Congressional Record, Volume 155 Issue 4 (Friday, January 9, 2009)

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 4 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H124-H138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section
5(b) of House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 12) to amend the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to
victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex,
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 12

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Paycheck Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Women have entered the workforce in record numbers over
the past 50 years.
(2) Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay Act in 1963,
many women continue to earn significantly lower pay than men
for equal work. These pay disparities exist in both the
private and governmental sectors. In many instances, the pay
disparities can only be

[[Page H125]]

due to continued intentional discrimination or the lingering
effects of past discrimination.
(3) The existence of such pay disparities--
(A) depresses the wages of working families who rely on the
wages of all members of the family to make ends meet;
(B) undermines women's retirement security, which is often
based on earnings while in the workforce;
(C) prevents the optimum utilization of available labor
resources;
(D) has been spread and perpetuated, through commerce and
the channels and instrumentalities of commerce, among the
workers of the several States;
(E) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in
commerce;
(F) constitutes an unfair method of competition in
commerce;
(G) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
(H) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods
in commerce; and
(I) in many instances, may deprive workers of equal
protection on the basis of sex in violation of the 5th and
14th amendments.
(4)(A) Artificial barriers to the elimination of
discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex
continue to exist decades after the enactment of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq.).
(B) These barriers have resulted, in significant part,
because the Equal Pay Act has not worked as Congress
originally intended. Improvements and modifications to the
law are necessary to ensure that the Act provides effective
protection to those subject to pay discrimination on the
basis of their sex.
(C) Elimination of such barriers would have positive
effects, including--
(i) providing a solution to problems in the economy created
by unfair pay disparities;
(ii) substantially reducing the number of working women
earning unfairly low wages, thereby reducing the dependence
on public assistance;
(iii) promoting stable families by enabling all family
members to earn a fair rate of pay;
(iv) remedying the effects of past discrimination on the
basis of sex and ensuring that in the future workers are
afforded equal protection on the basis of sex; and
(v) ensuring equal protection pursuant to Congress' power
to enforce the 5th and 14th amendments.
(5) The Department of Labor and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission have important and unique
responsibilities to help ensure that women receive equal pay
for equal work.
(6) The Department of Labor is responsible for--
(A) collecting and making publicly available information
about women's pay;
(B) ensuring that companies receiving Federal contracts
comply with anti-discrimination affirmative action
requirements of Executive Order 11246 (relating to equal
employment opportunity);
(C) disseminating information about women's rights in the
workplace;
(D) helping women who have been victims of pay
discrimination obtain a remedy; and
(E) being proactive in investigating and prosecuting equal
pay violations, especially systemic violations, and in
enforcing all of its mandates.
(7) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the
primary enforcement agency for claims made under the Equal
Pay Act, and issues regulations and guidance on appropriate
interpretations of the law.
(8) With a stronger commitment by the Department of Labor
and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to their
responsibilities, increased information as a result of the
amendments made by this Act to the Equal Pay Act of 1963,
wage data, and more effective remedies, women will be better
able to recognize and enforce their rights.
(9) Certain employers have already made great strides in
eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their
achievements should be recognized.

SEC. 3. ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL PAY REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Bona-Fide Factor Defense and Modification of Same
Establishment Requirement.--Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``No employer having'' and inserting ``(A)
No employer having'';
(2) by striking ``any other factor other than sex'' and
inserting ``a bona fide factor other than sex, such as
education, training, or experience''; and
(3) by inserting at the end the following:
``(B) The bona fide factor defense described in
subparagraph (A)(iv) shall apply only if the employer
demonstrates that such factor (i) is not based upon or
derived from a sex-based differential in compensation; (ii)
is job-related with respect to the position in question; and
(iii) is consistent with business necessity. Such defense
shall not apply where the employee demonstrates that an
alternative employment practice exists that would serve the
same business purpose without producing such differential and
that the employer has refused to adopt such alternative
practice.
``(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), employees shall be
deemed to work in the same establishment if the employees
work for the same employer at workplaces located in the same
county or similar political subdivision of a State. The
preceding sentence shall not be construed as limiting broader
applications of the term `establishment' consistent with
rules prescribed or guidance issued by the Equal Opportunity
Employment Commission.''.
(b) Nonretaliation Provision.--Section 15 of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``employee has
filed'' and all that follows and inserting ``employee--
``(A) has made a charge or filed any complaint or
instituted or caused to be instituted any investigation,
proceeding, hearing, or action under or related to this Act,
including an investigation conducted by the employer, or has
testified or is planning to testify or has assisted or
participated in any manner in any such investigation,
proceeding, hearing or action, or has served or is planning
to serve on an industry Committee; or
``(B) has inquired about, discussed or disclosed the wages
of the employee or another employee.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply to instances in
which an employee who has access to the wage information of
other employees as a part of such employee's essential job
functions discloses the wages of such other employees to
individuals who do not otherwise have access to such
information, unless such disclosure is in response to a
complaint or charge or in furtherance of an investigation,
proceeding, hearing, or action under section 6(d), including
an investigation conducted by the employer. Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to limit the rights of an
employee provided under any other provision of law.''.
(c) Enhanced Penalties.--Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``Any employer who violates section 6(d) shall additionally
be liable for such compensatory damages, or, where the
employee demonstrates that the employer acted with malice or
reckless indifference, punitive damages as may be
appropriate, except that the United States shall not be
liable for punitive damages.'';
(2) in the sentence beginning ``An action to'', by striking
``either of the preceding sentences'' and inserting ``any of
the preceding sentences of this subsection'';
(3) in the sentence beginning ``No employees shall'', by
striking ``No employees'' and inserting ``Except with respect
to class actions brought to enforce section 6(d), no
employee'';
(4) by inserting after the sentence referred to in
paragraph (3), the following: ``Notwithstanding any other
provision of Federal law, any action brought to enforce
section 6(d) may be maintained as a class action as provided
by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.''; and
(5) in the sentence beginning ``The court in''--
(A) by striking ``in such action'' and inserting ``in any
action brought to recover the liability prescribed in any of
the preceding sentences of this subsection''; and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: ``,
including expert fees''.
(d) Action by Secretary.--Section 16(c) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 216(c)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``or, in the case of a violation of
section 6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as
described in subsection (b),'' before ``and the agreement'';
and
(B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or
such compensatory or punitive damages, as appropriate'';
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period
the following: ``and, in the case of a violation of section
6(d), additional compensatory or punitive damages, as
described in subsection (b)'';
(3) in the third sentence, by striking ``the first
sentence'' and inserting ``the first or second sentence'';
and
(4) in the last sentence--
(A) by striking ``commenced in the case'' and inserting
``commenced--
``(1) in the case'';
(B) by striking the period and inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) in the case of a class action brought to enforce
section 6(d), on the date on which the individual becomes a
party plaintiff to the class action.''.

SEC. 4. TRAINING.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office
of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, subject to the
availability of funds appropriated under section 10, shall
provide training to Commission employees and affected
individuals and entities on matters involving discrimination
in the payment of wages.

SEC. 5. NEGOTIATION SKILLS TRAINING FOR GIRLS AND WOMEN.

(a) Program Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor, after consultation
with the Secretary of Education, is authorized to establish
and carry out a grant program.
(2) Grants.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary of
Labor may make grants on a competitive basis to eligible
entities, to carry out negotiation skills training programs
for girls and women.
(3) Eligible entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this subsection, an entity shall be a public agency,
such as a State,

[[Page H126]]

a local government in a metropolitan statistical area (as
defined by the Office of Management and Budget), a State
educational agency, or a local educational agency, a private
nonprofit organization, or a community-based organization.
(4) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this subsection, an entity shall submit an application to the
Secretary of Labor at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary of Labor may
require.
(5) Use of funds.--An entity that receives a grant under
this subsection shall use the funds made available through
the grant to carry out an effective negotiation skills
training program that empowers girls and women. The training
provided through the program shall help girls and women
strengthen their negotiation skills to allow the girls and
women to obtain higher salaries and rates of compensation
that are equal to those paid to similarly-situated male
employees.
(b) Incorporating Training Into Existing Programs.--The
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall issue
regulations or policy guidance that provides for integrating
the negotiation skills training, to the extent practicable,
into programs authorized under--
(1) in the case of the Secretary of Education, the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6301 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical
Education Act of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), and other
programs carried out by the Department of Education that the
Secretary of Education determines to be appropriate; and
(2) in the case of the Secretary of Labor, the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), and other
programs carried out by the Department of Labor that the
Secretary of Labor determines to be appropriate.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary
of Labor and the Secretary of Education shall prepare and
submit to Congress a report describing the activities
conducted under this section and evaluating the effectiveness
of such activities in achieving the purposes of this Act.

SEC. 6. RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH.

The Secretary of Labor shall conduct studies and provide
information to employers, labor organizations, and the
general public concerning the means available to eliminate
pay disparities between men and women, including--
(1) conducting and promoting research to develop the means
to correct expeditiously the conditions leading to the pay
disparities;
(2) publishing and otherwise making available to employers,
labor organizations, professional associations, educational
institutions, the media, and the general public the findings
resulting from studies and other materials, relating to
eliminating the pay disparities;
(3) sponsoring and assisting State and community
informational and educational programs;
(4) providing information to employers, labor
organizations, professional associations, and other
interested persons on the means of eliminating the pay
disparities;
(5) recognizing and promoting the achievements of
employers, labor organizations, and professional associations
that have worked to eliminate the pay disparities; and
(6) convening a national summit to discuss, and consider
approaches for rectifying, the pay disparities.

SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL AWARD FOR PAY EQUITY IN
THE WORKPLACE.

(a) In General.--There is established the Secretary of
Labor's National Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace, which
shall be awarded, as appropriate, to encourage proactive
efforts to comply with section 6(d) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)).
(b) Criteria for Qualification.--The Secretary of Labor
shall set criteria for receipt of the award, including a
requirement that an employer has made substantial effort to
eliminate pay disparities between men and women, and deserves
special recognition as a consequence of such effort. The
Secretary shall establish procedures for the application and
presentation of the award.
(c) Business.--In this section, the term ``employer''
includes--
(1)(A) a corporation, including a nonprofit corporation;
(B) a partnership;
(C) a professional association;
(D) a labor organization; and
(E) a business entity similar to an entity described in any
of subparagraphs (A) through (D);
(2) an entity carrying out an education referral program, a
training program, such as an apprenticeship or management
training program, or a similar program; and
(3) an entity carrying out a joint program, formed by a
combination of any entities described in paragraph (1) or
(2).

SEC. 8. COLLECTION OF PAY INFORMATION BY THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION.

Section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000e-8) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f)(1) Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall--
``(A) complete a survey of the data that is currently
available to the Federal Government relating to employee pay
information for use in the enforcement of Federal laws
prohibiting pay discrimination and, in consultation with
other relevant Federal agencies, identify additional data
collections that will enhance the enforcement of such laws;
and
``(B) based on the results of the survey and consultations
under subparagraph (A), issue regulations to provide for the
collection of pay information data from employers as
described by the sex, race, and national origin of employees.
``(2) In implementing paragraph (1), the Commission shall
have as its primary consideration the most effective and
efficient means for enhancing the enforcement of Federal laws
prohibiting pay discrimination. For this purpose, the
Commission shall consider factors including the imposition of
burdens on employers, the frequency of required reports
(including which employers should be required to prepare
reports), appropriate protections for maintaining data
confidentiality, and the most effective format for the data
collection reports.''.

SEC. 9. REINSTATEMENT OF PAY EQUITY PROGRAMS AND PAY EQUITY
DATA COLLECTION.

(a) Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Collection.--The
Commissioner of Labor Statistics shall continue to collect
data on women workers in the Current Employment Statistics
survey.
(b) Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
Initiatives.--The Director of the Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs shall ensure that employees of the
Office--
(1)(A) shall use the full range of investigatory tools at
the Office's disposal, including pay grade methodology;
(B) in considering evidence of possible compensation
discrimination--
(i) shall not limit its consideration to a small number of
types of evidence; and
(ii) shall not limit its evaluation of the evidence to a
small number of methods of evaluating the evidence; and
(C) shall not require a multiple regression analysis or
anecdotal evidence for a compensation discrimination case;
(2) for purposes of its investigative, compliance, and
enforcement activities, shall define ``similarly situated
employees'' in a way that is consistent with and not more
stringent than the definition provided in item 1 of
subsection A of section 10-III of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Compliance Manual (2000), and shall
consider only factors that the Office's investigation reveals
were used in making compensation decisions; and
(3) shall reinstate the Equal Opportunity Survey, as
required by section 60-2.18 of title 41, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on September 7, 2006), designating
not less than half of all nonconstruction contractor
establishments each year to prepare and file such survey, and
shall review and utilize the responses to such survey to
identify contractor establishments for further evaluation and
for other enforcement purposes as appropriate.
(c) Department of Labor Distribution of Wage Discrimination
Information.--The Secretary of Labor shall make readily
available (in print, on the Department of Labor website, and
through any other forum that the Department may use to
distribute compensation discrimination information), accurate
information on compensation discrimination, including
statistics, explanations of employee rights, historical
analyses of such discrimination, instructions for employers
on compliance, and any other information that will assist the
public in understanding and addressing such discrimination.

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $15,000,000 to carry out this Act.
(b) Prohibition on Earmarks.--None of the funds
appropriated pursuant to subsection (a) for purposes of the
grant program in section 5 of this Act may be used for a
Congressional earmark as defined in clause 9(d) of rule XXI
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 11. SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE.

(a) Effective Date.--This Act and the amendments made by
this Act shall take effect on the date that is 6 months after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Technical Assistance Materials.--The Secretary of Labor
and the Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission shall jointly develop technical assistance
material to assist small businesses in complying with the
requirements of this Act and the amendments made by this Act.
(c) Small Businesses.--A small business shall be exempt
from the provisions of this Act to the same extent that such
business is exempt from the requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act pursuant to section 3(s)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of
such Act.

SEC. 12. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act, or in any amendments made by this Act,
shall affect the obligation of employers and employees to
fully comply with all applicable immigration laws, including
any penalties, fines, or other sanctions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 5(b) of House Resolution
5, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 30 minutes.

[[Page H127]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3
minutes.
Madam Speaker, Members of the House, in 1963, the Equal Pay Act was
passed to end the discriminatory practices of paying men and women
differently for performing the same job. The law's principle is that
women and men should be paid based upon their merits and not on an
employer's prejudice.
Before the Equal Pay Act, women in the workplace earned 59 cents on
the dollar compared to their male counterparts. Things have gotten
better since the passage of the act, but we still see that women earn
only 78 cents for every dollar that is earned by a man doing the same
job with the same responsibilities.
It is also very disturbing that African American women earn only 66
cents on the dollar, and Hispanic women earn an astonishing 55 cents on
the dollar compared to their male counterparts in the workplace. This
wage disparity will cost women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million
over a lifetime in lost wages, and it will follow them right into
retirement in the form of smaller pensions and reduced Social Security
benefits. It will make their health care even more expensive.
Today, this House will take a critical step forward to ensure that
the Equal Pay Act lives up to its promise. Over 12 years ago, our
colleague, Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut, introduced the Paycheck
Fairness Act. In those 12 years, she was unable to get a hearing in
this Congress. But she has now received a hearing, and later today she
will receive passage of this legislation that will greatly strengthen
the Equal Pay Act and close many of the loopholes that have allowed
employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay.
Currently, an employer can refute a pay discrimination claim if he or
she provides the difference of pay is based upon any factor other than
gender, even factors unrelated to the job. That is just unacceptable.
An excuse for equal pay that is not related to the job is no excuse at
all. H.R. 12 will ensure that employers either provide equal pay for
equal work, or provide a real business justification for not doing so.
They will have to show that any gender-based wage differential is job-
related, not based on or derived from gender-based differential and is
consistent with business necessity.
H.R. 12 will also prohibit employers from retaliating against
employees who discuss their pay. Many employers have policies
forbidding employees from talking about their pay. This was the case of
Lilly Ledbetter, the subject of the previous legislation that we just
considered here this morning.

{time} 1145

For years, Lilly Ledbetter was paid less than her male counterparts
just because she was a woman, but she was unable to know that because
she could not discuss her pay with any of the other supervisors, the
people in the place of employment. That is wrong. They should be
allowed to do that.
Such policies silence workers and allow employers to hide
discriminatory pay practices. Employees should feel free to discuss
their pay. It is often the only way that they can discover
discriminatory pay practice and seek to rectify them.
The bill will also put gender-based discrimination sanctions on an
equal footing with other forms of discrimination by allowing women to
sue for punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages, just as
business and workers may do under section 1981 for race and national
origin discrimination.
If we are serious about closing the gender pay gap, we must get
serious about punishing those who would otherwise scoff at the weak
sanctions under the current law.
The Paycheck Fairness Act will require the Department of Labor to
continue collecting pay information based upon gender. It also creates
a program designed to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls
and women.
Any pay gap based on gender is unacceptable, especially during these
tough economic times. Single women who are head of households are twice
as likely to be in poverty as single men.
For families, especially those working under or near the poverty
line, equal pay for women will make a significant difference in their
economic well-being.
Allowing wage discrimination to continue will hold down women and
their families while further harming the American economy.
And, again, I'd like to thank Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for her
passionate advocacy of this legislation and her introduction of this
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Discrimination in the workplace is wrong. Paying women lower wages
for the same work is wrong. It's also illegal.
Congress enacted protections to ensure equal pay for equal work in
1963 when the Equal Pay Act was added to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Congress acted again to protect women and all Americans from workplace
discrimination with the enactment of title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Together, these laws offer women strong protections against workplace
discrimination and strong remedies should they be subject to illegal
employment practices.
Yet we're here today debating a bill that has been touted as
necessary to protect women from being underpaid. Supporters of the bill
would have you believe that unless this legislation is enacted,
employers are free to pay women less money for doing the same job as
their male counterparts. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This bill isn't needed to protect women from wage discrimination.
Such protections are already included in the law. No, this bill is
about something entirely different.
Rather than addressing the real concerns of working families, issues
like job training, health care, or a lack of workplace flexibility,
this bill invites more and costlier lawsuits.
The bill opens EPA claims to unlimited compensatory and punitive
damages for the first time ever. The majority offered an amendment last
year that attempts to mask this trial lawyer boondoggle. But make no
mistake about it, at the end of the day, this bill will invite more
lawyers to bring more lawsuits because it offers them the promise of a
bigger payday.
H.R. 12 will breed litigation in other ways as well, from encouraging
class action lawsuits to expanding liability.
I am also concerned that this bill has been put forward using
misleading claims to justify its dangerous consequences. One statistic
that is often repeated is that women earn just 77 cents on the dollar
compared to men. Madam Speaker, if a woman earned 77 cents on the
dollar doing the same job as a male counterpart, it would be a travesty
and it would be illegal.
What supporters of this bill won't tell you is that the 77 percent
figure does not compare one man and one woman, equally situated, doing
the same job. To argue that a woman only makes 77 cents on the dollar
doing the same work as her male counterpart is to distort reality. The
77 percent figure is based on 2005 census data, looking at median
earnings of all women and all men who work at least 35 hours per week.
Interestingly, if you look at 2006 data from the U.S. Department of
Labor comparing men and women who worked 40 hours per week, women
actually earned 88 cents on the dollar. That's better but not good
enough. The wage gap is much narrower, but the existence of a gap is
still troubling.
However, in the 110th Congress, the Education and Labor Committee
heard testimony that cited an article published in ``The American
Economic Review,'' which found that when data on demographics,
education, scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, and work
experience are added, the wage ratio rises to 91.4 percent. The
addition of variables measuring workplace and occupational
characteristics, as well as child-related factors, causes the wage
ratio to rise to 95.1 percent. When the percentage female in the
occupation is added, the wage ratio becomes 97.5 percent, a far less
significant difference.
In another study, researchers from the University of Chicago and
Cornell University found almost no difference in the pay of male and
female top corporate executives when accounting for size of firm,
position in the company, age, seniority, and experience.

