H124 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 9, 2009 

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: AfricanAmerican 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. 

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. 

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. 

f 

PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 

5(b) of House Resolution 5, I call up the 

bill (H.R. 12) to amend the Fair Labor 

Standards Act of 1938 to provide more 

effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages 

on the basis of sex, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 12 

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

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Paycheck 

Fairness Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) Women have entered the workforce in 

record numbers over the past 50 years. 

(2) Despite the enactment of the Equal Pay 

Act in 1963, many women continue to earn 

significantly lower pay than men for equal 

work. These pay disparities exist in both the 

private and governmental sectors. In many 

instances, the pay disparities can only be 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 9, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H125 

due to continued intentional discrimination 

or the lingering effects of past discrimination. 

(3) The existence of such pay disparities— 

(A) depresses the wages of working families 

who rely on the wages of all members of the 

family to make ends meet; 

(B) undermines women’s retirement security, which is often based on earnings while 

in the workforce; 

(C) prevents the optimum utilization of 

available labor resources; 

(D) has been spread and perpetuated, 

through commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce, among the 

workers of the several States; 

(E) burdens commerce and the free flow of 

goods in commerce; 

(F) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce; 

(G) leads to labor disputes burdening and 

obstructing commerce and the free flow of 

goods in commerce; 

(H) interferes with the orderly and fair 

marketing of goods in commerce; and 

(I) in many instances, may deprive workers 

of equal protection on the basis of sex in violation of the 5th and 14th amendments. 

(4)(A) Artificial barriers to the elimination 

of discrimination in the payment of wages on 

the basis of sex continue to exist decades 

after the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a et 

seq.). 

(B) These barriers have resulted, in significant part, because the Equal Pay Act has not 

worked as Congress originally intended. Improvements and modifications to the law are 

necessary to ensure that the Act provides effective protection to those subject to pay 

discrimination on the basis of their sex. 

(C) Elimination of such barriers would 

have positive effects, including— 

(i) providing a solution to problems in the 

economy created by unfair pay disparities; 

(ii) substantially reducing the number of 

working women earning unfairly low wages, 

thereby reducing the dependence on public 

assistance; 

(iii) promoting stable families by enabling 

all family members to earn a fair rate of pay; 

(iv) remedying the effects of past discrimination on the basis of sex and ensuring that 

in the future workers are afforded equal protection on the basis of sex; and 

(v) ensuring equal protection pursuant to 

Congress’ power to enforce the 5th and 14th 

amendments. 

(5) The Department of Labor and the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission have 

important and unique responsibilities to help 

ensure that women receive equal pay for 

equal work. 

(6) The Department of Labor is responsible 

for— 

(A) collecting and making publicly available information about women’s pay; 

(B) ensuring that companies receiving Federal contracts comply with anti-discrimination affirmative action requirements of Executive Order 11246 (relating to equal employment opportunity); 

(C) disseminating information about women’s rights in the workplace; 

(D) helping women who have been victims 

of pay discrimination obtain a remedy; and 

(E) being proactive in investigating and 

prosecuting equal pay violations, especially 

systemic violations, and in enforcing all of 

its mandates. 

(7) The Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission is the primary enforcement 

agency for claims made under the Equal Pay 

Act, and issues regulations and guidance on 

appropriate interpretations of the law. 

(8) With a stronger commitment by the Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to their responsibilities, increased information as a result of the amendments made by this Act to 

the Equal Pay Act of 1963, wage data, and 

more effective remedies, women will be better able to recognize and enforce their 

rights. 

(9) Certain employers have already made 

great strides in eradicating unfair pay disparities in the workplace and their achievements should be recognized. 

SEC. 3. ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT OF EQUAL 

PAY REQUIREMENTS. 

(a) BONA-FIDE FACTOR DEFENSE AND MODIFICATION OF SAME ESTABLISHMENT REQUIREMENT.—Section 6(d)(1) of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(d)(1)) is 

amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘No employer having’’ and 

inserting ‘‘(A) No employer having’’; 

(2) by striking ‘‘any other factor other 

than sex’’ and inserting ‘‘a bona fide factor 

other than sex, such as education, training, 

or experience’’; and 

(3) by inserting at the end the following: 

‘‘(B) The bona fide factor defense described 

in subparagraph (A)(iv) shall apply only if 

the employer demonstrates that such factor 

(i) is not based upon or derived from a sexbased differential in compensation; (ii) is 

job-related with respect to the position in 

question; and (iii) is consistent with business 

necessity. Such defense shall not apply 

where the employee demonstrates that an alternative employment practice exists that 

would serve the same business purpose without producing such differential and that the 

employer has refused to adopt such alternative practice. 

‘‘(C) For purposes of subparagraph (A), employees shall be deemed to work in the same 

establishment if the employees work for the 

same employer at workplaces located in the 

same county or similar political subdivision 

of a State. The preceding sentence shall not 

be construed as limiting broader applications of the term ‘establishment’ consistent 

with rules prescribed or guidance issued by 

the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.’’. 

(b) NONRETALIATION PROVISION.—Section 15 

of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 

U.S.C. 215(a)(3)) is amended— 

(1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ‘‘employee has filed’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘employee— 

‘‘(A) has made a charge or filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any investigation, proceeding, hearing, 

or action under or related to this Act, including an investigation conducted by the 

employer, or has testified or is planning to 

testify or has assisted or participated in any 

manner in any such investigation, proceeding, hearing or action, or has served or 

is planning to serve on an industry Committee; or 

‘‘(B) has inquired about, discussed or disclosed the wages of the employee or another 

employee.’’; and 

(2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(c) Subsection (a)(3)(B) shall not apply to 

instances in which an employee who has access to the wage information of other employees as a part of such employee’s essential job functions discloses the wages of such 

other employees to individuals who do not 

otherwise have access to such information, 

unless such disclosure is in response to a 

complaint or charge or in furtherance of an 

investigation, proceeding, hearing, or action 

under section 6(d), including an investigation 

conducted by the employer. Nothing in this 

subsection shall be construed to limit the 

rights of an employee provided under any 

other provision of law.’’. 

(c) ENHANCED PENALTIES.—Section 16(b) of 

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 

U.S.C. 216(b)) is amended— 

(1) by inserting after the first sentence the 

following: ‘‘Any employer who violates section 6(d) shall additionally be liable for such 

compensatory damages, or, where the employee demonstrates that the employer acted 

with malice or reckless indifference, punitive damages as may be appropriate, except 

that the United States shall not be liable for 

punitive damages.’’; 

(2) in the sentence beginning ‘‘An action 

to’’, by striking ‘‘either of the preceding sentences’’ and inserting ‘‘any of the preceding 

sentences of this subsection’’; 

(3) in the sentence beginning ‘‘No employees shall’’, by striking ‘‘No employees’’ and 

inserting ‘‘Except with respect to class actions brought to enforce section 6(d), no employee’’; 

(4) by inserting after the sentence referred 

to in paragraph (3), the following: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, 

any action brought to enforce section 6(d) 

may be maintained as a class action as provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.’’; and 

(5) in the sentence beginning ‘‘The court 

in’’— 

(A) by striking ‘‘in such action’’ and inserting ‘‘in any action brought to recover 

the liability prescribed in any of the preceding sentences of this subsection’’; and 

(B) by inserting before the period the following: ‘‘, including expert fees’’. 

(d) ACTION BY SECRETARY.—Section 16(c) of 

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 

U.S.C. 216(c)) is amended— 

(1) in the first sentence— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘or, in the case of a violation of section 6(d), additional compensatory 

or punitive damages, as described in subsection (b),’’ before ‘‘and the agreement’’; 

and 

(B) by inserting before the period the following: ‘‘, or such compensatory or punitive 

damages, as appropriate’’; 

(2) in the second sentence, by inserting before the period the following: ‘‘and, in the 

case of a violation of section 6(d), additional 

compensatory or punitive damages, as described in subsection (b)’’; 

(3) in the third sentence, by striking ‘‘the 

first sentence’’ and inserting ‘‘the first or 

second sentence’’; and 

(4) in the last sentence— 

(A) by striking ‘‘commenced in the case’’ 

and inserting ‘‘commenced— 

‘‘(1) in the case’’; 

(B) by striking the period and inserting ‘‘; 

or’’; and 

(C) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) in the case of a class action brought to 

enforce section 6(d), on the date on which the 

individual becomes a party plaintiff to the 

class action.’’. 

SEC. 4. TRAINING. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs, subject to the availability of funds appropriated under section 

10, shall provide training to Commission employees and affected individuals and entities 

on matters involving discrimination in the 

payment of wages. 

SEC. 5. NEGOTIATION SKILLS TRAINING FOR 

GIRLS AND WOMEN. 

(a) PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Labor, 

after consultation with the Secretary of 

Education, is authorized to establish and 

carry out a grant program. 

(2) GRANTS.—In carrying out the program, 

the Secretary of Labor may make grants on 

a competitive basis to eligible entities, to 

carry out negotiation skills training programs for girls and women. 

(3) ELIGIBLE ENTITIES.—To be eligible to receive a grant under this subsection, an entity shall be a public agency, such as a State, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H126 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 9, 2009 

a local government in a metropolitan statistical area (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget), a State educational 

agency, or a local educational agency, a private nonprofit organization, or a community-based organization. 

(4) APPLICATION.—To be eligible to receive 

a grant under this subsection, an entity shall 

submit an application to the Secretary of 

Labor at such time, in such manner, and 

containing such information as the Secretary of Labor may require. 

(5) USE OF FUNDS.—An entity that receives 

a grant under this subsection shall use the 

funds made available through the grant to 

carry out an effective negotiation skills 

training program that empowers girls and 

women. The training provided through the 

program shall help girls and women 

strengthen their negotiation skills to allow 

the girls and women to obtain higher salaries and rates of compensation that are equal 

to those paid to similarly-situated male employees. 

(b) INCORPORATING TRAINING INTO EXISTING

PROGRAMS.—The Secretary of Labor and the 

Secretary of Education shall issue regulations or policy guidance that provides for integrating the negotiation skills training, to 

the extent practicable, into programs authorized under— 

(1) in the case of the Secretary of Education, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the 

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical 

Education Act of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), 

the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

1001 et seq.), and other programs carried out 

by the Department of Education that the 

Secretary of Education determines to be appropriate; and 

(2) in the case of the Secretary of Labor, 

the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 

U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), and other programs carried out by the Department of Labor that the 

Secretary of Labor determines to be appropriate. 

(c) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after 

the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Labor and 

the Secretary of Education shall prepare and 

submit to Congress a report describing the 

activities conducted under this section and 

evaluating the effectiveness of such activities in achieving the purposes of this Act. 

SEC. 6. RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH. 

The Secretary of Labor shall conduct studies and provide information to employers, 

labor organizations, and the general public 

concerning the means available to eliminate 

pay disparities between men and women, including— 

(1) conducting and promoting research to 

develop the means to correct expeditiously 

the conditions leading to the pay disparities; 

(2) publishing and otherwise making available to employers, labor organizations, professional associations, educational institutions, the media, and the general public the 

findings resulting from studies and other 

materials, relating to eliminating the pay 

disparities; 

(3) sponsoring and assisting State and community informational and educational programs; 

(4) providing information to employers, 

labor organizations, professional associations, and other interested persons on the 

means of eliminating the pay disparities; 

(5) recognizing and promoting the achievements of employers, labor organizations, and 

professional associations that have worked 

to eliminate the pay disparities; and 

(6) convening a national summit to discuss, 

and consider approaches for rectifying, the 

pay disparities. 

SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL 

AWARD FOR PAY EQUITY IN THE 

WORKPLACE. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—There is established the 

Secretary of Labor’s National Award for Pay 

Equity in the Workplace, which shall be 

awarded, as appropriate, to encourage 

proactive efforts to comply with section 6(d) 

of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 

U.S.C. 206(d)). 

(b) CRITERIA FOR QUALIFICATION.—The Secretary of Labor shall set criteria for receipt 

of the award, including a requirement that 

an employer has made substantial effort to 

eliminate pay disparities between men and 

women, and deserves special recognition as a 

consequence of such effort. The Secretary 

shall establish procedures for the application 

and presentation of the award. 

(c) BUSINESS.—In this section, the term 

‘‘employer’’ includes— 

(1)(A) a corporation, including a nonprofit 

corporation; 

(B) a partnership; 

(C) a professional association; 

(D) a labor organization; and 

(E) a business entity similar to an entity 

described in any of subparagraphs (A) 

through (D); 

(2) an entity carrying out an education referral program, a training program, such as 

an apprenticeship or management training 

program, or a similar program; and 

(3) an entity carrying out a joint program, 

formed by a combination of any entities described in paragraph (1) or (2). 

SEC. 8. COLLECTION OF PAY INFORMATION BY 

THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION. 

