[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 123 (Monday, July 30, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8905-H8912]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2831, LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT 
                                OF 2007

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 579 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows

                              H. Res. 579

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House 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. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of 
     rule XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now 
     printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, 
     as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Education and Labor; and (2) one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2831 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Salazar). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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. McGOVERN. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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

[[Page H8906]]

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. DREIER. 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.

                              {time}  1815

  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

[[Page H8907]]

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. McGOVERN. 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.

                              {time}  1830

  The gentleman says this bill is an assault on entrepreneurship. Equal 
pay for equal work is an assault on entrepreneurship?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.

[[Page H8908]]

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. 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. McGOVERN. 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).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding and agree 
with his sentiments.
  Mr. Speaker, I am rising now in full support of the rule and of the 
underlying bill, H.R. 2831. As chairman of the Democratic Women's 
Working Group, I am proud of how quickly this Congress is responding to 
a clear misinterpretation of a law designed to protect individuals from 
gender discrimination.
  It has taken us many years to reach a point where Congress now no 
longer wastes time in correcting an inequity when discrimination 
against women occurs. This is a real achievement.
  The bill before us rightly recognizes that victims of pay 
discrimination should not be punished because they were not aware of 
the discrimination against them at the outset. The Civil Rights Act 
exists to protect individuals precisely when they find themselves in 
the situation Lilly Ledbetter found herself in. It was never meant to 
be interpreted in a way that provides a loophole for employers to 
discriminate, but just to make sure that their employees are kept in 
the dark for 6 months.
  The Supreme Court ruling, if left to its own, signals to employers 
that it's, that is why it is so important that we now carry out our 
responsibility here in the Congress to provide a check and a balance 
against the Court's ruling.
  I want to thank Lilly Ledbetter for her courageous zeal in carrying 
out her efforts to get this injustice corrected. I was impressed when I 
met her. She came to testify on Capitol Hill, testify before the 
committee. She knows that this law that we are about to pass will not 
necessarily rectify her situation. But she knows also, having 
experienced this inequity over so many years and carrying out her job 
so faithfully, she got nothing but excellent reports and discovered, as 
she went to retire, that she had been getting unequal pay all these 
years. So I commend my colleague from California, Chairman Miller. I 
think it is so important that we carry out her determination on behalf 
of her workplace and the women that she represents who are so often 
sitting in the same situation as she did, finding themselves at their 
retirement, the fact that they were given unequal pay over all the 
years. They just didn't know what their colleagues were receiving.
  So I support Chairman Miller and the committee as a whole for being 
such strong protectors of workers' rights, regardless of race, gender 
or disability. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for the rule and 
the bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
  Mr. DREIER. 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as I was preparing to come down here just 
a minute ago, I was met by one of my colleagues, the gentleman from 
Florida who said: Another closed rule? My gosh, I thought they said 
this was going to be an open Congress. I thought they said we are going 
to have closed rules only to get their political agenda, 6 in '06 done, 
and then we will quit that.
  Well, to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), another closed 
rule. However, this closed rule is just another manifestation of the 
new Democratic majority's philosophy. Just another one. And that is, if 
you can't support the bill in its current form, you shouldn't be given 
an amendment. That is the new philosophy at the Rules Committee. 
Democrats on the Rules Committee said at least twice last week that 
Members who are not willing to vote for the bill should not be allowed 
to offer amendments.
  I would like to quote one of my colleagues. This took place this last 
week, and it says, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), ``I will 
argue for a closed rule. It makes no sense to have the minority 
presenting anything they might improve, that they might have agreed 
upon, and at the end not vote for the bill.''
  Hello? What's the Rules Committee for? The Rules Committee is there 
to perfect bills, to make them better, to listen to input from Members 
of Congress. Yes, that does include the minority in my opinion, but 
that is only upon 9 years of service to the Rules Committee, where the 
Rules Committee, for the 9 years prior to this, we were very careful to 
make sure that minority members had a say, could come before the Rules 
Committee. This is yet another example of the circular logic used by 
the majority. And it is only when you support a bill should you have 
the opportunity to amend it.
  You know, this is tortured logic and it makes no sense, and it 
prevents good ideas from being considered by the House. But this is the 
way they are going to run the House, it seems like. New logic, move the 
goalposts. And make sure, if you are in the minority and if you don't 
completely agree with the Democrat majority, you have no need to come 
to the Rules Committee. We don't care, and you are not going to have a 
chance to even be heard or understood. It's a sad day.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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