[[Page H128]]

So before we use the 77 percent figure to justify new legal
``gotchas,'' I think we need a better understanding of the scope of any
actual pay disparity and why such a disparity exists.
Madam Speaker, I've said it before and I will say it again:
discrimination in the workplace is wrong. Equal pay for equal work was
the right principle when it began in 1963, and it is still right today.
The bill before us is not about ensuring equal pay for equal work,
and it doesn't offer working women any protections they don't already
enjoy. Just look at the plain text of the legislation. This bill is
about more and costlier lawsuits.
Madam Speaker, I'm strongly opposed to this bill, and I encourage my
colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Speaker, at one time I was a single mother raising three small
children. I worked full time, but I still struggled to put food on the
table and to care for my children because my paycheck did not cover all
of our needs. That's when women earned 59 cents on the dollar. That's
when I needed Aid for Dependent Children to make ends meet at our
house, even though I got a paycheck every month.
And that's when I decided that I should join the Sonoma County
Commission on the status of women where I eventually became the Chair,
and we worked to change that very statistic of what women earn compared
to men. But we now are only at 77 cents to the dollar.
That actually was more than 40 years ago, but today there are still
millions of mothers in this country that are struggling to provide for
their families while trying to balance full-time work. It is a fact,
and we have said it before today, that single mothers are twice as
likely than single fathers to raise their children in poverty.
Unfortunately, so long as women continue to receive 77 cents on the
dollar earned by a man, this statistic is unlikely to change anytime
soon, particularly when a woman college graduate earns the equivalent
of a male gardener.
You've got to take those statistics into your head. You've got to
know what it means, and in this current economic climate, things are so
bad. We can't in good conscience sit by, and let one American worker
earn less than she rightfully deserves.
This gap in pay cannot be explained away just as a result of women's
personal choices. In fact, a recent study from the American Association
of University Women found that just 1 year out of college, women
working full-time make just 80 percent of what their male counterparts
earn.
The Paycheck Fairness Act is one of the first steps to get us back to
an economic recovery. It must be passed.
Mr. McKEON. I'm happy to yield to at this time to the subcommittee
ranking member over this piece of legislation, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Kline), such time as he may consume.
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, once again I find myself rising in opposition to ill-
conceived legislation before Congress. Closely related to the Ledbetter
bill we debated earlier today, the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act is
yet another attempt to hamstring our Nation's businesses by limiting
their ability to make hiring decisions based on the merits of their
individual employees.
Despite the misleading title, this bill isn't about paycheck
fairness. As my colleagues on the Education and Labor Committee know
very well, multiple existing laws, including the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Civil Rights Act, already make it illegal to discriminate
on the basis of sex, and rightly so.
Rather than curbing discriminatory employment practices, as its
supporters claim, this bill vastly expands the likelihood of
discrimination lawsuits by making it easier and more lucrative for
trial lawyers to bring such cases. In fact, a more apt name for this
bill would be the Plaintiff Bar or Trial Lawyer Expansion Act, and I
can understand why some of my colleagues who may have law schools in
their districts or have the opportunity to perhaps build a new law
school might, in fact, be in favor of this legislation.
This bill would allow discrimination claims to be made on very thin
grounds and expose employers to unlimited claims made under the Equal
Pay Act, far beyond what is available under any other civil rights law.
The bill also exposes employers to unlimited punitive and compensatory
damage awards, without requiring proof of intentional discrimination.
It eliminates key employer defenses for pay disparities, and it
prohibits employers from disciplining or discharging employees for
publicly disclosing sensitive wage information.
Madam Speaker, we all can agree that wage discrimination is
unconscionable. It is prohibited under Federal laws that are already
strongly supported and aggressively enforced by the U.S. Department of
Labor.
Congress should not be in the business of making employment decisions
for individual businesses. In times of economic uncertainty, we should
instead focus on improving conditions for individual workers and
enabling our Nation's businesses, large and small, to continue to
create jobs and drive our Nation's economy.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) a member of the committee.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

{time} 1200

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, and
I would like to address several of the arguments that we have heard
against it, first, that this is some bonanza for trial lawyers.
What this is is an opportunity for women who have been discriminated
against to get a lawyer. If you work as a sales clerk or in a factory,
you can't afford to pay a lawyer the hourly fee that he or she needs to
represent you. The only way you are going to get represented is through
a contingent fee arrangement where a lawyer would recover, would get to
keep part of what you recover as part of the deal.
Now, the problem with the Equal Pay Act is its remedies are limited
so much to just twice what your salary is that the damages are never
high enough to justify legal representation. This is about getting
lawyers for people who have a valid claim who cannot afford the
thousands of dollars that it would be.
Second, there was a representation made that defenses are stripped
from employers. That's not accurate. What is accurate is that if an
employer alleges that some reason other than gender was the reason that
he paid the woman less than the man, it has to be a legitimate reason,
like level of education or experience. It has to be a legitimate
reason. The present law doesn't require that legitimacy.
Finally, the statement was made that an employer cannot discharge an
employee for talking about pay scales publicly, that's not accurate.
What the law does is to say that it protects employees that are
custodians and guardians of pay records. But it certainly doesn't
restrict in any way an employer's right to enforce a legitimate and
realistic company policy.
This is a good bill. It's an excellent proposal that will help lift
the economic status of women who work very hard, every day, in some
cases 7 days a week, and deserve it.
I would urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. McKEON. I reserve.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30
seconds here just to say that I am about to recognize, to speak on this
legislation, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut. I think all of
us in the House, whether we agree or disagree with this legislation,
recognize the incredible advocacy that she has brought to this issue of
equal pay for equal work, of paycheck fairness, of women's rights at
work, and the protection of low-income American families throughout her
entire career in the Congress.
As I had mentioned earlier in this debate, she introduced this
legislation some 12 years ago and has been unable to get a hearing on
the legislation. We provided that hearing, and I think it

[[Page H129]]