Section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

(42 U.S.C. 2000e–8) is amended by adding at 

the end the following: 

‘‘(f)(1) Not later than 18 months after the 

date of enactment of this subsection, the 

Commission shall— 

‘‘(A) complete a survey of the data that is 

currently available to the Federal Government relating to employee pay information 

for use in the enforcement of Federal laws 

prohibiting pay discrimination and, in consultation with other relevant Federal agencies, identify additional data collections 

that will enhance the enforcement of such 

laws; and 

‘‘(B) based on the results of the survey and 

consultations under subparagraph (A), issue 

regulations to provide for the collection of 

pay information data from employers as described by the sex, race, and national origin 

of employees. 

‘‘(2) In implementing paragraph (1), the 

Commission shall have as its primary consideration the most effective and efficient 

means for enhancing the enforcement of Federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination. For 

this purpose, the Commission shall consider 

factors including the imposition of burdens 

on employers, the frequency of required reports (including which employers should be 

required to prepare reports), appropriate protections for maintaining data confidentiality, and the most effective format for the 

data collection reports.’’. 

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

(a) BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS DATA COLLECTION.—The Commissioner of Labor Statistics shall continue to collect data on 

women workers in the Current Employment 

Statistics survey. 

(b) OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS INITIATIVES.—The Director 

of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance 

Programs shall ensure that employees of the 

Office— 

(1)(A) shall use the full range of investigatory tools at the Office’s disposal, including 

pay grade methodology; 

(B) in considering evidence of possible 

compensation discrimination— 

(i) shall not limit its consideration to a 

small number of types of evidence; and 

(ii) shall not limit its evaluation of the 

evidence to a small number of methods of 

evaluating the evidence; and 

(C) shall not require a multiple regression 

analysis or anecdotal evidence for a compensation discrimination case; 

(2) for purposes of its investigative, compliance, and enforcement activities, shall define ‘‘similarly situated employees’’ in a way 

that is consistent with and not more stringent than the definition provided in item 1 of 

subsection A of section 10–III of the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission Compliance Manual (2000), and shall consider 

only factors that the Office’s investigation 

reveals were used in making compensation 

decisions; and 

(3) shall reinstate the Equal Opportunity 

Survey, as required by section 60–2.18 of title 

41, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect 

on September 7, 2006), designating not less 

than half of all nonconstruction contractor 

establishments each year to prepare and file 

such survey, and shall review and utilize the 

responses to such survey to identify contractor establishments for further evaluation and for other enforcement purposes as 

appropriate. 

(c) DEPARTMENT OF LABOR DISTRIBUTION OF

WAGE DISCRIMINATION INFORMATION.—The 

Secretary of Labor shall make readily available (in print, on the Department of Labor 

website, and through any other forum that 

the Department may use to distribute compensation discrimination information), accurate information on compensation discrimination, including statistics, explanations of 

employee rights, historical analyses of such 

discrimination, instructions for employers 

on compliance, and any other information 

that will assist the public in understanding 

and addressing such discrimination. 

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

There are authorized to be appropriated 

$15,000,000 to carry out this Act. 

(b) PROHIBITION ON EARMARKS.—None of the 

funds appropriated pursuant to subsection 

(a) for purposes of the grant program in section 5 of this Act may be used for a Congressional earmark as defined in clause 9(d) of 

rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

SEC. 11. SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE. 

(a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This Act and the 

amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date that is 6 months after the 

date of enactment of this Act. 

(b) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MATERIALS.— 

The Secretary of Labor and the Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shall jointly develop 

technical assistance material to assist small 

businesses in complying with the requirements of this Act and the amendments made 

by this Act. 

(c) SMALL BUSINESSES.—A small business 

shall be exempt from the provisions of this 

Act to the same extent that such business is 

exempt from the requirements of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act pursuant to section 

3(s)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) of such Act. 

SEC. 12. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. 

Nothing in this Act, or in any amendments 

made by this Act, shall affect the obligation 

of employers and employees to fully comply 

with all applicable immigration laws, including any penalties, fines, or other sanctions. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 5(b) of House Resolution 

5, the gentleman from California (Mr. 

MILLER) and the gentleman from California (Mr. MCKEON) each will control 

30 minutes. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 9, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H127 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from California (Mr. MILLER). 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. 

Madam Speaker, Members of the 

House, in 1963, the Equal Pay Act was 

passed to end the discriminatory practices of paying men and women differently for performing the same job. 

The law’s principle is that women and 

men should be paid based upon their 

merits and not on an employer’s prejudice. 

Before the Equal Pay Act, women in 

the workplace earned 59 cents on the 

dollar compared to their male counterparts. Things have gotten better since 

the passage of the act, but we still see 

that women earn only 78 cents for 

every dollar that is earned by a man 

doing the same job with the same responsibilities. 

It is also very disturbing that African American women earn only 66 

cents on the dollar, and Hispanic 

women earn an astonishing 55 cents on 

the dollar compared to their male 

counterparts in the workplace. This 

wage disparity will cost women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a 

lifetime in lost wages, and it will follow them right into retirement in the 

form of smaller pensions and reduced 

Social Security benefits. It will make 

their health care even more expensive. 

Today, this House will take a critical 

step forward to ensure that the Equal 

Pay Act lives up to its promise. Over 12 

years ago, our colleague, ROSA

DELAURO from Connecticut, introduced 

the Paycheck Fairness Act. In those 12 

years, she was unable to get a hearing 

in this Congress. But she has now received a hearing, and later today she 

will receive passage of this legislation 

that will greatly strengthen the Equal 

Pay Act and close many of the loopholes that have allowed employers to 

avoid responsibility for discriminatory 

pay. 

Currently, an employer can refute a 

pay discrimination claim if he or she 

provides the difference of pay is based 

upon any factor other than gender, 

even factors unrelated to the job. That 

is just unacceptable. An excuse for 

equal pay that is not related to the job 

is no excuse at all. H.R. 12 will ensure 

that employers either provide equal 

pay for equal work, or provide a real 

business justification for not doing so. 

They will have to show that any gender-based wage differential is job-related, not based on or derived from 

gender-based differential and is consistent with business necessity. 

H.R. 12 will also prohibit employers 

from retaliating against employees 

who discuss their pay. Many employers 

have policies forbidding employees 

from talking about their pay. This was 

the case of Lilly Ledbetter, the subject 

of the previous legislation that we just 

considered here this morning. 

b 1145 

For years, Lilly Ledbetter was paid 

less than her male counterparts just 

because she was a woman, but she was 

unable to know that because she could 

not discuss her pay with any of the 

other supervisors, the people in the 

place of employment. That is wrong. 

They should be allowed to do that. 

Such policies silence workers and 

allow employers to hide discriminatory 

pay practices. Employees should feel 

free to discuss their pay. It is often the 

only way that they can discover discriminatory pay practice and seek to 

rectify them. 

The bill will also put gender-based 

discrimination sanctions on an equal 

footing with other forms of discrimination by allowing women to sue for punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages, just as business and 

workers may do under section 1981 for 

race and national origin discrimination. 

If we are serious about closing the 

gender pay gap, we must get serious 

about punishing those who would otherwise scoff at the weak sanctions 

under the current law. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act will require the Department of Labor to continue collecting pay information based 

upon gender. It also creates a program 

designed to help strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and women. 

Any pay gap based on gender is unacceptable, especially during these tough 

economic times. Single women who are 

head of households are twice as likely 

to be in poverty as single men. 

For families, especially those working under or near the poverty line, 

equal pay for women will make a significant difference in their economic 

well-being. 

Allowing wage discrimination to continue will hold down women and their 

families while further harming the 

American economy. 

And, again, I’d like to thank Congresswoman ROSA DELAURO for her passionate advocacy of this legislation and 

her introduction of this legislation. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. MCKEON. Madam Speaker, I rise 

in opposition to the bill, and I yield 

myself such time as I may consume. 

Discrimination in the workplace is 

wrong. Paying women lower wages for 

the same work is wrong. It’s also illegal. 

Congress enacted protections to ensure equal pay for equal work in 1963 

when the Equal Pay Act was added to 

the Fair Labor Standards Act. Congress acted again to protect women and 

all Americans from workplace discrimination with the enactment of 

title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 

Together, these laws offer women 

strong protections against workplace 

discrimination and strong remedies 

should they be subject to illegal employment practices. 

Yet we’re here today debating a bill 

that has been touted as necessary to 

protect women from being underpaid. 

Supporters of the bill would have you 

believe that unless this legislation is 

enacted, employers are free to pay 

women less money for doing the same 

job as their male counterparts. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

This bill isn’t needed to protect 

women from wage discrimination. Such 

protections are already included in the 

law. No, this bill is about something 

entirely different. 

Rather than addressing the real concerns of working families, issues like 

job training, health care, or a lack of 

workplace flexibility, this bill invites 

more and costlier lawsuits. 

The bill opens EPA claims to unlimited compensatory and punitive damages for the first time ever. The majority offered an amendment last year 

that attempts to mask this trial lawyer boondoggle. But make no mistake 

about it, at the end of the day, this bill 

will invite more lawyers to bring more 

lawsuits because it offers them the 

promise of a bigger payday. 

H.R. 12 will breed litigation in other 

ways as well, from encouraging class 

action lawsuits to expanding liability. 

I am also concerned that this bill has 

been put forward using misleading 

claims to justify its dangerous consequences. One statistic that is often 

repeated is that women earn just 77 

cents on the dollar compared to men. 

Madam Speaker, if a woman earned 77 

cents on the dollar doing the same job 

as a male counterpart, it would be a 

travesty and it would be illegal. 

What supporters of this bill won’t 

tell you is that the 77 percent figure 

does not compare one man and one 

woman, equally situated, doing the 

same job. To argue that a woman only 

makes 77 cents on the dollar doing the 

same work as her male counterpart is 

to distort reality. The 77 percent figure 

is based on 2005 census data, looking at 

median earnings of all women and all 

men who work at least 35 hours per 

week. Interestingly, if you look at 2006 

data from the U.S. Department of 

Labor comparing men and women who 

worked 40 hours per week, women actually earned 88 cents on the dollar. 

That’s better but not good enough. The 

wage gap is much narrower, but the existence of a gap is still troubling. 

However, in the 110th Congress, the 

Education and Labor Committee heard 

testimony that cited an article published in ‘‘The American Economic Review,’’ which found that when data on 

demographics, education, scores on the 

Armed Forces Qualification Test, and 

work experience are added, the wage 

ratio rises to 91.4 percent. The addition 

of variables measuring workplace and 

occupational characteristics, as well as 

child-related factors, causes the wage 

ratio to rise to 95.1 percent. When the 

percentage female in the occupation is 

added, the wage ratio becomes 97.5 percent, a far less significant difference. 

In another study, researchers from 

the University of Chicago and Cornell 

University found almost no difference 

in the pay of male and female top corporate executives when accounting for 

size of firm, position in the company, 

age, seniority, and experience. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H128 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 9, 2009 

So before we use the 77 percent figure 

to justify new legal ‘‘gotchas,’’ I think 

we need a better understanding of the 

scope of any actual pay disparity and 

why such a disparity exists. 

Madam Speaker, I’ve said it before 

and I will say it again: discrimination 

in the workplace is wrong. Equal pay 

for equal work was the right principle 

when it began in 1963, and it is still 

right today. 

The bill before us is not about ensuring equal pay for equal work, and it 

doesn’t offer working women any protections they don’t already enjoy. Just 

look at the plain text of the legislation. This bill is about more and costlier lawsuits. 

Madam Speaker, I’m strongly opposed to this bill, and I encourage my 

colleagues to join me in voting ‘‘no.’’ 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 

from California (Ms. WOOLSEY), a member of the committee. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Madam Speaker, at one time I was a 

single mother raising three small children. I worked full time, but I still 

struggled to put food on the table and 

to care for my children because my 

paycheck did not cover all of our needs. 

That’s when women earned 59 cents on 

the dollar. That’s when I needed Aid 

for Dependent Children to make ends 

meet at our house, even though I got a 

paycheck every month. 

And that’s when I decided that I 

should join the Sonoma County Commission on the status of women where 

I eventually became the Chair, and we 

worked to change that very statistic of 

what women earn compared to men. 

But we now are only at 77 cents to the 

dollar. 

That actually was more than 40 years 

ago, but today there are still millions 

of mothers in this country that are 

struggling to provide for their families 

while trying to balance full-time work. 

It is a fact, and we have said it before 

today, that single mothers are twice as 

likely than single fathers to raise their 

children in poverty. Unfortunately, so 

long as women continue to receive 77 

cents on the dollar earned by a man, 

this statistic is unlikely to change 

anytime soon, particularly when a 

woman college graduate earns the 

equivalent of a male gardener. 

You’ve got to take those statistics 

into your head. You’ve got to know 

what it means, and in this current economic climate, things are so bad. We 

can’t in good conscience sit by, and let 

one American worker earn less than 

she rightfully deserves. 

This gap in pay cannot be explained 

away just as a result of women’s personal choices. In fact, a recent study 

from the American Association of University Women found that just 1 year 

out of college, women working fulltime make just 80 percent of what their 

male counterparts earn. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act is one of 

the first steps to get us back to an economic recovery. It must be passed. 

Mr. MCKEON. I’m happy to yield to 

at this time to the subcommittee ranking member over this piece of legislation, the gentleman from Minnesota 

(Mr. KLINE), such time as he may consume. 

