Providing for consideration of the 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.

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I'd like to thank my friend the distinguished gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) for the time.

I wish to welcome my distinguished colleague to the Rules Committee. She is a very important addition to the Rules Committee, and all of us have had the privilege of welcoming her in the last days. She stated in her statement that she is a new Member. She's also a new member of our committee, and obviously we are very pleased that she is.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule that, once again, clearly contradicts the majority's pledge to the American people to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Today, the majority proceeds to consider this legislation here on the floor of the House under a closed rule. That means, Mr. Speaker, that if this rule is passed and this legislation is brought to the floor under it, every Member of this House will be forbidden from offering any amendments to it. And what makes this act even more unfortunate is that this bill did not make its way through the committee process during this Congress, thereby abandoning the critical committee vetting and amendment process. In effect, what the majority is doing is sidelining the legislative process.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, may say that they would refute that claim because this legislation was considered in the previous Congress and should be passed quickly. But I bring to my colleagues' attention that we have dozens of new Members who were not here in the last Congress and are now not given the opportunity to participate in the usual and proper legislative process. So, something that truly concerns me is that this closed rule may, in effect, foreshadow how the majority will continue to run this House.

Considering the fact that we are only in the fourth week of the 111th Congress, and that when we take into account this rule, we count this rule, the majority has already considered four pieces of legislation under closed rules, I am quite concerned that the future will bring closed rule after closed rule to this floor.

So, Mr. Speaker, the question is obvious. Will the majority continue its current path of blocking a bipartisan legislative process? Will they break their record of offering 64 bills, as they did under closed rules in the 110th Congress? Or will they change their behavior and open up this legislative process?

The majority promised that it would when it achieved the majority 2 years ago, but it has not done so. In fact, as I stated, in the last Congress, 64 bills--breaking all records of all prior Congresses--64 bills were brought to this floor under closed rules that do not permit any Members in this House to have their ideas considered in the form of amendments. So the facts do not lead to optimism.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would remind my distinguished friend that we did make known our protest with regard to the fact that this legislation was in the list of bills that the majority on the first day of this Congress made clear would be brought to the floor without the possibility of amendments.

But it's interesting. When the Senate considered this legislation, the Senate did authorize and have debate on amendments. And so the question really, I think, is begged. What is the harm in allowing Members of this House to bring forth their ideas and letting this House work its way via the majority, the majority decide, and that way vet the ideas, discuss, debate, and decide which ideas brought forth by colleagues are appropriate and should be adopted. There's no harm in that, Mr. Speaker. There's no harm.

But, unfortunately, the pattern is continuing. The record was broken in the last Congress with regard to the number of closed rules, with regard to the number of pieces of legislation that were brought to this floor under a structure that did not allow any amendments to be proposed and debated by Members of either party. And that trend continues.

So we saw it not only on the first day of this Congress, but we see it today. Already, four bills, in the few days that this Congress has met, the 111th Congress has met already, we have seen four bills brought forth under these structures known as closed rules that do not allow Members of either party

from proposing ideas to improve any of the pieces of legislation that have been brought to the floor. I think that's the most unfortunate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that every piece of legislation brought to this floor is preceded by a debate on the terms of debate. In other words, the rule that we are now considering as a resolution sets the framework for how the underlying piece of legislation can be debated; and, if you will, it does set the process, the parameters for the process of the debate. It establishes the resolution, the rule that is debated and voted on before the underlying legislation can be considered, sets forth, determines if amendments are authorized; and, if so, what amendments are authorized. And so it is process that is debated by the rule, resolution commonly known as the rule, that is brought to the floor before legislation is considered. And that is what we are on right now. That is what we are discussing right now, the resolution, the rule to set the terms of debate.

What I am pointing out and will reiterate now is that it is most unfortunate and unnecessary, totally unnecessary, for the majority to bring forth legislation that will have the support of the majority on the floor when it is considered, the underlying legislation, to bring it forth with a rule that prohibits debate, that shuts out debate, that does not allow any amendments from any Member, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, on the underlying piece of legislation. That is what I am trying to point out, and I thought it was pretty clear.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that there is no need to close off debate; that this legislation could very easily have been debated openly; that Members on both sides of the aisle could have been given the opportunity to bring forth amendments as they were able to in the Senate, and that this legislation would move forward. It is not only unfortunate but unnecessary for the majority to close off debate. And, as I stated previously, there is a pattern.