was compelling to almost all of the members of the committee that this
wage disparity and these actions could not continue and deny women
their full opportunity to participate in the American economy on equal
footing.
So it's with a lot of pride and a great sense of honor just to
recognize her to speak on behalf of this legislation which she has
introduced and she is the primary author of.
I recognize the gentlewoman from Connecticut for 6 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Paycheck Fairness
Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I want to commend and thank
Chairman Miller for his tireless commitment to this issue--I know that
we could never have come this far without his tenacious leadership, we
are grateful--and to Speaker Pelosi, whose vision and leadership have
made pay equity a priority in this Congress.
Earlier this week we convened the 111th Congress. We welcomed our new
colleagues to the floor, we celebrated this institution's proudest
achievements and honored its great potential. Together, we look to the
challenges before us with a great sense of responsibility.
Today, the economy weighs heavily on most Americans. Families across
this Nation are struggling with job insecurity, declining incomes,
foreclosures and a financial system in crisis. Women, who account for
nearly one half of the workforce, feel the effects of this faltering
economy with particular force and poignancy.
Incomes for women-headed households are down by 3 percent since 2000.
Unmarried women have an average household income almost $12,000 lower
than unmarried men, and half of all women are in jobs that do not offer
retirement plans. Retired women are more likely to be poor than elderly
men.
With our economy in crisis, so many women are on the edge
financially. They feel as if their economic freedom is under assault.
Almost 60 percent of women say they are concerned about achieving their
economic and financial goals over the next 5 years, 15 points higher
than for men.
But we know that it does not have to be this way. Today we face a
transformational moment with a new Congress, a new administration. We
have a chance to finally provide equal pay for equal work and make
opportunity real for millions of American women. The status quo will
not do.
The Department of Labor's own data shows that today women still earn
78 cents for every dollar that men earn, and the marketplace alone will
not correct this injustice. We need a solution in law, just as our
country has done in the past, to bring down discriminatory barriers.
As the National Committee on Pay Equity tells us, pay disparity's
long-term impact on women's lifetime earnings is substantial, can cost
a woman anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over her lifetime. That
lack of pay equity translates into less income toward a pension, in
some cases Social Security benefits. It is no coincidence that 70
percent of older adults living in poverty are women.
I am so proud that, together with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,
the Paycheck Fairness Act is among the first legislative proposals this
Congress has chosen to consider. It says something profound about our
priorities as an institution and our goals for the months ahead. It
says that we are a Nation that values the work that women do in our
society.
The Paycheck Fairness Act closes loopholes that have enabled
employers to evade liability, stiffens penalties for employers who
discriminate based on gender, protects employees from retaliation for
sharing salary information, with some exceptions. It establishes a
grant initiative to provide negotiation skills training programs for
girls and women.
It addresses a real problem with concrete solutions. Last year
working women filed over 800 charges of unlawful sex-based pay
discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
We all know Lilly Ledbetter's story. For so many years she was
shortchanged by her employer.
This week, a New York Times editorial said that by acting today, we
can, and I quote, ``signal a welcome new seriousness in Washington
about protecting civil rights after 8 years of erosion.''
This is our moment to fight for economic freedom and to eliminate the
systemic discrimination faced by women workers. Because what we know is
at stake, had the Paycheck Fairness Act been the law of the land when
Lilly Ledbetter decided to go to court, she would have had a far better
opportunity to receive just compensation for the discrimination that
she endured.
That is why President-elect Obama has said about the Paycheck
Fairness Act, and I quote, ``This isn't just an economic issue for
millions of Americans and their families. It's a question of who we are
as a country--of whether we're going to live up to our values as a
Nation.''
Pay equity is not just another benefit to be bargained for or
bargained away. It is about giving women the power to gain economic
security for themselves and for their families. This body took a major
step when it passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck
Fairness Act last summer. We return today to carry that momentum
forward, finish what we started.
I have always been proud to serve in this institution, and I revere
those lawmakers who, before us on previous days, took a stand for
health care, for the elderly or for the Civil Rights Act and for the
Family and Medical Leave Act and made such an impact on people's lives.
That is the whole reason why we are here. It is my hope that the
House acts today to pass both the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the
Paycheck Fairness Act to again make history for this country.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.
Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 12, the
Paycheck Fairness Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. I want to
commend my friend and colleague, Representative Rosa DeLauro, for
introducing this legislation so we can seriously address the long-
standing problem of gender-based wage discrimination in our Nation.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, women only make 77 cents for
every dollar earned by a man. This wage disparity will end up costing
women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost
wages. Making matters worse, the wage gap grows wider as women age and
move through their careers. This is not only a problem for women, it is
a problem for our Nation.
Gender-based wage disparity allows employers to discriminate against
women and avoid liability in the courts. Secondly, wage discrimination
leads to more women in poverty, increasing the burden of health care
costs of welfare programs on the taxpayer.
The Paycheck Fairness Act will strengthen pay equity laws by closing
the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility for
discriminatory pay and help to build economic and retirement security
for women.
It is in the best interest of all Americans to ensure that every
worker is treated fairly in the workplace. I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
Again, I thank Congresswoman DeLauro for her leadership on this
issue.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the committee who has worked
very diligently on this issue, Mr. Holt.
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act. Equal
pay for equal work must not be just a saying, it must be the law.
Last year I had the honor of joining the Chair of our committee and
others in unveiling the portrait of the former New Jersey
Representative Mary Norton, who was Chair of the Labor Committee seven
decades ago and a tireless advocate then for equal pay.
Under her leadership, Congress passed the 1938 Fair Labor Standards
Act that established the 40-hour work week, it outlawed child labor and
established a minimum wage of 25 cents an hour. The criticisms we hear
today

[[Page H130]]

were the same then. The Federal Government shouldn't be involved, the
critics said.
I think of Mary Norton today when I say that while we have made
significant progress since the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the fight for
equality in the workplace is far from over. According to the Census
Bureau, women still earn 78 percent of men.
Mary Norton understood that the wage gap was not just a women's
issue, it is a family issue. Nowadays, men understand that too. When
women earn less for equal work, families are forced to make do with
less.
I urge my colleagues to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlelady who really makes the trains run on time around here, the
Chair of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it very much.
Mr. Speaker, when I graduated from the University of Kentucky with
both a bachelor's degree and a master's degree, I believed at that time
that it was perfectly fine to discriminate against women. Do you know
why we were discriminated against in our wages, even though we had gone
to the same classes, we had earned the same degree from the University
of Kentucky, but women were told we were worth half as much because we
might get married and we might have children. Therefore, there was no
point in making any investment whatever in us. I believed that up until
the point where I became the mother of three daughters and the
grandmother of two young women.
I first got involved in this as at the 1972 Democratic convention. At
that time we all wore little buttons that said 59 cents on the dollar.
That's what we were paid then 40 years ago. How far have we come? Up
from 59 to 77 cents.
I cannot for the life of me believe that anyone would be opposed to
this bill, knowing that in almost every American family both parents
work to try to make ends meet. Why should one of them be cheated? Isn't
that a cheat on the family?
My anger knows no bounds. I am so grateful this is up today. Forty
years is long enough to wait.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 1 minute to the
very hardworking gentlelady from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my enthusiastic
support for H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and I thank Chairman
Miller of the Education and Labor Committee and Congresswoman DeLauro,
the sponsor of this legislation, for their tireless work and their
leadership on this issue.
To paraphrase James Madison, if men and women were angels, no
government would be necessary. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need
legislation to reinforce a concept of equal pay for equal work.
But even today in 2009, women make an average of only 78 cents for
every dollar made by their male counterparts. The importance of the
Paycheck Fairness Act is clear. Gender-based wage discrimination has
been illegal in this country since the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was signed
into law. Yet, the pay disparity between women and men that still
persists today highlights the need to take another look at our wage
discrimination laws. This disparity, by the way, is estimated to cost a
working woman between $400,000 and $2 million over a lifetime. I am a
proud cosponsor and urge ``yes.''
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 1 minute
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters), one of our new Members who
is already delivering justice for the hardworking women of his
district.
Mr. PETERS. I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 12. Decades after the
landmark Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act, women in my home State
of Michigan still earn an intolerable 70 cents for every dollar earned
by a man.
This discrimination must end. Pay equity is not just a women's issue,
it is an economic issue. More than ever, working families are relying
on two incomes. When a mother is denied fair pay, she is denied the
ability to provide for her family, her husband, her children, and the
entire family suffers.

{time} 1215

My two daughters, Madeleine and Alana, will enter the workforce some
day. If I learned that an employer was paying my daughters less than
what they deserve, simply because they were female, I would be
outraged. And right now our Nation's daughters, our Nation's sisters,
our Nation's mothers, are being denied fair treatment and I am
outraged, and we all should be as well. This bill creates commonsense
measures to ensure fair treatment for women, and I urge its passage
here today.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a very
strong voice for workers' rights in this country, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. In 1968, I believe it is, Congress passed a Civil
Rights Act, and we saw still that there had been over a period of 40
years racial discrimination in America. In 1963, Congress passed the
Equal Pay Act, and yet we know there was wage discrimination over a
period of more than 40 years affecting women.
This Paycheck Fairness Act is an important step in eliminating the
gap that exists between the compensation of men and women. It is a
travesty that in 2009 we even have to address this issue, but the fact
of the matter is, the unfortunate reality is that a compensation gap
has existed for decades and persists to this day. Women receive less
compensation than their male counterparts do for the same work.
This bill is going to close the legal loopholes that employers have
exploited to avoid compensation discrimination lawsuits. It will treat
gender discrimination on par with other types of discrimination.
We are about to have an economic stimulus package. We have to make
sure that women are able to fully participate in the gains that we hope
to see in this economy.
Thank you, Rosa DeLauro, for standing up for economic justice.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side
has remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman from New Jersey
has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 22 minutes
remaining.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1 minute
to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a distinguished employment
lawyer before she came to this body.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time and for
his leadership, and I thank the distinguished Chair of the Education
and Labor Committee, Mr. Miller, for his leadership, and, of course,
the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, for her unyielding
advocacy on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. Last November,
people across this country voted for change, and with passage of this
legislation we will finally change the wage gap that has persisted
between men and women.
We know the statistics: 77 cents on the dollar that women earn as
opposed to men. But this is about more than statistics. It is about
people. It is about women and it is about their families, and it is
about fairness. With every paycheck of these affected women, they are
cheated and their families are cheated. It robs families of earned
income, it robs their pensions, it robs their Social Security benefits,
and it robs them of fairness and justice.
We are a country that values fairness and justice for all of our
citizens, not just those of a certain gender. Let's pass this bill.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a strong and
compassionate voice for working women all over this country, the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 12, the
Paycheck Fairness Act. I want to commend our colleague Rosa DeLauro for
her stellar work on this legislation and thank our leadership for
making sure that this bill is one of the first we are considering in
our new Congress. I am thrilled, and I know it is a testament to our
commitment to equality for all.
H.R. 12 closes existing loopholes that otherwise prevent employees
from recouping deserved wages. Existing law