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam 

Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 

yielding. 

Madam Speaker, once again I find 

myself rising in opposition to ill-conceived legislation before Congress. 

Closely related to the Ledbetter bill we 

debated earlier today, the so-called 

Paycheck Fairness Act is yet another 

attempt to hamstring our Nation’s 

businesses by limiting their ability to 

make hiring decisions based on the 

merits of their individual employees. 

Despite the misleading title, this bill 

isn’t about paycheck fairness. As my 

colleagues on the Education and Labor 

Committee know very well, multiple 

existing laws, including the Fair Labor 

Standards Act and the Civil Rights 

Act, already make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, and 

rightly so. 

Rather than curbing discriminatory 

employment practices, as its supporters claim, this bill vastly expands 

the likelihood of discrimination lawsuits by making it easier and more lucrative for trial lawyers to bring such 

cases. In fact, a more apt name for this 

bill would be the Plaintiff Bar or Trial 

Lawyer Expansion Act, and I can understand why some of my colleagues 

who may have law schools in their districts or have the opportunity to perhaps build a new law school might, in 

fact, be in favor of this legislation. 

This bill would allow discrimination 

claims to be made on very thin grounds 

and expose employers to unlimited 

claims made under the Equal Pay Act, 

far beyond what is available under any 

other civil rights law. The bill also exposes employers to unlimited punitive 

and compensatory damage awards, 

without requiring proof of intentional 

discrimination. It eliminates key employer defenses for pay disparities, and 

it prohibits employers from disciplining or discharging employees for 

publicly disclosing sensitive wage information. 

Madam Speaker, we all can agree 

that wage discrimination is unconscionable. It is prohibited under Federal laws that are already strongly supported and aggressively enforced by the 

U.S. Department of Labor. 

Congress should not be in the business of making employment decisions 

for individual businesses. In times of 

economic uncertainty, we should instead focus on improving conditions for 

individual workers and enabling our 

Nation’s businesses, large and small, to 

continue to create jobs and drive our 

Nation’s economy. 

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote 

against this legislation. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 

from New Jersey (Mr. ANDREWS) a 

member of the committee. 

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given 

permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

b 1200 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 

support of this legislation, and I would 

like to address several of the arguments that we have heard against it, 

first, that this is some bonanza for 

trial lawyers. 

What this is is an opportunity for 

women who have been discriminated 

against to get a lawyer. If you work as 

a sales clerk or in a factory, you can’t 

afford to pay a lawyer the hourly fee 

that he or she needs to represent you. 

The only way you are going to get represented is through a contingent fee arrangement where a lawyer would recover, would get to keep part of what 

you recover as part of the deal. 

Now, the problem with the Equal Pay 

Act is its remedies are limited so much 

to just twice what your salary is that 

the damages are never high enough to 

justify legal representation. This is 

about getting lawyers for people who 

have a valid claim who cannot afford 

the thousands of dollars that it would 

be. 

Second, there was a representation 

made that defenses are stripped from 

employers. That’s not accurate. What 

is accurate is that if an employer alleges that some reason other than gender was the reason that he paid the 

woman less than the man, it has to be 

a legitimate reason, like level of education or experience. It has to be a legitimate reason. The present law 

doesn’t require that legitimacy. 

Finally, the statement was made 

that an employer cannot discharge an 

employee for talking about pay scales 

publicly, that’s not accurate. What the 

law does is to say that it protects employees that are custodians and guardians of pay records. But it certainly 

doesn’t restrict in any way an employer’s right to enforce a legitimate and 

realistic company policy. 

This is a good bill. It’s an excellent 

proposal that will help lift the economic status of women who work very 

hard, every day, in some cases 7 days a 

week, and deserve it. 

I would urge a ‘‘yes’’ vote. 

Mr. MCKEON. I reserve. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds 

here just to say that I am about to recognize, to speak on this legislation, 

Congresswoman ROSA DELAURO of Connecticut. I think all of us in the House, 

whether we agree or disagree with this 

legislation, recognize the incredible advocacy that she has brought to this 

issue of equal pay for equal work, of 

paycheck fairness, of women’s rights at 

work, and the protection of low-income 

American families throughout her entire career in the Congress. 

As I had mentioned earlier in this debate, she introduced this legislation 

some 12 years ago and has been unable 

to get a hearing on the legislation. We 

provided that hearing, and I think it 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 9, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H129 

was compelling to almost all of the 

members of the committee that this 

wage disparity and these actions could 

not continue and deny women their full 

opportunity to participate in the 

American economy on equal footing. 

So it’s with a lot of pride and a great 

sense of honor just to recognize her to 

speak on behalf of this legislation 

which she has introduced and she is the 

primary author of. 

I recognize the gentlewoman from 

Connecticut for 6 minutes. 

Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 

support of the Paycheck Fairness Act 

and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. 

I want to commend and thank Chairman MILLER for his tireless commitment to this issue—I know that we 

could never have come this far without 

his tenacious leadership, we are grateful—and to Speaker PELOSI, whose vision and leadership have made pay equity a priority in this Congress. 

Earlier this week we convened the 

111th Congress. We welcomed our new 

colleagues to the floor, we celebrated 

this institution’s proudest achievements and honored its great potential. 

Together, we look to the challenges before us with a great sense of responsibility. 

Today, the economy weighs heavily 

on most Americans. Families across 

this Nation are struggling with job insecurity, declining incomes, foreclosures and a financial system in crisis. Women, who account for nearly one 

half of the workforce, feel the effects of 

this faltering economy with particular 

force and poignancy. 

Incomes for women-headed households are down by 3 percent since 2000. 

Unmarried women have an average 

household income almost $12,000 lower 

than unmarried men, and half of all 

women are in jobs that do not offer retirement plans. Retired women are 

more likely to be poor than elderly 

men. 

With our economy in crisis, so many 

women are on the edge financially. 

They feel as if their economic freedom 

is under assault. Almost 60 percent of 

women say they are concerned about 

achieving their economic and financial 

goals over the next 5 years, 15 points 

higher than for men. 

But we know that it does not have to 

be this way. Today we face a transformational moment with a new Congress, a new administration. We have a 

chance to finally provide equal pay for 

equal work and make opportunity real 

for millions of American women. The 

status quo will not do. 

The Department of Labor’s own data 

shows that today women still earn 78 

cents for every dollar that men earn, 

and the marketplace alone will not correct this injustice. We need a solution 

in law, just as our country has done in 

the past, to bring down discriminatory 

barriers. 

As the National Committee on Pay 

Equity tells us, pay disparity’s longterm impact on women’s lifetime earnings is substantial, can cost a woman 

anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million 

over her lifetime. That lack of pay equity translates into less income toward 

a pension, in some cases Social Security benefits. It is no coincidence that 

70 percent of older adults living in poverty are women. 

I am so proud that, together with the 

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act is among the first 

legislative proposals this Congress has 

chosen to consider. It says something 

profound about our priorities as an institution and our goals for the months 

ahead. It says that we are a Nation 

that values the work that women do in 

our society. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act closes 

loopholes that have enabled employers 

to evade liability, stiffens penalties for 

employers who discriminate based on 

gender, protects employees from retaliation for sharing salary information, 

with some exceptions. It establishes a 

grant initiative to provide negotiation 

skills training programs for girls and 

women. 

It addresses a real problem with concrete solutions. Last year working 

women filed over 800 charges of unlawful sex-based pay discrimination with 

the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We all know Lilly 

Ledbetter’s story. For so many years 

she was shortchanged by her employer. 

This week, a New York Times editorial said that by acting today, we 

can, and I quote, ‘‘signal a welcome 

new seriousness in Washington about 

protecting civil rights after 8 years of 

erosion.’’ 

This is our moment to fight for economic freedom and to eliminate the 

systemic discrimination faced by 

women workers. Because what we 

know is at stake, had the Paycheck 

Fairness Act been the law of the land 

when Lilly Ledbetter decided to go to 

court, she would have had a far better 

opportunity to receive just compensation for the discrimination that she endured. 

That is why President-elect Obama 

has said about the Paycheck Fairness 

Act, and I quote, ‘‘This isn’t just an 

economic issue for millions of Americans and their families. It’s a question 

of who we are as a country—of whether 

we’re going to live up to our values as 

a Nation.’’ 

Pay equity is not just another benefit to be bargained for or bargained 

away. It is about giving women the 

power to gain economic security for 

themselves and for their families. This 

body took a major step when it passed 

the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and 

the Paycheck Fairness Act last summer. We return today to carry that momentum forward, finish what we started. 

I have always been proud to serve in 

this institution, and I revere those lawmakers who, before us on previous 

days, took a stand for health care, for 

the elderly or for the Civil Rights Act 

and for the Family and Medical Leave 

Act and made such an impact on people’s lives. 

That is the whole reason why we are 

here. It is my hope that the House acts 

today to pass both the Lilly Ledbetter 

Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act to again make history for this 

country. 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 

gentleman from Illinois (Mr. HARE), a 

member of the committee. 

Mr. HARE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 

strong support of H.R. 12, the Paycheck 

Fairness Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor. I want to commend my friend 

and colleague, Representative ROSA

DELAURO, for introducing this legislation so we can seriously address the 

long-standing problem of gender-based 

wage discrimination in our Nation. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 

women only make 77 cents for every 

dollar earned by a man. This wage disparity will end up costing women anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a 

lifetime in lost wages. Making matters 

worse, the wage gap grows wider as 

women age and move through their careers. This is not only a problem for 

women, it is a problem for our Nation. 

Gender-based wage disparity allows 

employers to discriminate against 

women and avoid liability in the 

courts. Secondly, wage discrimination 

leads to more women in poverty, increasing the burden of health care 

costs of welfare programs on the taxpayer. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act will 

strengthen pay equity laws by closing 

the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay and help to build economic and retirement security for 

women. 

It is in the best interest of all Americans to ensure that every worker is 

treated fairly in the workplace. I urge 

my colleagues to support this bill. 

Again, I thank Congresswoman 

DELAURO for her leadership on this 

issue. 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am 

pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey, a member of 

the committee who has worked very 

diligently on this issue, Mr. HOLT. 

Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 

Paycheck Fairness Act. Equal pay for 

equal work must not be just a saying, 

it must be the law. 

Last year I had the honor of joining 

the Chair of our committee and others 

in unveiling the portrait of the former 

New Jersey Representative Mary Norton, who was Chair of the Labor Committee seven decades ago and a tireless 

advocate then for equal pay. 

Under her leadership, Congress 

passed the 1938 Fair Labor Standards 

Act that established the 40-hour work 

week, it outlawed child labor and established a minimum wage of 25 cents 

an hour. The criticisms we hear today 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H130 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 9, 2009 

were the same then. The Federal Government shouldn’t be involved, the 

critics said. 

I think of Mary Norton today when I 

say that while we have made significant progress since the Equal Pay Act 

of 1963, the fight for equality in the 

workplace is far from over. According 

to the Census Bureau, women still earn 

78 percent of men. 

Mary Norton understood that the 

wage gap was not just a women’s issue, 

it is a family issue. Nowadays, men understand that too. When women earn 

less for equal work, families are forced 

to make do with less. 

I urge my colleagues to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am 

very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 

gentlelady who really makes the trains 

run on time around here, the Chair of 

the Rules Committee, Ms. SLAUGHTER

from New York. 

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, I appreciate it very much. 

Mr. Speaker, when I graduated from 

the University of Kentucky with both a 

bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree, I believed at that time that it was 

perfectly fine to discriminate against 

women. Do you know why we were discriminated against in our wages, even 

though we had gone to the same classes, we had earned the same degree from 

the University of Kentucky, but 

women were told we were worth half as 

much because we might get married 

and we might have children. Therefore, 

there was no point in making any investment whatever in us. I believed 

that up until the point where I became 

the mother of three daughters and the 

grandmother of two young women. 

I first got involved in this as at the 

1972 Democratic convention. At that 

time we all wore little buttons that 

said 59 cents on the dollar. That’s what 

we were paid then 40 years ago. How far 

have we come? Up from 59 to 77 cents. 

I cannot for the life of me believe 

that anyone would be opposed to this 

bill, knowing that in almost every 

American family both parents work to 

try to make ends meet. Why should one 

of them be cheated? Isn’t that a cheat 

on the family? 

My anger knows no bounds. I am so 

grateful this is up today. Forty years is 

long enough to wait. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am 

now pleased to yield 1 minute to the 

very hardworking gentlelady from New 

Hampshire (Ms. SHEA-PORTER). 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I 

rise today to express my enthusiastic 

support for H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and I thank Chairman MILLER of the Education and Labor Committee and Congresswoman DELAURO, 

the sponsor of this legislation, for their 

tireless work and their leadership on 

this issue. 

To paraphrase James Madison, if men 

and women were angels, no government 

would be necessary. In an ideal world, 

we wouldn’t need legislation to reinforce a concept of equal pay for equal 

work. 