In the last Congress, despite having promised the most open and the most transparent, the most fair Congress in history, the reality was exactly the opposite: More pieces of legislation were brought to this floor under closed rules that did not allow any amendments during the last Congress, the first Congress where our friends on the other side of the aisle had the majority in many years. More pieces of legislation were brought to the floor with closed rules prohibiting all amendments than in history, in all of history before in the history of Republic. So that is unfortunate.

But we are seeing the pattern continue. It has continued in these weeks in the beginning of the 111th Congress, and already this is the fourth bill, the fourth piece of legislation brought to the floor under a structure that does not permit any amendments under closed rules. That is what we are saying, it is uncalled for, it is unfortunate. And we hope, I guess because hope springs eternal, that our friends on the other side of the aisle will open the process up and will allow Members from both sides of the aisle to introduce amendments and have them debated and have the majority work its will.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us was the first substantive piece of legislation considered by the 111th Congress. In a matter of days, it could be one of the first substantive measures signed into law by the 44th President of the United States. And despite all the promises of openness and bipartisanship, at the end of the day it will have been considered not once, not twice,

but three separate times in the House without the opportunity to debate a single Republican amendment. It didn't have to be this way.

This legislation is supposed to be about protecting workers--and especially women--from discrimination in the workplace. Like my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am strongly opposed to discrimination of any type, be it gender discrimination, racial discrimination, or any other type of discrimination inside or outside the workplace. Rooting out such discrimination is a bipartisan goal, and I cannot think of a single reason why it is not being given a bipartisan debate.

The arguments on both sides of this bill are clear, and they have been debated on this floor before. For my part, I believe that enriching trial lawyers is simply the wrong way to ensure a fairer, more just workplace; and clearly that's what this bill will do. By eliminating the statute of limitations, the bill invites more and costlier lawsuits. We're talking about economic stimulus this week, so it's only fitting that we begin with an economic stimulus package for trial lawyers.

But for me, Mr. Speaker, the controversy we face today is not just the underlying legislation, although it certainly is controversial. No, the controversy today is the stunning lack of openness being shown by a majority that seems intent on wielding the heavy hand of power.

Less than 24 hours ago, the Rules Committee held an emergency meeting in order to bring this bill to the floor today. As I understand it, the job of the Rules Committee is to consider potential amendments and decide which of those will receive a vote by the full House. After 2 years of watching Republican amendments routinely discarded without a vote, I wasn't surprised that the majority brought this bill to the floor under a closed rule. What surprised me was that they didn't even bother to keep up the illusion that they might make one of our proposals in order. In fact, the Rules Committee did not even set a deadline for amendments on this bill, so certain were they that not a single proposal would be worthy of consideration.

For the record, I offered two amendments that were refused by the majority, two amendments that I believe were consistent with the majority's stated goals of preventing wage discrimination and overturning the Ledbetter decision. At the same time, I believe those amendments would have helped to avert at least some of the unintended consequences this legislation is sure to spawn. I did not ask the majority to guarantee that my amendments would pass; I simply asked for a debate among the Members of good will who can argue the merits and vote as they see fit. I was denied.

Mr. Speaker, workplace discrimination is a serious issue and it deserves a serious debate. What a disappointment this is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield at this time to the gentleman from Minnesota, the ranking member of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction, such time as he may consume, Mr. Kline.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield at this time to the gentleman from California, a new member of the committee, Mr. McClintock, such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I continue to reserve my time.

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

Our Nation is facing serious challenges. The economic picture remains bleak, with seemingly more jobs lost every day. American families are struggling to pay bills and send their families to college. I don't object to the fact that we are considering this bill again, despite widespread concern about its consequences. What bothers me about it is that we are not truly debating it. Had this bill truly been ``a narrow fix,'' as the supporters would have the American people believe, this rush to approval may not have been such a problem.

