I rise today to oppose this seriously flawed legislation before us. Not only would it amount to a radical change to our civil rights laws, it has come to us without the benefit of the serious consideration and debate due such a significant policy shift. The enthusiastic supporters of the Ledbetter Act want us to believe that we are simply voting on a straightforward bill to reverse a Supreme Court decision involving discrimination in the workplace. Unfortunately, that isn't the whole story. While this bill would reverse a Supreme Court decision for the benefit of Lilly Ledbetter, it would also dismantle the longstanding statute of limitations established by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That statute of limitations was deemed to be critical in that Supreme Court decision. In so doing, this bill would set into motion unintended consequences that its supporters simply are not willing to acknowledge, including radically increasing the opportunity for frivolous and abusive litigation and exposing employers to open-ended lawsuits indefinitely.
John Kline: “I rise today to oppose this seriously flawed legislation before us. Not only would it amount to a radical change to our…”
Editor's note · Context
Opposing the Ledbetter Act during a House floor debate.
Share
More from John Kline
As Chairman Kline himself explained when the regulation was proposed, it threatens to impose a multibillion regulatory tax on schools across the country.
During the eight long years our team spent working to pass this bill, no topic was more hotly debated than that of annual testing. . . In the end, we arrived at a fair and sensible compromise in the law: Keep the requirement that the same…
I cannot State emphatically enough that far-reaching reform, fiscal responsibility, and bipartisanship must be the principles that guide us as we work to solve this problem.
[The Every Student Succeeds Act] is clear: Education decision-making now rests with states and districts, and the federal role is to support and inform those decisions.





