[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1646-1649]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 181, LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF 
                                  2009

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 87 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 87

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 181) 
     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. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived except those 
     arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the bill are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and Labor; and (2) one motion to commit.

                              {time}  1215

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentlewoman from Maine is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask 
unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which 
to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 87.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 87 provides for 
consideration of S. 181, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. This 
measure is identical to the version of the bill that was passed by this 
House on January 9 of this year by a significant vote of 247-171. The 
bill is also virtually identical to the version adopted in the 110th 
Congress.
  It is well past time to get this legislation to the President for his 
signature. Today, we plan to do just that. After this bill is passed by 
the House later today, it will go directly to the White House and on 
President Obama's desk.
  First, I want to commend Chairman Miller for his leadership and his 
tireless efforts that have brought us so far. As my colleague, 
Chairwoman DeLauro, said during her eloquent remarks when this body 
first took up the bill 2 weeks ago, ``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.'' And so now we are here today to 
fight for the final passage of this essential legislation.

[[Page 1647]]

  As a mother of two daughters, a woman who has owned her own business 
myself much of my adult life, and as a newly elected Member of this 
body, I was proud to cast one of my first votes in favor of the Lilly 
Ledbetter Act, and I am proud that both Chambers have already made a 
strong commitment to protect workers against pay discrimination in the 
workplace.
  This important legislation is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting the underlying bill, S. 181, the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume. I'd like to thank my friend the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) for the time.
  I wish to welcome my distinguished colleague to the Rules Committee. 
She is a very important addition to the Rules Committee, and all of us 
have had the privilege of welcoming her in the last days. She stated in 
her statement that she is a new Member. She's also a new member of our 
committee, and obviously we are very pleased that she is.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule that, once 
again, clearly contradicts the majority's pledge to the American people 
to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  Today, the majority proceeds to consider this legislation here on the 
floor of the House under a closed rule. That means, Mr. Speaker, that 
if this rule is passed and this legislation is brought to the floor 
under it, every Member of this House will be forbidden from offering 
any amendments to it. And what makes this act even more unfortunate is 
that this bill did not make its way through the committee process 
during this Congress, thereby abandoning the critical committee vetting 
and amendment process. In effect, what the majority is doing is 
sidelining the legislative process.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, may say 
that they would refute that claim because this legislation was 
considered in the previous Congress and should be passed quickly. But I 
bring to my colleagues' attention that we have dozens of new Members 
who were not here in the last Congress and are now not given the 
opportunity to participate in the usual and proper legislative process. 
So, something that truly concerns me is that this closed rule may, in 
effect, foreshadow how the majority will continue to run this House.
  Considering the fact that we are only in the fourth week of the 111th 
Congress, and that when we take into account this rule, we count this 
rule, the majority has already considered four pieces of legislation 
under closed rules, I am quite concerned that the future will bring 
closed rule after closed rule to this floor.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the question is obvious. Will the majority continue 
its current path of blocking a bipartisan legislative process? Will 
they break their record of offering 64 bills, as they did under closed 
rules in the 110th Congress? Or will they change their behavior and 