However, this is a major, fundamental change to civil rights law affecting no less than four separate statutes. The last change to civil rights law of this magnitude, the 1991 civil rights law, took 2 years of negotiation, debate and partisan accord to accomplish.

Instead, what we have before us is a partisan product that is fundamentally flawed. It guts the statute of limitations contained in current law and, in doing so, would allow an employee to bring a claim against an employer decades after the alleged initial act of discrimination occurred. Trial lawyers, you can be sure, are salivating at this very prospect.

You know, I think about a person that maybe did one of these acts 30 years ago, has since sold the company, the company has since sold again, the original employer that made the discrimination case in the first place has since passed away and now a trial lawyer can bring all of these people to court. The person who passed away maybe would still have that liability. It boggles my mind to think of the unintended consequences that will come from this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill, and it's the result of an equally bad process. It breaks the vows of bipartisanship that the majority has made time and time again. In the last election and in the previous election they talked about bipartisanship. They talked about regular order, they talked about transparency, about working together. You know, we could work out our honest differences but do it in the light of the day before the American people and, once again, we are denied that opportunity. I think the American people deserve better.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.

I am.

Mr. Speaker, I move to commit this bill to the committee so that this bill, which is so sweeping in its scope, be given an opportunity to be debated in a comprehensive fashion. To this day, this committee has never had a hearing on this bill.

There has not been a full and fair debate, regular order has not been followed, and it needs to be. As I noted in my remarks, we have not entertained, in the three times that this bill has been brought to the floor, a single Republican amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 87 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 87.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 87 provides for consideration of S. 181, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. This measure is identical to the version of the bill that was passed by this House on January 9 of this year by a significant vote of 247-171. The bill is also virtually identical to the version adopted in the 110th Congress.

It is well past time to get this legislation to the President for his signature. Today, we plan to do just that. After this bill is passed by the House later today, it will go directly to the White House and on President Obama's desk.

First, I want to commend Chairman Miller for his leadership and his tireless efforts that have brought us so far. As my colleague, Chairwoman DeLauro, said during her eloquent remarks when this body first took up the bill 2 weeks ago, ``We are here today because Lilly Ledbetter got short-changed--short-changed by her employer, the perpetrator of consistent pay discrimination lasting years, and short- changed again by the Supreme Court.'' And so now we are here today to fight for the final passage of this essential legislation.

As a mother of two daughters, a woman who has owned her own business myself much of my adult life, and as a newly elected Member of this body, I was proud to cast one of my first votes in favor of the Lilly Ledbetter Act, and I am proud that both Chambers have already made a strong commitment to protect workers against pay discrimination in the workplace.

This important legislation is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the underlying bill, S. 181, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee for his kind welcome to a new Member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new Member, and my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the Education and Labor Committee that did such great work on this bill, Mr. Andrews.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to lead this bill today as a newly elected Member and a new member of the Rules Committee, and I appreciate working alongside my new colleague on the Rules Committee. And I'm sure we will have a busy afternoon together.

We have heard several arguments and supportive thoughts from many of my distinguished colleagues from this side of the aisle. And I appreciate their thoughts and their very hard work that it has taken to bring this bill to the floor and the momentous occasion we will have today when we are able to take this vote. I have also heard several arguments from my esteemed colleague from Florida. And I just want to remind him that when this bill was debated during the last session of Congress in the Education and Labor Committee where there were ample opportunities to bring amendments, those people in opposition only brought two amendments. So this is not a bill where there is tremendous disagreement. And in fact, the fact that there were no speakers virtually in opposition to this bill shows us what an important piece of legislation we are dealing with today, and in fact only were the discussion around the process taken up today. And I feel that since we have already debated this bill in the House and the Senate when it was last here, we passed it by an overwhelming margin of 247-171. It was passed by a bipartisan vote in the Senate of 61-36.

I am confident that this bill will receive very strong support today and want to say that I'm proud to be a Member of this body when this is happening. I do want to remind my colleagues that this legislation simply restores prior law. It is so important. And by passing it, we are making great strides in protecting workers by reversing the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision as we have been eloquently described to today. We owe it to all American workers to strengthen, not weaken, nondiscrimination charges based on gender, race and religion.

It has passed the House, and it has passed the Senate previously. Today we are here to send it on to President Obama for what will be his first signature of any bill.

I urge my colleagues to support workers everywhere and vote ``yes'' on the underlying bill. 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. Speaker, I would also like to thank Congressman George Miller for his leadership in bringing this legislation forth and for working together to see that gender equity is not just something we talk about, but something that is achieved.

Sadly, women in the United States still earn only 78 cents on the dollar compared to men more than 45 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963.

Lilly Ledbetter helped shine new light on this issue when the Supreme Court denied her the $223,776 in additional wages she would have earned had she been a man in its 2007 decision, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. The Supreme Court was restricted by laws that saw women as less than equal. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would correct this decision and ensure that future victims of pay discrimination can bring a lawsuit after any act of discriminatory pay.

Women have made enormous advances toward economic equality, but gaps in income between men and women persist and only multiply over time, as the following numbers from Jessica Arons' Center for American Progress Action Fund report, ``Lifetime Losses: The Career Wage Gap'' show. Passing this bill along with H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act, would be an important first step in addressing this problem.

Although we encourage our daughters to stay in school and obtain their degrees, women with higher education are losing more income due to the career wage gap. In fact, $434,000 is the median amount that a full-time female worker loses in wages over a 40-year period as a direct result of the gender pay gap, also known as the ``career wage gap.''

The wage gap widens as women get older and carries into retirement because women workers earn less than men at every stage of life, and this continues into retirement. Just some of the statistics that demonstrate that inequity exists are:

78 cents: The amount that the average, full-time working woman makes for every $1 a man makes over a year.

$713,000: The career wage gap for women with a bachelor's degree or higher.

$452,000: The career wage gap for women with some college education.

$392,000: The career wage gap for women with a high school education.

$270,000: The career wage gap for women with less than a high school education.

17 percent: The additional amount that single mothers would take home in income if they were paid fairly. This would lead to a 50 percent reduction in poverty for these women, from 25.3 percent to 12.6 percent.

13.4 percent: The additional amount that single women would receive in income if they were paid fairly. This would lead to an 84 percent reduction in poverty for these women, from 6.3 percent to 1 percent.

6 percent: The additional amount that married women would earn if they were paid fairly. This would lead to a 62 percent reduction in poverty for these women, from 2.1 percent to 0.8 percent.

$8,000: The gap between the average retirement income that men and women receive annually. Two-thirds of this disparity can be attributed to the pay gap and occupational segregation.

Higher wages for women would bring greater prosperity to families. A report from the AFL-CIO and the Institute for Women's Policy Research found that if women were paid fairly, family incomes would rise and poverty levels would fall.

This legislation is intended to combat the wage gap that still exists today between men and women in the workplace. It is an important step in addressing the persistent wage gap between women and men.

Early last year the House passed H.R. 2831, legislation reversing last year's Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., in which the court ruled, 5-4, that workers filing suit for pay discrimination

must do so within 180 days of the actual decision to discriminate against them.

Which is why we need to pass not only the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act but the Paycheck Protection Act as well to stop discriminatory pay practices by employers against our mothers, wives, daughters, and granddaughters that do the same job as their male counterparts.

As a Member of the Women's Caucus I have been fighting to close the wage gap for American women since before I arrived here as a Representative in 1995, and I believe that equal pay for equal work is a simple matter of justice. Wage disparities are not simply a result of women's education levels or life choices.

In fact, the pay gap between college educated men and women appears the first job after college--even when women are working full-time in the same fields with the same major as men--and continues to widen during the first 10 years in the workforce. Further, this persistent wage gap not only impacts the economic security of women and their families today, it also directly affects women's retirement security tomorrow.

I urge my colleagues, both men and women to support equality in rights and pay for all Americans by supporting H.R. 181, The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.