[[Page H131]]

allows employers to use a myriad of excuses to justify a pay disparity
between men and women. This is true even if the excuse has nothing to
do with the job itself. Furthermore, women cannot always safely discuss
salaries with their coworkers to determine if there is discrimination
occurring for fear of retaliation from their employers. The Paycheck
Fairness Act will ensure that women can safely discuss wages with other
workers and modernize the law so that companies must show more proof
that pay disparities did not occur because of gender.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important legislation
to ensure a better economic future for all American women.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the very principled and articulate gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Paycheck Fairness Act is about
far more than the size of a paycheck. It is about our commitment to the
American values of hard work and equality and of opportunity. The story
of America is our never-ending march toward the highest ideals of equal
opportunity for all our citizens. Today we write a new chapter in that
great American story. Today we say to women all across our land that if
you work hard and play by the rules, you will be rewarded fairly. You
will reap what you sow.
Fulfilling the promise of equal opportunity for American women will
lift millions of our families and our children out of poverty. That is
not just progress for their families; it is real progress for the
American family. Some will say this step forward is inconvenient. I say
that knocking down barriers to equality of opportunity has never been
the convenient thing to do, but it has always been the right thing to
do.
Mr. Speaker, my wife and I try to teach our two young sons every day
that if they work hard, they will do well in life, that their work will
be rewarded fairly. I am supporting this bill because I want the
parents of every little girl in America to be able to teach that value,
to make that promise to their daughters. It is the American promise.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield at this time 1 minute
to a life-long fighter against discrimination, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, every day, despite the Equal Pay Act of 1963,
millions of American women are denied equal pay for performing
comparable work. In the case of Lilly Ledbetter, the Supreme Court of
the United States compounded the indignity of discrimination by
ignoring years of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and lower
court decisions, narrowly interpreting the law that should have
protected her, thus denying her the justice she deserved.
Justice has not been achieved over the past 45 years, with women's
wages rising from 59 cents for every dollar earned by a man in 1963 to
just 77 cents per dollar earned by a man in 2008. Minority women face
even greater disparity, a gap that widened even more last year. These
women are from all walks of life. They calculate our taxes. They teach
our children. In California's District 15, my home district, they are
developing the technologies of the future. Our sisters, daughters, and
granddaughters deserve better from our country. We should have told
them that they can do anything, reach for and achieve any dream.
I urge my colleagues to support this.
Mr. McKEON. I reserve my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who speaks with great authority for
constituents and her beliefs.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished
friend from New Jersey, and I want to take my time to salute our
distinguished chairman, Chairman Miller, and Rosa DeLauro for bringing
to the forefront in this crisis of unemployment, 500,000 unemployed, to
recognize and to acknowledge to America we believe in fair employment.
Lilly Ledbetter, we have heard you and we salute you. You lost
$200,000 in back wages because of a Supreme Court decision. Now today
with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act we know that it will clarify that
each paycheck that is discriminatory, that is less than it should be,
will constitute a discriminatory practice and you will fall within the
180 day statute of limitations.
The Paycheck Fairness Act, which we are standing on the floor today
to defend and support, will create meaningful penalties against
employers whose pay practices are proven to have been discriminatory,
and it will protect workers from retaliation by their employers when
employees discuss their pay with coworkers.
In America we are a country that believes in work and provides that
opportunity for women. These are two bills that we support. What a
great day in America, when Democrats can stand up for working Americans
and the women of America.
I would like to thank Congresswoman DeLauro for this important
legislation as well as the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the
Committee on Education and Labor for working together to see that
gender equity is not just something we talk about, but something we are
actually willing to put into action.
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 by updating
the Equal Pay Act--passed more than 45 years ago.
The reality is the Equal Pay Act needs to be strengthened and
improved for all women to combat wage discrimination and eliminate
loopholes in the current law. The Paycheck Fairness Act creates
meaningful penalties against employers whose pay practices are proven
to have been discriminatory. The bill will also protect workers from
retaliation by their employers when employees discuss their pay with
coworkers.
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.
The Paycheck Protection Act is also needed to stop discriminatory pay
practices by employers against our mothers, wives, daughters, and
granddaughters that do the same job as their male counterparts.
The Paycheck Fairness Act, will strengthen the Equal Pay Act--passed
more than 45 years ago--and as a result improve the law's
effectiveness, and help to address the persistent wage gap between men
and women. The Paycheck Fairness Act would:
Clarify acceptable reasons for differences in pay by requiring
employers to demonstrate that wage gaps between men and women doing the
same work are truly a result of factors other than sex.
Deter wage discrimination by strengthening penalties for equal pay
violations, and by prohibiting retaliation against workers who inquire
about employers' wage practices or disclose their own wages. The bill's
measured approach would ensure that women can obtain the same remedies
as those subject to discrimination on the basis of race or national
origin. AAUW would strongly oppose any efforts to add such caps.
Provide women with a fair option to proceed in a class action suit
under the Equal Pay Act, and allow women to receive punitive and
compensatory damages for pay discrimination.
Clarify the establishment provision under the Equal Pay Act, which
would allow for reasonable comparisons between employees to determine
fair wages.
Authorize additional training for Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission staff to better identify and handle wage disputes.
It will aid in the efficient and effective enforcement of federal
anti-pay discrimination laws by requiring the EEOC to develop
regulations directing employers to collect wage data, reported by the
race, sex, and national origin of employees.
It will require the U.S. Department of Labor to reinstate activities
that promote equal pay, such as: directing educational programs,
providing technical assistance to employers, recognizing businesses
that address the wage gap, collecting wage-related data, at conducting
and promoting research about pay disparities between men and women.
More importantly for our young ladies going into the workforce it
will establish a competitive grant program to develop salary
negotiation training for women and girls.
As a Member of the Women's Caucus I have been fighting for pay equity
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
first after college--even when women are working full-time

[[Page H132]]

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. Now is the time for additional
proactive measures to effectively address wage discrimination and
eliminate loopholes that have hindered the Equal Pay Act's
effectiveness.
I urge my colleagues, both men and women to support equality in
rights and pay for all Americans by supporting the Paycheck Fairness
Act.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time left
on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 4\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California has 22 minutes
remaining.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York City (Mrs. Maloney), a strong advocate of
women's rights.
Mrs. MALONEY. This is an important day for America's working women,
and it shows what a Democratic Congress can mean to their lives because
it will help end pay discrimination against women. Women are on the
front lines of the economic meltdown. When a full time working woman
still earns only 78 cents for every dollar men make, the results can be
devastating in their lives.
The Paycheck Fairness Act could also be called the Free Speech
Restoration Act, because it allows an employee to simply tell other
employees critical information about themselves. It allows them to tell
others what they are being paid and not be fired. Many of our
corporations in America literally have a law that if you tell anyone
what you make, you will be fired. Well, Lilly Ledbetter did not find
out until someone gave her a secret note 18 years after she had been
discriminated against in pay.
This is a critical bill. It helps end pay discrimination against
women. Thank you to the Democratic leadership.
Mr. ANDREWS. I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a very effective and
knowledgeable member of our committee, the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman
DeLauro and Chairman Miller for their hard work on the Lilly Ledbetter
Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act.
In my work on the Armed Services Committee, I have had the honor and
privilege of working with many of our female servicemembers in the
armed services. And although work still needs to be done in other
areas, I am proud of the fact that our female servicemembers receive
exactly the same pay as their male counterparts for doing the same
work. In many ways, the military is a model of equal pay for equal
work. We would never allow our female servicemembers to be paid
differently for serving our country. Why then would we allow women in
the civilian sector to get paid 78 percent of what their male coworkers
are paid?
I urge the passage of this these two bills.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a wise
and strong voice for the rights of our country, the gentleman from
Chicago (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from New Jersey for yielding.
I rise in strong support of both these bills, H.R. 11 and H.R. 12. I
think it is an excellent way to start the new session of Congress, to
start the new year. I want to commend Chairman Mill and Representative
DeLauro for their strong leadership on these issues for the last
several years.
I know that we ought to begin by saying that everybody has equal
rights, equal opportunity, and equal pay. I thank the gentleman again.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a strong advocate for his
constituents.
Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman.
I want to first thank Congresswoman DeLauro for her long work on
this. It is hard for me to believe that it is 2009 and this issue is
still before us. It is a great day in this United States Congress, Mr.
Speaker, that we will do fairness and equity for women here in this
House. Hopefully the Senate will do the same.
The Supreme Court in Lilly Ledbetter did itself just as much
disservice as it did in Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court needed to be
reversed. We will do it with this legislation and will provide remedies
for women in the future for inequities in workplace pay.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that I will close and
you will close. We have no more speakers.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, that is correct. The only remaining speaker
is our chairman.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
``The Paycheck Fairness Act.'' It has a nice ring to it. Who doesn't
support paycheck fairness? Who doesn't support equal pay for equal
work?