open up this legislative process?
  The majority promised that it would when it achieved the majority 2 
years ago, but it has not done so. In fact, as I stated, in the last 
Congress, 64 bills--breaking all records of all prior Congresses--64 
bills were brought to this floor under closed rules that do not permit 
any Members in this House to have their ideas considered in the form of 
amendments. So the facts do not lead to optimism.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my colleague on the Rules Committee for 
his kind welcome to a new Member.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a new Member, and my colleague on 
the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS of Colorado. I'd like to thank the gentlewoman from Maine 
for the time. First, on the rule, before I get into the merits of the 
issue, which is a very important issue we all care about, with regard 
to the rule on this item, we did discuss it and debate it as part of 
the initial rules for the House of Representatives which we put in 
place. So this was discussed both within caucus and debated before the 
House as a whole.
  I heard many objections from my colleagues on the other side, perhaps 
including the gentleman from Florida, with regard to the rules package, 
around the recommit issue, around the terms limit issue. I did not hear 
at that point extensive disagreement about the rules for this 
particular item, which were included in that initial package.
  I would like to thank Chairman Miller for his leadership on this 
issue of equality and fairness in the workplace and Representative 
DeLauro for her continued work on this issue. This bill restores and 
clarifies important protections that are a long time coming. This bill 
corrects a wrong that has cost our working women more than just the 
dollars they have earned. Today's bill ensures that every worker, 
whether male or female, is given equal opportunity to fight against 
discrimination in the workplace.
  When someone's pay is based not only their ability, not on their 
creativity, not on their personal drive, not on the value they create 
in the economy, but rather on their chromosomes, we cheat ourselves and 
we cheat our entire economy and all American families. Pay 
discrimination, whether based on gender or any nonperformance factor, 
means the best and the brightest within our society are being held 
back.
  Discrimination is a cancer of economic inefficiency that eats away at 
American prosperity. When we fail to promote those who show leadership, 
we stifle the innovation and progress that make our country great. And 
while our country has made great strides, tremendous strides towards 
equality, we have a long way to go, and particularly women still 
continue to suffer for less pay for the same work than men across our 
Nation.
  Pay discrimination furthers inequalities. And that is why I strongly 
support the Lilly Ledbetter Act. It gives women the legal hammer they 
need to continue to break the glass ceiling.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would remind my distinguished friend that we did make known our 
protest with regard to the fact that this legislation was in the list 
of bills that the majority on the first day of this Congress made clear 
would be brought to the floor without the possibility of amendments.
  But it's interesting. When the Senate considered this legislation, 
the Senate did authorize and have debate on amendments. And so the 
question really, I think, is begged. What is the harm in allowing 
Members of this House to bring forth their ideas and letting this House 
work its way via the majority, the majority decide, and that way vet 
the ideas, discuss, debate, and decide which ideas brought forth by 
colleagues are appropriate and should be adopted. There's no harm in 
that, Mr. Speaker. There's no harm.
  But, unfortunately, the pattern is continuing. The record was broken 
in the last Congress with regard to the number of closed rules, with 
regard to the number of pieces of legislation that were brought to this 
floor under a structure that did not allow any amendments to be 
proposed and debated by Members of either party. And that trend 
continues.
  So we saw it not only on the first day of this Congress, but we see 
it today. Already, four bills, in the few days that this Congress has 
met, the 111th Congress has met already, we have seen four bills 
brought forth under these structures known as closed rules that do not 
allow Members of either party from proposing ideas to improve any of 
the pieces of legislation that have been brought to the floor. I think 
that's the most unfortunate.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague 
on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank my colleague for yielding to me, and I welcome 
her to the Rules Committee. This is going to be an exciting year.

