[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.''

                          ____________________