[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 433-444]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF 2009

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 
5(a) of House Resolution 5, I call up the bill (H.R. 11) to amend title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act of 1967, and to modify the operation of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to 
clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice 
that is unlawful under such Acts occurs each time compensation is paid 
pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, 
and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 11

       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 ``Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act 
     of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & 
     Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), significantly impairs 
     statutory protections against discrimination in compensation 
     that Congress established and that have been bedrock 
     principles of American law for decades. The Ledbetter 
     decision undermines those statutory protections by unduly 
     restricting the time period in which victims of 
     discrimination can challenge and recover for discriminatory 
     compensation decisions or other practices, contrary to the 
     intent of Congress.
       (2) The limitation imposed by the Court on the filing of 
     discriminatory compensation claims ignores the reality of 
     wage discrimination and is at odds with the robust 
     application of the civil rights laws that Congress intended.
       (3) With regard to any charge of discrimination under any 
     law, nothing in this Act is intended to preclude or limit an 
     aggrieved person's right to introduce evidence of an unlawful 
     employment practice that has occurred outside the time for 
     filing a charge of discrimination.
       (4) Nothing in this Act is intended to change current law 
     treatment of when pension distributions are considered paid.

     SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF RACE, 
                   COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.

       Section 706(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e-5(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3)(A) For purposes of this section, an unlawful 
     employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in 
     compensation in violation of this title, when a 
     discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is 
     adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a 
     discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or 
     when an individual is affected by application of a 
     discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, 
     including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is 
     paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or 
     other practice.
       ``(B) In addition to any relief authorized by section 1977A 
     of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), liability may 
     accrue and an aggrieved person may obtain relief as provided 
     in subsection (g)(1), including recovery of back pay for up 
     to two years preceding the filing of the charge, where the 
     unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the 
     charge filing period are similar or related to unlawful 
     employment practices with regard to discrimination in 
     compensation that occurred outside the time for filing a 
     charge.''.

     SEC. 4. DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF AGE.

       Section 7(d) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 
     1967 (29 U.S.C. 626(d)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
       (B) by striking ``(d)'' and inserting ``(d)(1)'';
       (2) in the third sentence, by striking ``Upon'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) Upon''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) For purposes of this section, an unlawful practice 
     occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in 
     violation of this Act, when a discriminatory compensation 
     decision or other practice is adopted, when a person becomes 
     subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other 
     practice, or when a person is affected by application of a 
     discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, 
     including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is 
     paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or 
     other practice.''.

     SEC. 5. APPLICATION TO OTHER LAWS.

       (a) Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990.--The 
     amendments made by section 3 shall apply to claims of 
     discrimination in compensation brought under title I and 
     section 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq., 12203), pursuant to section 107(a) 
     of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12117(a)), which adopts the powers, 
     remedies, and procedures set forth in section 706 of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5).
       (b) Rehabilitation Act of 1973.--The amendments made by 
     section 3 shall apply to claims of discrimination in 
     compensation brought under sections 501 and 504 of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791, 794), pursuant 
     to--
       (1) sections 501(g) and 504(d) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     791(g), 794(d)), respectively, which adopt the standards 
     applied under title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act 
     of 1990 for determining whether a violation has occurred in a 
     complaint alleging employment discrimination; and
       (2) paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 505(a) of such Act 
     (29 U.S.C. 794a(a)) (as amended by subsection (c)).
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Rehabilitation act of 1973.--Section 505(a) of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794a(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ``(42 U.S.C. 
     2000e-5 (f) through (k))'' the following: ``(and the 
     application of section 706(e)(3) (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(e)(3)) to 
     claims of discrimination in compensation)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after ``1964'' the 
     following: ``(42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) (and in subsection 
     (e)(3) of section 706 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5), 
     applied to claims of discrimination in compensation)''.
       (2) Civil rights act of 1964.--Section 717 of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(f) Section 706(e)(3) shall apply to complaints of 
     discrimination in compensation under this section.''.
       (3) Age discrimination in employment act of 1967.--Section 
     15(f) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 
     U.S.C. 633a(f)) is amended by striking ``of section'' and 
     inserting ``of sections 7(d)(3) and''.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, take effect 
     as if enacted on May 28, 2007 and apply to all claims of 
     discrimination in compensation under title VII of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), the Age 
     Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et 
     seq.), title I and section 503 of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990, and sections 501 and 504 of the 
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that are pending on or after that 
     date.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 5(a) of House Resolution 
5, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 
minutes.
  Madam Speaker, the 2007 Ledbetter v. Goodyear Supreme Court ruling 
was a painful step backwards in the civil rights in this country. 
Today, the House will vote once again to say that the ruling is 
unacceptable and must not stand.
  Nondiscrimination in the workplace is a sacred American principle. 
Workers should be paid based upon their merits and their 
responsibilities, not on the employer's prejudices. Yet, more than 40 
years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Supreme 
Court decided to dramatically turn back the clock.
  Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear for nearly two decades. Just as 
she was retiring as supervisor in 1998, she found out that her salary 
was 20 percent, 20 percent lower than that of the lowest paid male 
supervisor. Not only was Ms. Ledbetter earning nearly $400 a month less 
per month than her male colleagues, she also retired with substantially 
smaller pension and Social Security benefits. A jury found that 
Goodyear in fact had discriminated against Ms. Ledbetter because she 
was a woman. She was awarded $3.8 million in back pay and damages. This 
amount was reduced to $360,000 because of the damage gap of title VII 
of the Civil Rights Act.
  Despite the fact that the jury found Goodyear guilty of 
discrimination, a

[[Page 434]]

sharply divided Supreme Court in a 5-4 opinion decided that while 
Goodyear discriminated against Ms. Ledbetter, her claim was made too 
late. They had discriminated against her, but she was too late in 
making her claim.
  Why was she too late? Because they said that she had filed outside 
the 180 day statute of limitations because she did not file after they 
had taken their secret executive action to pay Ms. Ledbetter less than 
her male counterparts. The fact of the matter is, she did not know that 
all of the time that she was working because of the secrecy of that 
act. The practical result, the practical result of the decision by this 
court, would be that as long as they could continue to hide the act, if 
they could get past 180 days, Ms. Ledbetter could be discriminated 
against and she would not be able to recover anything.
  The law has said for a very long time that when a decision was made 
which was discriminatory in its nature, every paycheck issued since 
that time was a continuation of the original discriminatory act and Ms. 
Ledbetter had 180 days and other plaintiffs had 180 days to file from 
the last paycheck that was issued. Ms. Ledbetter did that, but the 
Supreme Court saw otherwise.
  So, what the Supreme Court is saying is that employers would be 
allowed to continue to discriminate against employees without any 
consequences if they could hide it for 180 days. That is simply 
unacceptable in the American workplace, it is unacceptable to women in 
this country, and it is important that we pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair 
Pay Act, which would reset the law as businesses and most courts and 
employees and the EEOC had understood it to be before the court's 
dramatic ruling.
  Under H.R. 11, every paycheck or other compensation resulting in 
whole or in part from an early discriminatory pay decision or other 
practice would continue as a violation of title VII. That is as it 
should be. That is as it was before the court spoke.
  In other words, each discriminatory paycheck would restart the clock 
for filing a charge. As long as workers filed their charges, as Ms. 
Ledbetter herself did, within 180 days of the discriminatory paycheck, 
their charges could be considered as timely.
  No worker should have to put a full day's work in and get a paycheck 
at the end of the week that is based upon their gender, race or 
religion, without any recourse to justice. That is what this 
legislation will stop. It is fundamental and it is important.
  This legislation also ensures that these simple reforms extend to the 
Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities 
Act and the Rehabilitation Act to provide these same protections for 
victims of age and disability discrimination. Connecting pay 
discrimination poses significant challenges to workers, made all the 
harder by the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision.
  The reality is that most workers don't know what their coworkers are 
making. Employers often prohibit employees from discussing their pay 
with each other. We fix these problems also with the passage of the 
Paycheck Fairness Act.
  The court's misguided decision is already having very harmful 
consequences far beyond Ms. Ledbetter's case. According to The New York 
Times, the Ledbetter decision has been cited in over 300 cases in the 
last 19 months that have denied people the opportunity to provide for 
recovery.
  In this economy, especially in this economy, when every dollar counts 
to every worker in this country, to provide for themselves or their 
families, to provide for the wherewithal to go through the daily life 
in America, we cannot have people discriminated against because of 
their gender. We can pass the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Act, and that will 
end that practice in the American workplace.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose this seriously flawed 
legislation before us. Not only would it amount to a radical change to 
our civil rights laws, it has come to us without the benefit of the 
serious consideration and debate due such a significant policy shift.
  The enthusiastic supporters of the Ledbetter Act want us to believe 
that we are simply voting on a straightforward bill to reverse a 
Supreme Court decision involving discrimination in the workplace.
  Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that isn't the whole story. While this 
bill would reverse a Supreme Court decision for the benefit of Lilly 
Ledbetter, it would also dismantle the longstanding statute of 
limitations established by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That statute of 
limitations was deemed to be critical in that Supreme Court decision.
  In so doing, this bill would set into motion unintended consequences 
that its supporters simply are not willing to acknowledge, including 
radically increasing the opportunity for frivolous and abusive 
litigation and exposing employers to open-ended lawsuits indefinitely. 
Further, this bill would also permit individuals to seek damages 
against employers for whom they never worked by allowing family members 
and others who were never directly subjected to discrimination to 
become plaintiffs, even after the worker in question is deceased.
  In the current economic climate, as the gentleman from California 
said, especially in this economic climate, we cannot afford to enable 
endless litigation and potentially staggering record keeping 
requirements on employers. We also should be wary of the devastating 
effect this bill would have on pensions by exposing employers to 
decade-old discrimination claims that they have little ability to 
defend. This legislation could risk the retirement security of millions 
of hard-working Americans.
  Madam Speaker, it is very clear that this legislation amounts to a 
significant change in our civil rights laws. What is less clear are the 
answers to a number of relevant questions, many of which remain 
unanswered because of a complete disregard for the normal legislative 
process.
  As you may know, not one legislative hearing was conducted on this 
bill in the last Congress. This bill has instead been brought to the 
floor in haste, completely bypassing any deliberation by me and my 
colleagues on the Committee on Education and Labor. Surely such a 
monumental change to our civil rights laws deserves more reflection.
  My concerns and unanswered questions can only lead me to say that the 
Ledbetter bill makes for bad policy created through a poor legislative 
process. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a subcommittee Chair of 
the Education and Labor Committee.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding.
  I wanted to clear up what I think were three inaccuracies in my 
friend from Minnesota's statement about the bill.
  First of all, this bill will not extend an endless statute of 
limitations. It restores the statute of limitations the law recognized 
until the ill-considered Ledbetter decision. It essentially says you 
have 180 days after each paycheck to make your claim. If you don't make 
your claim, your claim expires. It doesn't extend the statute beyond 
that.
  Second, with respect to pensions, the bill makes it clear in the 
``findings'' section that the same law that applied to pensions is not 
touched by this bill at all. The courts have generally recognized that 
when the pension structure is put in place and the person gets their 
pension, the clock starts running, and if the time expires after that, 
your ability to make the claim expires after that.
  Finally, with respect to the point that is made about people who 
never worked for the employer being able to sue, I think that is simply 
not an accurate statement. What is true is if someone suffers 
discrimination and their estate is owed money for what they would have 
earned when they were

[[Page 435]]

working, the estate is absolutely entitled to recover that sum of money 
because the man or woman who died would have recovered that.

                              {time}  1045

  So this is a good bill. There was an extensive hearing on this issue 
previously. I would urge the House to do the right thing and adopt this 
bill. It should not become the law of the land that if you're an 
employer and can hide discrimination for 180 days you get away with it. 
If the Ledbetter decision stands, that's what the law is. Let's change 
that law and adopt this bill.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous 
consent that we yield the remainder of our time to the ranking member 
on the Education and Labor Committee (Mr. McKeon) to control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this ill-considered and 
overreaching legislation. Proponents of this bill claim it simply 
reverses a May 29, 2007, U.S. Supreme Court decision and clarifies 
congressional opposition to wage discrimination. In reality, however, 
this bill will set into motion a series of unintended consequences that 
will ripple through the economy and plague workers, small businesses, 
and the judicial system with a vast new legal minefield.
  At the outset, let me make it clear that opposition to discrimination 
of any type, be it gender discrimination, racial discrimination or any 
other type of discrimination inside and outside the workplace, is not 
confined to one party or the other. Every Member of this Chamber stands 
in strong opposition to the unfair treatment of any worker.
  At the same time, I believe we must stand firmly behind a process 
that ensures justice for all parties, and that includes protecting 
against the potential for abuse and over-litigation. It is my 
commitment to those principles that requires me to vote no on this bill 
today.
  For more than 40 years, title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has 
made it illegal for employers to determine an employee's pay scale 
based on his or her gender. This is a principle upon which all of us, 
Democrats and Republicans alike, can agree. As such, current law 
provides that any individual wishing to challenge an employment 
practice as discriminatory must first file a charge with the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission within the applicable statute of 
limitations, which is either 180 or 300 days, depending on his or her 
state of employment after the alleged workplace discrimination 
occurred.
  The statute of limitations was clearly established in the law to 
encourage the timely filing of claims which helps prevent the filing of 
stale claims and protects against the abuse of the legal system. 
Consider these ``worst case'' scenarios, for example:
  Without a statute of limitations in place, an employee could sue for 
pay discrimination resulting from an alleged discriminatory act that 
might have occurred, 5, 10, 20 or even 30 years earlier.
  And without a statute of limitations in place, it is entirely 
conceivable that a worker or retiree could seek damages against a 
company run by employees and executives that had nothing to do with the 
initial act of the alleged discrimination that occurred dozens of years 
ago.
  The bill before us would dismantle the statute of limitations and 
replace it with a new system under which every paycheck received by the 
employee allegedly discriminated against starts the clock on an 
entirely new statute. While fair-minded in principle, this dramatic 
change in civil rights law would have an incredibly far-reaching 
impact, one that supporters of the bill have yet to take the time to 
thoroughly and appropriately consider. Indeed, if this bill becomes 
law, the worst case scenarios I just described could become 
commonplace. And let's not kid ourselves: our Nation's trial lawyers 
would seize upon that.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is not a matter of tinkering around the 
edges as its supporters would have the American people believe. Rather, 
it is a fundamental overhaul of longstanding civil rights laws.
  The last major change to these laws occurred more than 15 years ago, 
and after several years of debate. Yet, here we are, just hours into 
the 111th Congress, and without having held legislative hearings, a 
committee markup, or even an open-debate process on the floor, voting 
on a highly flawed bill without any regard to its long-term 
ramifications.
  I'm opposed to discrimination in the workplace, and I believe that 
workers must have a protected right to avail themselves of legal 
protections when such discrimination occurs. That right exists today in 
carefully crafted civil rights law that ensures fairness and justice 
for all parties. Unfortunately, the bill before us is neither fair nor 
just, and for that reason, I will oppose it. I urge my colleagues to do 
likewise.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New 
Jersey is recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  I am pleased at this point to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Woolsey) in favor of this restoration of 40 years of 
civil rights legislation.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Lilly Ledbetter went to work at Goodyear Tires every day 
for 19 years. She was one of the few female supervisors at the plant, 
and she was an outstanding one, at that. She received awards for her 
work.
  However, all of those years she was paid less than her male 
colleagues, 20 percent less by the time she retired, because of gender 
discrimination.
  A jury agreed that she had been discriminated against and awarded her 
over $3.8 million in back pay and damages. But the Supreme Court, the 
Federal Supreme Court, reversed the decision because it found that 
Lilly didn't file her claim within 180 days of the initial decision to 
discriminate, even though she had absolutely no idea at the time that 
she was being paid less than her male counterparts simply because she 
was a woman.
  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restores the common and longstanding 
understanding of employees, employers and the circuit courts alike 
that, when it comes to discriminatory pay, the protection of title VII 
extends not only to pay decisions and practices, but to each and every 
paycheck as well.
  Unfortunately, Lilly will not reap the benefits of this legislation. 
As a result, she will continue to feel the effects of the Court's 
wrongheaded decision for the rest of her life, through smaller pension 
and Social Security benefits. But this bill will help other women, and 
it will also be a reminder that absolutely no employer can tell their 
employees to keep their pay a secret. They can tell you that, but, in 
fact, they have no right and no legal standing.
  So, along with bringing that to light, this wonderful bill is a 
tribute to Lilly Ledbetter, who has paved the way for other women.
  Mr. McKEON. I have no further speakers, so I will reserve our time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield at this time 2 
minutes to one of the civil rights champions of this Congress, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This legislation reverses the Supreme 
Court's decision in the Ledbetter case in which the Court ruled that 
workers filing suit for pay discrimination must do so within 180 days 
of the original decision to discriminate against them. After the 180 
days from the initial decision to discriminate, the employer could 
continue its discriminatory practices and the employee would no longer 
have any legal remedy.
  Prior to the Supreme Court decision, employees could file suit 
against employers who were guilty of discriminatory pay practices 
within 180 days of

[[Page 436]]

any discriminatory act, not just the initial decision to discriminate, 
so that each paycheck in which women were paid less than men for 
performing the same job would restart the 180-day period. The Supreme 
Court's ruling in Ledbetter changed this, so that now, if the 
discrimination is not discovered within 180 days, employers are now 
allowed to continue to discriminate, even if the pattern of 
discrimination is well known and acknowledged.
  Unfortunately, the fact is that many women, like Lilly Ledbetter, do 
not learn about the discrimination until much later. So under the 
Supreme Court decision these women have no remedy under civil rights 
laws. This bill corrects the injustice and does so, it does not make a 
so-called dramatic change. Most of the country operated under this 
policy anyway.
  And also, the bill retains the 2-year limit on past wages, so the 
burden of proof remains also on the plaintiff. So any delay which 
erodes evidence would be a higher burden for the plaintiff. So there's 
no incentive to delay bringing suit.
  Madam Speaker, this is a commonsense application of what everyone 
thought the law was anyway. I commend Chairman Miller for bringing the 
bill to the floor, and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield, at this time, 1 
minute to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono) who truly understands 
what's wrong with the situation where you get paid based on your 
gender.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 11, the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. And I want to thank Chairman 
George Miller for his continuing leadership and dedication in bringing 
this bill to the floor.
  H.R. 11 is needed because the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2007, ruled in 
Ledbetter v. Goodyear that did not take into consideration the reality 
that discovering discriminatory pay at the outset is difficult for 
employees. The Court's imposition of 180 days to file a discrimination 
claim is totally unrealistic and unfair.
  When Lilly Ledbetter came to testify before the Education and Labor 
Committee in 2007, I was moved by her story of justice denied. Ms. 
Ledbetter was deprived of lost wages compensation because she did not 
know she was being paid less than her male colleagues until many years 
had passed since her employers made the initial decision to 
discriminate.
  This bill restores fairness to any employee who has been paid less 
than their coworkers. I urge my colleagues to support the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, as well as the Paycheck Fairness Act also being 
debated this morning.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As we debate this legislation, Madam Speaker, I must point out that 
the myths propagated by our friends in the majority are almost too much 
to take, so I'd like to take a few moments to dispel some of their more 
disingenuous claims.
  We've heard them claim, for example, that H.R. 11 merely restores 
prior law by reversing the Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision. If 
indeed this bill was intended simply to reverse the decision, it would 
have been written to do just that. However, it wasn't. As we have 
discussed, current law provides that an individual wishing to challenge 
an employment practice as discriminatory must first file a charge with 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the applicable 
statute of limitations.
  Let's be perfectly clear. This was the law both before and after the 
2007 Supreme Court decision. This bill would dismantle that statute of 
limitations and replace it with a new system in which every paycheck 
received by the employee allegedly discriminated against starts the 
clock on an entirely new statute. In other words it restores nothing. 
Rather, it totally guts current law and leaves the door open for trial 
lawyers to have a veritable field day.
  Supporters of this bill also tell us that with hundreds of charges of 
gender-based pay discrimination filed with the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission each year, numerous claims will never be brought 
to justice without this legislation.
  Once again, nothing could be further from the truth. The right to 
each and every EEOC pay discrimination claim exists today, just as it 
has since the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This bill does not restore any 
rights because these rights never were taken away. Current law allows 
an individual to challenge an employment practice as discriminatory by 
first filing a charge with the EEOC within the applicable statute of 
limitations. This bill does not establish any new rights, and its 
supporters know this perfectly well.
  Finally, the bill's supporters claim that unless this bill becomes 
law, victims of pay discrimination will have no recourse unless they 
file a claim within 180 or 300 days of that decision. Unfortunately, 
the majority refuses to acknowledge clear protections against such a 
scenario.
  First, employees who believe they are victims of pay discrimination 
may also have recourse under the Equal Pay Act, which is not subject to 
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 180 to 300 days filing 
requirements.

                              {time}  1100

  Through a variety of legal doctrines, courts already allow plaintiffs 
to file claims outside the statute of limitations where it is fair and 
equitable for them to do so. For example, a court may choose to do so 
in a case where an employer withheld critical information or otherwise 
misled an employee into sleeping on his or her rights.
  In short, Madam Speaker, the lack of candor from this bill's 
proponents is clouding the debate, and I feel it is my duty to set the 
record straight.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield to the 
majority leader of the House of Representatives, who will lead us to 
reverse this unfortunate Court decision today, the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I thank Chairman 
Miller from California. I thank my friend Mr. McKeon as well for the 
consideration of this debate.
  We've passed this bill before, properly so. Unfortunately, it didn't 
pass the Senate. It wasn't signed by the President. That will not 
happen this time. We will pass this bill. My belief is the Senate will 
pass this bill, and the President of the United States will sign it. 
Why? Because it's the right thing to do.
  I listened to my friend in his conversation, but frankly, it somewhat 
belies the fact that there came a case to the Supreme Court, and the 
Supreme Court had to rule on the case, and the Supreme Court ruled on 
the statute of limitation.
  The value of work, of course, Madam Speaker, lies in a job well done, 
not in the gender of the worker. I don't think there is a man or a 
woman in this Chamber who would disagree, but all too often in America, 
sexism, frankly, cheats women out of equal pay and equal worth. It 
still robs women of their equal right to earn a livelihood, to provide 
for their families and to secure the dignity of their labor. It does 
much of its worst work in the dark.
  Frankly, women in this body all know that they make the same thing as 
the men in this body. Why? Because it's public information, but if it 
were secret information, notwithstanding the fact that we had a number 
of women vote against this the last time it was up, I would be shocked 
that they would do so again if they were put in the position of making 
$25,000 less than those of us who are males, doing exactly the same 
job. That is the position, of course, Lilly Ledbetter found herself in.
  So many of us know by now that Lilly Ledbetter was precluded from 
recovery. For almost two decades, from 1979 to 1998, she was a 
hardworking tire plant supervisor. For much of her career, she suffered 
from two kinds of discrimination simultaneously--from sexual harassment 
when a manager said to

[[Page 437]]

her face that women didn't belong in a factory to the supervisor who 
tried to coerce her into a sexual encounter. There was pay 
discrimination as well. There's no doubt about that. Now, she couldn't 
recover for it because the Supreme Court said she hadn't acted. By the 
end of her career, she was making nearly $7,000 less than the lowest 
paid man in the same position.
  Both kinds of discrimination were founded on the belief that women in 
the workplace are second-class citizens. I hope there are no women in 
America who believe that, and I would hope there are no men in America 
who believe that. I say that as a father of three women, as the 
grandfather of two granddaughters and as the great grandfather of a 2-
year-old young woman.
  Of the two, the unfair pay may have been the most damaging, between 
the sexual discrimination and the pay discrimination. The sexual 
discrimination, obviously, is abhorrent, but the pay discrimination 
diminished Lilly Ledbetter's opportunities in our country.
  There has been a lot said on this floor about ``it's their money, and 
they know how to spend it better,'' and we've talked about that in 
terms of tax bills. ``It's their money, and they know how to spend it 
better.'' If that's the case, then I would hope that this bill would 
pass unanimously to make sure that their money, which they earn fairly, 
is paid to them so they then can use it as they see fit.
  Ms. Ledbetter might have been in the dark to this day; they may have 
kept it a secret because people, particularly in the private sector, 
don't go around, saying, ``Well, I make X and you make Y.'' In fact, a 
lot of employers tell their employees, ``Don't tell people what you 
make.'' Lilly Ledbetter didn't know how badly she was being 
discriminated against.
  A coworker, however, gave her proof of what her employer was doing to 
her. Such silent discrimination is surprisingly common because it is so 
difficult to identify. After all, how many of us know what the salaries 
of our coworkers are? As I said, we do. My friend from California knows 
that she makes the same thing as Mr. Miller makes, and that's 
appropriate. They are both elected; they both have the same job; they 
both work hard, and they're paid the same.
  Lilly Ledbetter took her employer to court, but the Supreme Court 
finally ruled against her. So, apparently, there is a problem 
somewhere, not because she was making it all up but because she had 
failed to file suit 180 days after her first unfair paycheck. Now, that 
adopts the premise that the subsequent paychecks somehow were not in 
violation of the law. They were. Every time she was paid 
discriminatorily, it was another violation of the law. In fact, the 180 
days should have run from the last violation of the law, which, of 
course, was the last time she was paid in a discriminatory fashion. You 
have 6 months to find out you're being paid unfairly or you're out of 
luck for a lifetime.
  The Supreme Court's flawed ruling ignored the real-world facts of 
discrimination, and it has the potential to harm thousands of women, 
indeed, hundreds of thousands and millions of women and their children 
and their families and our communities and society, leaving victims of 
pay discrimination without any recourse.
  As Justice Ginsburg said--and she put it in as a strong dissent--
``Pay disparities often occur . . . in small increments; cause to 
suspect that discrimination is at work develops only over time. 
Comparative pay information, moreover, is often hidden from the 
employee's view . . . Small, initial discrepancies may not be seen to 
meet the Federal case, particularly when the employee, trying to 
succeed in a nontraditional environment, is averse to making waves.''
  That's what Justice Ginsburg said. So, apparently, Justice Ginsburg 
thought there was a problem to which we ought to respond, which is what 
is happening today.
  ``The ball,'' Justice Ginsburg concluded, ``is in Congress' court . . 
. The legislature may act to correct this Court's parsimonious 
reading.''
  That is what we are doing today. That is the right thing to do for 
our country. It is the right thing to do for women. It is the right 
thing to do for our families, and that is the aim of the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
  This bill gives employees a fair time limit to take action against 
discrimination. A 180-day limit will still stand, but the clock is 
reset after each violation of the law, as it should be, not simply 
after the first one, and that change fits our commonsense understanding 
of pay discrimination. It is not a single act but an ongoing practice 
that is renewed every time the employer signs an unfair paycheck.
  Madam Speaker, pay discrimination anywhere is an attack on the 
dignity of every woman in every workplace in America. When workers face 
unfair pay, they should find us standing by their side, not throwing up 
technicalities and roadblocks on the way to equality.
  For that reason, I urge every one of my colleagues, male and female, 
Representatives of all of the people who ought to have equal 
opportunity under the law. This accomplishes that objective. Vote for 
this important piece of legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Miller) is recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. May I inquire of the Chair my time 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) 
has 17\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), a member of the committee.
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong 
support for H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. I thank 
Chairman Miller of the Education and Labor Committee for his leadership 
on this issue.
  As a member of the Education and Labor Committee, I had the 
opportunity to hear firsthand Ms. Ledbetter's story when she testified 
before the committee in June of 2007. Her experience is, indeed, 
appalling, but Ms. Ledbetter is not the only victim in this case. The 
Supreme Court's decision makes it harder for all employees to challenge 
pay discrimination.
  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restores the integrity of our 
Nation's pay discrimination protections by clarifying that every 
discriminatory paycheck represents a new violation of the law, 
restarting the clock on the statute of limitations. It restores the 
protections, because prior to the Supreme Court's ruling, the EEOC and 
most circuit courts understood the law the same way, that each 
discriminatory paycheck restarted the clock.
  The Supreme Court's ruling changed all of this, putting all workers 
at a disadvantage, threatening the integrity of all pay discrimination 
protections, not just gender-based pay discrimination. We have an 
opportunity today to clarify the law, to strengthen our 
antidiscrimination protections and to move one step closer to ensuring 
the right of every worker to equal pay for equal work.
  I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it as well. I ask them to support it not only for themselves 
but for those who will come after us. It is critical that we have an 
understanding, and when the courts face these issues again, it must be 
very clear what was intended by Congress.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.
  Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 11, the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I commend my chairman, Chairman Miller, 
for bringing this important legislation forward.
  Last year, I, too, had the privilege of hearing Ms. Ledbetter testify 
before the Education and Labor Committee. After 19 years as a Goodyear 
employee, Ms. Ledbetter discovered she was paid significantly less than 
every single one of her male counterparts. She sued the company. She 
took her case all the way to the Supreme Court. Ignoring a previous 
court's judgment to award Ms.

[[Page 438]]

Ledbetter damages for pay discrimination, the Supreme Court threw out 
the case based on a technicality.
  The Court's decision ignores the reality of the workplace where 
employees generally don't know enough about what their coworkers earn 
or how decisions regarding pay are made to file a complaint right when 
discrimination first occurs. Under this decision, employees in Ms. 
Ledbetter's position are forced to live with discriminatory paychecks 
for the rest of their careers.
  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would correct this wrong by 
clarifying that every paycheck resulting from a discriminatory pay 
decision constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights Act and that 
employees have 180 days after each discriminatory paycheck to file 
suit.
  When the Supreme Court sanctions discrimination through 
technicalities, it is the job of Congress to clarify the intent of the 
law. I am pleased that our first action in the 111th Congress is to 
stand up for American workers by invalidating this misguided ruling.
  Once again, I commend my chairman, Chairman Miller, and I urge all of 
my colleagues to vote for H.R. 11.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, 
and I commend Chairman Miller for his leadership and for his tireless 
efforts that have brought us so far.
  We are here today because Lilly Ledbetter got short-changed, short-
changed by her employer--the perpetrator of consistent pay 
discrimination lasting years--and short-changed again by the Supreme 
Court.
  A jury found that, yes, Lilly Ledbetter had been discriminated 
against by her employer, and they awarded her $3.8 million in back pay 
and damages. Then under Title VII, this award was reduced to $360,000, 
ultimately to zero, when the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against her last 
year, drastically limiting women's access to seek justice for pay 
discrimination based on gender, requiring workers to file a pay 
discrimination claim within a 6-month period only, regardless of how 
long the pay inequity goes on. When women still earn only about 78 
percent of what men earn, this ruling essentially rolled back efforts 
to ensure equal pay and left women with little remedy.

                              {time}  1115

  Justice Ginsberg suggested in her dissent, ``Congress has an 
obligation to correct the Court's decision.'' That is why we introduced 
and passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act last year, clearly stating 
the title VII statute of limitation runs from the date a discriminatory 
wage is actually paid, not simply some earliest possible date which has 
come and gone long ago. Instead, you would be able to challenge 
discriminatory paychecks as long as you continue to receive them.
  Earlier this week, Lilly Ledbetter wrote to the entire Congress, ``I 
may have lost my personal battle, but I have not given up. I am still 
fighting for all of the other women and girls out there who deserve 
equal pay and equal treatment under the law.''
  Madam Speaker, ensuring pay equity can help families gain the 
resources they need to give their children a better future, the great 
promise of the American Dream. Let us make good on that promise, pass 
this bill, and make sure women who face the discrimination that Lilly 
Ledbetter faced have the right to fight against it.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).
  Mr. McMAHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise today as a cosponsor of H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay 
Act. The Supreme Court's Ledbetter decision has made it significantly 
harder for women and other workers to hold employers accountable for 
pay discrimination. The Court's reasoning lacks common sense about the 
realities of workplace discrimination, and completely disregards the 
intent behind our robust civil rights laws.
  Now we in Congress must correct this injustice, and H.R. 11 seeks to 
do just that.
  As a father and husband, I think it's shameful that by 2009 we 
haven't been able to close the gender wage gap. Should my wife, who was 
recently elected to serve as Staten Island's first woman Supreme Court 
justice, receive a lower salary than her male counterparts simply 
because of her gender?
  I worry about my high school-aged daughter and hope that when she 
enters the workforce, she will have the same opportunities as her male 
colleagues. As asked by the majority leader, if she were elected to the 
House today, should she be paid $145,000 while the men receive 
$165,000? I say, No.
  Is this America's promise to our young women? To my wife? To my 
daughter? Enactment of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will ensure 
that when women face discrimination in the workplace, they will be able 
to fight for and protect their rights to fair, equal treatment.
  I recently visited Wagner College in my district and met with the 
next generation of working women. I made a promise to all of the young 
women of Staten Island and Brooklyn that I would work hard in Congress 
to change the practices that permit women to earn only 77 cents on 
every dollar made by men.
  I thank the House leadership, and especially the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) for allowing me to be part of this 
historic moment here today. Let us put to rest the age-old problem of 
sex-based discrimination.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, 
H.R. 11, and on H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New 
Jersey is recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the Rules Committee, 
the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for the time and for his leadership 
on this issue.
  I thank the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. 
Miller, for his tremendous leadership, as well as Representative Rosa 
DeLauro for her commitment. And I rise today in strong support of this 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, I wish this legislation were not necessary. But, 
sadly, nearly 45 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, pay 
discrimination still exists; and in one fell swoop, in the Ledbetter 
case, the Supreme Court made it immensely easier for discrimination to 
prevail at the expense of women and their families across this country, 
and that is unacceptable.
  The Court held that Lilly Ledbetter would have had to file a 
complaint within 180 days of when her employer began years of 
discrimination against her even though there was no way that she could 
have known that she was being discriminated against. The Court, in 
effect, eliminated any real opportunity for victims of long-term 
gender-based pay discrimination to be made whole and provided employers 
who engage in pay discrimination for years to do so without 
consequence.
  Let's pass this bill.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a 
strong and consistent voice for the rights of all people in this 
Congress, the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in full support of H.R. 11. I was extremely 
proud last year when the House swiftly acted to pass the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The Supreme Court had made a terribly misguided 
decision and failed to fully recognize the rights of women to seek 
remedy for pay discrimination.
  And how proud I am today that we are wasting no time and again 
passing legislation to clarify that victims of pay discrimination 
should not be punished because they were not aware of the 
discrimination against them earlier.
  The Civil Rights Act exists to protect individuals precisely when 
they find themselves in the situation Lilly

[[Page 439]]

Ledbetter found herself in, and it was never meant to be interpreted in 
a way that provides a loophole for employers to discriminate--if they 
can just make sure that their employees are kept in the dark for 6 
months.
  Lilly Ledbetter will never be compensated for decades of 
discrimination by her employer, but let us ensure that none of our 
sisters, our daughters, our granddaughters are ever punished in the 
same way.
  I urge my colleagues the vote yes for the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a strong voice for 
civil liberties.
  Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, it's been 46 years since 
Congress passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Yet women still earn on 
average only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man, and the promise 
of pay equity remains unfulfilled. And the Supreme Court's Lilly 
Ledbetter decision makes it almost impossible to challenge Federal 
discrimination.
  This bill will overturn that decision. Last year, the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, which I chair, 
held a hearing on the Ledbetter case and heard directly from Lilly 
Ledbetter who eloquently described the terrible injustice of the 
Court's decision.
  The Court held that although Ms. Ledbetter had lost thousands of 
dollars of pay because of intentional sex discrimination, she could not 
sue because the employer had successfully hidden its own misconduct and 
discrimination for more than 6 months. This decision makes it almost 
impossible to enforce the right to be paid the same regardless of race 
or sex, et cetera. This must be changed, and this bill changes that.
  The need for the Paycheck Fairness Act is equally clear. Unfair pay 
disparities require workers and their families to live on less than 
they rightfully deserve and reduce retirement earnings.
  I urge adoption of both bills.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct and humble privilege to 
yield 1 minute to a person of great strength and dignity and 
leadership, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlelady 
from California.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I want to commend him for his extraordinary leadership, his attention 
to this issue of concern to America's families. I thank him, I thank 
his chairman, George Miller, for championing this issue in the 
committee and on the floor.
  And I want to particularly salute Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for 
being a relentless advocate. Ten years ago, she introduced the Pay 
Equity Act, and she has been working on it for a long time; and over 
the years, our ranks have grown of those who recognize the importance 
of this legislation.
  I am particularly happy today, my colleagues, because on Tuesday we 
swore in a new Congress. It was a result of an election where the 
American people spoke out very clearly for change. And in the very 
first week of this new Congress, the change that we want to make is in 
the lives of America's families.
  This legislation hits home. It helps America's working women meet the 
challenges that their families face economically, and it is about 
ending discrimination. So I thank all of our colleagues who worked so 
hard over the years to put this forward. We passed it in the House in 
the last Congress. We passed the Lilly Ledbetter bill, really a real 
tribute to a heroine, a woman who is a heroine. She took her personal 
story and she is making change for all working women in American.
  That the Supreme Court would have ruled against her after she had won 
one court challenge after another speaks to the need for this 
legislation. And the courts have spoken to Congress' ability to change 
the law if they do not agree with what the law had been before.
  So here we are. This is the day. We campaigned all over the country. 
This issue of pay equity and Lilly Ledbetter legislation was part of 
the campaign. This woman from Alabama stood before crowds and talked 
about her personal experience. It was painful to experience it, yet she 
used her own situation to make life better for others. I'm sorry she 
cannot be with us here today, but I hope she knows how deeply grateful 
we all are to her because her case showcased the need for this 
legislation.
  And again, in terms of pay equity, I'm a mother of four daughters and 
one son; and for all of them, this is important legislation. Many 
colleagues in this House--we have many women Members of the House now, 
many more we want, but we have fathers of daughters, and those fathers 
of daughters know that their daughters are capable of doing anything 
they set out to do and that the value that is placed on them in the 
workplace is the same value that is placed on young men and men of 
whatever age.
  So I speak, really, from the heart on this in terms of what it means 
to women in their lives, to what it means to women in their homes, what 
it means to them in the workplace, what it means to them in their role 
in the economy, and what it means to them in their retirement because 
if women are not paid fairly in the course of their work years, it has 
an impact on their retirement as well.
  So for the benefit of our economy--because this has an impact on our 
entire economy--I want to salute all who have brought us to this day. I 
think it's a happy day for our country, and as Speaker of the House, 
I'm particularly pleased that in the first week of the new Congress, 
this is the primary legislation that we are putting forward. Pay 
equity, fairness to women in the workplace, the Lilly Ledbetter Act. 
These are our priorities.
  I hope that we will have a big strong vote in the Congress today so 
the message will go out that this Congress has heard the message of 
change in the election, that this Congress knows the needs of America's 
women, that this Congress is prepared to be relevant in its action, 
relevant to the concerns of America's working families.
  I thank all of you for what you do, and I urge all of our colleagues 
to join all of us in supporting this important legislation.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield at this time 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlelady from Chicago (Ms. Schakowsky) who is the 
Democratic leader of the bipartisan Women's Caucus in the House.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of two 
critical pieces of legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and 
the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  It is high time for the United States to end gender discrimination in 
the workplace and to start paying women equal pay for an equal day's 
work.
  As the Democratic co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's 
Issues, I'm particularly concerned about how the downturn in the 
economy will impact women and their families. Today in the United 
States of America, women earn just 78 cents for every dollar earned by 
a man. African American women earn just 63 cents on the dollar, and 
Latinas earn only 53 cents for each dollar males earn, and single women 
earn just 56 cents for every dollar earned by a man.

                              {time}  1130

  These alarming statistics, coupled with the fact that women are 
losing their jobs at a frightening rate, makes passing the Equal Pay 
Act even more important, and I thank Rosa DeLauro for her leadership on 
that legislation.
  But the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act provides adequate legal 
protections for wage discrimination. Lilly Ledbetter worked for 19 
years at a Goodyear Tire plant and was routinely paid less than her 
male colleagues, including in her last paycheck. Unfortunately, the 
United States Supreme Court, in essence, said to employers, if you can 
just keep your underpaid women in the dark for 180 days, then you're 
free to deny her fair pay and leave her to attempt to meet her family's 
expenses on a salary that denies her rightful payment.
  My colleagues, in this 21st century, it's time we made fairness the 
law of the land.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of two critical pieces of 
legislation, the Lilly

[[Page 440]]

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. It is high time 
for the U.S. to end gender discrimination in the workplace and start 
paying women equal pay for an equal day's work.
  As the Democratic Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's 
Issues, I am particularly concerned about how the downturn in the 
economy will impact women and their families. Today, in the U.S.A. 
women earn just 78 cents for every dollar earned by a man. African 
American women earn just 63 cents on the dollar, Latinas earn only 53 
cents for each dollar males earn and single women just 56 cents for 
every dollar earned by a man. These alarming statistics coupled with 
the fact that women are losing their jobs at a frightening rate makes 
passing pay equity legislation even more important.
  I thank Rosa DeLauro for her leadership on this legislation. The 
Paycheck Fairness Act will help put women's wages on par with those of 
their male colleagues.
  We must also pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to provide 
adequate legal protections from wage discrimination. Lilly Ledbetter 
worked for 19 years at a Goodyear Tire plant and was routinely paid 
less than her male colleagues including her last paycheck. 
Unfortunately the U.S. Supreme Court in essence compounded this problem 
when it overturned the lower court and denied her the right to seek 
relief from our legal system by telling her she waited too long to seek 
relief even through she had no way of knowing she was paid less. The 
Supreme Court's decision means that if an employer discriminates in 
paying a women but she isn't aware of it for six months, the employer 
can continue to discriminate for years or even decades under an 
immunity shield that gives that woman no legal recourse.
  In other words, if employers can just keep under paid women in the 
dark for 180 days, they are free to deny her fair pay and leave her to 
attempt to meet her family's expenses on a salary that denies her 
rightful payment. Women should be allowed to seek legal remedies for 
employment discrimination and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would 
remove existing barriers that prevent women from turning to the courts 
for help.
  It is time that we help the many women this 21st century. Its time we 
make fairness the law of the land.
  Finally, I would strongly recommend to all my colleagues if you want 
to do the right thing, if you want to be on the side of the women in 
your district, and if you do not want to be on the wrong side of 
history, cast a proud yes vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act and the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time left on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 4 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) has 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would be pleased to 
recognize for 1 minute a gentlelady who once chaired the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission, who is the House's leading expert on 
this statute, the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for his hard work and for his 
leadership.
  It's a rare privilege to cosponsor a bill about a law that I once 
enforced, but no pleasure at this time because it takes me back to the 
future, repeating what Congress did on this floor more than 40 years 
ago, permitting only what the act previously enforced, exactly as it 
was when I chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, both 
before and since that time.
  The plaintiff in a discrimination suit carries a heavy burden; 
Congress never meant it to be an impossible burden. This is secret 
information--the pay of your coworkers. There is no way for you to know 
that kind of information any more than you know the health condition of 
your coworkers. Therefore, what we usually do in enforcement is give an 
incentive for the employer to contain his liability through self-
remediation. The moment he finds the problem, he can contain his 
liability by in fact correcting the problem. Essentially what the 
Supreme Court has done is to perversely invite him to hold out for 180 
days, and then it's all over, no matter how much discrimination.
  This is a bill that must be passed because it already was passed more 
than 40 years ago.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 1 
minute to the gentlelady from New York, a leader on the Equal Rights 
Amendment Campaign, Mrs. Maloney.
  Mrs. MALONEY. This is a very important bill for working women in our 
country. The bill overturns the unfair Ledbetter decision where five 
members of the Supreme Court basically told employers everywhere that 
if you can just get away with cheating an employee--usually a woman--
for 6 months and not have them call you on it, you have our permission 
to continue to cheat them for the rest of their working life with you, 
and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The message is 
immoral and against all commonsense. If you cheat and nobody catches 
you in the first 6 months, it's okay.
  A jury of Ledbetter's peers ruled that in fact she had economically 
been discriminated against. The only question was, can someone cheat 
you week after week, year after year and receive a get-out-of-jail-free 
card if they don't get caught in the first 6 months they cheat?
  As Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her stinging rebuke to the Supreme 
Court, ``The Court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the way in 
which women can be victims of pay discrimination.''
  It's a very important bill. Thank you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
  Mr. ANDREW. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
energetic and strong young lady from Florida, my friend, Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I met Lilly Ledbetter during a 
Judiciary Committee hearing in 2007. She told us then how it was only 
after 20 years of working at Goodyear that she learned of the long-
standing pay discrimination against her. Immediately upon learning 
this, Lilly took her case to court. But instead of following long-
standing precedent that each new unfair paycheck represented a new 
cause of action, the Supreme Court denied Lilly Ledbetter justice.
  In the real world, discrimination is subtle and takes years to become 
evident. However, Justice Alito ruled that victims have only 180 days 
after the start of a discriminatory action to file suit, even if that 
employee has no way of knowing about it. This standard is impossible to 
meet. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act rights this wrong. It clarifies that 
an employee is discriminated against each and every time she receives 
an unfair paycheck.
  I thank Chairman Miller and Congresswoman DeLauro for their 
outstanding leadership on this issue, and for my two beautiful 
daughters and the daughters of America, urge my colleagues to support 
fair pay in the workplace.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how many further 
speakers there are?
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, we have one further speaker, and then we 
would anticipate closure from the minority, in which case we would then 
close.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to a new Member, who 
is already making a very positive mark on this very important issue, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague for giving me 30 
seconds.
  I think today we right a wrong, a wrong not only about 
discrimination, but, frankly, a wrong done in the Supreme Court of the 
United States. The convoluted logic employed by a majority on that 
Supreme Court is also an injustice we, today, need to overturn. And so 
I'm so pleased to cast one of my first votes today on behalf of my 
daughter and all of the daughters of America to right this wrong.
  Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, these are serious times. The economy is facing 
challenges like none we've faced in decades, and this time those 
challenges are on a global scale.
  The U.S. Department of Labor released its December jobs report this 
morning, and the news is jarring. The U.S. economy shed some 524,000 
jobs in the month of December, and total job

[[Page 441]]

losses for 2008 have reached 2.6 million. There are now 11 million 
Americans out of work, and the unemployment rate has climbed upward to 
7.2 percent, the highest level since 1993.
  The 111th Congress was sworn in this week amid these troubling 
indicators. What we do on this floor has the potential to help, but it 
also has the potential to harm. What we do here makes a difference, 
substantively, of course, but also symbolically. And what signal does 
it send to the Nation and the world that the first substantive order of 
business of the 111th Congress is not job creation or tax relief or 
economic stimulus, but, rather, a trial lawyer boondoggle that could 
put jobs and worker pensions in jeopardy.
  We should have done better, and perhaps we could have done better if 
we had taken the time to craft a bipartisan bill, or if we would have 
had an open debate process that allowed all Members of this body to 
contribute in a thoughtful way.
  Had this truly been a narrow fix, as its supporters would have the 
American people believe, this rush to approval may not have been such a 
problem. However, this is a major fundamental change to civil rights 
law, and no less than four separate statutes.
  The last change to civil rights law of this magnitude, the 1991 Civil 
Rights Act, took 2 years of negotiation, debate and partisan accord to 
accomplish. Instead, what we have before us is a partisan product that 
is fundamentally flawed. It guts the statute of limitations contained 
in current law, and in doing so would allow an employee to bring a 
claim against an employer decades after the alleged initial act of 
discrimination occurred. Trial lawyers, you can be sure, are salivating 
at this very prospect.
  Madam Speaker, this is a bad bill that is the result of an equally 
bad process. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Madam Speaker, Lilly Ledbetter won an award for being the best at her 
job in her company. She was woefully underpaid compared to the men 
along whom's side she worked doing the same job. She said that she was 
underpaid because she was a woman, the employer said she was underpaid 
because she wasn't as good at her job. So they both went before a jury 
of their peers in Alabama, and the jury unanimously decided that Ms. 
Ledbetter was right and the employer was wrong, and they decided that 
she should be financially compensated for that wrong. But then she got 
an unwelcome surprise, that because she hadn't acted at precisely the 
right moment, because she hadn't acted against a wrong she did not know 
existed yet, because she did not have the power of a stance, she could 
not file her claim.
  The Supreme Court, with all due respect, turned this law into a trap 
and a game. Today, we are recorrecting that law, restoring the notion 
that when a woman goes to work in this country, she should be 
compensated on how good she is at her job, not her gender. Vote ``yes'' 
on this bill.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker. I am pleased to rise today to join with 
my colleagues in passing H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
  Ms. Ledbetter worked at Goodyear for over 19 years, retiring as a 
supervisor in 1998. Unbeknownst to Ms. Ledbetter during her time at 
Goodyear she earned 20 percent less in salary and a smaller pension 
than the lowest-paid male supervisor. While a jury found in Ms. 
Ledbetter's favor, agreeing that she had been discriminated against and 
awarding her $3.8 million in back pay, the Supreme Court did not agree.
  In 2007, the Supreme Court overturned this decision finding that Ms. 
Ledbetter made her claim too late. This decision ignored the fact that 
Ms. Ledbetter filed her charge within 180 days of a discriminatory 
paycheck from Goodyear, which is in line with the 180 days requirement 
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
  Today this Congress has an opportunity to pass this legislation that 
will not only help Lilly Ledbetter recover the wages she rightly 
deserved, but it will ensure that the women who come after Ms. 
Ledbetter will not have to suffer her same fate. Under this bill every 
paycheck or other compensation that is discriminatory in nature would 
restart the clock for filing a charge. Furthermore, it entitles 
employers up to two years of back pay, unlike the 180 days of back pay 
given to Ms. Ledbetter.
  During today's economy more and more families are relying on two 
paychecks to put dinner on the table, buy school supplies for their 
children or visit the doctor. A smaller paycheck not only hurts female 
employees who deserve proper compensation, but the families they also 
must provide for. I urge my colleagues, to join with me in supporting 
both this bill. A vote in favor will go a long way in ensuring our 
daughters and granddaughters are treated as equals in the workplace.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 11), which is the 
first of two bills the House will consider today focused on ensuring 
fair and equal pay for women in our workforce.
  By now, most of us have heard the heartrending story of Lily 
Ledbetter. Despite being intentionally paid 20 percent less than her 
male colleagues for 19 year, Ms. Ledbetter was denied damages by 
Supreme Court. In its May 27, 2007, the Court, by a narrow majority, 
ruled that because Ms. Ledbetter failed to file a claim within 180 days 
of the initial discriminatory action, she had missed her opportunity to 
challenge her employer.
  Thankfully, we have the opportunity today to overturn the Supreme 
Court's egregious decision by approving the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay 
Act. This legislation clarifies that each discriminatory paycheck 
represents a new act of discrimination and therefore restarts the 180 
day statute of limitation. By restoring the law to as it was prior to 
the Supreme Court's ruling, we will ensure that women, such as Lily 
Ledbetter, who are unknowingly discriminated against for years retain 
the legal right to challenge their employer and obtain compensation for 
the discrimination that they have endured.
  Madam Speaker, the legislation before us today does nothing more than 
restore common sense to the laws that protect our nation's women from 
discrimination. I urge all of my colleagues to fully support it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 11, 
``The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.'' The time has come for the 
Congress to reverse the wrongheaded and discriminatory Supreme Court 
case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire Co. If left intact, this case will 
not only continue to undermine the validity of our Nation's gender 
discrimination laws, but also laws that prevent employer discrimination 
based on race, religion, national origin, disability, or age.
  Madam Speaker, I was shocked when I heard the story of Lilly 
Ledbetter, the Goodyear Tire plant employee who suffered from pay 
discrimination for nearly two decades. After learning that she had been 
victimized by her employer, she brought an Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission complaint against Goodyear. Unfortunately, in 2007, a 
majority of our anti-worker, pro-corporate Supreme Court denied her 
claim, ruling that employees must file a wage-discrimination complaint 
within 180 days of the very first discriminatory payroll decision. This 
means that in order to have her day in court, Ms. Ledbetter would have 
needed to file suit in 1979, even though there was no way she could 
have known that discrimination was occurring at that point. And even 
though each successive payroll left her with fewer dollars than her 
equally qualified colleagues, the Justices of the Supreme Court argued 
that Ms. Ledbetter had missed her chance at justice.
  Ms. Ledbetter, a clear victim of discrimination, was left without 
recourse in a country founded on a respect for the rule of law. For 
this, we should be ashamed.
  Adding insult to injury, federal and state courts packed with 
conservative jurists have taken the precedent created by the Roberts 
Court's Ledbetter decision and expanded upon its logic--for the sole 
purpose of undermining a wide range of antidiscrimination laws. Because 
statues which prevent discrimination are extremely similar in form to 
one another, it has been extremely easy for these jurists to employ the 
logic found in a gender discrimination case like Goodyear to 
disenfranchise claimants seeking redress under provisions of the Civil 
Rights Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Immigration Reform 
and Control Act, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and many 
other laws aimed at ending anti-discrimination.
  If enacted, this bill will clarify that each paycheck resulting from 
a discriminatory pay decision is a new violation of employment 
nondiscrimination law. As long as a worker files a charge within 180 
days of a discriminatory paycheck, the charge would be considered 
timely.
  Madam Speaker, I believe that our courts are our last line of defense 
when it comes to

[[Page 442]]

protecting the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution and in 
our civil rights laws. With our marketplace and court systems unwilling 
to correct obvious injustices, we need a legislative solution that will 
ensure that the universal values of fairness, respect, and decency 
continue to be a part of the American workplace. For the sake of 
``equal pay for equal work'' and the continued utility of all of our 
federal discrimination laws, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 11, 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 eight 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 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act seeks to level the playing field 
between men and women. This bill is named for a woman who worked for 
nearly two decades at a Goodyear Tire and Rubber facility in Alabama. 
She sued the company when she learned that she was the lowest-paid 
supervisor at the plant, despite having more experience than several of 
her male counterparts. A jury found that her employer had unlawfully 
discriminated against her on the basis of sex. However, the Supreme 
Court said that Ledbetter had waited too long to sue for pay 
discrimination. This legislation will restore the intent of the Civil 
Rights Act before the Supreme Court decision and will keep employers 
from being able to run out the clock by keeping discriminatory 
practices hidden.
  There is no question that our top priority is to get Americans and 
our economy working again. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay 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. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 11, the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. As an original cosponsor of this bill, I 
am pleased to see this legislation on the House floor today.
  H.R. 11 would correct an injustice and break down barriers to equal 
pay. From 1979 until 1998, Lilly Ledbetter worked as a supervisor for 
the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Although Ledbetter initially 
received a salary similar to the salaries paid to her male colleagues, 
a pay disparity developed over time. By 1997, the pay disparity between 
Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts had widened considerably, to the 
point that Ledbetter was paid $3,727 per month while the lowest paid 
male colleague received $4,286 per month and the highest-paid male 
colleague received $5,236 per month. An anonymous note informed Ms. 
Ledbetter of this discrimination, which had been going on for years, 
and she immediately filed a complaint in 1998. A jury found in her 
favor, but, in a misguided Supreme Court decision, the jury's verdict 
was overturned. According to the Supreme Court, her complaint was too 
late.
  This decision makes it more difficult for employees to sue for pay 
discrimination under Title VII, which was not the intent of Congress 
when the title was written into law. H.R. 11 would clarify that the 
statute of limitations for suing employers for pay discrimination 
begins each time they issue a paycheck and is not limited to the 
original discriminatory action. This change would be applicable not 
only to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but also to the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and 
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  Madam 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.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court's recent decision in 
Ledbetter v. Goodyear was a giant step backwards for America in its 
commitment to fairness and equality. It is hard to believe that at the 
end of the first decade of the 21st century, our country is still 
struggling with gender based employment and wage equity. The Ledbetter 
decision made a legal remedy for this discriminatory practice 
considerably more difficult.
  As Justice Ginsberg pointed out in her dissent, the decision counsels 
women to sue early on, ``when it is uncertain whether discrimination 
accounts for the pay disparity you are beginning to experience. Indeed, 
initially you may not know that men are receiving more for 
substantially similar work. Of course, you are likely to lose such a 
less than fully baked case. If you sue only when the pay disparity 
becomes steady and large enough to enable you to mount a winnable case, 
you will be cut off at the court's threshold for suing too late.''
  Under this precedent, evidence of an employer knowingly carrying past 
pay discrimination forward must be treated as lawful. This was clearly 
not the intent of the legislation.
  Today's legislation attempts to remedy the destructive effects of the 
Court's actions. Under this bill, each sex-based discriminatory salary 
payment constitutes a new violation of Title VII. As a result, if an 
individual uncovers a sex based discriminatory act related to 
compensation that has been going on for years, like Ms. Ledbetter, that 
individual can seek redress.
  If we oppose discrimination in compensation then we must provide a 
legal recourse for those who have been discriminated against. The Fair 
Pay Act effectively restores this just and necessary remedy.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker. I rise today in support of H.R. 
11, The Lilly Ledbetter Act. This legislation was passed by the House 
in the 110th Congress and we should pass it again today so the Senate 
can act swiftly and get this important initiative signed into law.
  Mrs. Ledbetter was a victim of a system gone awry. When she was hired 
as a supervisor at Goodyear's tire assembly department in Gadsden, 
Alabama, her wages were exactly on par with those of a male employee 
working by her side. Mrs. Ledbetter didn't know her first paychecks 
matched her co-workers' paychecks. She just assumed they did.
  Then, in 1998, an anonymous note informed her that her annual salary 
was lagging $15,000 behind a certain male co-worker. In fact, she was 
being paid less than all her male counterparts in the tire assembly 
department, even recent hires.
  Within a month after receiving the note, Ledbetter filed a 
discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 
But Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights imposes a six-month limitation 
period on discriminatory acts; Ledbetter's evidence was limited to 
events that took place after Sept. 26, 1997, or 180 days prior to her 
EEOC charge.
  In November of 1998, she filed suit to determine and recoup her 
losses. Goodyear said Ledbetter's poor job performance was to blame. 
But she prevailed and was awarded nearly $4 million in pay and punitive 
damages, which the judge reduced to $360,000. Of course, Goodyear 
appealed, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' unanimous opinion 
tossed out the award and dismissed Ledbetter's complaint altogether.
  In 2007, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld 
the 11th Circuit's decision, finding that the limitations period for a 
disparate pay claim cannot be extended or disregarded. But how can a 
claim be filed if there is no knowledge of the discriminatory act?
  Congress must now act on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissenting 
comment that she read from the bench: ``the ball is in Congress's 
court,'' and ``correct this parsimonious reading of Title VII.'' I 
agree with Justice Ginsburg; this court ``does not comprehend, or is 
indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay 
discrimination.''
  Colleagues, let us pass this bill and correct this gross inequity.

[[Page 443]]


  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, today, I am 
pleased to speak about two bills that will go a long way towards 
establishing gender equity in American workplaces. The Paycheck 
Fairness Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will help close the 
legal loopholes and restore the initial intent of our civil rights 
laws.
  It has been 45 years since the passage of the landmark Equal Pay Act 
of 1963, and while pay disparities have narrowed, a strong wage 
disparity still exists. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau 
women still make only 78 cents on the dollar to their male 
counterparts.
  We cannot deny that this gender disparity exists, and it is essential 
that we close the loopholes that allow it to continue. The Paycheck 
Fairness Act increases enforcement and accountability in cases of 
discrimination, and provides relief for women who face retaliation for 
standing up for equal pay. It also requires the Department of Labor to 
increase their efforts to end pay disparities.
  Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a longstanding prior law 
making it increasingly difficult for workers to pursue legal remedies 
for pay discrimination. Today we will work to restore the intent of the 
Civil Rights Act through passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. 
We will no longer unfairly turn back to the clock on discrimination 
claims. An incident of pay discrimination occurs each time a worker 
receives a lesser paycheck because of their gender, and we must treat 
it as such. We can no longer distort the intent of the law to protect 
those who seek to discriminate.
  These bills are not only for women, but for children and families. 
For the millions of working mothers in America--many of whom are heads 
of households--it offers financial stability. This wage disparity is 
costing women between $400,000 and $2 million over a lifetime.
  Lower wages factor into long-term financial planning. Retirement and 
Social Security are based on income. Retirement aged women today are 
far less likely to receive a pension, and rely on Social Security 
benefits to survive. The wage discrimination women are facing today 
will continue to follow them well into retirement.
  We cannot continue to simply accept this disparity, and the Paycheck 
Fairness Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act are strong statements 
that this type of discrimination will not be tolerated. I would like to 
thank Congresswoman DeLauro and Chairman Miller for offering these 
important pieces of legislation, and commend the Democratic leadership 
for bringing these bills to the floor.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to support two 
important workplace civil rights bills addressing pay discrimination--
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. In the 
years since the 1963 Equal Pay Act, women have made enormous advances 
toward economic equality. However, the goal of ``equal pay for equal 
work'' is not yet reality.
  Today, the average full-time working woman earns only 78 cents for 
every $1 a man makes. Women of color are worse off. African-American 
women make 69 cents on the dollar, while Hispanic women make only 56 
cents. A recent study of college graduates showed that in their first 
year after graduation, women earned only 80 percent as much as male 
graduates, demonstrating the gender pay disparities only compound over 
time.
  These pay disparities equal a significant loss of income--anywhere 
from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime--which has a tremendous 
impact on lives of women and their families, especially as so many are 
struggling with the economic turndown.
  In 2007, the Supreme Court made it virtually impossible for victims 
of pay discrimination to go to court to vindicate their rights, holding 
that any challenges to pay discrimination must be filed within 180 days 
of an employer's initial decision to discriminate. The Lilly Ledbetter 
Fair Pay Act will overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. 
Goodyear Fire & Rubber Co., and restore the long-standing 
interpretation of civil rights laws that employees can file pay 
discrimination claims within 180 days of each discriminatory paycheck 
they receive.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act strengthens the Equal Pay Act to ensure 
that it provides effective protection against sex-based pay 
discrimination by closing loopholes and barring retaliation against 
workers who disclose their wages. Additionally, it also allows women to 
receive the same remedies for sex-based pay discrimination that are 
currently available to those subject to discrimination based on race 
and national origin.
  This meaningful legislation will help further advance American women 
and families' economic security and I am proud to support both.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I salute the 
extraordinary work of Chairman Miller and Congresswoman DeLauro to 
bring these important bills to the floor today.
  Lilly Ledbetter worked for nearly 20 years at a Goodyear Tire and 
Rubber facility in Alabama. After 20 years, she received an anonymous 
note alerting her to pay discrimination against her. She learned that 
she was the lowest-paid supervisor at the plant, despite having more 
experience than many of her male counterparts. For 20 years she worked 
hard and played by the rules only to be paid less and treated unfairly. 
She then sued Goodyear for pay discrimination. A jury of her peers 
found that her employer had unlawfully discriminated against her on the 
basis of sex and awarded her back pay. Her case was appealed and 
reached the Supreme Court which held that Ledbetter had waited too long 
to sue for pay discrimination, despite the fact that she filed a charge 
with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as soon as she 
received the anonymous note. The Supreme Court said that under Federal 
fair pay laws a person must file a discrimination claim within 180 days 
of the first violation.
  Today our opponents will say that this bill is a trial lawyer's dream 
and that it will bring unnecessary litigation. This is simply not true. 
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restores the law as it was prior to 
the Supreme Court's decision. Prior law was fair and worked. Before the 
Court's ruling, the law was clear--every discriminatory paycheck was a 
new violation of the law that restarted the clock for filing a claim. 
Under the Supreme Court's ruling, the Ledbetter decision allows 
employers to escape responsibility by keeping their discrimination 
hidden and running out the clock.
  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act clarifies that each new paycheck 
resulting from a discriminatory pay decision constitutes a new 
violation of employment nondiscrimination law. As long as a worker 
files a charge within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck, the charge 
would be considered timely.
  This is what the law was and what it should be going forward. I'm 
very proud to support this bill and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of pay equity.
  The Supreme Court's ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear was absurd. If I 
broke the law for nearly two decades--as the Goodyear Tire and Rubber 
Company did when they stiffed Lilly Ledbetter out of the pay she 
deserved for 19 years--I couldn't turn around and say that I didn't owe 
anything because no one caught me during the first 6 months. Yet that's 
exactly what the Supreme Court allowed Goodyear to say to Ms. 
Ledbetter.
  The existing law is unfair. Many workers don't even discover that 
they're being discriminated against until the existing 180-day statute 
of limitations has passed. In every other area of American tort law, 
the clock restarts with every new violation. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair 
Pay Act simply fixes existing law so that sex discrimination is treated 
the same way.
  My Republican colleagues love to call up the ``frivolous lawsuits'' 
bogeyman to scare hard-working Americans out of their rights, but 
there's nothing frivolous about equality and justice. The wage gap in 
the United States has remained stagnant over the last 7 years. Women in 
the United States still make less than 78 cents for every dollar a man 
makes. Women of color have it even worse: African-American women earn 
only 68.7 cents and Latin American women 59 cents for every dollar an 
American man makes.
  That's why I'm a co-sponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and 
why I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in passing this 
important legislation. American workers deserve better. They deserve 
equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, 
religion, and sexual and gender orientation. When they don't get it, 
they deserve their day in court.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 11, the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Although I join my colleagues in 
steadfast opposition to pay discrimination, this ill-advised, over-
reaching, and disingenuous overhaul of civil rights law is the wrong 
approach.
  Pay discrimination is not a partisan issue. Pay discrimination 
strikes at the heart of the American Dream. For more than 40 years, the 
1963 Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act has made 
it illegal for employers to determine an employee's pay scale based on 
his or her gender. I wholeheartedly agree and support these laws. Every 
American should be able to work hard, and make a living for his or her 
family. We can not tolerate gender discrimination in the workplace.

[[Page 444]]

  This legislation, however, is about bad politics rather than good 
policy. H.R. 11 was supposedly written to remedy a sad situation for 
one person--Lilly Ledbetter. She was apparently paid significantly less 
than her counterparts at Goodyear Tire Company during her tenure there. 
Decades later Ms. Ledbetter filed a claim of discrimination. Taking her 
claim through the courts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 29, 2007 
that the statute of limitations had unfortunately run out.
  Instead of simply restoring prior law, by overturning a Supreme Court 
ruling against Ms. Ledbetter, in reality, Democrats will gut a decades-
old statute of limitations that prevents the filing of ``stale'' claims 
and protects against abuse of the legal system. Current law rightly 
provides a statute of limitations to file a discrimination claim, up to 
300 days after the alleged workplace discrimination occurred. Under 
this bill, however, employees or retirees could sue for pay 
discrimination years, even decades, after the alleged discrimination.
  How can a company defend itself when the accused offenders left the 
company decades before? The answer is--they can't. And that is exactly 
the answer desired by the trial lawyers who support this legislation. 
This legislation will not end pay discrimination, but it will certainly 
encourage frivolous claims and lawsuits. It is inevitable that under 
this legislation employees will sue companies for reasons that have 
little if anything to do with the accused discrimination.
  Madam Speaker, the issue of pay discrimination is too important to 
consider this poorly crafted, politically motivated piece of 
legislation. As much as we sympathize with Ms. Ledbetter, H.R. 11 is 
bad legislation. Let us instead join together, work in a bipartisan 
manner, to address pay discrimination while not destroying decades-
worth of solid employment discrimination law. Until then, I ask my 
colleagues to join with me in opposing this legislation.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the H.R. 11, the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
  For nearly 20 years, Lilly Ledbetter worked at a Goodyear Tire 
facility in Alabama. After learning that she was the lowest paid 
supervisor--earning 20 percent less than the lowest paid, least 
experienced man in the same position at Goodyear--she sued the company 
for pay discrimination. On May 29, 2007, after a series of cases and 
appeals, the Supreme Court handed down a disturbing 5-4 ruling that 
fundamentally rewrote protections that American workers have enjoyed 
for more than 40 years when they were codified in the Civil Rights Act 
of 1964.
  According to Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the flawed decision, 
when Ms. Ledbetter failed to file a discrimination case within the 
statutorily provided 180 days from the initial decision to pay her less 
than her male colleagues, she was barred from filing a complaint and no 
relief was available. Despite documenting the sex based evaluation 
system Goodyear managers used, Lilly Ledbetter was denied justice and 
the rights afforded to her under the Civil Rights Act.
  Justice Alito's opinion runs contrary to decades of civil rights law, 
and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Act would restore the law as it was prior 
to the Court's ill considered decision. This bill would make it clear 
that when it comes to discriminatory pay, the protections of Title VII 
of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the 
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act extend not 
only to these discriminatory pay decisions and practices but to every 
paycheck that results from those pay decisions and practices.
  As an original cosponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, I urge 
my colleagues to support its passage, and I encourage the Senate to 
work quickly to send it to the President.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. As an original 
cosponsor of both pieces of legislation, I will proudly cast my vote 
for both bills before us today.
  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act corrects an errant Supreme Court 
decision in the case of Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which denied a woman 
named Lilly Ledbetter equal pay for equal work by ruling that she had 
only 180 days from her first discriminatory paycheck to file her claim, 
whether she was aware of that discrimination or not. This legislation 
will help ensure fair treatment in the workplace by clarifying that 
every paycheck resulting from a discriminatory pay decision constitutes 
a new violation of employment discrimination law.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act will complement the Ledbetter bill by 
plugging loopholes that have been used to weaken enforcement of the 
Equal Pay Act. This legislation will ensure that employers have a job-
related reason for any disparity in pay. It also protects from 
retaliation employees who discuss salary matters and puts gender 
discrimination on equal footing with other forms of wage discrimination 
when it comes to seeking damages.
  Madam Speaker, while we have made important strides towards gender 
equality in our Nation, American women still make only 78 cents for 
every dollar earned by their male counterparts for equal work. 
Together, these bills will bring us closer to America's promise of 
workplace equality for all of our citizens.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to section 5(a) 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.
  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.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this bill will be postponed.

                          ____________________