[[Page 1648]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. 
This is a great day, this is an important day, because at long last we 
have a Congress and a President of the United States who not only 
believes in equal pay for equal work, but are willing to stand up and 
fight for equal pay for equal work.
  Mr. Speaker, last year, we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. 
We sent it to the United States Senate, and the Republicans in the 
United States Senate led a filibuster to block progress on this bill. 
And if we could overcome that filibuster, we have got a President of 
the United States named George Bush who said he would veto the Lilly 
Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

                              {time}  1230

  Well, times have changed. We passed the bill again here in the House 
by a large margin, the Senate has passed it, and we are now accepting 
the Senate version.
  My colleague from Florida says, well, what harm is it to open all 
this up again? The harm is, if you add or change this bill that we are 
voting on today, it will go back to the United States Senate; it will 
delay this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, discrimination is wrong in any form, discrimination in 
the workplace. Paying a woman less than a man for equal work is wrong. 
It is something that is intolerable. And the important thing about this 
bill is it will move us closer to equality in the workforce. We still 
have a long way to go.
  Mr. Speaker, on average, women earn just 78 cents for every dollar 
earned by a man. The Institute of Women's Policy Research has found 
that this wage disparity costs women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 
million in lost wages over a lifetime. And equal pay, Mr. Speaker, is 
not simply a women's issue; it is a family issue.
  People should be paid for the quality of their work. They should not 
be discriminated against because of their gender. This vote is about 
ending discrimination. It is not about process, it is not about 
anything else. It is about whether at long last the United States 
Congress and the President of the United States are going to stand up 
for equal pay for equal work, and I think that this is an important 
step in the right direction.
  I want to congratulate George Miller, the chairman of the Education 
and Labor Committee, as well as Rob Andrews, my colleague, for his 
incredible work on this. But we have waited long enough. George Bush 
and the Republicans have thrown enough roadblocks in our way. We have 
removed them. We are moving forward. We are moving toward equality. We 
are moving to end discrimination. And I am proud to stand on the floor 
and support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would point out 
that every piece of legislation brought to this floor is preceded by a 
debate on the terms of debate. In other words, the rule that we are now 
considering as a resolution sets the framework for how the underlying 
piece of legislation can be debated; and, if you will, it does set the 
process, the parameters for the process of the debate. It establishes 
the resolution, the rule that is debated and voted on before the 
underlying legislation can be considered, sets forth, determines if 
amendments are authorized; and, if so, what amendments are authorized. 
And so it is process that is debated by the rule, resolution commonly 
known as the rule, that is brought to the floor before legislation is 
considered. And that is what we are on right now. That is what we are 
discussing right now, the resolution, the rule to set the terms of 
debate.
  What I am pointing out and will reiterate now is that it is most 
unfortunate and unnecessary, totally unnecessary, for the majority to 
bring forth legislation that will have the support of the majority on 
the floor when it is considered, the underlying legislation, to bring 
it forth with a rule that prohibits debate, that shuts out debate, that 
does not allow any amendments from any Member, whether they are 
Democrats or Republicans, on the underlying piece of legislation. That 
is what I am trying to point out, and I thought it was pretty clear.
  Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentlelady 
from Maine (Ms. Pingree) and welcome her. Thank you for your leadership 
as well. It is my pleasure to be able to thank Chairman Miller and also 
my friend from New Jersey, Congressman Andrews, for his work. And let 
me thank Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro for her collective effort, and the 
Senate for moving forward.
  Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, 70,000 Americans lost their jobs. I would 
suspect, as we work on the Economic Stimulus Package and TARP, that, 
unfortunately, we are going to see a constant march of those losing 
their jobs.
  So why is it absolutely urgent and imperative that we move forward on 
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Because this is a deterrent. When 
people are losing their jobs, 70,000 to 100,000 jobs a day, then there 
are normally one bread winner per family, man or woman. How shameful it 
would be if that bread winner happens to be a woman and she is 
subjected to the unfair, disparate treatment of not being able to be 
paid equally in the workplace for her work.
  It is well known that women are still earning 78 percent for every 
dollar earned by a man, and the Institute of Women's Policy Research 
has found that this wage disparity costs women anywhere from $400,000 
to $2 million in lost wages of a lifetime. Families of America cannot 
tolerate that now. The children of America cannot tolerate that now. 
When a woman rises to the occasion or she is already in the workplace, 
we must pay her fair wages, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act allows 
any discrimination to be petitioned in the court, unlike Lilly 
Ledbetter, who was stymied by statutory process because she did not 
know.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the underlying rule and this 
bill, for as we move towards stimulating the economy and bringing jobs 
back to America, there is no way that this body, this Constitutional 
body, this country that believes in equality and justice for all can 
allow the constant discrimination in pay against women, for our 
children will suffer and our children's children will suffer. This bill 
is a necessity, because it is time now to eradicate the vestiges of 
discrimination on the basis of gender.
  I ask my colleagues to support this rule, support this legislation, 
and to thank those who have been part of sponsoring this, and 
recognizing that in the 18th of congressional district where women go 
out to work every day, where they are providing the economic engine not 
only for our communities but for their families, must be treated 
fairly. 70,000 jobs lost yesterday. How many today? We must eradicate 
the unfair treatment of women in the workplace as relates to wages.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the 
balance of our time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey, a member of the Education and Labor Committee that did 
such great work on this bill, Mr. Andrews.
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and, Mr. Speaker, I 
congratulate her for stewarding through in her first effort as a member 
of the Rules Committee this very historic piece of legislation. I think 
it is fitting that the gentlelady from Maine, who has excelled as a 
businessperson, as a State legislator, and now as a legislator here, 
has left her very considerable imprint on this process and I 
congratulate her.
  The process has afforded under the rules of the House, both in 
committee and here on this floor, the opportunity for competing views 
to be heard about this idea. I know, Mr. Speaker, we will hear 
frequently this afternoon that no one in the House supports 
discrimination on the basis of gender, and I believe that is true. The 
issue is not what we say, though, it is what we do. And we have a 
chance to take a step against discrimination on the basis of gender,

[[Page 1649]]