[[Page H8909]]

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. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  I think it is interesting to hear all these protestations from my 
colleagues on the Republican side about this issue of civil rights and 
how they are so concerned about equal rights for women. They are so 
concerned about equal pay for equal work, that if it were up to them, 
they would do something about it, that they care just as much as 
Democrats.
  Yet it was the Republican President who nominated the Supreme Court, 
who stacked the Supreme Court of the United States with conservative, 
right-wing Republican ideological judges that handed down not only the 
Ledbetter decision, but has handed down decision after decision that 
has gone against working people and civil rights every step of the way. 
This is no mistake. This is just the agenda that the Republicans 
wanted.
  You voted for President Bush, so don't come on down here and say but 
we didn't mean to. And by the way, you also cut the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission when you were in charge of this place, so don't 
come over here and now say you protest women not getting paid equally.
  And for a fact, if there were a flood of lawsuits, there would be 
every reason for there to be a flood of lawsuits, Mr. Dreier


                Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair
  Mr. KENNEDY. The facts being what they are, the Department of Labor 
says, as a fact today, 76 cents on the dollar today is paid for the 
same hourly work for a woman as for a dollar that a man works. For 
every dollar a man earns, 76 cents is what a woman earns. That is a 
fact. If you don't believe that, go to the Census Bureau, go to the 
Department of Labor and ask for yourself.
  For my sake, I don't want to go home and tell my mother that she is 
only worth 76 cents for a dollar a man is worth. I don't want to go 
back to my sister and tell her she is only worth 76 cents what my 
brother and I are worth. I don't want to go to my daughters some day 
and say they are only worth 76 cents versus a dollar what a man is 
worth when they go to work for equal time served.
  If you are happy being opposed to this bill, H.R. 2831, and you are 
happy living with yourselves and living in the same home as your female 
family members, knowing that and living with yourselves, God bless you. 
I'm not happy with it. I couldn't live with myself


                Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 11\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 13\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, might I put this in the 
present context so that our colleagues can recognize why this bill is 
so crucial?
  Just about a week ago, many of us took to our communities to announce 
the first time in 10 years the increase in the minimum wage. In fact, 
it was July 24, 2007. The last time the minimum wage was increased for 
American workers, and by the way, we gave tax relief to our small 
businesses, was 1997 under the Democratic administration. It took a 
Democratic Congress to raise the minimum wage. For 10 years, we could 
not get our friends on the other side of the aisle to raise the minimum 
wage. It took a majority Democratic Congress to raise that wage.

                              {time}  1845

  Now, understand, suppose 23 years later you found out that the 
minimum wage was raised in 2007, but your employer had never told you. 
The question becomes, is it not fair for you to be able to have 
retroactively what is due you as a hardworking American?
  That is what happened to Lilly Ledbetter, who worked for Goodyear 
year after year after year after year after year, and tragically, the 
Supreme Court, unevenly divided, appointed by this administration, 
believed that Lilly Ledbetter had no rights.
  This legislation wants to put this system on the right track, and I 
thank the distinguished member of the Rules Committee; I thank Mr. 
Miller. I'm proud to be one of the cosponsors of this legislation. We 
are giving Lilly Ledbetter and all those who may be under her 
particular discrimination relief, and that is because she did not know 
of her rights to be able to pursue the discriminatory practices when 
they were happening. The Supreme Court threw her out of court.
  This is an appropriate fix. My colleagues fixed a problem with the 
Border Patrol agents. I happen to agree with them. Mandatory sentences 
are really a challenge, but we're trying to fix something for a 
hardworking American, a woman who was discriminated against.
  Under our labor practices, we have provisions for individuals to 
challenge unfair labor practices. We have an Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission that is for our own Americans to address unfair 
and discriminatory practices. We do not own up to the values of this 
Nation if we do not correct an injustice. It was an injustice for Lilly 
Ledbetter not to be allowed to pursue her discrimination charge.
  I ask my colleagues to make it right and help women get equal pay for 
equal work
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my very 
thoughtful colleague from Orlando (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I will begin by yielding to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I'd just like to sort of maybe refresh.
  There's a lot of demagoguery going on here today. I'd like to refresh 
my colleagues' memory in that the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. 
The Republicans became the majority party in this country in 1994. 
Where were you for 30 years? There's plenty of blame to be passed 
around, but please take responsibility for your own.
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and, Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this closed rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  When the Democrats went through their 6 for '06 agenda and gave us 
closed rule after closed rule, they told us it would be temporary; we 
would then have a fair process to amend bills and clarify them. It 
hasn't happened.
  Today is the 28th time the Democrats have given us a closed rule, 
literally twice as many as Republicans during the same time period. We 
had two amendments that we wanted to offer that would improve and 
clarify the bill. We had no chance to do so.
  Next, let me talk about the substance of the bill. This legislation 
has the practical effect of doing away with statutes of limitations in 
employment cases. On May 29, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that 
Ms. Ledbetter's claim was barred by the statute of limitations. This 
legislation attempts to specifically reverse that decision and, in 
fact, makes it retroactive to the day before the decision on May 28, 
2007.
  Make no mistake, there is a strong public policy reason for having a 
statute of limitations in the employment context. Witness memories 
fade, documents are lost and employees die. We want these disputes to 
be resolved when witness memories are fresh, documents are available 
and employees are alive.
  The Ledbetter case is a perfect example. Ms. Ledbetter alleged sexual 
harassment misconduct by a single Goodyear supervisor. Yet she waited 
19 years after the supervisor passed away from cancer to file suit. She 
said at the