But even today in 2009, women make 

an average of only 78 cents for every 

dollar made by their male counterparts. The importance of the Paycheck 

Fairness Act is clear. Gender-based 

wage discrimination has been illegal in 

this country since the Equal Pay Act 

of 1963 was signed into law. Yet, the 

pay disparity between women and men 

that still persists today highlights the 

need to take another look at our wage 

discrimination laws. This disparity, by 

the way, is estimated to cost a working 

woman between $400,000 and $2 million 

over a lifetime. I am a proud cosponsor 

and urge ‘‘yes.’’ 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am 

pleased at this time to yield 1 minute 

to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 

PETERS), one of our new Members who 

is already delivering justice for the 

hardworking women of his district. 

Mr. PETERS. I would like to thank 

the gentleman from New Jersey. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 

of H.R. 12. Decades after the landmark 

Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights 

Act, women in my home State of 

Michigan still earn an intolerable 70 

cents for every dollar earned by a man. 

This discrimination must end. Pay 

equity is not just a women’s issue, it is 

an economic issue. More than ever, 

working families are relying on two incomes. When a mother is denied fair 

pay, she is denied the ability to provide 

for her family, her husband, her children, and the entire family suffers. 

b 1215 

My two daughters, Madeleine and 

Alana, will enter the workforce some 

day. If I learned that an employer was 

paying my daughters less than what 

they deserve, simply because they were 

female, I would be outraged. And right 

now our Nation’s daughters, our Nation’s sisters, our Nation’s mothers, 

are being denied fair treatment and I 

am outraged, and we all should be as 

well. This bill creates commonsense 

measures to ensure fair treatment for 

women, and I urge its passage here 

today. 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 

my time. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am 

pleased to yield 1 minute to a very 

strong voice for workers’ rights in this 

country, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 

KUCINICH). 

Mr. KUCINICH. In 1968, I believe it is, 

Congress passed a Civil Rights Act, and 

we saw still that there had been over a 

period of 40 years racial discrimination 

in America. In 1963, Congress passed 

the Equal Pay Act, and yet we know 

there was wage discrimination over a 

period of more than 40 years affecting 

women. 

This Paycheck Fairness Act is an important step in eliminating the gap 

that exists between the compensation 

of men and women. It is a travesty 

that in 2009 we even have to address 

this issue, but the fact of the matter is, 

the unfortunate reality is that a compensation gap has existed for decades 

and persists to this day. Women receive 

less compensation than their male 

counterparts do for the same work. 

This bill is going to close the legal 

loopholes that employers have exploited to avoid compensation discrimination lawsuits. It will treat gender discrimination on par with other 

types of discrimination. 

We are about to have an economic 

stimulus package. We have to make 

sure that women are able to fully participate in the gains that we hope to 

see in this economy. 

Thank you, ROSA DELAURO, for 

standing up for economic justice. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, may I 

inquire as to how much time each side 

has remaining. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

HOLDEN). The gentleman from New Jersey has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 22 minutes 

remaining. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, at this 

time I am pleased to yield 1 minute to 

the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. SUTTON), a distinguished employment lawyer before she came to this body. 

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank 

the gentleman for the time and for his 

leadership, and I thank the distinguished Chair of the Education and 

Labor Committee, Mr. MILLER, for his 

leadership, and, of course, the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. 

DELAURO, for her unyielding advocacy 

on this legislation. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support 

of this bill. Last November, people 

across this country voted for change, 

and with passage of this legislation we 

will finally change the wage gap that 

has persisted between men and women. 

We know the statistics: 77 cents on 

the dollar that women earn as opposed 

to men. But this is about more than 

statistics. It is about people. It is 

about women and it is about their families, and it is about fairness. With 

every paycheck of these affected 

women, they are cheated and their 

families are cheated. It robs families of 

earned income, it robs their pensions, 

it robs their Social Security benefits, 

and it robs them of fairness and justice. 

We are a country that values fairness 

and justice for all of our citizens, not 

just those of a certain gender. Let’s 

pass this bill. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

1 minute to a strong and compassionate voice for working women all 

over this country, the gentlewoman 

from California (Mrs. CAPPS). 

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 

strong support of H.R. 12, the Paycheck 

Fairness Act. I want to commend our 

colleague ROSA DELAURO for her stellar 

work on this legislation and thank our 

leadership for making sure that this 

bill is one of the first we are considering in our new Congress. I am 

thrilled, and I know it is a testament 

to our commitment to equality for all. 

H.R. 12 closes existing loopholes that 

otherwise prevent employees from recouping deserved wages. Existing law 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 9, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H131 

allows employers to use a myriad of excuses to justify a pay disparity between men and women. This is true 

even if the excuse has nothing to do 

with the job itself. Furthermore, 

women cannot always safely discuss 

salaries with their coworkers to determine if there is discrimination occurring for fear of retaliation from their 

employers. The Paycheck Fairness Act 

will ensure that women can safely discuss wages with other workers and 

modernize the law so that companies 

must show more proof that pay disparities did not occur because of gender. 

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor 

of this important legislation to ensure 

a better economic future for all American women. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, at this 

time I am pleased to yield 11⁄2 minutes 

to the very principled and articulate 

gentleman from Texas (Mr. EDWARDS). 

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Paycheck Fairness Act is about 

far more than the size of a paycheck. It 

is about our commitment to the American values of hard work and equality 

and of opportunity. The story of America is our never-ending march toward 

the highest ideals of equal opportunity 

for all our citizens. Today we write a 

new chapter in that great American 

story. Today we say to women all 

across our land that if you work hard 

and play by the rules, you will be rewarded fairly. You will reap what you 

sow. 

Fulfilling the promise of equal opportunity for American women will lift 

millions of our families and our children out of poverty. That is not just 

progress for their families; it is real 

progress for the American family. 

Some will say this step forward is inconvenient. I say that knocking down 

barriers to equality of opportunity has 

never been the convenient thing to do, 

but it has always been the right thing 

to do. 

Mr. Speaker, my wife and I try to 

teach our two young sons every day 

that if they work hard, they will do 

well in life, that their work will be rewarded fairly. I am supporting this bill 

because I want the parents of every little girl in America to be able to teach 

that value, to make that promise to 

their daughters. It is the American 

promise. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am 

pleased to yield at this time 1 minute 

to a life-long fighter against discrimination, the gentleman from California 

(Mr. HONDA). 

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, every day, 

despite the Equal Pay Act of 1963, millions of American women are denied 

equal pay for performing comparable 

work. In the case of Lilly Ledbetter, 

the Supreme Court of the United 

States compounded the indignity of 

discrimination by ignoring years of 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and lower court decisions, narrowly interpreting the law that should 

have protected her, thus denying her 

the justice she deserved. 

Justice has not been achieved over 

the past 45 years, with women’s wages 

rising from 59 cents for every dollar 

earned by a man in 1963 to just 77 cents 

per dollar earned by a man in 2008. Minority women face even greater disparity, a gap that widened even more 

last year. These women are from all 

walks of life. They calculate our taxes. 

They teach our children. In California’s 

District 15, my home district, they are 

developing the technologies of the future. Our sisters, daughters, and granddaughters deserve better from our 

country. We should have told them 

that they can do anything, reach for 

and achieve any dream. 

I urge my colleagues to support this. 

Mr. MCKEON. I reserve my time. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

1 minute to the gentlewoman from 

Texas (Ms. JACKSON-LEE), who speaks 

with great authority for constituents 

and her beliefs. 

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked 

and was given permission to revise and 

extend her remarks.) 

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. 

Speaker, I thank my distinguished 

friend from New Jersey, and I want to 

take my time to salute our distinguished chairman, Chairman MILLER, 

and ROSA DELAURO for bringing to the 

forefront in this crisis of unemployment, 500,000 unemployed, to recognize 

and to acknowledge to America we believe in fair employment. 

Lilly Ledbetter, we have heard you 

and we salute you. You lost $200,000 in 

back wages because of a Supreme Court 

decision. Now today with the Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act we know that 

it will clarify that each paycheck that 

is discriminatory, that is less than it 

should be, will constitute a discriminatory practice and you will fall within 

the 180 day statute of limitations. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act, which 

we are standing on the floor today to 

defend and support, will create meaningful penalties against employers 

whose pay practices are proven to have 

been discriminatory, and it will protect 

workers from retaliation by their employers when employees discuss their 

pay with coworkers. 

In America we are a country that believes in work and provides that opportunity for women. These are two bills 

that we support. What a great day in 

America, when Democrats can stand up 

for working Americans and the women 

of America. 

I would like to thank Congresswoman 

DELAURO for this important legislation as well 

as the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Education and Labor 

for working together to see that gender equity 

is not just something we talk about, but something we are actually willing to put into action. 

This legislation is intended to combat the 

wage gap that still exists today between men 

and women in the workplace. It is an important step in addressing the persistent wage 

gap between women and men by updating the 

Equal Pay Act—passed more than 45 years 

ago. 

The reality is the Equal Pay Act needs to be 

strengthened and improved for all women to 

combat wage discrimination and eliminate 

loopholes in the current law. The Paycheck 

Fairness Act creates meaningful penalties 

against employers whose pay practices are 

proven to have been discriminatory. The bill 

will also protect workers from retaliation by 

their employers when employees discuss their 

pay with coworkers. 

Early last year the House passed H.R. 

2831, legislation reversing last year’s Supreme 

Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire 

and Rubber Co., in which the court ruled, 5– 

4, that workers filing suit for pay discrimination 

must do so within 180 days of the actual decision to discriminate against them. 

The Paycheck Protection Act is also needed 

to stop discriminatory pay practices by employers against our mothers, wives, daughters, 

and granddaughters that do the same job as 

their male counterparts. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act, will strengthen 

the Equal Pay Act—passed more than 45 

years ago—and as a result improve the law’s 

effectiveness, and help to address the persistent wage gap between men and women. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act would: 

Clarify acceptable reasons for differences in 

pay by requiring employers to demonstrate 

that wage gaps between men and women 

doing the same work are truly a result of factors other than sex. 

Deter wage discrimination by strengthening 

penalties for equal pay violations, and by prohibiting retaliation against workers who inquire 

about employers’ wage practices or disclose 

their own wages. The bill’s measured approach would ensure that women can obtain 

the same remedies as those subject to discrimination on the basis of race or national origin. AAUW would strongly oppose any efforts 

to add such caps. 

Provide women with a fair option to proceed 

in a class action suit under the Equal Pay Act, 

and allow women to receive punitive and compensatory damages for pay discrimination. 

Clarify the establishment provision under the 

Equal Pay Act, which would allow for reasonable comparisons between employees to determine fair wages. 

Authorize additional training for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission staff to better identify and handle wage disputes. 

It will aid in the efficient and effective enforcement of federal anti-pay discrimination 

laws by requiring the EEOC to develop regulations directing employers to collect wage data, 

reported by the race, sex, and national origin 

of employees. 

It will require the U.S. Department of Labor 

to reinstate activities that promote equal pay, 

such as: directing educational programs, providing technical assistance to employers, recognizing businesses that address the wage 

gap, collecting wage-related data, at conducting and promoting research about pay disparities between men and women. 

More importantly for our young ladies going 

into the workforce it will establish a competitive grant program to develop salary negotiation training for women and girls. 

As a Member of the Women’s Caucus I 

have been fighting for pay equity for American 

women since before I arrived here as a Representative in 1995, and I believe that equal 

pay for equal work is a simple matter of justice. Wage disparities are not simply a result 

of women’s education levels or life choices. 

In fact, the pay gap between college educated men and women appears first after college—even when women are working full-time 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H132 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 9, 2009 

in the same fields with the same major as 

men—and continues to widen during the first 

10 years in the workforce. 

Further, this persistent wage gap not only 

impacts the economic security of women and 

their families today, it also directly affects 

women’s retirement security tomorrow. Now is 

the time for additional proactive measures to 

effectively address wage discrimination and 

eliminate loopholes that have hindered the 

Equal Pay Act’s effectiveness. 

I urge my colleagues, both men and women 

to support equality in rights and pay for all 

Americans by supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, may I 

inquire as to the remaining time left 

on each side. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 41⁄2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 

from California has 22 minutes remaining. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am 

pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York City (Mrs. 

MALONEY), a strong advocate of women’s rights. 

Mrs. MALONEY. This is an important day for America’s working 

women, and it shows what a Democratic Congress can mean to their lives 

because it will help end pay discrimination against women. Women are on 

the front lines of the economic meltdown. When a full time working woman 

still earns only 78 cents for every dollar men make, the results can be devastating in their lives. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act could 

also be called the Free Speech Restoration Act, because it allows an employee 

to simply tell other employees critical 

information about themselves. It allows them to tell others what they are 

being paid and not be fired. Many of 

our corporations in America literally 

have a law that if you tell anyone what 

you make, you will be fired. Well, Lilly 

Ledbetter did not find out until someone gave her a secret note 18 years 

after she had been discriminated 

against in pay. 

This is a critical bill. It helps end pay 

discrimination against women. Thank 

you to the Democratic leadership. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I am pleased to yield 

1 minute to a very effective and knowledgeable member of our committee, 

the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 

DAVIS). 

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman 

DELAURO and Chairman MILLER for 

their hard work on the Lilly Ledbetter 

Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. 

