it included many other provisions affecting Medicare, without any input from the minority.

The legislation put forth by the Democrats has many problems, and I have serious reservations on how they propose to fund this legislation. Specifically, there are proposed funding streams in the bill passed out of the Ways and Means Committee that seek to take money out of end- stage renal disease programs by establishing policies that are shortsighted and ill-advised.

As currently structured, this proposal takes funding from among the sickest patients in the Medicare program, those who have end-stage renal disease, and reallocates it to a massive SCHIP expansion. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I was pleased to learn that Chairman Dingell was prepared to offer an amended version of the CHAMP Act that did not include any end-stage renal disease cuts, and, as indicated by CBO score sheets of Chairman Dingell's amendment, that do not include entries for any end-stage renal disease provisions.

It was unfortunate that the bill was discharged from the Energy and Commerce before amendments could be offered to strike these cuts, but I wholeheartedly agree that we should not be making cuts to end-stage renal disease, which treats some of the sickest patients in Medicare, to fund SCHIP expansion.

As the CHAMP Act currently stands, my concerns with end-stage renal disease are twofold. First, the bill proposes to disrupt the market- based average sales price reimbursement system that Congress worked hard to pass in the Medicare Modernization Act. This average sales price payment system was first implemented in the physician setting in 2005 and the end-stage renal disease setting for all drugs in 2006.

This system has been a great success across the board, and moving to reimbursement rates of ASP plus 6 percent has demonstrated significant savings. In fact, the Office of Inspector General estimated annual savings of $1 billion because of the shift from the old average wholesale price system to the ASP system in 2005.

Starting in 2006, the average sales price system includes drugs used to treat anemia in end-stage renal disease patients, as well as all other end-stage renal disease drugs. MedPACs have noted a decline in end-stage renal disease drug spending since the implementation of the average sales price, and when looking at erythropoietin stimulant agents, which are biologics used to treat anemia in end-stage renal disease, specifically it is clear that the ASP has resulted in a reduction in the price of Medicare, which had previously paid for these biologics going from $10 under a statutory rate in 1994 to 2004.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.

If there are cuts in one bill based upon increased spending in another, is that financial connection enough to continue to proceed?

Starting in 2006, the average sales price system included drugs used to treat anemia and end-stage renal disease patients as well as other end-stage renal disease drugs.

Additionally, there are provisions in the bill that propose to institute a statutory price control rate. It would be a mistake to change a system that has reduced prices for this medicine by 6.8 percent since the average sales price-based reimbursement system was implemented in January of 2006; 9 percent compared to what Medicare paid for the drug back in 1994 under a statutory price control rate.

This market-based system is working to drive down prices for Medicare in Congress, and Congress shouldn't try to fix something that's not broken. Most importantly, I also question how a cut in payment would affect patient care. A payment cut may create financial incentives to reduce or ration clinically beneficial drugs.

Dialysis providers may reduce their costs by providing fewer services and drugs, transferring patients to another setting of care, or discharging patients more quickly.

Mr. Chairman, in 1997 a Republican-led Congress passed the State Children's Heath Insurance Program (SCHIP)--a progam that combines the best of public and private approaches to delivering vital health coverage to low-income children across this country.

Today this program provides coverage to 6.6 million children and has lowered the uninsured rate by nearly 25 percent.

Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle decided not to include us in crafting the reauthorization of SCHIP and in addition, included many other provisions affecting Medicare without any input from the minority.

The legislation put forth by the Democrats has many problems, and I have serious reservations on how they propose to fund this legislation.

Specifically, there are proposed funding streams in the bill passed out of the Ways and Means Committee that seeks to take money out of the End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) program by establishing policies that are shortsighted and ill-advised.

As currently structured, this proposal takes funding from among the sickest patients in the Medicare program, those that have ESRD, and reallocates it to a massive SCHIP expansion.

As a member of the Energy & Commerce Committee, I was pleased to learn that Chairman Dingell was prepared to offer an amended version of the CHAMP Act that did not include any ESRD cuts as indicated by CBO score sheets of Chairman Dingell's amendment that do not include entries for any ESRD provisions.

It was unfortunate that the bill was discharged from Energy and Commerce before amendments could be offered to strike these ESRD cuts, but I wholeheartedly agree that we should not be making cuts to the ESRD, which treats some of the sickest patients in Medicare, to fund SCHIP expansion.

As the CHAMP Act currently stands, my concerns with the ESRD provisions are two-fold.

First, the bill proposes to disrupt the market based Average Sales Price (ASP) reimbursement system that Congress worked hard to pass in the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA).