[[Page H8910]]

hearing, ``I didn't say anything at first because I wanted to try to 
work it out and fit in without making waves.''
  Now, she seemed like a nice lady to me. I had the chance to meet her, 
but I wonder what her supervisor would have said had she brought this 
suit when it was fresh so we could hear both sides.
  The Supreme Court wondered the same thing. The Supreme Court wrote in 
its Ledbetter opinion: ``The passage of time may seriously diminish the 
ability of the parties and the fact-finder to reconstruct what actually 
happened. This case illustrates the problems created by tardy 
lawsuits.''
  We hear about equal pay for equal work. We're all for that, Mr. 
Speaker. The fact is those folks haven't read this opinion because she 
had an Equal Pay Act that was thrown out on the merits.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege and honor to speak on 
behalf of this bill.
  The New York Times and many of the other leading publications of this 
country has said this is something that this Congress needs to do to 
correct an inequity, a wrong. When there's a wrong in law, there's 
always a right; and when it's not one that the courts have righted, 
it's the duty of the legislative body to right it if it's something 
that's in the public good.
  Indeed, when there's discrimination in the workplace in pay and 
disparity, as there has been for years with women, for years we've 
known 69 cents is what a woman earns for every dollar, and when women 
are discriminated against doing the same job as a male, it's wrong and 
it needs to be changed.
  And so I think this legislation is appropriately brought before us to 
correct a wrong when the courts didn't, and I'm pleased to speak on 
behalf of it. I will be pleased to vote for it, and I am thankful that 
Mr. Miller and Mr. McGovern brought this and thank them for bringing it 
to the House of Representatives
  Mr. DREIER. 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. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in opposition to this rule.
  Last Thursday night, Members received notice of an emergency meeting 
of the Rules Committee on the following morning, with no deadline given 
for Members on either side of the aisle to submit amendments to this 
badly flawed legislation. Even though I was able to file two of them 
because they had already been drafted for an Education and Labor 
Committee markup last month, this extremely short notice and lack of 
amendment instructions effectively shut both Democrat and Republican 
colleagues out of the Rules Committee's increasingly undemocratic 
process.
  I say increasingly undemocratic because last Thursday night and 
Friday morning's turn of events was just one of several occasions this 
year in which I've found the Rules Committee acted in a wholly unfair 
manner.
  For example, in my first appearance before the committee this year, 
before the House considered the minimum wage legislation, I was told by 
the panel's Chair that the Democrat leadership had already decided the 
rule would be closed. Again, this was announced before I had even 
testified before the committee on my substitute for that bill.
  There was also an occasion several months later, prior to 
consideration of student aid legislation through the budget 
reconciliation process, when the Rules Committee announced the bill's 
amendment filing deadline would fall during the Independence Day 
district work period. In other words, this deadline fell when Members 
were absent and staff was scattered, making amendments extremely 
difficult to file.
  So last Thursday and Friday's ``emergency'' was hardly surprising, 
yet still very disappointing. It rendered nearly 400 Members of this 
House, meaning those who do not sit on the Education and Labor 
Committee, powerless to change or even consider a change to this bill. 
And by doing so, the Democrat leadership of the Rules Committee, and 
yes the Democrat leadership of the Education and Labor Committee and 
the House, has done a disservice to this institution and to the voters 
who sent us here.
  That's because the measure before us is not a minor tweak of labor 
law meant to reverse a single Supreme Court decision. Rather, it guts 
the statute of limitations and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
charging requirements contained in current law. And it effectively 
would allow an employee to bring a claim against an employer decades 
after an alleged initial act of discrimination occurred. Such a 
wholesale change should be made only after close, appropriate and 
deliberative examination.
  But H.R. 2831 has been exposed to none of that. Rather, it was poorly 
drafted, rushed through committee with practically no input from 
outside stakeholders or from committee Republicans and, now, sent to 
the floor under an airtight, closed rule.
  Because of this, Mr. Speaker, I have no choice but to continue my 
opposition to it, both for policy and process reasons. Shortly, I will 
be proud to manage time in opposition to it, but before then, I will 
vote against this undemocratic rule, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 8 
minutes. The gentleman from California has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I thank him for his outstanding work on this issue and 
many others. I rise in strong support of the rule for H.R. 2831.
  In the Ledbetter case, the Supreme Court has outdone itself. Against 
reason, against logic, against fairness, they ruled that women must 
file their claim a scant 180 days from the date on which their salary 
first became unequal. In a world where most workers do not know what 
their colleagues are earning, the 180-day rule is an insurmountable 
barrier with terrible consequences. Miss the deadline and you're stuck 
with discrimination for the rest of your career.
  What's more, since raises are often based on a percentage of pay, 
small differences magnify over time. Under the Supreme Court's twisted 
reasoning, employees cannot contest this growing disparity if they 
don't protest at the beginning.
  This bill restores reason, logic and fairness to the process. Every 
unequal paycheck ought to be recognized for what it is, a new act of 
discrimination.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the fair 
underlying bill. I congratulate the Democratic leadership for coming 
forward with it, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague how many 
speakers he has remaining on his side.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I have the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe 
Lofgren) and then myself.
  Mr. DREIER. I have just one more speaker, and actually with that, 
then I'll just plan to wrap up.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this 
enormously important amendment.