In my work on the Armed Services 

Committee, I have had the honor and 

privilege of working with many of our 

female servicemembers in the armed 

services. And although work still needs 

to be done in other areas, I am proud of 

the fact that our female servicemembers receive exactly the same pay as 

their male counterparts for doing the 

same work. In many ways, the military 

is a model of equal pay for equal work. 

We would never allow our female servicemembers to be paid differently for 

serving our country. Why then would 

we allow women in the civilian sector 

to get paid 78 percent of what their 

male coworkers are paid? 

I urge the passage of this these two 

bills. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I am 

pleased to yield 1 minute to a wise and 

strong voice for the rights of our country, the gentleman from Chicago (Mr. 

DAVIS). 

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I 

want to thank the gentleman from New 

Jersey for yielding. 

I rise in strong support of both these 

bills, H.R. 11 and H.R. 12. I think it is 

an excellent way to start the new session of Congress, to start the new year. 

I want to commend Chairman MILL

AND REPRESENTATIVE DELAURO for 

their strong leadership on these issues 

for the last several years. 

I know that we ought to begin by 

saying that everybody has equal rights, 

equal opportunity, and equal pay. I 

thank the gentleman again. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I would 

like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. COHEN), a 

strong advocate for his constituents. 

Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman. 

I want to first thank Congresswoman 

DELAURO for her long work on this. It 

is hard for me to believe that it is 2009 

and this issue is still before us. It is a 

great day in this United States Congress, Mr. Speaker, that we will do 

fairness and equity for women here in 

this House. Hopefully the Senate will 

do the same. 

The Supreme Court in Lilly 

Ledbetter did itself just as much disservice as it did in Bush v. Gore. The 

Supreme Court needed to be reversed. 

We will do it with this legislation and 

will provide remedies for women in the 

future for inequities in workplace pay. 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Speaker, it is my 

understanding that I will close and you 

will close. We have no more speakers. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, that is 

correct. The only remaining speaker is 

our chairman. 

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself the balance of my time. 

‘‘The Paycheck Fairness Act.’’ It has 

a nice ring to it. Who doesn’t support 

paycheck fairness? Who doesn’t support equal pay for equal work? 

b 1230 

I have three beautiful and talented 

daughters, and I have 13 beautiful and 

talented granddaughters. I won’t mention that I have three handsome, talented sons and 16 handsome, talented 

grandsons. 

If this would do for women what all 

of these speeches have said it would do, 

I would be the strongest advocate for it 

because of my daughters and my granddaughters and hopefully, some day, 

great granddaughters. 

Unfortunately, that is not what this 

bill is offering. No, Mr. Speaker, if this 

bill becomes law, it will make the system fundamentally unfair, except for 

trial lawyers. Now, if one of my granddaughters becomes a trial lawyer it 

would help her, and I guess that’s a 

good thing to support. 

But the bill will expose family businesses to unlimited liability, threatening jobs, and retirement security at 

a time when both are on shaky ground. 

The Democrats’ meager efforts to blunt 

the potential harm do not change the 

fact that trial lawyers stand to receive 

a big payday because this bill lowers 

the bar on costly jury awards. 

H.R. 12 will encourage class action 

lawsuits, treating the EPA as a litigation factory. It will make it harder for 

businesses to defend against legal challenges, inviting unscrupulous trial lawyers to pursue baseless claims. 

Now we know what the bill would do. 

But what about what it fails to do? It 

doesn’t prohibit discrimination under 

the law. We did that 46 years ago. It 

doesn’t offer working women new flexibility so they can balance work and 

home, as Republicans have fought for. 

It certainly doesn’t do anything to 

stimulate the economy, which is the 

number one issue, what many working 

families are struggling with today, 

working mothers are struggling with. 

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill, and I 

strongly urge my colleagues to oppose 

it. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 

myself the balance of our time. 

I want to thank my friend and colleague, ROSA DELAURO, for her hard 

work on this. And this is the bill that 

is for the women who are office managers who are being underpaid for the 

men who are being called executive 

vice presidents. This is the bill for the 

women who do the work, make the decisions, shoulder the responsibility but 

don’t get the pay. Now, that’s been illegal for 46 years, but that remedy has 

been wholly ineffective until this bill 

came along. You couldn’t get represented by a lawyer, under the present 

law, because your damages couldn’t be 

enough because of the cap that were 

put on damages. 

We live in a world where women do 

the work, take the responsibility, 

shoulder the burden, but do not get the 

compensation. This makes the promise 

of the Equal Pay Act a reality for 

working women around this country. 

I’m proud that in the 19 years she’s 

served in this body, the author of this 

bill has fought for this bill; and I say to 

her, to you, Mr. Speaker, and Americans all over this country, it will become law because of what we’re about 

to do here today. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 

strong support of the Paycheck Fairness Act. 

I am a longtime strong supporter of this legislation, which strengthens the Equal Pay Act of 

1963 and closes the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay. 

As a husband, father, and grandfather, I am 

appalled that in this day and age women are 

still fighting for an equal paycheck. We know 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 9, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H133 

that on average women earn 78 cents for 

every dollar earned by a man. This pay discrimination has cost women thousands of dollars in lost wages over their lifetime, which results in many women not only living paycheckto-paycheck, but also neglecting to properly 

save for their retirement. 

The pay gap is too often seen as a ‘‘women’s issue.’’ In fact, this is not a women’s 

issue, it is a family issue. The simple fact of 

the matter is that it often takes two incomes to 

make it in this country. This is especially true 

during an economic downturn like we face 

today. When women are not paid fairly, our 

families suffer. 

I am proud to be here today voting in favor 

of the Paycheck Fairness Act and sincerely 

hope this critically important legislation is 

signed into law this year. 

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

in strong support of the Paycheck Fairness 

Act and commend the House leadership for 

making this legislation among the first orders 

of business in this new Congress. 

Forty-six years ago, Congress passed the 

Equal Pay Act to end wage discrimination 

against women who on average earned only 

60 cents to every dollar earned by men. 

Since then, women have made extraordinary achievements. Glass ceilings continue 

to be broken in the public and private sector; 

we now serve under the first female Speaker 

of the House, and the number of women 

heading Fortune 500 companies continues to 

expand. 

I believe that these achievements have contributed to an illusion that women have 

reached full equality in the workplace. 

The sad reality is, however, that in spite of 

these achievements and the passage of the 

Equal Pay Act, today women still earn only an 

estimated 78 cents to every dollar earned by 

their male counterparts, for equal work. 

This unfairness often has devastating economic consequences on women, especially 

upon retirement, as pension and Social Security benefits are based on life earnings. 

Wage discrimination can cost a woman anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million in lifetime 

earnings, contributing to the disturbing fact 

that today women make up 70 percent of 

older adults living in poverty. 

I urge my colleagues to begin the process 

of ending wage discrimination in our Nation’s 

workplaces once and for all by voting yes on 

the Paycheck Fairness Act. We need to act 

today to strengthen the Equal Pay Act and ensure that women in the workforce have the 

means to protect their economic security. 

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I 

rise today in strong support of the Paycheck 

Fairness Act, H.R. 12, which continues this 

House’s efforts to ensure fair and equal pay 

for the women of our workforce. 

Over four decades ago, Congress passed 

the Equal Pay Act with the goal of eliminating 

gender-based wage discrimination and once 

and for all closing the wage gap between men 

and women. Unfortunately, loopholes and deficiencies found within the legislative text allowed the wage gap to persist. As a result, 

women currently make on average only 77 

cents for every dollar earned by a male and in 

my great State of Connecticut, matters are not 

much better with women making only 82 cents 

on the dollar. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act, of which I am 

a proud cosponsor, provides a logical and effective means to eliminate gender-based wage 

discrimination. By strengthening the Equal Pay 

Act and eliminating loopholes that have for too 

long been exploited by some employers, this 

legislation will offer greater protection to 

women in the workforce, while also substantially increasing penalties on those disreputable employers who continue to disregard our 

Nation’s laws. 

Mr. Speaker, during this time of economic 

uncertainty it is more important than ever that 

all Americans earn equal pay for equal work. 

I would like to thank both Chairman GEORGE

MILLER and Congresswoman ROSA DELAURO

for their collective efforts on this important 

issue and urge all my colleagues to stand up 

for women workers and vote in favor of this 

legislation. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 

support of H.R. 12, ‘‘The Paycheck Fairness 

Act.’’ I am hopeful that the momentum created 

with the passage of the Act this past July will 

propel this important legislation through the 

Senate and on to our new President’s desk as 

one of the first laws enacted by the 111th 

Congress. In doing so, our Nation takes the 

final steps in its long journey towards ensuring 

that men and women receive equal pay for 

equal work. 

The Congress first committed itself to remedying the scourge of pay discrimination in 

1963, when it passed the Equal Pay Act. At 

that time, full-time working women were paid 

on average 59 cents on the dollar earned by 

their male counterparts. In the ensuing 43 

years, the wage gap between men and 

women has narrowed. In 2009, women earn 

about 77 percent of what men earn. While this 

is a dramatic improvement, the 23 cent gap 

that exists still exemplifies that gender discrimination is a real and contemporary problem in our labor market. 

H.R. 12 would attack this problem in a comprehensive manner. It builds on many of the 

innovative policies found in the original EPA 

and adds provisions specifically crafted to address the realities of 21st century offices. 

H.R. 12 will strengthen the EPA by making 

it unlawful for an employer to pay unequal 

wages to men and women who have substantially similar jobs that are performed under 

similar working conditions within the same 

physical location of business. Under the original EPA, employers can justify unequal pay if 

it is based on: seniority; merit; quality or quantity of production; or ‘‘any factor other than 

sex.’’ This legislation clarifies the ‘any factor 

other than sex’ defense, so that an employer 

trying to justify paying a man more than a 

woman for the same job must show that the 

disparity is not sex-based, is job-related, and 

necessary for the business. 

The bill will also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who discuss or 

disclose salary information with their coworkers. However, employees such as human resources personnel who have access to payroll 

information as part of their job would not be 

protected if they disclose the salaries of other 

workers. 

The bill also adds teeth and accountability 

by strengthening the remedies available to include punitive and compensatory damages. 

Under the EPA currently, plaintiffs can only recover back pay and in some cases double 

back pay. The damages would not be capped. 

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for this 

body to enshrine ‘‘equal pay for equal work’’ 

as the law of the land. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today 

in strong support of the Paycheck Fairness 

Act, H.R. 12, which addresses gender-based 

wage discrimination. This is a historic day in 

the fight for equal rights for women, and I 

would like to thank Speaker NANCY PELOSI

and House leaders for making pay equity for 

women among the first votes in the 111th 

Congress. 

Families are struggling with the current economic crisis, making it more important than 

ever that women, who are often the head of 

the household and make up nearly half the 

workforce, are compensated fairly and equitably. Leading the legislative session with 

measures to reverse gender-based wage bias 

is a clear signal of the level of commitment 

American families can expect from this Congress. 

The disastrous economic policies of the 

Bush administration failed to address major 

workforce equity issues over the last 8 years. 

It is unacceptable that on average, women 

only make 78 cents for every dollar earned by 

a man, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. 

That could mean a difference of $400,000 to 

$2 million over a lifetime in lost wages. Furthermore, the wage disparity grows wider as 

women age and threatens their economic security, retirement, and quality of life. The new 

Congress and the incoming Administration 

must act quickly to protect America’s workers 

from wage discrimination. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act seeks to level 

the playing field between men and women. 

This bill will strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 

1963 and close the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility for discriminatory pay. The bill will give women the 

same access to recover back pay and damages as victims of other types of pay discrimination. Furthermore, it protects employees 

who discuss pay information from retaliation 

by their employers and does not doesn’t allow 

courts to accept poor excuses for unfair pay 

practices. 

There is no question that our top priority is 

to get Americans and our economy working 

again. The Paycheck Fairness Act recognizes 

that equal pay is not only an issue of fairness 

for women, but also one of fairness for working families. In these tough economic times, 

this bill could make all the difference for working families to make ends meet in their everyday lives. Through these efforts we can help 

give families the resources they need to give 

their children a better future. Pay equity 

should not be a benefit that needs to be bargained for, it is a promise that the government 

must ensure. 

I urge my colleagues to support this bill to 

ensure economic security for women, their 

families, and our communities. Through this 

legislation we can ensure a better future for 

our daughters, granddaughters, and generations to come. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 

support of H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness 

Act. As an original cosponsor of this bill, as 

well as a cosponsor in previous Congressional 

sessions, I am pleased to see this legislation 

on the House floor today. 

H.R. 12 would narrow the wage gap between men and women and strengthen the 

Equal Pay Act, which makes it unlawful for an 

employer to pay unequal wages to men and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H134 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 9, 2009 

women that have similar jobs within the same 

establishment. The Paycheck Fairness Act 

would allow women to sue for punitive damages, as well as compensatory damages. Currently, women who seek compensation for unequal pay can only recover back pay, or in 

some cases, double back pay. While this bill 

would increase penalties for employers who 

pay different wages to men and women for 

equal work, it also provides incentives such as 

training programs for employers to eliminate 

pay disparities and grant programs to help 

strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and 

women. 