but I am sure, Mr. Speaker, there will be those who say this is the 
wrong time and the wrong step. I respectfully disagree.
  There are those who say this is the wrong time to take this step 
because there will not be any statute of limitations; that is to say, 
people can sue forever if they have been the victim of employment 
discrimination. That is not accurate. You have 180 days in most States 
and a few more days in other States to file a claim once an act of 
discrimination has occurred. If a plaintiff does not file his or her 
claim by that time, the claim expires. This has been the law in a 
majority of circuits for a very long time. The U.S. Supreme Court 
disrupted that law. We are restoring it.
  We expect to hear that there will be a flood of litigation, that the 
courthouses will be filled with people filing discrimination claims 
once this bill becomes law. That is not the case. Again, this bill 
restores the law as was understood by a majority of the circuits until 
the Supreme Court gave its ill-founded decision in the Ledbetter case. 
There was no flood of litigation under the prior understanding of the 
statute, and I do not believe there will be a flood of litigation now.
  We will hear that this should apply only to intentional 
discrimination against women or others on the basis of gender. You 
know, if you are hit by a truck, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter if the 
truck driver intended to hit you or simply did so carelessly; if you 
are injured, you are injured. And if a person can show discrimination 
on the basis of any of the suspect categories under title VII under the 
law, they should be compensated, whether or not they can prove the 
discrimination was intentional. If there is a pattern and practice of 
discrimination because an employee is a woman, it should be remedied, 
and limiting this to intentional discrimination makes no sense.
  We expect to hear that employees will sit on their rights; that they 
will have an opportunity to sue and wait for a very long time to do so. 
There is simply no evidence that people did that under the prior law as 
understood by the circuits. And, frankly, it would be a very ill-
founded plaintiff who would do such a thing since it would cost them 
money to do so, reminding you that the burden of proof would fall upon 
the plaintiff to come up with the evidence of discrimination that took 
place a long time ago. So she or he has no incentive to sit on their 
rights and have to bear that burden of proof.
  Finally, we will hear that employees will sit on their rights because 
somehow it makes economic sense to do so. Mr. Speaker, it simply 
doesn't. The statute limits someone to go back 2 years backwards, for 
back pay, from the point at which discrimination took place. It would 
be a very irrational plaintiff who would wait a very long time to wait 
and go back those 2 years. The longer you wait, the more it costs you 
as a plaintiff.
  So these arguments have been fully aired. I respectfully would argue 
they are all wrong. The time is right for us to stand up and not simply 
say we are against discrimination, but vote against discrimination, and 
pass this bill this afternoon.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, what we are saying 
is that there is no need to close off debate; that this legislation 
could very easily have been debated openly; that Members on both sides 
of the aisle could have been given the opportunity to bring forth 
amendments as they were able to in the Senate, and that this 
legislation would move forward. It is not only unfortunate but 
unnecessary for the majority to close off debate. And, as I stated 
previously, there is a pattern.
  In the last Congress, despite having promised the most open and the 
most transparent, the most fair Congress in history, the reality was 
exactly the opposite: More pieces of legislation were brought to this 
floor under closed rules that did not allow any amendments during the 
last Congress, the first Congress where our friends on the other side 
of the aisle had the majority in many years. More pieces of legislation 
were brought to the floor with closed rules prohibiting all amendments 
than in history, in all of history before in the history of Republic. 
So that is unfortunate.
  But we are seeing the pattern continue. It has continued in these 
weeks in the beginning of the 111th Congress, and already this is the 
fourth bill, the fourth piece of legislation brought to the floor under 
a structure that does not permit any amendments under closed rules. 
That is what we are saying, it is uncalled for, it is unfortunate. And 
we hope, I guess because hope springs eternal, that our friends on the 
other side of the aisle will open the process up and will allow Members 
from both sides of the aisle to introduce amendments and have them 
debated and have the majority work its will.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
lead this bill today as a newly elected Member and a new member of the 
Rules Committee, and I appreciate working alongside my new colleague on 
the Rules Committee. And I'm sure we will have a busy afternoon 
together.
  We have heard several arguments and supportive thoughts from many of 
my distinguished colleagues from this side of the aisle. And I 
appreciate their thoughts and their very hard work that it has taken to 
bring this bill to the floor and the momentous occasion we will have 
today when we are able to take this vote. I have also heard several 
arguments from my esteemed colleague from Florida. And I just want to 
remind him that when this bill was debated during the last session of 
Congress in the Education and Labor Committee where there were ample 
opportunities to bring amendments, those people in opposition only 
brought two amendments. So this is not a bill where there is tremendous 
disagreement. And in fact, the fact that there were no speakers 
virtually in opposition to this bill shows us what an important piece 
of legislation we are dealing with today, and in fact only were the 
discussion around the process taken up today. And I feel that since we 
have already debated this bill in the House and the Senate when it was 
last here, we passed it by an overwhelming margin of 247-171. It was 
passed by a bipartisan vote in the Senate of 61-36.
  I am confident that this bill will receive very strong support today 
and want to say that I'm proud to be a Member of this body when this is 
happening. I do want to remind my colleagues that this legislation 
simply restores prior law. It is so important. And by passing it, we 
are making great strides in protecting workers by reversing the Supreme 
Court's Ledbetter decision as we have been eloquently described to 
today. We owe it to all American workers to strengthen, not weaken, 
nondiscrimination charges based on gender, race and religion.
  It has passed the House, and it has passed the Senate previously. 
Today we are here to send it on to President Obama for what will be his 
first signature of any bill.
  I urge my colleagues to support workers everywhere and vote ``yes'' 
on the underlying bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question 
and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________