[[Page H8911]]

  Others have spoken eloquently about the need for women to have equal 
rights in their paychecks, but this is a right that extends far beyond 
female Americans. It extends to families, because in this day and age 
we all know that working families require the incomes not just of the 
husband but also of the wife, Dad and Mom together, and if Mom's salary 
is decreased unfairly and illegally, that hurts everybody in that 
family.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this measure, not just for the 
women of America but for the men and women and families of America.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to this 
debate and my colleagues. I am a big believer in equal pay for equal 
work, particularly when it comes to women, because that determines what 
I get in my packet at the end of the week.
  But I have to say, I don't like this bill. The reason is, I am 
sitting here thinking, if you can go back 20 years and say I was 
discriminated against 20 years ago, we are talking about my first job 
out of college, and how that may have been, or I am a former small 
business owner as well. There are folks that I probably don't even 
remember employing who could come back and start suing me for what I 
did in small business 20 years ago. I just don't think that's the right 
way to solve the problem.
  I am strongly for equal pay for equal work and have fought for it and 
have given it to employees. I just don't think this is the way to do 
it, by retroactively allowing people to sue.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. If the previous question is defeated, we 
will bring to the floor immediately a bill to update the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act. Director McConnell, the Director for 
National Intelligence, put it very simply in a letter last week. He 
said, ``Simply put, in a significant number of cases, we are in a 
position of having to obtain court orders to effectively collect 
foreign intelligence about foreign targets located overseas.''
  We are tying ourselves up in red tape here at home not using our 
intelligence capabilities to protect our country. This is an urgent 
issue. He has described an intelligence gap that is tying our hands.
  If the previous question is defeated, I will offer immediate 
legislation to close this intelligence gap.
  Mr. DREIER. 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.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I am aware of specific cases, I think all 
of us, particularly in the leadership in the House, Democrat and 
Republican, as well as members of the Intelligence Committee, Democrat 
and Republican, are aware of the continuing intelligence gap that is 
putting us at risk in ways that we don't even know about.
  But I am aware of specific cases where American lives have been put 
at risk.
  Mr. DREIER. 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. McGOVERN. 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

[[Page H8912]]

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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________