Some may argue that these changes are 

not necessary, but the numbers speak for 

themselves. Despite greatly increased commitment to the labor force over the past 45 years, 

women working full-time make 77 cents for 

every dollar earned by a man—less than a 20 

percent increase since the Equal Pay Act was 

signed into law in 1963. Even more troublesome, African-American women earn 66 cents 

to the dollar and Latina women earn 55 cents 

to the dollar. According to a Census Bureau 

study, male high school graduates earned 

$13,000 more than female high school graduates in 2006. Women with a bachelor’s degree employed year-round earned $53,201, 

while similarly educated men earned an average of $76,749. This same study also noted 

that the pay difference between men and 

women grows wider as they age. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill to protect women like Lilly 

Ledbetter from taking their case for equal pay 

all the way to the Supreme Court, to support 

single mothers who may worry whether or not 

they are being treated fairly by their employers 

while they provide for their children, and to ensure that daughters entering college can reach 

their full potential when they graduate. 

Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise 

today in support of H.R. 12, the Paycheck 

Fairness Act. I want to thank my colleague 

Congresswoman ROSA DELAURO for introducing it, a champion for women and working 

families. And I also want to thank Presidentelect Obama for urging us to pass this important bill. 

In 1963, women working full-time made 59 

cents on average for every dollar earned by 

men. For every dollar men earn today, women 

earn 78 cents. Over the last 45 years the 

wage gap has narrowed by less than half a 

cent per year. Clearly, we still have a long 

way to go. 

The wage gap is most severe for women of 

color. It is absolutely inexcusable that women 

and especially minority women earn a fraction 

of what men earn for the same job. 

African-American women earn just 63 cents 

on the dollar and Latina women earn far 

worse at 52 cents. In my own State of California, Black women earn only 61 percent, and 

Latina women only 42 percent, of the wages 

of White men. That is outrageous. 

The wage disparity begins at the start of a 

woman’s work life and grows wider as women 

age. In the long term, this pattern of substantially lower lifetime earnings affects the quality 

of life for women and their families. It limits 

their opportunities for promotion, and contributes to decreased savings, pension income, 

and Social Security benefits. The result is that 

quite simply, many women are at risk of falling 

into poverty as they get older. 

H.R. 12 takes immediate steps to close the 

wage gap for all women by amending and 

strengthening the Equal Pay Act, EPA, of 

1963, so that it will be a more effective tool in 

combating gender-based pay discrimination. 

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 

H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act. More 

than 40 years after the passage of the Equal 

Pay Act and Title VI, women continue to be 

paid less for performing many of the same 

jobs as their male counterparts. According to 

the U.S. Census Bureau, on average, women 

only make 78 cents for every dollar earned by 

a man. That could mean a difference of 

$400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime of work. 

The pay disparity is even larger among African 

Americans and Latinos; it affects women at all 

income levels and throughout the range of occupations in American. This gap even widens 

as women age. 

The legislation we are considering today, 

The Paycheck Fairness Act, is a terribly important initiative, in my judgment, designed to 

close that pay gap between men and women. 

The bill strengthens the Equal Pay Act of 1963 

by increasing the remedies available to put 

sex-based pay discrimination on par with racebased pay discrimination. How would we 

achieve these objectives? Specifically, this 

legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act, would: 

Require that employers seeking to justify 

unequal should bear the burden of proving 

that its actions are job-related and consistent 

with a business necessity; 

Prohibit employers from retaliating against 

employees who share salary information with 

their co-workers; 

Put gender-based discrimination sanctions 

on an equal footing with other forms of wage 

discrimination such as discrimination based on 

race, disability or age. We would achieve this 

by allowing women to sue for compensatory 

and punitive damages; 

Require the Department of Labor to enhance outreach and training efforts to work 

with employers in order to eliminate pay disparities; 

Require the Department of Labor to continue to collect and disseminate wage information based on gender; and, finally, 

Create a new grant program to help 

strengthen the negotiation skills of girls and 

women. 

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of the 111th Session of Congress, I believe passage of this 

legislation sends a necessary and most appropriate message to employers across this nation that the work done by women is every bit 

as important and valuable as the labor of 

working men in America, and that we are resolving through this bill to end the overt as 

well as the subtle discrimination that still exists 

against women in the American workplace. 

I strongly support this legislation, and I urge 

my colleagues to vote in favor or its passage. 

Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 

express my strong support for H.R. 12, the 

Paycheck Fairness Act. I salute the extraordinary work of Chairman MILLER and Congresswoman DELAURO to bring these important bills to the floor today. 

Today we are considering the Paycheck 

Fairness Act to protect people like Lilly 

Ledbetter from pay discrimination. 

Under current law, if an employer can name 

any factor that has determined an employee’s 

pay other than gender, they can justify unequal pay and discriminate against female employees. The employer’s reason does not 

have to be related to the job in question. 

Under H.R. 12 employers will have to give a 

satisfactory explanation for paying a man 

more than a woman for the same job and they 

will have to demonstrate that the disparity is 

not sex-based, but job-related. 

Employers will also now be barred from 

punishing employees who discuss or disclose 

salary information to their co-workers. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act will also put 

gender-based discrimination on the same level 

as other forms of wage discrimination by giving women the opportunity to sue for compensatory and punitive damages. Under current 

law women who have been discriminated 

against may only recover back pay, or in 

some cases double back pay. 

The wage gap between men and women 

has narrowed since the passage of the landmark Equal Pay Act in 1963, but according to 

the U.S. Census Bureau, women still only 

make 77 cents for every dollar earned by a 

man. It’s time to close the gap and pass this 

law. 

H.R. 12 is a necessary tool to ensure that 

civil rights for all Americans are honored in the 

workplace. For our country and our economy 

to recover we will rely on every hardworking 

American and we cannot tolerate discrimination against anyone. 

I’m very proud to support this bill and I urge 

a ‘‘yes’’ vote on the underlying legislation. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, 

in 1963, President Kennedy signed the Equal 

Pay Act in order to address the nation’s wage 

gap. And yet, 46 years later women still make 

on average only 77 cents for every dollar 

earned by men for the same work. 

But thanks to Lilly Ledbetter, we are going 

to right that wrong today on the House floor. 

In 2007, I had the opportunity to meet Lilly. 

She told me how she had no proof of pay discrimination until someone anonymously 

slipped payroll records into her mailbox. Anonymously because Goodyear’s payroll records 

were secret. 

This bill lifts the cloak of secrecy that allows 

these kinds of unfair pay practices to fester— 

which is exactly why the House proudly 

passed this bill last Congress. 

I urge my colleagues today to once again 

support fair pay practices, and see that this 

important legislation becomes law. What you 

don’t know, can hurt you. 

I thank Chairman MILLER and Representative DELAURO for their leadership on this issue. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a bold step 

forward in righting the wrong of pay discrimination. 

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 

support of the Paycheck Fairness Act. 

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was a landmark 

piece of legislation. Along with other civil rights 

laws, it has helped to cut the gender-based 

wage gap in America nearly in half. But 

women are still paid less than 78 cents for 

every dollar a man is paid. African American 

and Latin American women face even greater 

income disparities. For the last seven years— 

after four decades of steady progress toward 

equality—the wage gap has remained stagnant. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act will give workers the tools they need to get back on track 

to equality in the workplace. It modernizes the 

Equal Pay Act, bringing it in line with other 

civil rights laws by updating rules for class-action suits and permitting punitive damages. 

Further, it closes a major loophole relating to 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 9, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H135 

affirmative defenses, requiring employers to 

substantiate the rationale for pay disparities if 

they claim they aren’t based on gender. If enacted, the Paycheck Fairness Act will also 

strengthen the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission’s ability to detect illegal salary 

practices. 

It’s far past time to stand up for fair pay for 

women. I’m proud to cosponsor this important 

legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join 

me in voting for it. 

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 

support of H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act 

of 2009. As a member of the Education and 

Labor Committee and an original cosponsor, I 

am glad to have the opportunity to speak in 

support of this important bill today. 

While women have made tremendous 

strides in the workplace since the passage of 

the Equal Pay Act 43 years ago, their earnings have not kept pace with that of their male 

coworkers. In the United States, the average 

full-time working woman earns just 77 cents to 

every dollar earned by her male colleagues. 

This discrepancy in earnings throughout a 

woman’s career may cost her hundreds of 

thousands, if not millions of dollars in lost income and retirement savings. 

I urge my colleagues to protect the rights of 

women against pay discrimination and ensure 

that women are treated fairly in the workplace. 

Please support equal pay for equal work and 

vote yes on the Paycheck Fairness Act. 

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, today we debate 

a bill with a good title that fails to make one 

single step toward the purported goal. H.R. 

12, the Paycheck Fairness Act, is being advanced as a bill to protect women from wage 

discrimination, but this bill is really about increasing lawsuits, not protecting women. 

I join my colleagues in rejecting wage discrimination. The American Dream is not possible without wage fairness. This debate, however, is not about wage fairness; it is about 

this Democrat majority rewarding one of their 

most loyal special interest groups—trail lawyers. 

For more than 40 years, the 1963 Equal 

Pay Act and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights 

Act have made it illegal for employers to determine an employee’s pay-scale based on his 

or her gender. I whole-heartedly agree with 

and support these laws. Every American 

should be able to work hard, and make a living for his or her family. We cannot tolerate 

gender discrimination in the workplace. 

Instead of strengthening these laws, H.R. 12 

offers no additional protection from discrimination. It simply expands opportunities for trail 

lawyers to cash-in under existing nondiscrimination laws. By opening discrimination 

claims to unlimited compensatory and punitive 

damages, H.R. 12 will give great incentives to 

trial lawyers to bring frivolous claims. Such 

claims will inevitably lead to higher costs to 

businesses at a time when so many are struggling to remain open. High business costs 

often lead to job cuts. In this time of economic 

downturn, it is wrong to increase the burden 

on employers and risk additional job losses for 

the benefit of wealthy trial lawyers. 

Mr. Speaker, strong nondiscrimination laws 

are critical to the future of our nation; however, H.R. 12 has nothing to do with paycheck 

discrimination. Now is the time to find solutions to the challenges facing our economy, 

not endanger our businesses with frivolous 

lawsuits. I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. 

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 

H.R. 12 the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2009. 

Since the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 

1963, the wage gap in the United States between men and women has narrowed significantly, however, on average, women still earn 

78 cents for every dollar earned by a man, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. When 

women earn less for equal work, families are 

forced to do more with less. Affording all of 

life’s expenses is challenging enough—it 

shouldn’t be made harder as a result of 

women being shortchanged on payday. 

Under current law, victims of gender-based 

wage discrimination recover less in damages 

than victims of discrimination based on their 

race or ethnicity. All forms of discrimination, 

whether they are based on gender, race, or 

ethnicity are equally repugnant, and the Paycheck Fairness Act ensures that the law views 

all forms of discrimination in the workplace on 

the same level. 

In addition, the Paycheck Fairness Act 

would protect employees who discuss salary 

information punished in the workplace. Often 

times, wage discrimination is difficult to determine because salary levels are confidential. 

This bill would prevent employers from retaliating against employees who discuss openly, 

the most common way pay discrimination is 

uncovered. 

Finally, this bill would hold employers accountable by mandating that employers demonstrate to the court that pay disparity between employees is not gender-based, is jobrelated and is consistent with the needs of the 

business. 

As the country faces a challenging economic forecast, Congress must look after the 

best interests of working families. The Paycheck Fairness Act will make a difference for 

working families across the country, and I ask 

my colleagues to join me in supporting this 

bill. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time 

for debate has expired. 

Pursuant to section 5(b) of House 

Resolution 5, the bill is considered read 

and the previous question is ordered. 

The question is on the engrossment 

and third reading of the bill. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed 

and read a third time, and was read the 

third time. 

MOTION TO RECOMMIT

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I 

offer a motion to recommit. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the 

gentleman opposed to the bill? 

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

Clerk will report the motion to recommit. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Mr. Price of Georgia moves to recommit 

the bill, H.R. 12, to the Committee on Education and Labor with instructions to report 

the bill back to the House forthwith the following amendments: 

Page 10, line 17: strike ‘‘and’’ and after 

such line insert the following: 

(B) by inserting ‘‘in an amount not to exceed $2,000 per hour’’ after ‘‘reasonable attorney’s fee’’; and 

Page 10, line 18, strike ‘‘(B)’’ and insert 

‘‘(C)’’. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 

Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes in 

support of his motion. 

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, 

it’s a new Congress and, yes, it’s a new 

day. But what we’re debating isn’t that 

new. It’s, in fact, a recycled campaign 

promise to a favored special interest, 

and a sad reminder of the path this majority continues to take this country. 

As most folks already know, equal 

pay for equal work is the law of the 

land and it has been since the passage 

of the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Generally, 

businesses do a tremendous job paying 

employees fairly, regardless of gender. 

But the bill before the House today 

treats wage discrimination as if it were 

systematic. And in the midst of economic challenges, we’re failing to address the real challenges affecting 

Americans’ wages and the purchasing 

power of their paychecks. 