This ASP payment system was first implemented in the physician setting in 2005, and the ESRD setting for all drugs in 2006.

This system has been a great success across the board and moving to reimbursement rates at ASP+6 percent has demonstrated significant savings.

In fact, the Office of the Inspector General estimated annual savings of $1 billion because of the shift from the old Average Wholesale Price (AWP) system to the ASP system in 2005.

Starting in 2006, the ASP system included drugs used to treat anemia in ESRD patients, as well as all other ESRD drugs.

MedPAC has noted a decline in ESRD drug spending since the implementation of ASP and when looking at Erythropoeitin Stimulating Agents (ESAs), which are biologics used to treat anemia, in ESRD specifically, it is clear that ASP has resulted in a reduction in the price Medicare had previously paid for these biologics--going from $10 under a statutory rate from 1994-2004 to $9.10 today for one of these ESAs--EPOGEN. This is a 9 percent drop which represents real savings.

Additionally, there are provisions in the bill that propose to institute a statutory price controlled rate that would distort the market and ASP system by establishing a cap which restricts Medicare payment at a statutory rate of $8.75 or ASP+2 percent, whichever is less.

It would be a mistake to change a system that has reduced prices for this medicine by 6.8 percent since the ASP-based reimbursement system was implemented in January 2006 and by 9 percent compared to what Medicare paid for the drug back in 1994 under a statutory price controlled rate.

This market-based system is working now to drive down prices for Medicare and Congress shouldn't try to fix something if it's not broken.

Most importantly, I also question how a cut in payment would affect I patient care. A payment cut may create financial incentives to reduce or ration clinically beneficial drugs.

Dialysis providers may reduce their costs by providing fewer services and drugs, transferring patients to another setting of care, or discharging patients more quickly.

So when we are looking for ways to save money, a reduction in reimbursement levels could actually result in unintended consequences, such as increasing the number of ESRD patients who are hospitalized.

Published studies show that patients who are under dialyzed or who are suffering from anemia are more likely to be hospitalized.

Increases in hospitalization due to dialysis payment changes could end up being very costly to Medicare and taxpayers.

This is just bad policy rationale.

I am also concerned with a provision that would move to a fully bundled dialysis composite rate--that is bundling drugs and other separately billable services into a composite rate--for large dialysis providers beginning in 2010, and for all other dialysis providers by 2013.

Since passage of the MMA in 2003, CMS has tried to design and test a fully bundled payment system and has been unsuccessful.

I believe that CMS must be given more time to study this issue and complete the bundling demonstration authorized in the MMA that it has been working to implement to ensure that all of the complex factors that go into a bundled payment are accounted for and that patient care and access are not harmed under a bundled payment system.

Again, bundling may create financial incentives to reduce or ration care resulting in worse health outcomes.

An insufficient Medicare payment could cause facilities to close their doors or result in poor patient outcomes.

This underscores the need to test a bundled payment through a demonstration first before implementing.

Congress and CMS should be fully informed on how to protect patient access and quality before implementing bundling system-wide.

Although I am committed to the reauthorization of SCHIP I cannot support these types of cuts to Medicare.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the Democrats' SCHIP expansion in its current form.

Point of Order

If the gentleman from Illinois controls the time, I yield to my colleague from Georgia.

Especially in this debate, the end stage renal disease aspect; and that is the nexus.

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-considered and over- reaching legislation.

Proponents of this bill claim it simply reverses a May 29, 2007, U.S. Supreme Court decision and further clarifies congressional opposition to wage discrimination against employees in the workplace. In reality, however, it will set into motion unintended consequences that its supporters simply are not willing to acknowledge.

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 or 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, but at the same time 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. That, I believe, is where the two parties diverge on the bill before us. We aren't taking sides for or against discrimination in the workplace; rather, we're staking out different positions on fair and equitable justice and the rule of law.

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. And 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 abuse of the legal system.

Consider these worst case scenarios, for example. Without a statute of limitations in place, an employee could sue for discrimination resulting from an alleged discriminatory act that might have occurred 5, 10, 20, 40, or even more 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 alleged discrimination that occurred dozens of years ago.

H.R. 2831 would essentially 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 and principled, this dramatic change in civil rights law would have incredibly far-reaching impact, one that supporters of the bill have yet to take the time to thoroughly and appropriately consider. And B, under H.R. 2831, the worst case scenarios I just described would become commonplace. And let's not kid ourselves; our Nation's trial lawyers would seize upon them.

Because H.R. 2831 would dismantle the critical statute of limitations, the Bush administration last week threatened to veto, should the bill ever arrive at his desk. Specifically, the administration noted that the legislation ``would serve to impede justice and undermine the important goal of having allegations of discrimination expeditiously resolved.''

Furthermore, the effect of elimination of any statute of limitations in this area would be contrary to the centuries' old notion about limitations, period, for all lawsuits.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the Statement of Administration Policy into the Record

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, July 27, 2007.

Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 2831--Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay

Act of 2007 (Rep. Miller (D) CA and 31 Cosponsors)

The Administration supports our Nation's anti-

discrimination laws and is committed to the timely resolution

of discrimination claims. For this and other reasons, the

Administration strongly opposes the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of

2007. H.R. 2831 would allow employees to bring a claim of pay

or other employment-related discrimination years or even

decades after the alleged discrimination occurred. H.R. 2831

constitutes a major change in, and expanded application of,

employment discrimination law. The change would serve to

impede justice and undermine the important goal of having

allegations of discrimination expeditiously resolved.

Furthermore, the effective elimination of any statute of

limitations in this area would be contrary to the centuries-

old notion of a limitations period for all lawsuits. If H.R.

2831 were presented to the President. his senior advisors

would recommend that he veto the bill.

Meaningful statutes of limitations in these sorts of fact-

intensive cases are crucial to the fair administration of

justice. The prompt assertion of employment discrimination

permits employers to defend against--and allows employees to

prove--claims that arise from employment decisions instead of

having to litigate claims that are long past. In such cases,

evidence often will have been lost, memories will have faded,

and witnesses will have moved on. Moreover, effective

statutes of limitations benefit employees by encouraging the

prompt discovery, assertion, and resolution of employment

discrimination claims so that workplace discrimination can be

remedied without delay.

H.R. 2831 purports to undo the Supreme Court's decision of

May 29, 2007, in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. by

permitting pay discrimination claims to be brought within 180

days not of a discriminatory pay decision, which is the rule

under current law, but rather within 180 days of receiving

any paycheck affected by such a decision, no matter how far

in the past the underlying act of discrimination allegedly

occurred. As a result, this legislation effectively

eliminates any time requirement for filing a claim involving

compensation discrimination. Allegations from thirty years

ago or more could be resurrected and filed in federal courts.

Moreover, the bill far exceeds the stated purpose of

undoing the Court's decision in Ledbetter by extending the

expanded statute of limitations to any ``other practice''

that remotely affects an individual's wages, benefits, or

other compensation in the future. This could effectively

waive the statute of limitations for a wide variety of claims

(such as promotion and arguably even termination decisions)

traditionally regarded as actionable only when they occur.

This legislation does not appear to be based on evidence

that the current statute of limitations principles have

caused any systemic prejudice to the interests of employees,

but it is reasonable to expect the bill's vastly expanded

statute of limitations would exacerbate the existing heavy

burden on the courts by encouraging the filing of stale

claims.

Mr. Speaker, as the President's veto threat makes clear, H.R. 2831 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 long-standing 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, barely 2 months removed from a Supreme Court decision ready to grab headlines before we return home for the month of August by advancing a highly flawed bill without any regard to the long-term ramifications it could have should it ever make its way into law.

H.R. 2831 represents bad policy, and even worse processing, and for these reasons I will oppose it. I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), the subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), the subcommittee ranking member.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy now to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from

Texas (Ms. Granger), a member of our elected leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy now to yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) 2\1/2\ minutes.

How much time do we have?

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield at this time to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) 3 minutes, ranking member on the subcommittee.

It was my understanding we were going to finish up tomorrow.

So you want me to take 30 seconds?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Kline just said, I think we have had a good debate here tonight.

As we did have that hearing on Ms. Ledbetter's case, the bill wasn't before us, but we did hear her story. And all of us I think felt bad for her for the things that happened to her 20, 30 years ago.

But what was also said, as we're sent here to represent all of our constituents, we can't totally let emotion guide our decisions. We have to make good law, sound law, and I think we're worried about losing the statute of limitations. I think that's something we really need to protect against.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 579, I call up the bill (H.R. 2831) to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, discrimination is anathema to everything this country stands for. It is anathema to the promise that is America. Regrettably, the recent Supreme Court's recent Ledbetter v. Goodyear decision threatens to turn back the clock on the progress we have made since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 more than 40 years ago.

The Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter severely restricts the right of employees to challenge pay discrimination. It ignores the realities of the workplace, prior precedent, and the clear intent of Congress.

Justice Ginsburg's dissent in this narrowly divided 5-4 decision called on Congress to reverse this decision, and that is what we are here to do today.

Lilly Ledbetter, the plaintiff in this case, worked for Goodyear for over 19 years. When she retired as a supervisor in 1998, she discovered that her salary was 20 percent lower than that of the lowest-paid male supervisor. Not only was Ms. Ledbetter earnings nearly $400 a month less than her male colleagues, she also retired, obviously, with a substantially smaller pension.

A jury found that Goodyear discriminated against Ms. Ledbetter, and she was awarded $3.8 million in back pay and damages. This amount was reduced to the $360,000 damage cap in title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Despite the jury's finding, the Supreme Court decided that while Goodyear discriminated against Ms. Ledbetter, and it is important that the Members understand that that is what the jury's determination was, they decided that her claim was made too late. Not that she was wrong, not that Goodyear was right. Her claim simply came too late.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires an employee to file an EEOC charge within 180 days of unlawful employment practices. Ms. Ledbetter filed within 180 days, as required, of receiving the discriminatory pay from Goodyear. In fact, she filed as soon as she found out that she was receiving discriminatory pay. She found out thanks to an anonymous note left in her mailbox.

But a slim majority of the Supreme Court found that, because Ms. Ledbetter did not file within 180 days of the discriminatory decision to write those discriminatory paychecks that she received for many, many years, her time had run out. She could not recover anything from Goodyear.

The majority's decision is absurd and entirely shuns the reason in order to satisfy this ideological agenda.

H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, is narrowly tailored and designed to restore the law on pay discrimination as it was before the Supreme Court's decision, the law as it was for some 35 years, the law as it was reaffirmed in circuit court after circuit court, as it was affirmed by the Congress of the United States.

This bill restores the law so that the 180-day statute of limitations clock runs when a discriminatory pay decision or practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to the pay decision or practice, or when a person is affected by the pay decision or practice, including whenever she receives a discriminatory paycheck. In other words, every discriminatory paycheck is a violation of the act. That is as the law was for these many, many years. That is what we seek to do.

The bill makes it clear that a victim of pay discrimination is entitled to a full 2 years of back pay. That is as the law currently is. You are entitled to recover up to 2 years' back pay under title

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 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 recognize the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), a member of the committee.

(Ms. HIRONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

If I can inquire of the Chair as to the allocation of time?

As I understand, I have the right to close.

We're reserving 3 minutes; is that right?

So we're reserving 3 minutes each. You've got a half minute. You and I will close, and we will each have 3 minutes for tomorrow.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let us understand something here. They can say it until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is, this legislation restores the law to what it was before. Up until the Supreme Court made its ruling, each discriminatory check that was issued was a violation of the law, and you had 180 days from the issuance of that check when you discovered it to file a claim. This legislation would restore that law as it was.

If you file that claim, if you were successful in proving your claim, you could receive up to 2 years back pay. That was the law up until the Supreme Court decision. That would be the law if we passed this legislation.

Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that if we pass this law, the courts will be inundated with lawsuits. The people will wait 5, 10, 15, 20 to file a lawsuit, that there will be cases where the witnesses die and memories fade and long times will expire and we won't be able to have justice. It will be a huge cost on the business community. It will change our competitive stature in the world. It will limit economic growth. All of that from little Lilly Ledbetter.

What's the problem with that? If all of that was true, why haven't my colleagues come to the floor of the House in the 12 years they controlled the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and asked to change the law? Why hasn't the President of the United States, who's been in office for 6\1/2\ years, asked to change the law?

Why hasn't that happened? Because none of the things you talked about happened under the previous law. It didn't change our competitiveness. They weren't involved in thousands of cases. People didn't wait 40 or 50 years to get 2 years back pay. No, none of those things happened.

But they want to scare people into believing if we go back to the law as it was before the Lilly Ledbetter case and the Supreme Court overturned all of these years of laws and justice and fairness and anti-discrimination provisions, that somehow all of these terrible things would happen, but they didn't happen, and that's been the law all of these years.

So, tomorrow we will get an opportunity to vote to restore the protections of every American citizen against pay discrimination, to restore justice to the workplace, to restore the right of an individual to be paid the same as those who are doing the same job for the same reasons and the same purposes. That's what we seek. That's all Lilly Ledbetter sought, but she couldn't get justice at the Supreme Court. No, she couldn't get it even though a jury found that that could be the situation.

So we're going to have to restore this for the people of this country, and again, we'll simply be restoring the law. You can tell the doomsday scenarios all day long. You can predict all of the things that are going to happen, but none of them have happened in the last 35 years. None of them have happened in the last 35 years.

So at least you ought to properly represent what the law was and what the law will be, and with that, I look forward to the conclusion of the debate tomorrow

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my unexpired time, and I reserve the 3 minutes for tomorrow.