{time} 1230

I have three beautiful and talented daughters, and I have 13
beautiful and talented granddaughters. I won't mention that I have
three handsome, talented sons and 16 handsome, talented grandsons.
If this would do for women what all of these speeches have said it
would do, I would be the strongest advocate for it because of my
daughters and my granddaughters and hopefully, some day, great
granddaughters.
Unfortunately, that is not what this bill is offering. No, Mr.
Speaker, if this bill becomes law, it will make the system
fundamentally unfair, except for trial lawyers. Now, if one of my
granddaughters becomes a trial lawyer it would help her, and I guess
that's a good thing to support.
But the bill will expose family businesses to unlimited liability,
threatening jobs, and retirement security at a time when both are on
shaky ground. The Democrats' meager efforts to blunt the potential harm
do not change the fact that trial lawyers stand to receive a big payday
because this bill lowers the bar on costly jury awards.
H.R. 12 will encourage class action lawsuits, treating the EPA as a
litigation factory. It will make it harder for businesses to defend
against legal challenges, inviting unscrupulous trial lawyers to pursue
baseless claims.
Now we know what the bill would do. But what about what it fails to
do? It doesn't prohibit discrimination under the law. We did that 46
years ago. It doesn't offer working women new flexibility so they can
balance work and home, as Republicans have fought for. It certainly
doesn't do anything to stimulate the economy, which is the number one
issue, what many working families are struggling with today, working
mothers are struggling with.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to
oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
I want to thank my friend and colleague, Rosa DeLauro, for her hard
work on this. And this is the bill that is for the women who are office
managers who are being underpaid for the men who are being called
executive vice presidents. This is the bill for the women who do the
work, make the decisions, shoulder the responsibility but don't get the
pay. Now, that's been illegal for 46 years, but that remedy has been
wholly ineffective until this bill came along. You couldn't get
represented by a lawyer, under the present law, because your damages
couldn't be enough because of the cap that were put on damages.
We live in a world where women do the work, take the responsibility,
shoulder the burden, but do not get the compensation. This makes the
promise of the Equal Pay Act a reality for working women around this
country.
I'm proud that in the 19 years she's served in this body, the author
of this bill has fought for this bill; and I say to her, to you, Mr.
Speaker, and Americans all over this country, it will become law
because of what we're about to do here today.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Paycheck Fairness Act. I am a longtime strong supporter of this
legislation, which strengthens the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and closes the
loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility for
discriminatory pay.
As a husband, father, and grandfather, I am appalled that in this day
and age women are still fighting for an equal paycheck. We know

[[Page H133]]

that on average women earn 78 cents for every dollar earned by a man.
This pay discrimination has cost women thousands of dollars in lost
wages over their lifetime, which results in many women not only living
paycheck-to-paycheck, but also neglecting to properly save for their
retirement.
The pay gap is too often seen as a ``women's issue.'' In fact, this
is not a women's issue, it is a family issue. The simple fact of the
matter is that it often takes two incomes to make it in this country.
This is especially true during an economic downturn like we face today.
When women are not paid fairly, our families suffer.
I am proud to be here today voting in favor of the Paycheck Fairness
Act and sincerely hope this critically important legislation is signed
into law this year.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
Paycheck Fairness Act and commend the House leadership for making this
legislation among the first orders of business in this new Congress.
Forty-six years ago, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act to end wage
discrimination against women who on average earned only 60 cents to
every dollar earned by men.
Since then, women have made extraordinary achievements. Glass
ceilings continue to be broken in the public and private sector; we now
serve under the first female Speaker of the House, and the number of
women heading Fortune 500 companies continues to expand.
I believe that these achievements have contributed to an illusion
that women have reached full equality in the workplace.
The sad reality is, however, that in spite of these achievements and
the passage of the Equal Pay Act, today women still earn only an
estimated 78 cents to every dollar earned by their male counterparts,
for equal work.
This unfairness often has devastating economic consequences on women,
especially upon retirement, as pension and Social Security benefits are
based on life earnings.
Wage discrimination can cost a woman anywhere from $400,000 to $2
million in lifetime earnings, contributing to the disturbing fact that
today women make up 70 percent of older adults living in poverty.
I urge my colleagues to begin the process of ending wage
discrimination in our Nation's workplaces once and for all by voting
yes on the Paycheck Fairness Act. We need to act today to strengthen
the Equal Pay Act and ensure that women in the workforce have the means
to protect their economic security.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of the Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 12, which continues this
House's efforts to ensure fair and equal pay for the women of our
workforce.
Over four decades ago, Congress passed the Equal Pay Act with the
goal of eliminating gender-based wage discrimination and once and for
all closing the wage gap between men and women. Unfortunately,
loopholes and deficiencies found within the legislative text allowed
the wage gap to persist. As a result, women currently make on average
only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a male and in my great State
of Connecticut, matters are not much better with women making only 82
cents on the dollar.
The Paycheck Fairness Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor, provides
a logical and effective means to eliminate gender-based wage
discrimination. By strengthening the Equal Pay Act and eliminating
loopholes that have for too long been exploited by some employers, this
legislation will offer greater protection to women in the workforce,
while also substantially increasing penalties on those disreputable
employers who continue to disregard our Nation's laws.
Mr. Speaker, during this time of economic uncertainty it is more
important than ever that all Americans earn equal pay for equal work. I
would like to thank both Chairman George Miller and Congresswoman Rosa
DeLauro for their collective efforts on this important issue and urge
all my colleagues to stand up for women workers and vote in favor of
this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 12, ``The
Paycheck Fairness Act.'' I am hopeful that the momentum created with
the passage of the Act this past July will propel this important
legislation through the Senate and on to our new President's desk as
one of the first laws enacted by the 111th Congress. In doing so, our
Nation takes the final steps in its long journey towards ensuring that
men and women receive equal pay for equal work.
The Congress first committed itself to remedying the scourge of pay
discrimination in 1963, when it passed the Equal Pay Act. At that time,
full-time working women were paid on average 59 cents on the dollar
earned by their male counterparts. In the ensuing 43 years, the wage
gap between men and women has narrowed. In 2009, women earn about 77
percent of what men earn. While this is a dramatic improvement, the 23
cent gap that exists still exemplifies that gender discrimination is a
real and contemporary problem in our labor market.
H.R. 12 would attack this problem in a comprehensive manner. It
builds on many of the innovative policies found in the original EPA and
adds provisions specifically crafted to address the realities of 21st
century offices.
H.R. 12 will strengthen the EPA by making it unlawful for an employer
to pay unequal wages to men and women who have substantially similar
jobs that are performed under similar working conditions within the
same physical location of business. Under the original EPA, employers
can justify unequal pay if it is based on: seniority; merit; quality or
quantity of production; or ``any factor other than sex.'' This
legislation clarifies the `any factor other than sex' defense, so that
an employer trying to justify paying a man more than a woman for the
same job must show that the disparity is not sex-based, is job-related,
and necessary for the business.
The bill will also prohibit employers from retaliating against
employees who discuss or disclose salary information with their
coworkers. However, employees such as human resources personnel who
have access to payroll information as part of their job would not be
protected if they disclose the salaries of other workers.
The bill also adds teeth and accountability by strengthening the
remedies available to include punitive and compensatory damages. Under
the EPA currently, plaintiffs can only recover back pay and in some
cases double back pay. The damages would not be capped.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come for this body to enshrine ``equal pay
for equal work'' as the law of the land. I encourage my colleagues to
support the bill.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
Paycheck Fairness Act, H.R. 12, which addresses gender-based wage
discrimination. This is a historic day in the fight for equal rights
for women, and I would like to thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House
leaders for making pay equity for women among the first votes in the
111th Congress.
Families are struggling with the current economic crisis, making it
more important than ever that women, who are often the head of the
household and make up nearly half the workforce, are compensated fairly
and equitably. Leading the legislative session with measures to reverse
gender-based wage bias is a clear signal of the level of commitment
American families can expect from this Congress.
The disastrous economic policies of the Bush administration failed to
address major workforce equity issues over the last 8 years. It is
unacceptable that on average, women only make 78 cents for every dollar
earned by a man, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That could mean a
difference of $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost wages.
Furthermore, the wage disparity grows wider as women age and threatens
their economic security, retirement, and quality of life. The new
Congress and the incoming Administration must act quickly to protect
America's workers from wage discrimination.
The Paycheck Fairness Act seeks to level the playing field between
men and women. This bill will strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and
close the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility
for discriminatory pay. The bill will give women the same access to
recover back pay and damages as victims of other types of pay
discrimination. Furthermore, it protects employees who discuss pay
information from retaliation by their employers and does not doesn't
allow courts to accept poor excuses for unfair pay practices.
There is no question that our top priority is to get Americans and
our economy working again. The Paycheck Fairness Act recognizes that
equal pay is not only an issue of fairness for women, but also one of
fairness for working families. In these tough economic times, this bill
could make all the difference for working families to make ends meet in
their everyday lives. Through these efforts we can help give families
the resources they need to give their children a better future. Pay
equity should not be a benefit that needs to be bargained for, it is a
promise that the government must ensure.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill to ensure economic security
for women, their families, and our communities. Through this
legislation we can ensure a better future for our daughters,
granddaughters, and generations to come.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 12, the
Paycheck Fairness Act. As an original cosponsor of this bill, as well
as a cosponsor in previous Congressional sessions, I am pleased to see
this legislation on the House floor today.
H.R. 12 would narrow the wage gap between men and women and
strengthen the Equal Pay Act, which makes it unlawful for an employer
to pay unequal wages to men and

[[Page H134]]

women that have similar jobs within the same establishment. The
Paycheck Fairness Act would allow women to sue for punitive damages, as
well as compensatory damages. Currently, women who seek compensation
for unequal pay can only recover back pay, or in some cases, double
back pay. While this bill would increase penalties for employers who
pay different wages to men and women for equal work, it also provides
incentives such as training programs for employers to eliminate pay
disparities and grant programs to help strengthen the negotiation
skills of girls and women.
Some may argue that these changes are not necessary, but the numbers
speak for themselves. Despite greatly increased commitment to the labor
force over the past 45 years, women working full-time make 77 cents for
every dollar earned by a man--less than a 20 percent increase since the
Equal Pay Act was signed into law in 1963. Even more troublesome,
African-American women earn 66 cents to the dollar and Latina women
earn 55 cents to the dollar. According to a Census Bureau study, male
high school graduates earned $13,000 more than female high school
graduates in 2006. Women with a bachelor's degree employed year-round
earned $53,201, while similarly educated men earned an average of
$76,749. This same study also noted that the pay difference between men
and women grows wider as they age.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill to protect
women like Lilly Ledbetter from taking their case for equal pay all the
way to the Supreme Court, to support single mothers who may worry
whether or not they are being treated fairly by their employers while
they provide for their children, and to ensure that daughters entering
college can reach their full potential when they graduate.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
12, the Paycheck Fairness Act. I want to thank my colleague
Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for introducing it, a champion for women and
working families. And I also want to thank President-elect Obama for
urging us to pass this important bill.
In 1963, women working full-time made 59 cents on average for every
dollar earned by men. For every dollar men earn today, women earn 78
cents. Over the last 45 years the wage gap has narrowed by less than
half a cent per year. Clearly, we still have a long way to go.
The wage gap is most severe for women of color. It is absolutely
inexcusable that women and especially minority women earn a fraction of
what men earn for the same job.
African-American women earn just 63 cents on the dollar and Latina
women earn far worse at 52 cents. In my own State of California, Black
women earn only 61 percent, and Latina women only 42 percent, of the
wages of White men. That is outrageous.
The wage disparity begins at the start of a woman's work life and
grows wider as women age. In the long term, this pattern of
substantially lower lifetime earnings affects the quality of life for
women and their families. It limits their opportunities for promotion,
and contributes to decreased savings, pension income, and Social
Security benefits. The result is that quite simply, many women are at
risk of falling into poverty as they get older.
H.R. 12 takes immediate steps to close the wage gap for all women by
amending and strengthening the Equal Pay Act, EPA, of 1963, so that it
will be a more effective tool in combating gender-based pay
discrimination.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 12, the Paycheck
Fairness Act. More than 40 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act
and Title VI, women continue to be paid less for performing many of the
same jobs as their male counterparts. According to the U.S. Census
Bureau, on average, women only make 78 cents for every dollar earned by
a man. That could mean a difference of $400,000 to $2 million over a
lifetime of work. The pay disparity is even larger among African
Americans and Latinos; it affects women at all income levels and
throughout the range of occupations in American. This gap even widens
as women age.
The legislation we are considering today, The Paycheck Fairness Act,
is a terribly important initiative, in my judgment, designed to close
that pay gap between men and women. The bill strengthens the Equal Pay
Act of 1963 by increasing the remedies available to put sex-based pay
discrimination on par with race-based pay discrimination. How would we
achieve these objectives? Specifically, this legislation, the Paycheck
Fairness Act, would:
Require that employers seeking to justify unequal should bear the
burden of proving that its actions are job-related and consistent with
a business necessity;
Prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who share
salary information with their co-workers;
Put gender-based discrimination sanctions on an equal footing with
other forms of wage discrimination such as discrimination based on
race, disability or age. We would achieve this by allowing women to sue
for compensatory and punitive damages;
Require the Department of Labor to enhance outreach and training
efforts to work with employers in order to eliminate pay disparities;
Require the Department of Labor to continue to collect and
disseminate wage information based on gender; and, finally,
Create a new grant program to help strengthen the negotiation skills
of girls and women.
Mr. Speaker, at the outset of the 111th Session of Congress, I
believe passage of this legislation sends a necessary and most
appropriate message to employers across this nation that the work done
by women is every bit as important and valuable as the labor of working
men in America, and that we are resolving through this bill to end the
overt as well as the subtle discrimination that still exists against
women in the American workplace.
I strongly support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote
in favor or its passage.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for
H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act. I salute the extraordinary work of
Chairman Miller and Congresswoman DeLauro to bring these important
bills to the floor today.
Today we are considering the Paycheck Fairness Act to protect people
like Lilly Ledbetter from pay discrimination.
Under current law, if an employer can name any factor that has
determined an employee's pay other than gender, they can justify
unequal pay and discriminate against female employees. The employer's
reason does not have to be related to the job in question. Under H.R.
12 employers will have to give a satisfactory explanation for paying a
man more than a woman for the same job and they will have to
demonstrate that the disparity is not sex-based, but job-related.
Employers will also now be barred from punishing employees who
discuss or disclose salary information to their co-workers.
The Paycheck Fairness Act will also put gender-based discrimination
on the same level as other forms of wage discrimination by giving women
the opportunity to sue for compensatory and punitive damages. Under
current law women who have been discriminated against may only recover
back pay, or in some cases double back pay.
The wage gap between men and women has narrowed since the passage of
the landmark Equal Pay Act in 1963, but according to the U.S. Census
Bureau, women still only make 77 cents for every dollar earned by a
man. It's time to close the gap and pass this law.
H.R. 12 is a necessary tool to ensure that civil rights for all
Americans are honored in the workplace. For our country and our economy
to recover we will rely on every hardworking American and we cannot
tolerate discrimination against anyone.
I'm very proud to support this bill and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the
underlying legislation.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, in 1963, President Kennedy signed
the Equal Pay Act in order to address the nation's wage gap. And yet,
46 years later women still make on average only 77 cents for every
dollar earned by men for the same work.
But thanks to Lilly Ledbetter, we are going to right that wrong today
on the House floor.
In 2007, I had the opportunity to meet Lilly. She told me how she had
no proof of pay discrimination until someone anonymously slipped
payroll records into her mailbox. Anonymously because Goodyear's
payroll records were secret.
This bill lifts the cloak of secrecy that allows these kinds of
unfair pay practices to fester--which is exactly why the House proudly
passed this bill last Congress.
I urge my colleagues today to once again support fair pay practices,
and see that this important legislation becomes law. What you don't
know, can hurt you.
I thank Chairman Miller and Representative DeLauro for their
leadership on this issue.
The Paycheck Fairness Act is a bold step forward in righting the
wrong of pay discrimination.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Paycheck
Fairness Act.
The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was a landmark piece of legislation. Along
with other civil rights laws, it has helped to cut the gender-based
wage gap in America nearly in half. But women are still paid less than
78 cents for every dollar a man is paid. African American and Latin
American women face even greater income disparities. For the last seven
years--after four decades of steady progress toward equality--the wage
gap has remained stagnant.
The Paycheck Fairness Act will give workers the tools they need to
get back on track to equality in the workplace. It modernizes the Equal
Pay Act, bringing it in line with other civil rights laws by updating
rules for class-action suits and permitting punitive damages. Further,
it closes a major loophole relating to

[[Page H135]]

affirmative defenses, requiring employers to substantiate the rationale
for pay disparities if they claim they aren't based on gender. If
enacted, the Paycheck Fairness Act will also strengthen the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission's ability to detect illegal salary
practices.
It's far past time to stand up for fair pay for women. I'm proud to
cosponsor this important legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join
me in voting for it.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 12, the
Paycheck Fairness Act of 2009. As a member of the Education and Labor
Committee and an original cosponsor, I am glad to have the opportunity
to speak in support of this important bill today.
While women have made tremendous strides in the workplace since the
passage of the Equal Pay Act 43 years ago, their earnings have not kept
pace with that of their male coworkers. In the United States, the
average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents to every dollar
earned by her male colleagues. This discrepancy in earnings throughout
a woman's career may cost her hundreds of thousands, if not millions of
dollars in lost income and retirement savings.
I urge my colleagues to protect the rights of women against pay
discrimination and ensure that women are treated fairly in the
workplace. Please support equal pay for equal work and vote yes on the
Paycheck Fairness Act.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today we debate a bill with a good title
that fails to make one single step toward the purported goal. H.R. 12,
the Paycheck Fairness Act, is being advanced as a bill to protect women
from wage discrimination, but this bill is really about increasing
lawsuits, not protecting women.
I join my colleagues in rejecting wage discrimination. The American
Dream is not possible without wage fairness. This debate, however, is
not about wage fairness; it is about this Democrat majority rewarding
one of their most loyal special interest groups--trail lawyers.
For more than 40 years, the 1963 Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the
1964 Civil Rights Act have made it illegal for employers to determine
an employee's pay-scale based on his or her gender. I whole-heartedly
agree with and support these laws. Every American should be able to
work hard, and make a living for his or her family. We cannot tolerate
gender discrimination in the workplace.
Instead of strengthening these laws, H.R. 12 offers no additional
protection from discrimination. It simply expands opportunities for
trail lawyers to cash-in under existing nondiscrimination laws. By
opening discrimination claims to unlimited compensatory and punitive
damages, H.R. 12 will give great incentives to trial lawyers to bring
frivolous claims. Such claims will inevitably lead to higher costs to
businesses at a time when so many are struggling to remain open. High
business costs often lead to job cuts. In this time of economic
downturn, it is wrong to increase the burden on employers and risk
additional job losses for the benefit of wealthy trial lawyers.
Mr. Speaker, strong nondiscrimination laws are critical to the future
of our nation; however, H.R. 12 has nothing to do with paycheck
discrimination. Now is the time to find solutions to the challenges
facing our economy, not endanger our businesses with frivolous
lawsuits. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 12 the Paycheck
Fairness Act of 2009.
Since the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, the wage gap in the
United States between men and women has narrowed significantly,
however, on average, women still earn 78 cents for every dollar earned
by a man, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. When women earn less for
equal work, families are forced to do more with less. Affording all of
life's expenses is challenging enough--it shouldn't be made harder as a
result of women being shortchanged on payday.
Under current law, victims of gender-based wage discrimination
recover less in damages than victims of discrimination based on their
race or ethnicity. All forms of discrimination, whether they are based
on gender, race, or ethnicity are equally repugnant, and the Paycheck
Fairness Act ensures that the law views all forms of discrimination in
the workplace on the same level.
In addition, the Paycheck Fairness Act would protect employees who
discuss salary information punished in the workplace. Often times, wage
discrimination is difficult to determine because salary levels are
confidential. This bill would prevent employers from retaliating
against employees who discuss openly, the most common way pay
discrimination is uncovered.
Finally, this bill would hold employers accountable by mandating that
employers demonstrate to the court that pay disparity between employees
is not gender-based, is job-related and is consistent with the needs of
the business.
As the country faces a challenging economic forecast, Congress must
look after the best interests of working families. The Paycheck
Fairness Act will make a difference for working families across the
country, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to section 5(b) of House Resolution 5, the bill is
considered read and the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Price of Georgia moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 12,
to the Committee on Education and Labor with instructions to
report the bill back to the House forthwith the following
amendments:
Page 10, line 17: strike ``and'' and after such line insert
the following:
(B) by inserting ``in an amount not to exceed $2,000 per
hour'' after ``reasonable attorney's fee''; and
Page 10, line 18, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it's a new Congress and, yes, it's
a new day. But what we're debating isn't that new. It's, in fact, a
recycled campaign promise to a favored special interest, and a sad
reminder of the path this majority continues to take this country.
As most folks already know, equal pay for equal work is the law of
the land and it has been since the passage of the Equal Pay Act of
1963. Generally, businesses do a tremendous job paying employees
fairly, regardless of gender.
But the bill before the House today treats wage discrimination as if
it were systematic. And in the midst of economic challenges, we're
failing to address the real challenges affecting Americans' wages and
the purchasing power of their paychecks.
If this measure becomes law, power will be turned over to bureaucrats
and trial lawyers to interject, distort and oversee how wages are
determined through lawsuits and through regulations.
It means less incentive, Mr. Speaker, less incentive for employers to
offer a variety of working situations like flex time or more limited
travel, because doing so may put an employer at risk of being sued;
hardly a wise action on their part.
In turn, current and prospective workers will suffer through lower
wages, slower job creation or simply fewer opportunities to meet
individual worker needs.
All of this leads, Mr. Speaker, to this motion to recommit. One of
the distinctive changes being made today to the Equal Pay Act is the
inclusion of unlimited compensatory and punitive damages in a lawsuit.
As Members already know, compensatory damages redress wrongful conduct
and punitive damages are to deter future wrongful conduct.
But under the Equal Pay Act, an employee does not need to show
discriminatory intent in order to prevail. As some have correctly
described this bill, it's a boondoggle for trial lawyers. They'll be
able to collect unlimited damages, even, Mr. Speaker, even when a
disparity is not intended. This serves no legitimate purpose and turns
the Equal Pay Act into a lottery. That's why this motion is a simple,
commonsense change that caps reasonable, reasonable attorney's fees at
$2,000 per hour. Now, surely we can agree on that.
By limiting attorney's fees, it is the intent that lawyers would take
cases based on actual discrimination and merit and prevent lawsuit
abuse. Today's litigation system, unfortunately does little to restrain
the filing of lawsuits. It's why lawsuits can result in millions of
dollars in lawyers' fees, yet plaintiffs get pennies on the dollar.
It's why tort costs consume approximately 2 percent of our Gross
Domestic Product, billions of dollars. It's why 10 percent of every
dollar spent on health

[[Page H136]]

care is attributed to the cost of liability and defensive medicine,
hundreds of billions of dollars.
This cap on attorneys' fees will ensure that victims of
discrimination are protected with appropriate incentives. Without a
cap, this bill will have a detrimental effect on labor markets.
Increasing lawsuits and unlimited damages will discourage hiring and
may further segregate employment preferences for one gender in favor of
another.
On this side of the aisle Republicans understand that fair-minded
business folks want to make an honest living without favoring political
friends or bureaucrats impeding job creation or dictating how a
business should be run.
Let's adopt this motion to recommit. It's a new Congress and a new
day, but let's not make a first act an old, recycled campaign promise
to political friends.
I urge adoption of the motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to
the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker and Members of the
House, this motion is a little bit unbelievable in the sense that it
suggests that we should be setting the attorneys' fees, even though the
amount that the gentleman is asking us to set far exceeds what would be
ordinary hourly wages fees in these kinds of cases across the Nation.
At the same time, it makes no differentiation for geography,
complication of cases, number of attorneys necessary in a case or even
the number of firms that may be. We don't know if this applies to all
of the attorneys in the case with multiple plaintiffs; whether this
applies across the firm if multiple attorneys in a firm are on a single
case if it's a complicated case and, in many cases, these are very
complicated cases because they go in to business practices that are
disguised in terms of trying to justify unequal pay in the name of
equal pay.
I find it rather interesting that the supporters of this amendment
across the aisle all stood up and talked about how they support the
idea of equal pay, how they want their daughters and their
granddaughters to be treated equally, how they want to make sure that
they're treated fairly in the workplace and they really support the
concept; they just don't support this bill which would make that the
law.
But then what did they decide to do? They decided when those
granddaughters aren't treated fairly in the workplace, they will
discriminate against them in an ability to have an attorney. They will
discriminate against them because they will say that their attorneys'
fees are going to be capped according to this law, as opposed to
letting the judge and the Court work out what are reasonable fees in
that court case.
Why do they discriminate against them? The gentleman is jumping to
his feet. Because there's no cap on the attorneys' fees of the people
who discriminated against them, on the employer who made the conscious
decision to pay this person less in the workplace, to treat them in a
discriminatory fashion, to not recognize their inherent value and the
comparability of their skills and their talent. They've decided that
those employers can pay $5,000 an hour, $25,000 an hour, or $250,000
and they can hire as many firms as they want, New York firms, Chicago
firms, Los Angeles firms. They can do whatever they want. But your
daughter, granddaughter, wife, they're limited. They're limited with
the kind of legal talent they can get.
How about in a large case in this country today where regional vice
presidents, there's 39 of them in the organization, 10 percent of them
are women, the men were paid $41,900. The women were paid $27,900. The
district managers, the men were paid $23,900. The women were paid
$17,000. You think you ought to have the right to go to court and have
a good attorney and have the Court determine what are reasonable fees?
You ought to be able to prosecute your case in the face of an employer
that may have multiple law firms on permanent retainers to deal with
this, as many of these defendants do?
Yes, I think you should, and so do the people of this country and I
hope so do the Members of this Congress.
I would like to yield to Mr. Andrews, the subcommittee Chair.
Mr. ANDREWS. If the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil
suit against one of the people accused in the Wall Street wrongdoing,
and there was a proposal on this floor that said the SEC can spend as
much money as it wants to on its side of the case, but the Wall Street
defendants accused of the wrongdoing are capped on how much they can
spend on their legal defenses, I think the Members in the minority
would say that's unfair. It is. So is this.
To interfere in how much lawyers are paid is a matter the judges
should take a look at under this law. It's not something this Congress
should interfere with. And it frankly, I believe, is a diversionary
tactic to take us away from the real purpose of this law, and that's a
woman that is selling real estate or teaching school or sweeping floors
should make, penny for penny, dollar for dollar, everything a man makes
to do the same job. That is the issue before the House.
Let's defeat this diversionary amendment. Let's pass the underlying
bill and bring long-awaited justice to American women.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I ask my colleagues to reject this
amendment, to keep the purpose and the intent and the constitutionality
of the underlying legislation, and that we should now pass, after many,
many years of waiting, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
And I ask a ``no'' vote on this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered; passage of H.R. 11;
and the motion to suspend on House Resolution 34.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 178,
nays 240, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 7]

YEAS--178

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland

[[Page H137]]

Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--240

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Massa
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--14

Baird
Berry
Boucher
Brown (SC)
Gallegly
Granger
Graves
Herseth Sandlin
Jones
Kagen
Shadegg
Snyder
Solis (CA)
Tiahrt

{time} 1308

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona, Mrs. HALVORSON,
Messrs. WEXLER, MILLER of North Carolina, LARSON of Connecticut, SIRES,
McDERMOTT, MEEKS of New York, MURPHY of Connecticut, JOHNSON of
Illinois, TOWNS, HINOJOSA, Ms. SPEIER, Messrs. FRANK of Massachusetts,
CONYERS, and Ms. BEAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. GINGREY of Georgia, TAYLOR, BILIRAKIS, and BURGESS changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 256,
noes 163, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 8]

AYES--256

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis (CA)
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--163

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Baird
Berry
Boucher
Brown (SC)
Gallegly
Granger
Graves
Herseth Sandlin
Jones
Kagen
Nadler (NY)
Shadegg
Snyder
Tiahrt

{time} 1319

So the bill was passed.

[[Page H138]]

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 8, a few
minutes ago, I missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted
``aye.''

____________________