If this measure becomes law, power 

will be turned over to bureaucrats and 

trial lawyers to interject, distort and 

oversee how wages are determined 

through lawsuits and through regulations. 

It means less incentive, Mr. Speaker, 

less incentive for employers to offer a 

variety of working situations like flex 

time or more limited travel, because 

doing so may put an employer at risk 

of being sued; hardly a wise action on 

their part. 

In turn, current and prospective 

workers will suffer through lower 

wages, slower job creation or simply 

fewer opportunities to meet individual 

worker needs. 

All of this leads, Mr. Speaker, to this 

motion to recommit. One of the distinctive changes being made today to 

the Equal Pay Act is the inclusion of 

unlimited compensatory and punitive 

damages in a lawsuit. As Members already know, compensatory damages redress wrongful conduct and punitive 

damages are to deter future wrongful 

conduct. 

But under the Equal Pay Act, an employee does not need to show discriminatory intent in order to prevail. As 

some have correctly described this bill, 

it’s a boondoggle for trial lawyers. 

They’ll be able to collect unlimited 

damages, even, Mr. Speaker, even when 

a disparity is not intended. This serves 

no legitimate purpose and turns the 

Equal Pay Act into a lottery. That’s 

why this motion is a simple, commonsense change that caps reasonable, reasonable attorney’s fees at $2,000 per 

hour. Now, surely we can agree on that. 

By limiting attorney’s fees, it is the 

intent that lawyers would take cases 

based on actual discrimination and 

merit and prevent lawsuit abuse. Today’s litigation system, unfortunately 

does little to restrain the filing of lawsuits. It’s why lawsuits can result in 

millions of dollars in lawyers’ fees, yet 

plaintiffs get pennies on the dollar. It’s 

why tort costs consume approximately 

2 percent of our Gross Domestic Product, billions of dollars. It’s why 10 percent of every dollar spent on health 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H136 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 9, 2009 

care is attributed to the cost of liability and defensive medicine, hundreds of 

billions of dollars. 

This cap on attorneys’ fees will ensure that victims of discrimination are 

protected with appropriate incentives. 

Without a cap, this bill will have a detrimental effect on labor markets. Increasing lawsuits and unlimited damages will discourage hiring and may 

further segregate employment preferences for one gender in favor of another. 

On this side of the aisle Republicans 

understand that fair-minded business 

folks want to make an honest living 

without favoring political friends or 

bureaucrats impeding job creation or 

dictating how a business should be run. 

Let’s adopt this motion to recommit. 

It’s a new Congress and a new day, but 

let’s not make a first act an old, recycled campaign promise to political 

friends. 

I urge adoption of the motion to recommit. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 

motion. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

Mr. Speaker and Members of the 

House, this motion is a little bit unbelievable in the sense that it suggests 

that we should be setting the attorneys’ fees, even though the amount 

that the gentleman is asking us to set 

far exceeds what would be ordinary 

hourly wages fees in these kinds of 

cases across the Nation. At the same 

time, it makes no differentiation for 

geography, complication of cases, number of attorneys necessary in a case or 

even the number of firms that may be. 

We don’t know if this applies to all of 

the attorneys in the case with multiple 

plaintiffs; whether this applies across 

the firm if multiple attorneys in a firm 

are on a single case if it’s a complicated case and, in many cases, these 

are very complicated cases because 

they go in to business practices that 

are disguised in terms of trying to justify unequal pay in the name of equal 

pay. 

I find it rather interesting that the 

supporters of this amendment across 

the aisle all stood up and talked about 

how they support the idea of equal pay, 

how they want their daughters and 

their granddaughters to be treated 

equally, how they want to make sure 

that they’re treated fairly in the workplace and they really support the concept; they just don’t support this bill 

which would make that the law. 

But then what did they decide to do? 

They decided when those granddaughters aren’t treated fairly in the 

workplace, they will discriminate 

against them in an ability to have an 

attorney. They will discriminate 

against them because they will say 

that their attorneys’ fees are going to 

be capped according to this law, as opposed to letting the judge and the 

Court work out what are reasonable 

fees in that court case. 

Why do they discriminate against 

them? The gentleman is jumping to his 

feet. Because there’s no cap on the attorneys’ fees of the people who discriminated against them, on the employer who made the conscious decision to pay this person less in the 

workplace, to treat them in a discriminatory fashion, to not recognize their 

inherent value and the comparability 

of their skills and their talent. They’ve 

decided that those employers can pay 

$5,000 an hour, $25,000 an hour, or 

$250,000 and they can hire as many 

firms as they want, New York firms, 

Chicago firms, Los Angeles firms. They 

can do whatever they want. But your 

daughter, granddaughter, wife, they’re 

limited. They’re limited with the kind 

of legal talent they can get. 

How about in a large case in this 

country today where regional vice 

presidents, there’s 39 of them in the organization, 10 percent of them are 

women, the men were paid $41,900. The 

women were paid $27,900. The district 

managers, the men were paid $23,900. 

The women were paid $17,000. You 

think you ought to have the right to go 

to court and have a good attorney and 

have the Court determine what are reasonable fees? You ought to be able to 

prosecute your case in the face of an 

employer that may have multiple law 

firms on permanent retainers to deal 

with this, as many of these defendants 

do? 

Yes, I think you should, and so do the 

people of this country and I hope so do 

the Members of this Congress. 

I would like to yield to Mr. ANDREWS, 

the subcommittee Chair. 

Mr. ANDREWS. If the Securities and 

Exchange Commission filed a civil suit 

against one of the people accused in 

the Wall Street wrongdoing, and there 

was a proposal on this floor that said 

the SEC can spend as much money as it 

wants to on its side of the case, but the 

Wall Street defendants accused of the 

wrongdoing are capped on how much 

they can spend on their legal defenses, 

I think the Members in the minority 

would say that’s unfair. It is. So is 

this. 

To interfere in how much lawyers are 

paid is a matter the judges should take 

a look at under this law. It’s not something this Congress should interfere 

with. And it frankly, I believe, is a diversionary tactic to take us away from 

the real purpose of this law, and that’s 

a woman that is selling real estate or 

teaching school or sweeping floors 

should make, penny for penny, dollar 

for dollar, everything a man makes to 

do the same job. That is the issue before the House. 

Let’s defeat this diversionary amendment. Let’s pass the underlying bill 

and bring long-awaited justice to 

American women. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

I ask my colleagues to reject this 

amendment, to keep the purpose and 

the intent and the constitutionality of 

the underlying legislation, and that we 

should now pass, after many, many 

years of waiting, the Paycheck Fairness Act. 

And I ask a ‘‘no’’ vote on this. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without 

objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. 

There was no objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion to recommit. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the noes appeared to have it. 

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, 

on that I demand the yeas and nays. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, 

this 15-minute vote on the motion to 

recommit will be followed by 5-minute 

votes on passage of the bill, if ordered; 

passage of H.R. 11; and the motion to 

suspend on House Resolution 34. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 178, nays 

240, not voting 14, as follows: 

[Roll No. 7] 

YEAS—178 

Aderholt 

Akin 

Alexander 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barrett (SC) 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Blackburn 

Blunt 

Boehner 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boozman 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Bright 

Broun (GA) 

Brown-Waite, 

Ginny 

Buchanan 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Buyer 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Cantor 

Cao 

Capito 

Carney 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Castle 

Chaffetz 

Childers 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Davis (KY) 

Deal (GA) 

Dent 

Diaz-Balart, L. 

Diaz-Balart, M. 

Dreier 

Duncan 

Ehlers 

Emerson 

Fallin 

Flake 

Fleming 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Garrett (NJ) 

Gerlach 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Guthrie 

Hall (TX) 

Harper 

Hastings (WA) 

Heller 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Hoekstra 

Hunter 

Inglis 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan (OH) 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kirk 

Kline (MN) 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lee (NY) 

Lewis (CA) 

Linder 

LoBiondo 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

Marshall 

Matheson 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McCotter 

McHenry 

McHugh 

McKeon 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Minnick 

Mitchell 

Moran (KS) 

Murphy, Tim 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Nunes 

Olson 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pence 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Putnam 

Radanovich 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Royce 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuler 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (TX) 

Souder 

Stearns 

Sullivan 

Taylor 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Turner 

Upton 

Walden 

Wamp 

Westmoreland 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 9, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H137 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

NAYS—240 

Abercrombie 

Ackerman 

Adler (NJ) 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Arcuri 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barrow 

Bean 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Boccieri 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boyd 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown, Corrine 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carnahan 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chandler 

Clarke 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Dahlkemper 

Davis (AL) 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

Davis (TN) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

Delahunt 

DeLauro 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Driehaus 

Edwards (MD) 

Edwards (TX) 

Ellison 

Ellsworth 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Etheridge 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Foster 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Giffords 

Gillibrand 

Gonzalez 

Gordon (TN) 

Grayson 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Griffith 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hall (NY) 

Halvorson 

Hare 

Harman 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Hill 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hodes 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Inslee 

Israel 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson-Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Kanjorski 

Kaptur 

Kennedy 

Kildee 

Kilpatrick (MI) 

Kilroy 

Kind 

Kirkpatrick (AZ) 

Kissell 

Klein (FL) 

Kosmas 

Kratovil 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maffei 

Maloney 

Markey (CO) 

Markey (MA) 

Massa 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McIntyre 

McMahon 

McNerney 

Meek (FL) 

Meeks (NY) 

Melancon 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Mollohan 

Moore (KS) 

Moore (WI) 

Moran (VA) 

Murphy (CT) 

Murphy, Patrick 

Murtha 

Nadler (NY) 

Napolitano 

Neal (MA) 

Nye 

Oberstar 

Obey 

Olver 

Ortiz 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Payne 

Perlmutter 

Perriello 

Peters 

Peterson 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis (CO) 

Pomeroy 

Price (NC) 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Rodriguez 

Ross 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Salazar 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schauer 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (GA) 

Scott (VA) 

Serrano 

Sestak 

Shea-Porter 

Sherman 

Sires 

Skelton 

Slaughter 

Smith (WA) 

Space 

Speier 

Spratt 

Stark 

Stupak 

Sutton 

Tanner 

Tauscher 

Teague 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Titus 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watson 

Watt 

Waxman 

Weiner 

Welch 

Wexler 

Wilson (OH) 

Woolsey 

Wu 

Yarmuth 

NOT VOTING—14 

Baird 

Berry 

Boucher 

Brown (SC) 

Gallegly 

Granger 

Graves 

Herseth Sandlin 

Jones 

Kagen 

Shadegg 

Snyder 

Solis (CA) 

Tiahrt 

b 1308 

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona, Mrs. 

HALVORSON, Messrs. WEXLER, MILLER of North Carolina, LARSON of 

Connecticut, SIRES, MCDERMOTT, 

MEEKS of New York, MURPHY of Connecticut, JOHNSON of Illinois, 

TOWNS, HINOJOSA, Ms. SPEIER, 

Messrs. FRANK of Massachusetts, 

CONYERS, and Ms. BEAN changed 

their vote from ‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’ 

Messrs. GINGREY of Georgia, TAYLOR, BILIRAKIS, and BURGESS 

changed their vote from ‘‘nay’’ to 

‘‘yea.’’ 

So the motion to recommit was rejected. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the passage of the bill. 

The question was taken; and the 

Speaker pro tempore announced that 

the ayes appeared to have it. 

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote. 

A recorded vote was ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This 

will be a 5-minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 256, noes 163, 

not voting 14, as follows: 

[Roll No. 8] 

AYES—256 

Abercrombie 

Ackerman 

Adler (NJ) 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Arcuri 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barrow 

Bean 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Boccieri 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boyd 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown, Corrine 

Butterfield 

Cao 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castle 

Castor (FL) 

Chandler 

Childers 

Clarke 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Dahlkemper 

Davis (AL) 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

Davis (TN) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

Delahunt 

DeLauro 

Dent 

Diaz-Balart, L. 

Diaz-Balart, M. 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Driehaus 

Edwards (MD) 

Edwards (TX) 

Ellison 

Ellsworth 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Etheridge 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Foster 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Gerlach 

Giffords 

Gillibrand 

Gonzalez 

Gordon (TN) 

Grayson 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hall (NY) 

Halvorson 

Hare 

Harman 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Hill 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hodes 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Inslee 

Israel 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson-Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Kanjorski 

Kaptur 

Kennedy 

Kildee 

Kilpatrick (MI) 

Kilroy 

Kind 

Kirkpatrick (AZ) 

Kissell 

Klein (FL) 

Kosmas 

Kratovil 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maffei 

Maloney 

Markey (CO) 

Markey (MA) 

Marshall 

Massa 

Matheson 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McIntyre 

McMahon 

McNerney 

Meek (FL) 

Meeks (NY) 

Melancon 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Mitchell 

Mollohan 

Moore (KS) 

Moore (WI) 

Moran (VA) 

Murphy (CT) 

Murphy, Patrick 

Murtha 

Napolitano 

Neal (MA) 

Nye 

Oberstar 

Obey 

Olver 

Ortiz 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Payne 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Perriello 

Peters 

Peterson 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis (CO) 

Pomeroy 

Price (NC) 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reichert 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Rodriguez 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Ross 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Salazar 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schauer 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (GA) 

Scott (VA) 

Serrano 

Sestak 

Shea-Porter 

Sherman 

Shuler 

Sires 

Skelton 

Slaughter 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (WA) 

Solis (CA) 

Space 

Speier 

Spratt 

Stark 

Stupak 

Sutton 

Tanner 

Tauscher 

Taylor 

Teague 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Titus 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watson 

Watt 

Waxman 

Weiner 

Welch 

Wexler 

Wilson (OH) 

Woolsey 

Wu 

Yarmuth 

NOES—163 

Aderholt 

Akin 

Alexander 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Barrett (SC) 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Blackburn 

Blunt 

Boehner 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boozman 

Boustany 

Brady (TX) 

Bright 

Broun (GA) 

Brown-Waite, 

Ginny 

Buchanan 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Buyer 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Cantor 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Chaffetz 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Davis (KY) 

Deal (GA) 

Dreier 

Duncan 

Ehlers 

Emerson 

Fallin 

Flake 

Fleming 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Garrett (NJ) 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Griffith 

Guthrie 

Hall (TX) 

Harper 

Hastings (WA) 

Heller 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Hoekstra 

Hunter 

Inglis 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan (OH) 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kirk 

Kline (MN) 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lee (NY) 

Lewis (CA) 

Linder 

LoBiondo 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McCotter 

McHenry 

McHugh 

McKeon 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Minnick 

Moran (KS) 

Murphy, Tim 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Nunes 

Olson 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pence 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Putnam 

Radanovich 

Rehberg 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rooney 

Roskam 

Royce 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (TX) 

Souder 

Stearns 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Turner 

Upton 

Walden 

Wamp 

Westmoreland 

Whitfield 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Young (AK) 

Young (FL) 

NOT VOTING—14 

Baird 

Berry 

Boucher 

Brown (SC) 

Gallegly 

Granger 

Graves 

Herseth Sandlin 

Jones 

Kagen 

Nadler (NY) 

Shadegg 

Snyder 

Tiahrt 

b 1319 

So the bill was passed. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H138 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 9, 2009 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

Stated for: 

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam Speaker, 

on rollcall No. 8, a few minutes ago, I missed 

the vote. Had I been present, I would have 

voted ‘‘aye.’’ 

f 

LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT 

OF 2009 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. 

DELAURO). The unfinished business is 

the vote on passage of H.R. 11, on 

which the yeas and nays were ordered. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the passage of the bill. 

This will be a 5-minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 247, nays 

171, not voting 15, as follows: 

[Roll No. 9] 

YEAS—247 

Abercrombie 

Ackerman 

Adler (NJ) 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Arcuri 

Baca 

Baldwin 

Barrow 

Bean 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Blumenauer 

Boccieri 

Boswell 

Brady (PA) 

Braley (IA) 

Brown, Corrine 

Butterfield 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Castor (FL) 

Chandler 

Clarke 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Cohen 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Cummings 

Dahlkemper 

Davis (AL) 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

Davis (TN) 

DeFazio 

DeGette 

Delahunt 

DeLauro 

Dicks 

Dingell 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Driehaus 

Edwards (MD) 

Edwards (TX) 

Ellison 

Ellsworth 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Etheridge 

Farr 

Fattah 

Filner 

Foster 

Frank (MA) 

Fudge 

Giffords 

Gillibrand 

Gonzalez 

Gordon (TN) 

Grayson 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Grijalva 

Gutierrez 

Hall (NY) 

Halvorson 

Hare 

Harman 

Hastings (FL) 

Heinrich 

Higgins 

Hill 

Himes 

Hinchey 

Hinojosa 

Hirono 

Hodes 

Holden 

Holt 

Honda 

Hoyer 

Inslee 

Israel 

Jackson (IL) 

Jackson-Lee 

(TX) 

Johnson (GA) 

Johnson, E. B. 

Kanjorski 

Kaptur 

Kennedy 

Kildee 

Kilpatrick (MI) 

Kilroy 

Kind 

Kirkpatrick (AZ) 

Kissell 

Klein (FL) 

Kosmas 

Kratovil 

Kucinich 

Langevin 

Larsen (WA) 

Larson (CT) 

Lee (CA) 

Levin 

Lewis (GA) 

Lipinski 

Loebsack 

Lofgren, Zoe 

Lowey 

Luja ́n 

Lynch 

Maffei 

Maloney 

Markey (CO) 

Markey (MA) 

Marshall 

Massa 

Matheson 

Matsui 

McCarthy (NY) 

McCollum 

McDermott 

McGovern 

McIntyre 

McMahon 

McNerney 

Meek (FL) 

Meeks (NY) 

Melancon 

Michaud 

Miller (NC) 

Miller, George 

Minnick 

Mitchell 

Mollohan 

Moore (KS) 

Moran (VA) 

Murphy (CT) 

Murphy, Patrick 

Murtha 

Nadler (NY) 

Napolitano 

Neal (MA) 

Nye 

Oberstar 

Obey 

Olver 

Ortiz 

Pallone 

Pascrell 

Pastor (AZ) 

Payne 

Pelosi 

Perlmutter 

Perriello 

Peters 

Peterson 

Pingree (ME) 

Polis (CO) 

Pomeroy 

Price (NC) 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Reyes 

Richardson 

Rodriguez 

Ross 

Rothman (NJ) 

Roybal-Allard 

Ruppersberger 

Rush 

Ryan (OH) 

Salazar 

Sa ́nchez, Linda 

T. 

Sanchez, Loretta 

Sarbanes 

Schakowsky 

Schauer 

Schiff 

Schrader 

Schwartz 

Scott (GA) 

Scott (VA) 

Serrano 

Sestak 

Shea-Porter 

Sherman 

Shuler 

Sires 

Skelton 

Slaughter 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith (WA) 

Solis (CA) 

Space 

Speier 

Spratt 

Stark 

Stupak 

Sutton 

Tanner 

Tauscher 

Taylor 

Teague 

Thompson (CA) 

Thompson (MS) 

Tierney 

Titus 

Tonko 

Towns 

Tsongas 

Van Hollen 

Vela ́ zquez 

Visclosky 

Walz 

Wasserman 

Schultz 

Waters 

Watson 

Watt 

Waxman 

Weiner 

Welch 

Wexler 

Whitfield 

Wilson (OH) 

Woolsey 

Wu 

Yarmuth 

Young (AK) 

NAYS—171 

Aderholt 

Akin 

Alexander 

Austria 

Bachmann 

Barrett (SC) 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (UT) 

Blackburn 

Blunt 

Boehner 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boozman 

Boren 

Boustany 

Boyd 

Brady (TX) 

Bright 

Broun (GA) 

Brown-Waite, 

Ginny 

Buchanan 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Buyer 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Cantor 

Cao 

Capito 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Castle 

Chaffetz 

Childers 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cole 

Conaway 

Crenshaw 

Culberson 

Davis (KY) 

Deal (GA) 

Dent 

Diaz-Balart, L. 

Diaz-Balart, M. 

Dreier 

Duncan 

Ehlers 

Emerson 

Fallin 

Flake 

Fleming 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foxx 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Garrett (NJ) 

Gerlach 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Goodlatte 

Griffith 

Guthrie 

Hall (TX) 

Harper 

Hastings (WA) 

Heller 

Hensarling 

Herger 

Hoekstra 

Hunter 

Inglis 

Issa 

Jenkins 

Johnson (IL) 

Johnson, Sam 

Jordan (OH) 

King (IA) 

King (NY) 

Kingston 

Kirk 

Kline (MN) 

Lamborn 

Lance 

Latham 

LaTourette 

Latta 

Lee (NY) 

Lewis (CA) 

Linder 

LoBiondo 

Lucas 

Luetkemeyer 

Lummis 

Lungren, Daniel 

E. 

Mack 

Manzullo 

Marchant 

McCarthy (CA) 

McCaul 

McClintock 

McCotter 

McHenry 

McHugh 

McKeon 

McMorris 

Rodgers 

Mica 

Miller (FL) 

Miller (MI) 

Moran (KS) 

Murphy, Tim 

Myrick 

Neugebauer 

Nunes 

Olson 

Paul 

Paulsen 

Pence 

Petri 

Pitts 

Platts 

Poe (TX) 

Posey 

Price (GA) 

Putnam 

Radanovich 

Rehberg 

Reichert 

Roe (TN) 

Rogers (AL) 

Rogers (KY) 

Rogers (MI) 

Rohrabacher 

Rooney 

Ros-Lehtinen 

Roskam 

Royce 

Ryan (WI) 

Scalise 

Schmidt 

Schock 

Sensenbrenner 

Sessions 

Shimkus 

Shuster 

Simpson 

Smith (NE) 

Smith (TX) 

Souder 

Stearns 

Sullivan 

Terry 

Thompson (PA) 

Thornberry 

Tiberi 

Turner 

Upton 

Walden 

Wamp 

Westmoreland 

Wilson (SC) 

Wittman 

Wolf 

Young (FL) 

NOT VOTING—15 

Bachus 

Baird 

Berry 

Boucher 

Brown (SC) 

Gallegly 

Granger 

Graves 

Herseth Sandlin 

Jones 

Kagen 

Moore (WI) 

Shadegg 

Snyder 

Tiahrt 

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during 

the vote). There are less than 2 minutes on this vote for Members who 

have not yet voted. 

b 1328 

So the bill was passed. 

The result of the vote was announced 

as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 

the table. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. 

DAVIS of California). Pursuant to section 5 of House Resolution 5, H.R. 12 is 

laid on the table. 

Stated against: 

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I missed 

rollcall vote 9 on passage of the Lilly Ledbetter 

Fair Pay Act of 2009. Had I been present I 

would have voted ‘‘no.’’ 

f 

RECOGNIZING ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO 

DEFEND ITSELF AGAINST ATTACKS FROM GAZA 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to 

the resolution, H. Res. 34, on which the 

yeas and nays were ordered. 

The Clerk read the title of the resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 

question is on the motion offered by 

the gentleman from California (Mr. 

BERMAN) that the House suspend the 

rules and agree to the resolution, H. 

Res. 34. 

This will be a 5-minute vote. 

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 390, nays 5, 

answered ‘‘present’’ 22, not voting 16, 

as follows: 

[Roll No. 10] 

YEAS—390 

Ackerman 

Aderholt 

Adler (NJ) 

Akin 

Alexander 

Altmire 

Andrews 

Arcuri 

Austria 

Baca 

Bachmann 

Bachus 

Baldwin 

Barrett (SC) 

Barrow 

Bartlett 

Barton (TX) 

Bean 

Becerra 

Berkley 

Berman 

Biggert 

Bilbray 

Bilirakis 

Bishop (GA) 

Bishop (NY) 

Bishop (UT) 

Blackburn 

Blunt 

Boccieri 

Boehner 

Bonner 

Bono Mack 

Boozman 

Boren 

Boswell 

Boustany 

Boyd 

Brady (PA) 

Brady (TX) 

Braley (IA) 

Bright 

Broun (GA) 

Brown, Corrine 

Brown-Waite, 

Ginny 

Buchanan 

Burgess 

Burton (IN) 

Butterfield 

Buyer 

Calvert 

Camp 

Campbell 

Cantor 

Cao 

Capito 

Capps 

Capuano 

Cardoza 

Carnahan 

Carney 

Carson (IN) 

Carter 

Cassidy 

Castle 

Castor (FL) 

Chaffetz 

Chandler 

Childers 

Clarke 

Clay 

Cleaver 

Clyburn 

Coble 

Coffman (CO) 

Cohen 

Cole 

Conaway 

Connolly (VA) 

Conyers 

Cooper 

Costa 

Costello 

Courtney 

Crenshaw 

Crowley 

Cuellar 

Culberson 

Cummings 

Dahlkemper 

Davis (AL) 

Davis (CA) 

Davis (IL) 

Davis (KY) 

Davis (TN) 

Deal (GA) 

DeGette 

DeLauro 

Dent 

Diaz-Balart, L. 

Diaz-Balart, M. 

Dicks 

Doggett 

Donnelly (IN) 

Doyle 

Dreier 

Driehaus 

Duncan 

Edwards (TX) 

Ehlers 

Ellsworth 

Emerson 

Engel 

Eshoo 

Etheridge 

Fallin 

Fattah 

Filner 

Flake 

Fleming 

Forbes 

Fortenberry 

Foster 

Foxx 

Frank (MA) 

Franks (AZ) 

Frelinghuysen 

Fudge 

Garrett (NJ) 

Gerlach 

Giffords 

Gillibrand 

Gingrey (GA) 

Gohmert 

Gonzalez 

Goodlatte 

Gordon (TN) 

Grayson 

Green, Al 

Green, Gene 

Griffith 

Guthrie 

Gutierrez 

Hall (NY) 

Hall (TX) 

Halvorson 

Hare 

Harman 

Harper 

Hastings (FL) 

Hastings (WA) 

Heinrich 

Heller 

Herger 

Higgins 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE