January 9, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H113 

end to the violence, demands greater U.S. 

leadership and engagement in those efforts, 

and recognizes the great loss suffered by the 

Israeli and Palestinian people as a result of 

the violence and urges a swift end to that violence. Unfortunately, the bill before us today is 

not such a resolution. 

Hamas’ own actions time and time again 

show that it is a threat to regional and international peace. This is not in dispute. The 

House has rightly condemned Hamas time 

and time again including passage last March 

of H. Res. 951—which I supported. 

However, I have several concerns about 

other aspects of the resolution before us 

today. At a time of increasing international 

concern about the situation in Gaza highlighted by diplomatic efforts under way at the 

UN, by the EU, and the Arab League—particularly a proposal put forth by Egypt and 

France—and the passage just last night by the 

UN Security Council of a resolution calling for 

an immediate cease-fire, I fear that his may be 

the wrong time for a resolution that does little 

to support efforts to halt the conflict. 

The Security Council resolution called urgently for an ‘‘immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.’’ I am disappointed that the resolution before the House 

today does not support the UN’s call for an 

immediate and verifiable cease-fire by both 

sides. 

When a clear international consensus and 

diplomatic efforts are beginning to coalesce 

and work towards a solution, why would the 

U.S. Congress want to consider a resolution 

that takes a sharply different tack? 

The resolution before us also differs in a 

number of ways even from a similar resolution 

that the Senate passed just yesterday. That 

Senate resolution takes a much more serious 

approach and puts a greater and much needed emphasis on the proactive role the U.S. 

needs to play to bring this latest crisis to a 

close. The U.S. has a vast array of diplomatic 

and other tools that are at the disposal of the 

President and his foreign policy advisers to 

help resolve international crises such as this. 

Now is the time to open that toolbox and actively use those tools. 

If anything has been clear from the last 

eight years it is that when U.S. does not lead 

and stay in engaged in regional diplomacy, the 

situation in the region will not get better. 

The EU, the UN, the Arab League all recognize that Israel’s military operations must be 

supplemented and supplanted by a diplomatic 

resolution that will last. That is why the Egyptians and the French are expending considerable efforts—in the absence of U.S. leadership—to forge a cease-fire agreement that 

meets Israel’s needs, namely ending the firing 

of rockets into Israel and preventing Hamas 

from rearming while also addressing the humanitarian needs of Gazans. Just yesterday, 

Secretary Rice expressed verbal support for 

this initiative, stating that these efforts ‘‘should 

not just be applauded, but must be supported’’ 

by the international community. But the resolution fails to even bring it up. 

The resolution before the House today also 

expresses support for ‘‘diminishing the appeal 

and influence of extremists in the Palestinian 

territories and strengthen moderate Palestinians who are committed to a secure and lasting peace.’’ However, this resolution by its 

lack of a call for U.S. engagement and lack of 

recognition of the suffering of civilians actually 

undermines this goal—one that I have long 

advocated and supported—both in its tone 

and substance. The resolution ignores or fails 

to apprehend the tremendous damage that is 

being done to the efforts of moderates—either 

presently or in the future—by the ongoing conflict that according to one report has generated ‘‘incredible bitterness and anger’’ in the 

region. To expect our moderate friends in the 

Middle East to succeed in such an environment is foolhardy at best. 

A cease-fire does not diminish or hinder 

Israel’s right to defend itself. It does help get 

us back on the path to finding a political and 

diplomatic solution that will address Israel’s 

security needs and lead to long-term security 

and peace. A cease-fire is not an end itself 

but is desirable as a means to halt violence 

and chaos in the immediate term while creating room to assure humanitarian aid and for 

renewed and sustained multilateral negotiations for a sustainable peace. 

Congress must speak out to help stop this 

latest crisis in the Middle East but in a way 

that our message is fair, tough, and smart and 

that makes clear that the U.S.—while supporting Israel’s right to self-defense— can be 

and is an honest broker in the region. I fear 

that this resolution fails to meet that standard. 

The best support that we can give our close 

friend and ally Israel is by being an impartial 

and honest broker that can work with all interested parties in the region, Israelis and Palestinians alike. I am wary about continuing to 

take actions that hinder the ability for the U.S. 

to be seen as such a mediator and which may 

throw more obstacles in the way of the incoming administration foreign policy aims. 

The ongoing military operations by Israel 

cannot and should not substitute for a credible 

long-term diplomatic solution reached with the 

help of the international agreement between 

the Israelis and Palestinians that meets the 

needs and aspirations of both sides that will 

prevent the return to an endless cycle of violence that guarantees that ‘‘security’’ and 

peace remains elusive. 

Innocent people on both sides want nothing 

more than to live normal lives with peace and 

dignity. While I cannot support this resolution 

in its current form, I strongly encourage the 

administration and the international community 

to undertake robust diplomacy to mediate a 

cross-border cease-fire and to continue to engage in constructive activities, statements, and 

resolutions will help bring peace to the region 

and address Israel’s real security needs. 

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, have a long 

record of supporting Israel and I have no intention of reversing course. My wish continues 

to be that Israel will one day soon enjoy a 

lasting peace with its neighbors. 

The resolution before the House today is 

not an easy vote for me. I refuse to vote nay 

because I continue to support Israel’s right to 

exist and to defend itself. But I cannot vote 

yea because in the midst of a humanitarian 

nightmare in Gaza, this resolution is silent on 

the need for an immediate cease-fire and the 

need to actively relieve human suffering. 

The resolution is right to condemn the rocket attacks against Southern Israel. These attacks are crimes against humanity. The 

Hamas rockets endanger thousands of lives, 

terrorize the Israeli populace and deny the 

people of Israel and Gaza the peace they both 

deserve. 

However, to introduce a resolution in the 

midst of a raging war that has the impression 

of assigning blame does not measure up to 

the moment. 

We’re watching another desperate episode 

in the cycle of Middle East violence, yet our 

call for a cease-fire is timid. 

We’re watching human suffering at a stomach-turning scale, and our call to relieve suffering is weak. 

A spasm of violence is consuming lives and 

we’re failing to do all that we can to be honest 

brokers of peace. 

I agree with almost all the language in this 

resolution, so I cannot vote against it. However, I cannot vote in favor of the resolution 

because it does not do enough to set the 

stage for lasting peace. My conscience dictates a vote of present, which is the only vote 

for peace. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. 

TAUSCHER). 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. 

The question was taken. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the 

opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being 

in the affirmative, the ayes have it. 

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. 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 and the 

Chair’s prior announcement, further 

proceedings on this motion will be 

postponed. 

f 

LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT 

OF 2009 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 

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

bill (H.R. 11) to amend title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act of 

1967, and to modify the operation of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, to 

clarify that a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice 

that is unlawful under such Acts occurs 

each time compensation is paid pursuant to the discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for 

other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The text of the bill is as follows: 

H.R. 11 

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

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds the following: 

(1) The Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. 

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 

(2007), significantly impairs statutory protections against discrimination in compensation that Congress established and that have 

been bedrock principles of American law for 

decades. The Ledbetter decision undermines 

those statutory protections by unduly restricting the time period in which victims of 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H114 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 9, 2009 

discrimination can challenge and recover for 

discriminatory compensation decisions or 

other practices, contrary to the intent of 

Congress. 

(2) The limitation imposed by the Court on 

the filing of discriminatory compensation 

claims ignores the reality of wage discrimination and is at odds with the robust application of the civil rights laws that Congress 

intended. 

(3) With regard to any charge of discrimination under any law, nothing in this Act is 

intended to preclude or limit an aggrieved 

person’s right to introduce evidence of an 

unlawful employment practice that has occurred outside the time for filing a charge of 

discrimination. 

(4) Nothing in this Act is intended to 

change current law treatment of when pension distributions are considered paid. 

SEC. 3. DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, 

SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN. 

Section 706(e) of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–5(e)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3)(A) For purposes of this section, an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in 

violation of this title, when a discriminatory 

compensation decision or other practice is 

adopted, when an individual becomes subject 

to a discriminatory compensation decision 

or other practice, or when an individual is 

affected by application of a discriminatory 

compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other 

compensation is paid, resulting in whole or 

in part from such a decision or other practice. 

‘‘(B) In addition to any relief authorized by 

section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 

U.S.C. 1981a), liability may accrue and an aggrieved person may obtain relief as provided 

in subsection (g)(1), including recovery of 

back pay for up to two years preceding the 

filing of the charge, where the unlawful employment practices that have occurred during the charge filing period are similar or related to unlawful employment practices with 

regard to discrimination in compensation 

that occurred outside the time for filing a 

charge.’’. 

SEC. 4. DISCRIMINATION IN COMPENSATION BECAUSE OF AGE. 

Section 7(d) of the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 626(d)) is 

amended— 

(1) in the first sentence— 

(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) 

as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; 

and 

(B) by striking ‘‘(d)’’ and inserting ‘‘(d)(1)’’; 

(2) in the third sentence, by striking 

‘‘Upon’’ and inserting the following: 

‘‘(2) Upon’’; and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(3) For purposes of this section, an unlawful practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this 

Act, when a discriminatory compensation 

decision or other practice is adopted, when a 

person becomes subject to a discriminatory 

compensation decision or other practice, or 

when a person is affected by application of a 

discriminatory compensation decision or 

other practice, including each time wages, 

benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice.’’. 

SEC. 5. APPLICATION TO OTHER LAWS. 

(a) AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF

1990.—The amendments made by section 3 

shall apply to claims of discrimination in 

compensation brought under title I and section 503 of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111 et seq., 12203), pursuant to section 107(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 

12117(a)), which adopts the powers, remedies, 

and procedures set forth in section 706 of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–5). 

(b) REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973.—The 

amendments made by section 3 shall apply to 

claims of discrimination in compensation 

brought under sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 791, 794), 

pursuant to— 

(1) sections 501(g) and 504(d) of such Act (29 

U.S.C. 791(g), 794(d)), respectively, which 

adopt the standards applied under title I of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

for determining whether a violation has occurred in a complaint alleging employment 

discrimination; and 

(2) paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 505(a) of 

such Act (29 U.S.C. 794a(a)) (as amended by 

subsection (c)). 

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

(1) REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973.—Section 

505(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 

U.S.C. 794a(a)) is amended— 

(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after ‘‘(42 

U.S.C. 2000e–5 (f) through (k))’’ the following: 

‘‘(and the application of section 706(e)(3) (42 

U.S.C. 2000e–5(e)(3)) to claims of discrimination in compensation)’’; and 

(B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after 

‘‘1964’’ the following: ‘‘(42 U.S.C. 2000d et 

seq.) (and in subsection (e)(3) of section 706 of 

such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e–5), applied to claims 

of discrimination in compensation)’’. 

(2) CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.—Section 717 of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e– 

16) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(f) Section 706(e)(3) shall apply to complaints of discrimination in compensation 

under this section.’’. 

(3) AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT

OF 1967.—Section 15(f) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 

633a(f)) is amended by striking ‘‘of section’’ 

and inserting ‘‘of sections 7(d)(3) and’’. 

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

This Act, and the amendments made by 

this Act, take effect as if enacted on May 28, 

2007 and apply to all claims of discrimination 

in compensation under title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), 

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 

of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), title I and section 503 of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990, and sections 501 and 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that are pending 

on or after that date. 

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

5, the gentleman from California (Mr. 

GEORGE MILLER) and the gentleman 

from Minnesota (Mr. KLINE) each will 

control 30 minutes. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from California. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. 

Madam Speaker, the 2007 Ledbetter 

v. Goodyear Supreme Court ruling was 

a painful step backwards in the civil 

rights in this country. Today, the 

House will vote once again to say that 

the ruling is unacceptable and must 

not stand. 

Nondiscrimination in the workplace 

is a sacred American principle. Workers should be paid based upon their 

merits and their responsibilities, not 

on the employer’s prejudices. Yet, 

more than 40 years after the passage of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Supreme Court decided to dramatically 

turn back the clock. 

Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear 

for nearly two decades. Just as she was 

retiring as supervisor in 1998, she found 

out that her salary was 20 percent, 20 

percent lower than that of the lowest 

paid male supervisor. Not only was Ms. 

Ledbetter earning nearly $400 a month 

less per month than her male colleagues, she also retired with substantially smaller pension and Social Security benefits. A jury found that Goodyear in fact had discriminated against 

Ms. Ledbetter because she was a 

woman. She was awarded $3.8 million 

in back pay and damages. This amount 

was reduced to $360,000 because of the 

damage gap of title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act. 

Despite the fact that the jury found 

Goodyear guilty of discrimination, a 

sharply divided Supreme Court in a 5– 

4 opinion decided that while Goodyear 

discriminated against Ms. Ledbetter, 

her claim was made too late. They had 

discriminated against her, but she was 

too late in making her claim. 

Why was she too late? Because they 

said that she had filed outside the 180 

day statute of limitations because she 

did not file after they had taken their 

secret executive action to pay Ms. 

Ledbetter less than her male counterparts. The fact of the matter is, she did 

not know that all of the time that she 

was working because of the secrecy of 

that act. The practical result, the practical result of the decision by this 

court, would be that as long as they 

could continue to hide the act, if they 

could get past 180 days, Ms. Ledbetter 

could be discriminated against and she 

would not be able to recover anything. 

The law has said for a very long time 

that when a decision was made which 

was discriminatory in its nature, every 

paycheck issued since that time was a 

continuation of the original discriminatory act and Ms. Ledbetter had 180 

days and other plaintiffs had 180 days 

to file from the last paycheck that was 

issued. Ms. Ledbetter did that, but the 

Supreme Court saw otherwise. 

So, what the Supreme Court is saying is that employers would be allowed 

to continue to discriminate against 

employees without any consequences if 

they could hide it for 180 days. That is 

simply unacceptable in the American 

workplace, it is unacceptable to women 

in this country, and it is important 

that we pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair 

Pay Act, which would reset the law as 

businesses and most courts and employees and the EEOC had understood 

it to be before the court’s dramatic ruling. 

Under H.R. 11, every paycheck or 

other compensation resulting in whole 

or in part from an early discriminatory 

pay decision or other practice would 

continue as a violation of title VII. 

That is as it should be. That is as it 

was before the court spoke. 

In other words, each discriminatory 

paycheck would restart the clock for 

filing a charge. As long as workers filed 

their charges, as Ms. Ledbetter herself 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 9, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H115 

did, within 180 days of the discriminatory paycheck, their charges could be 

considered as timely. 

No worker should have to put a full 

day’s work in and get a paycheck at 

the end of the week that is based upon 

their gender, race or religion, without 

any recourse to justice. That is what 

this legislation will stop. It is fundamental and it is important. 

This legislation also ensures that 

these simple reforms extend to the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act, 

the Americans with Disabilities Act 

and the Rehabilitation Act to provide 

these same protections for victims of 

age and disability discrimination. Connecting pay discrimination poses significant challenges to workers, made 

all the harder by the Supreme Court’s 

Ledbetter decision. 

The reality is that most workers 

don’t know what their coworkers are 

making. Employers often prohibit employees from discussing their pay with 

each other. We fix these problems also 

with the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. 

The court’s misguided decision is already having very harmful consequences far beyond Ms. Ledbetter’s 

case. According to The New York 

Times, the Ledbetter decision has been 

cited in over 300 cases in the last 19 

months that have denied people the opportunity to provide for recovery. 

In this economy, especially in this 

economy, when every dollar counts to 

every worker in this country, to provide for themselves or their families, 

to provide for the wherewithal to go 

through the daily life in America, we 

cannot have people discriminated 

against because of their gender. We can 

pass the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Act, and 

that will end that practice in the 

American workplace. 

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam 

Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 

may consume. 

Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose this seriously flawed legislation 

before us. Not only would it amount to 

a radical change to our civil rights 

laws, it has come to us without the 

benefit of the serious consideration and 

debate due such a significant policy 

shift. 

The enthusiastic supporters of the 

Ledbetter Act want us to believe that 

we are simply voting on a straightforward bill to reverse a Supreme 

Court decision involving discrimination in the workplace. 

Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that 

isn’t the whole story. While this bill 

would reverse a Supreme Court decision for the benefit of Lilly Ledbetter, 

it would also dismantle the longstanding statute of limitations established by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

That statute of limitations was deemed 

to be critical in that Supreme Court 

decision. 

In so doing, this bill would set into 

motion unintended consequences that 

its supporters simply are not willing to 

acknowledge, including radically increasing the opportunity for frivolous 

and abusive litigation and exposing 

employers to open-ended lawsuits indefinitely. Further, this bill would also 

permit individuals to seek damages 

against employers for whom they never 

worked by allowing family members 

and others who were never directly 

subjected to discrimination to become 

plaintiffs, even after the worker in 

question is deceased. 

In the current economic climate, as 

the gentleman from California said, especially in this economic climate, we 

cannot afford to enable endless litigation and potentially staggering record 

keeping requirements on employers. 

We also should be wary of the devastating effect this bill would have on 

pensions by exposing employers to decade-old discrimination claims that 

they have little ability to defend. This 

legislation could risk the retirement 

security of millions of hard-working 

Americans. 

Madam Speaker, it is very clear that 

this legislation amounts to a significant change in our civil rights laws. 

What is less clear are the answers to a 

number of relevant questions, many of 

which remain unanswered because of a 

complete disregard for the normal legislative process. 

As you may know, not one legislative 

hearing was conducted on this bill in 

the last Congress. This bill has instead 

been brought to the floor in haste, 

completely bypassing any deliberation 

by me and my colleagues on the Committee on Education and Labor. Surely 

such a monumental change to our civil 

rights laws deserves more reflection. 

My concerns and unanswered questions can only lead me to say that the 

Ledbetter bill makes for bad policy 

created through a poor legislative process. I urge my colleagues to vote 

against this legislation. 

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 

the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 

ANDREWS), a subcommittee Chair of the 

Education and Labor Committee. 

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given 

permission to revise and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I 

thank my chairman for yielding. 

I wanted to clear up what I think 

were three inaccuracies in my friend 

from Minnesota’s statement about the 

bill. 

First of all, this bill will not extend 

an endless statute of limitations. It restores the statute of limitations the 

law recognized until the ill-considered 

Ledbetter decision. It essentially says 

you have 180 days after each paycheck 

to make your claim. If you don’t make 

your claim, your claim expires. It 

doesn’t extend the statute beyond that. 

Second, with respect to pensions, the 

bill makes it clear in the ‘‘findings’’ 

section that the same law that applied 

to pensions is not touched by this bill 

at all. The courts have generally recognized that when the pension structure 

is put in place and the person gets 

their pension, the clock starts running, 

and if the time expires after that, your 

ability to make the claim expires after 

that. 

Finally, with respect to the point 

that is made about people who never 

worked for the employer being able to 

sue, I think that is simply not an accurate statement. What is true is if someone suffers discrimination and their estate is owed money for what they 

would have earned when they were 

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

would have recovered that. 

b 1045 

So this is a good bill. There was an 

extensive hearing on this issue previously. I would urge the House to do 

the right thing and adopt this bill. It 

should not become the law of the land 

that if you’re an employer and can hide 

discrimination for 180 days you get 

away with it. If the Ledbetter decision 

stands, that’s what the law is. Let’s 

change that law and adopt this bill. 

Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Madam 

Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent that we yield the remainder of our time to the ranking 

member on the Education and Labor 

Committee (Mr. MCKEON) to control 

the time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there 

objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. MCKEON. Madam Speaker, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition 

to this ill-considered and overreaching 

legislation. Proponents of this bill 

claim it simply reverses a May 29, 2007, 

U.S. Supreme Court decision and clarifies congressional opposition to wage 

discrimination. In reality, however, 

this bill will set into motion a series of 

unintended consequences that will ripple through the economy and plague 

workers, small businesses, and the judicial system with a vast new legal 

minefield. 

At the outset, let me make it clear 

that opposition to discrimination of 

any type, be it gender discrimination, 

racial discrimination or any other type 

of discrimination inside and outside 

the workplace, is not confined to one 

party or the other. Every Member of 

this Chamber stands in strong opposition to the unfair treatment of any 

worker. 

At the same time, I believe we must 

stand firmly behind a process that ensures justice for all parties, and that 

includes protecting against the potential for abuse and over-litigation. It is 

my commitment to those principles 

that requires me to vote no on this bill 

today. 

For more than 40 years, title VII of 

the 1964 Civil Rights Act has made it illegal for employers to determine an 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H116 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 9, 2009 

employee’s pay scale based on his or 

her gender. This is a principle upon 

which all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, can agree. As such, current law provides that any individual 

wishing to challenge an employment 

practice as discriminatory must first 

file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 

the applicable statute of limitations, 

which is either 180 or 300 days, depending on his or her state of employment 

after the alleged workplace discrimination occurred. 

The statute of limitations was clearly established in the law to encourage 

the timely filing of claims which helps 

prevent the filing of stale claims and 

protects against the abuse of the legal 

system. Consider these ‘‘worst case’’ 

scenarios, for example: 

Without a statute of limitations in 

place, an employee could sue for pay 

discrimination resulting from an alleged discriminatory act that might 

have occurred, 5, 10, 20 or even 30 years 

earlier. 

And without a statute of limitations 

in place, it is entirely conceivable that 

a worker or retiree could seek damages 

against a company run by employees 

and executives that had nothing to do 

with the initial act of the alleged discrimination that occurred dozens of 

years ago. 

The bill before us would dismantle 

the statute of limitations and replace 

it with a new system under which 

every paycheck received by the employee allegedly discriminated against 

starts the clock on an entirely new 

statute. While fair-minded in principle, 

this dramatic change in civil rights law 

would have an incredibly far-reaching 

impact, one that supporters of the bill 

have yet to take the time to thoroughly and appropriately consider. Indeed, if this bill becomes law, the worst 

case scenarios I just described could 

become commonplace. And let’s not 

kid ourselves: our Nation’s trial lawyers would seize upon that. 

Madam Speaker, this bill is not a 

matter of tinkering around the edges 

as its supporters would have the American people believe. Rather, it is a fundamental overhaul of longstanding 

civil rights laws. 

The last major change to these laws 

occurred more than 15 years ago, and 

after several years of debate. Yet, here 

we are, just hours into the 111th Congress, and without having held legislative hearings, a committee markup, or 

even an open-debate process on the 

floor, voting on a highly flawed bill 

without any regard to its long-term 

ramifications. 

I’m opposed to discrimination in the 

workplace, and I believe that workers 

must have a protected right to avail 

themselves of legal protections when 

such discrimination occurs. That right 

exists today in carefully crafted civil 

rights law that ensures fairness and 

justice for all parties. Unfortunately, 

the bill before us is neither fair nor 

just, and for that reason, I will oppose 

it. I urge my colleagues to do likewise. 

I reserve the balance of my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without 

objection, the gentleman from New 

Jersey is recognized. 

There was no objection. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Madam 

Speaker. 

I am pleased at this point to yield 2 

minutes to the gentlelady from California (Ms. WOOLSEY) in favor of this 

restoration of 40 years of civil rights 

legislation. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Lilly Ledbetter went 

to work at Goodyear Tires every day 

for 19 years. She was one of the few female supervisors at the plant, and she 

was an outstanding one, at that. She 

received awards for her work. 

However, all of those years she was 

paid less than her male colleagues, 20 

percent less by the time she retired, because of gender discrimination. 

A jury agreed that she had been discriminated against and awarded her 

over $3.8 million in back pay and damages. But the Supreme Court, the Federal Supreme Court, reversed the decision because it found that Lilly didn’t 

file her claim within 180 days of the 

initial decision to discriminate, even 

though she had absolutely no idea at 

the time that she was being paid less 

than her male counterparts simply because she was a woman. 

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restores the common and longstanding 

understanding of employees, employers 

and the circuit courts alike that, when 

it comes to discriminatory pay, the 

protection of title VII extends not only 

to pay decisions and practices, but to 

each and every paycheck as well. 

Unfortunately, Lilly will not reap 

the benefits of this legislation. As a result, she will continue to feel the effects of the Court’s wrongheaded decision for the rest of her life, through 

smaller pension and Social Security 

benefits. But this bill will help other 

women, and it will also be a reminder 

that absolutely no employer can tell 

their employees to keep their pay a secret. They can tell you that, but, in 

fact, they have no right and no legal 

standing. 

So, along with bringing that to light, 

this wonderful bill is a tribute to Lilly 

Ledbetter, who has paved the way for 

other women. 

Mr. MCKEON. I have no further 

speakers, so I will reserve our time. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I 

am pleased to yield at this time 2 minutes to one of the civil rights champions of this Congress, the gentleman 

from Virginia (Mr. SCOTT). 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam 

Speaker, I rise today in support of the 

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This legislation reverses the Supreme Court’s 

decision in the Ledbetter case in which 

the Court ruled that workers filing suit 

for pay discrimination must do so 

within 180 days of the original decision 

to discriminate against them. After the 

180 days from the initial decision to 

discriminate, the employer could continue its discriminatory practices and 

the employee would no longer have any 

legal remedy. 

Prior to the Supreme Court decision, 

employees could file suit against employers who were guilty of discriminatory pay practices within 180 days of 

any discriminatory act, not just the 

initial decision to discriminate, so that 

each paycheck in which women were 

paid less than men for performing the 

same job would restart the 180-day period. The Supreme Court’s ruling in 

Ledbetter changed this, so that now, if 

the discrimination is not discovered 

within 180 days, employers are now allowed to continue to discriminate, even 

if the pattern of discrimination is well 

known and acknowledged. 

Unfortunately, the fact is that many 

women, like Lilly Ledbetter, do not 

learn about the discrimination until 

much later. So under the Supreme 

Court decision these women have no 

remedy under civil rights laws. This 

bill corrects the injustice and does so, 

it does not make a so-called dramatic 

change. Most of the country operated 

under this policy anyway. 

And also, the bill retains the 2-year 

limit on past wages, so the burden of 

proof remains also on the plaintiff. So 

any delay which erodes evidence would 

be a higher burden for the plaintiff. So 

there’s no incentive to delay bringing 

suit. 

Madam Speaker, this is a commonsense application of what everyone 

thought the law was anyway. I commend Chairman MILLER for bringing 

the bill to the floor, and urge my colleagues to support it. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I 

am pleased to yield, at this time, 1 

minute to the gentlelady from Hawaii 

(Ms. HIRONO) who truly understands 

what’s wrong with the situation where 

you get paid based on your gender. 

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I rise 

in strong support of H.R. 11, the Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. And I 

want to thank Chairman GEORGE MILLER for his continuing leadership and 

dedication in bringing this bill to the 

floor. 

H.R. 11 is needed because the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2007, ruled in Ledbetter 

v. Goodyear that did not take into consideration the reality that discovering 

discriminatory pay at the outset is difficult for employees. The Court’s imposition of 180 days to file a discrimination claim is totally unrealistic and 

unfair. 

When Lilly Ledbetter came to testify 

before the Education and Labor Committee in 2007, I was moved by her 

story of justice denied. Ms. Ledbetter 

was deprived of lost wages compensation because she did not know she was 

being paid less than her male colleagues until many years had passed 

since her employers made the initial 

decision to discriminate. 

This bill restores fairness to any employee who has been paid less than 

their coworkers. I urge my colleagues 

to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 9, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H117 

Pay Act, as well as the Paycheck Fairness Act also being debated this morning. 

Mr. MCKEON. Madam Speaker, I 

yield myself such time as I may consume. 

As we debate this legislation, Madam 

Speaker, I must point out that the 

myths propagated by our friends in the 

majority are almost too much to take, 

so I’d like to take a few moments to 

dispel some of their more disingenuous 

claims. 

We’ve heard them claim, for example, 

that H.R. 11 merely restores prior law 

by reversing the Supreme Court’s 

Ledbetter decision. If indeed this bill 

was intended simply to reverse the decision, it would have been written to do 

just that. However, it wasn’t. As we 

have discussed, current law provides 

that an individual wishing to challenge 

an employment practice as discriminatory must first file a charge with the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the applicable statute 

of limitations. 

Let’s be perfectly clear. This was the 

law both before and after the 2007 Supreme Court decision. This bill would 

dismantle that statute of limitations 

and replace it with a new system in 

which every paycheck received by the 

employee allegedly discriminated 

against starts the clock on an entirely 

new statute. In other words it restores 

nothing. Rather, it totally guts current 

law and leaves the door open for trial 

lawyers to have a veritable field day. 

Supporters of this bill also tell us 

that with hundreds of charges of gender-based pay discrimination filed with 

the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission each year, numerous 

claims will never be brought to justice 

without this legislation. 

Once again, nothing could be further 

from the truth. The right to each and 

every EEOC pay discrimination claim 

exists today, just as it has since the 

1964 Civil Rights Act. This bill does not 

restore any rights because these rights 

never were taken away. Current law allows an individual to challenge an employment practice as discriminatory 

by first filing a charge with the EEOC 

within the applicable statute of limitations. This bill does not establish any 

new rights, and its supporters know 

this perfectly well. 

Finally, the bill’s supporters claim 

that unless this bill becomes law, victims of pay discrimination will have no 

recourse unless they file a claim within 

180 or 300 days of that decision. Unfortunately, the majority refuses to acknowledge clear protections against 

such a scenario. 

First, employees who believe they 

are victims of pay discrimination may 

also have recourse under the Equal Pay 

Act, which is not subject to the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission 

180 to 300 days filing requirements. 

b 1100 

Through a variety of legal doctrines, 

courts already allow plaintiffs to file 

claims outside the statute of limitations where it is fair and equitable for 

them to do so. For example, a court 

may choose to do so in a case where an 

employer withheld critical information 

or otherwise misled an employee into 

sleeping on his or her rights. 

In short, Madam Speaker, the lack of 

candor from this bill’s proponents is 

clouding the debate, and I feel it is my 

duty to set the record straight. 

With that, I reserve the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I 

am pleased at this time to yield to the 

majority leader of the House of Representatives, who will lead us to reverse this unfortunate Court decision 

today, the gentleman from Maryland 

(Mr. HOYER) for 1 minute. 

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman 

from New Jersey. I thank Chairman 

MILLER from California. I thank my 

friend Mr. MCKEON as well for the consideration of this debate. 

We’ve passed this bill before, properly so. Unfortunately, it didn’t pass 

the Senate. It wasn’t signed by the 

President. That will not happen this 

time. We will pass this bill. My belief is 

the Senate will pass this bill, and the 

President of the United States will sign 

it. Why? Because it’s the right thing to 

do. 

I listened to my friend in his conversation, but frankly, it somewhat belies the fact that there came a case to 

the Supreme Court, and the Supreme 

Court had to rule on the case, and the 

Supreme Court ruled on the statute of 

limitation. 

The value of work, of course, Madam 

Speaker, lies in a job well done, not in 

the gender of the worker. I don’t think 

there is a man or a woman in this 

Chamber who would disagree, but all 

too often in America, sexism, frankly, 

cheats women out of equal pay and 

equal worth. It still robs women of 

their equal right to earn a livelihood, 

to provide for their families and to secure the dignity of their labor. It does 

much of its worst work in the dark. 

Frankly, women in this body all 

know that they make the same thing 

as the men in this body. Why? Because 

it’s public information, but if it were 

secret information, notwithstanding 

the fact that we had a number of 

women vote against this the last time 

it was up, I would be shocked that they 

would do so again if they were put in 

the position of making $25,000 less than 

those of us who are males, doing exactly the same job. That is the position, of course, Lilly Ledbetter found 

herself in. 

So many of us know by now that 

Lilly Ledbetter was precluded from recovery. For almost two decades, from 

1979 to 1998, she was a hardworking tire 

plant supervisor. For much of her career, she suffered from two kinds of discrimination simultaneously—from sexual harassment when a manager said to 

her face that women didn’t belong in a 

factory to the supervisor who tried to 

coerce her into a sexual encounter. 

There was pay discrimination as well. 

There’s no doubt about that. Now, she 

couldn’t recover for it because the Supreme Court said she hadn’t acted. By 

the end of her career, she was making 

nearly $7,000 less than the lowest paid 

man in the same position. 

Both kinds of discrimination were 

founded on the belief that women in 

the workplace are second-class citizens. I hope there are no women in 

America who believe that, and I would 

hope there are no men in America who 

believe that. I say that as a father of 

three women, as the grandfather of two 

granddaughters and as the great grandfather of a 2-year-old young woman. 

Of the two, the unfair pay may have 

been the most damaging, between the 

sexual discrimination and the pay discrimination. The sexual discrimination, obviously, is abhorrent, but the 

pay discrimination diminished Lilly 

Ledbetter’s opportunities in our country. 

There has been a lot said on this 

floor about ‘‘it’s their money, and they 

know how to spend it better,’’ and 

we’ve talked about that in terms of tax 

bills. ‘‘It’s their money, and they know 

how to spend it better.’’ If that’s the 

case, then I would hope that this bill 

would pass unanimously to make sure 

that their money, which they earn fairly, is paid to them so they then can use 

it as they see fit. 

Ms. Ledbetter might have been in the 

dark to this day; they may have kept it 

a secret because people, particularly in 

the private sector, don’t go around, 

saying, ‘‘Well, I make X and you make 

Y.’’ In fact, a lot of employers tell 

their employees, ‘‘Don’t tell people 

what you make.’’ Lilly Ledbetter 

didn’t know how badly she was being 

discriminated against. 

A coworker, however, gave her proof 

of what her employer was doing to her. 

Such silent discrimination is surprisingly common because it is so difficult 

to identify. After all, how many of us 

know what the salaries of our coworkers are? As I said, we do. My friend 

from California knows that she makes 

the same thing as Mr. MILLER makes, 

and that’s appropriate. They are both 

elected; they both have the same job; 

they both work hard, and they’re paid 

the same. 

Lilly Ledbetter took her employer to 

court, but the Supreme Court finally 

ruled against her. So, apparently, there 

is a problem somewhere, not because 

she was making it all up but because 

she had failed to file suit 180 days after 

her first unfair paycheck. Now, that 

adopts the premise that the subsequent 

paychecks somehow were not in violation of the law. They were. Every time 

she was paid discriminatorily, it was 

another violation of the law. In fact, 

the 180 days should have run from the 

last violation of the law, which, of 

course, was the last time she was paid 

in a discriminatory fashion. You have 6 

months to find out you’re being paid 

unfairly or you’re out of luck for a lifetime. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H118 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 9, 2009 

The Supreme Court’s flawed ruling 

ignored the real-world facts of discrimination, and it has the potential to 

harm thousands of women, indeed, hundreds of thousands and millions of 

women and their children and their 

families and our communities and society, leaving victims of pay discrimination without any recourse. 

As Justice Ginsburg said—and she 

put it in as a strong dissent—‘‘Pay disparities often occur . . . in small increments; cause to suspect that discrimination is at work develops only over 

time. Comparative pay information, 

moreover, is often hidden from the employee’s view . . . Small, initial discrepancies may not be seen to meet the 

Federal case, particularly when the 

employee, trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment, is averse to 

making waves.’’ 

That’s what Justice Ginsburg said. 

So, apparently, Justice Ginsburg 

thought there was a problem to which 

we ought to respond, which is what is 

happening today. 

‘‘The ball,’’ Justice Ginsburg concluded, ‘‘is in Congress’ court . . . The 

legislature may act to correct this 

Court’s parsimonious reading.’’ 

That is what we are doing today. 

That is the right thing to do for our 

country. It is the right thing to do for 

women. It is the right thing to do for 

our families, and that is the aim of the 

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. 

This bill gives employees a fair time 

limit to take action against discrimination. A 180-day limit will still stand, 

but the clock is reset after each violation of the law, as it should be, not 

simply after the first one, and that 

change fits our commonsense understanding of pay discrimination. It is 

not a single act but an ongoing practice that is renewed every time the employer signs an unfair paycheck. 

Madam Speaker, pay discrimination 

anywhere is an attack on the dignity of 

every woman in every workplace in 

America. When workers face unfair 

pay, they should find us standing by 

their side, not throwing up technicalities and roadblocks on the way to 

equality. 

For that reason, I urge every one of 

my colleagues, male and female, Representatives of all of the people who 

ought to have equal opportunity under 

the law. This accomplishes that objective. Vote for this important piece of 

legislation. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without 

objection, the gentleman from California (Mr. MILLER) is recognized. 

There was no objection. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

May I inquire of the Chair my time remaining? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. MILLER) 

has 171⁄2 minutes remaining. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 

from New Hampshire (Ms. SHEA-PORTER), a member of the committee. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter 

Fair Pay Act of 2009. I thank Chairman 

MILLER of the Education and Labor 

Committee for his leadership on this 

issue. 

As a member of the Education and 

Labor Committee, I had the opportunity to hear firsthand Ms. 

Ledbetter’s story when she testified before the committee in June of 2007. Her 

experience is, indeed, appalling, but 

Ms. Ledbetter is not the only victim in 

this case. The Supreme Court’s decision makes it harder for all employees 

to challenge pay discrimination. 

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restores the integrity of our Nation’s pay 

discrimination protections by clarifying that every discriminatory paycheck represents a new violation of the 

law, restarting the clock on the statute 

of limitations. It restores the protections, because prior to the Supreme 

Court’s ruling, the EEOC and most circuit courts understood the law the 

same way, that each discriminatory 

paycheck restarted the clock. 

The Supreme Court’s ruling changed 

all of this, putting all workers at a disadvantage, threatening the integrity of 

all pay discrimination protections, not 

just gender-based pay discrimination. 

We have an opportunity today to clarify the law, to strengthen our antidiscrimination protections and to move 

one step closer to ensuring the right of 

every worker to equal pay for equal 

work. 

I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well. I ask them to support it 

not only for themselves but for those 

who will come after us. It is critical 

that we have an understanding, and 

when the courts face these issues 

again, it must be very clear what was 

intended by Congress. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 

from Illinois (Mr. HARE), a member of 

the committee. 

Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I rise in 

strong support of H.R. 11, the Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I commend my 

chairman, Chairman MILLER, for bringing this important legislation forward. 

Last year, I, too, had the privilege of 

hearing Ms. Ledbetter testify before 

the Education and Labor Committee. 

After 19 years as a Goodyear employee, 

Ms. Ledbetter discovered she was paid 

significantly less than every single one 

of her male counterparts. She sued the 

company. She took her case all the 

way to the Supreme Court. Ignoring a 

previous court’s judgment to award Ms. 

Ledbetter damages for pay discrimination, the Supreme Court threw out the 

case based on a technicality. 

The Court’s decision ignores the reality of the workplace where employees generally don’t know enough about 

what their coworkers earn or how decisions regarding pay are made to file a 

complaint right when discrimination 

first occurs. Under this decision, employees in Ms. Ledbetter’s position are 

forced to live with discriminatory paychecks for the rest of their careers. 

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act 

would correct this wrong by clarifying 

that every paycheck resulting from a 

discriminatory pay decision constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights 

Act and that employees have 180 days 

after each discriminatory paycheck to 

file suit. 

When the Supreme Court sanctions 

discrimination through technicalities, 

it is the job of Congress to clarify the 

intent of the law. I am pleased that our 

first action in the 111th Congress is to 

stand up for American workers by invalidating this misguided ruling. 

Once again, I commend my chairman, 

Chairman MILLER, and I urge all of my 

colleagues to vote for H.R. 11. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 

from Connecticut (Ms. DELAURO). 

Ms. DELAURO. I rise in support of 

the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and 

I commend Chairman MILLER for his 

leadership and for his tireless efforts 

that have brought us so far. 

We are here today because Lilly 

Ledbetter got short-changed, shortchanged by her employer—the perpetrator of consistent pay discrimination 

lasting years—and short-changed again 

by the Supreme Court. 

A jury found that, yes, Lilly 

Ledbetter had been discriminated 

against by her employer, and they 

awarded her $3.8 million in back pay 

and damages. Then under Title VII, 

this award was reduced to $360,000, ultimately to zero, when the Supreme 

Court ruled 5–4 against her last year, 

drastically limiting women’s access to 

seek justice for pay discrimination 

based on gender, requiring workers to 

file a pay discrimination claim within 

a 6-month period only, regardless of 

how long the pay inequity goes on. 

When women still earn only about 78 

percent of what men earn, this ruling 

essentially rolled back efforts to ensure equal pay and left women with little remedy. 

b 1115 

Justice Ginsberg suggested in her 

dissent, ‘‘Congress has an obligation to 

correct the Court’s decision.’’ That is 

why we introduced and passed the Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act last year, 

clearly stating the title VII statute of 

limitation runs from the date a discriminatory wage is actually paid, not 

simply some earliest possible date 

which has come and gone long ago. Instead, you would be able to challenge 

discriminatory paychecks as long as 

you continue to receive them. 

Earlier this week, Lilly Ledbetter 

wrote to the entire Congress, ‘‘I may 

have lost my personal battle, but I 

have not given up. I am still fighting 

for all of the other women and girls out 

there who deserve equal pay and equal 

treatment under the law.’’ 

Madam Speaker, ensuring pay equity 

can help families gain the resources 

they need to give their children a better future, the great promise of the 

American Dream. Let us make good on 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 9, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H119 

that promise, pass this bill, and make 

sure women who face the discrimination that Lilly Ledbetter faced have 

the right to fight against it. 

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 

the gentleman from New York (Mr. 

MCMAHON). 

Mr. MCMAHON. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

I rise today as a cosponsor of H.R. 11, 

the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The 

Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision 

has made it significantly harder for 

women and other workers to hold employers accountable for pay discrimination. The Court’s reasoning lacks 

common sense about the realities of 

workplace discrimination, and completely disregards the intent behind 

our robust civil rights laws. 

Now we in Congress must correct this 

injustice, and H.R. 11 seeks to do just 

that. 

As a father and husband, I think it’s 

shameful that by 2009 we haven’t been 

able to close the gender wage gap. 

Should my wife, who was recently 

elected to serve as Staten Island’s first 

woman Supreme Court justice, receive 

a lower salary than her male counterparts simply because of her gender? 

I worry about my high school-aged 

daughter and hope that when she enters the workforce, she will have the 

same opportunities as her male colleagues. As asked by the majority leader, if she were elected to the House 

today, should she be paid $145,000 while 

the men receive $165,000? I say, No. 

Is this America’s promise to our 

young women? To my wife? To my 

daughter? Enactment of the Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will ensure 

that when women face discrimination 

in the workplace, they will be able to 

fight for and protect their rights to 

fair, equal treatment. 

I recently visited Wagner College in 

my district and met with the next generation of working women. I made a 

promise to all of the young women of 

Staten Island and Brooklyn that I 

would work hard in Congress to change 

the practices that permit women to 

earn only 77 cents on every dollar made 

by men. 

I thank the House leadership, and especially the gentleman from California 

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER) for allowing me 

to be part of this historic moment here 

today. Let us put to rest the age-old 

problem of sex-based discrimination. 

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on 

the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, H.R. 

11, and on H.R. 12, the Paycheck Fairness Act. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without 

objection, the gentleman from New 

Jersey is recognized. 

There was no objection. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Madam 

Speaker. 

I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a 

member of the Rules Committee, the 

gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. SUTTON). 

Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman 

for the time and for his leadership on 

this issue. 

I thank the chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, Mr. MILLER, for his tremendous leadership, as 

well as Representative ROSA DELAURO

for her commitment. And I rise today 

in strong support of this bill. 

Madam Speaker, I wish this legislation were not necessary. But, sadly, 

nearly 45 years after the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, pay discrimination still exists; and in one fell swoop, in the 

Ledbetter case, the Supreme Court 

made it immensely easier for discrimination to prevail at the expense of 

women and their families across this 

country, and that is unacceptable. 

The Court held that Lilly Ledbetter 

would have had to file a complaint 

within 180 days of when her employer 

began years of discrimination against 

her even though there was no way that 

she could have known that she was 

being discriminated against. The 

Court, in effect, eliminated any real 

opportunity for victims of long-term 

gender-based pay discrimination to be 

made whole and provided employers 

who engage in pay discrimination for 

years to do so without consequence. 

Let’s pass this bill. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I 

am pleased to yield 1 minute to a 

strong and consistent voice for the 

rights of all people in this Congress, 

the gentlelady from California (Mrs. 

CAPPS). 

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague. 

Madam Speaker, I rise in full support 

of H.R. 11. I was extremely proud last 

year when the House swiftly acted to 

pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. 

The Supreme Court had made a terribly misguided decision and failed to 

fully recognize the rights of women to 

seek remedy for pay discrimination. 

And how proud I am today that we 

are wasting no time and again passing 

legislation to clarify that victims of 

pay discrimination should not be punished because they were not aware of 

the discrimination against them earlier. 

The Civil Rights Act exists to protect 

individuals precisely when they find 

themselves in the situation Lilly 

Ledbetter found herself in, and it was 

never meant to be interpreted in a way 

that provides a loophole for employers 

to discriminate—if they can just make 

sure that their employees are kept in 

the dark for 6 months. 

Lilly Ledbetter will never be compensated for decades of discrimination 

by her employer, but let us ensure that 

none of our sisters, our daughters, our 

granddaughters are ever punished in 

the same way. 

I urge my colleagues the vote yes for 

the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I 

am pleased at this time to yield 1 

minute to the gentleman from New 

York (Mr. NADLER), a strong voice for 

civil liberties. 

Mr. NADLER of New York. Madam 

Speaker, it’s been 46 years since Congress passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963. 

Yet women still earn on average only 

77 cents for every dollar earned by a 

man, and the promise of pay equity remains unfulfilled. And the Supreme 

Court’s Lilly Ledbetter decision makes 

it almost impossible to challenge Federal discrimination. 

This bill will overturn that decision. 

Last year, the Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 

Liberties, which I chair, held a hearing 

on the Ledbetter case and heard directly from Lilly Ledbetter who eloquently described the terrible injustice 

of the Court’s decision. 

The Court held that although Ms. 

Ledbetter had lost thousands of dollars 

of pay because of intentional sex discrimination, she could not sue because 

the employer had successfully hidden 

its own misconduct and discrimination 

for more than 6 months. This decision 

makes it almost impossible to enforce 

the right to be paid the same regardless of race or sex, et cetera. This must 

be changed, and this bill changes that. 

The need for the Paycheck Fairness 

Act is equally clear. Unfair pay disparities require workers and their families 

to live on less than they rightfully deserve and reduce retirement earnings. 

I urge adoption of both bills. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, it is 

my distinct and humble privilege to 

yield 1 minute to a person of great 

strength and dignity and leadership, 

the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlelady from California. 

Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I 

thank the gentleman for yielding. 

I want to commend him for his extraordinary leadership, his attention to 

this issue of concern to America’s families. I thank him, I thank his chairman, GEORGE MILLER, for championing 

this issue in the committee and on the 

floor. 

And I want to particularly salute 

Congresswoman ROSA DELAURO for 

being a relentless advocate. Ten years 

ago, she introduced the Pay Equity 

Act, and she has been working on it for 

a long time; and over the years, our 

ranks have grown of those who recognize the importance of this legislation. 

I am particularly happy today, my 

colleagues, because on Tuesday we 

swore in a new Congress. It was a result of an election where the American 

people spoke out very clearly for 

change. And in the very first week of 

this new Congress, the change that we 

want to make is in the lives of America’s families. 

This legislation hits home. It helps 

America’s working women meet the 

challenges that their families face economically, and it is about ending discrimination. So I thank all of our colleagues who worked so hard over the 

years to put this forward. We passed it 

in the House in the last Congress. We 

passed the Lilly Ledbetter bill, really a 

real tribute to a heroine, a woman who 

is a heroine. She took her personal 

story and she is making change for all 

working women in American. 

That the Supreme Court would have 

ruled against her after she had won one 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H120 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 9, 2009 

court challenge after another speaks to 

the need for this legislation. And the 

courts have spoken to Congress’ ability 

to change the law if they do not agree 

with what the law had been before. 

So here we are. This is the day. We 

campaigned all over the country. This 

issue of pay equity and Lilly Ledbetter 

legislation was part of the campaign. 

This woman from Alabama stood before crowds and talked about her personal experience. It was painful to experience it, yet she used her own situation to make life better for others. I’m 

sorry she cannot be with us here today, 

but I hope she knows how deeply grateful we all are to her because her case 

showcased the need for this legislation. 

And again, in terms of pay equity, 

I’m a mother of four daughters and one 

son; and for all of them, this is important legislation. Many colleagues in 

this House—we have many women 

Members of the House now, many more 

we want, but we have fathers of daughters, and those fathers of daughters 

know that their daughters are capable 

of doing anything they set out to do 

and that the value that is placed on 

them in the workplace is the same 

value that is placed on young men and 

men of whatever age. 

So I speak, really, from the heart on 

this in terms of what it means to 

women in their lives, to what it means 

to women in their homes, what it 

means to them in the workplace, what 

it means to them in their role in the 

economy, and what it means to them 

in their retirement because if women 

are not paid fairly in the course of 

their work years, it has an impact on 

their retirement as well. 

So for the benefit of our economy— 

because this has an impact on our entire economy—I want to salute all who 

have brought us to this day. I think it’s 

a happy day for our country, and as 

Speaker of the House, I’m particularly 

pleased that in the first week of the 

new Congress, this is the primary legislation that we are putting forward. Pay 

equity, fairness to women in the workplace, the Lilly Ledbetter Act. These 

are our priorities. 

I hope that we will have a big strong 

vote in the Congress today so the message will go out that this Congress has 

heard the message of change in the 

election, that this Congress knows the 

needs of America’s women, that this 

Congress is prepared to be relevant in 

its action, relevant to the concerns of 

America’s working families. 

I thank all of you for what you do, 

and I urge all of our colleagues to join 

all of us in supporting this important 

legislation. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I 

am pleased to yield at this time 11⁄2

minutes to the gentlelady from Chicago (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY) who is the 

Democratic leader of the bipartisan 

Women’s Caucus in the House. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, 

I rise today in support of two critical 

pieces of legislation, the Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. 

It is high time for the United States 

to end gender discrimination in the 

workplace and to start paying women 

equal pay for an equal day’s work. 

As the Democratic co-Chair of the 

Congressional Caucus on Women’s 

Issues, I’m particularly concerned 

about how the downturn in the economy will impact women and their families. Today in the United States of 

America, women earn just 78 cents for 

every dollar earned by a man. African 

American women earn just 63 cents on 

the dollar, and Latinas earn only 53 

cents for each dollar males earn, and 

single women earn just 56 cents for 

every dollar earned by a man. 

b 1130 

These alarming statistics, coupled 

with the fact that women are losing 

their jobs at a frightening rate, makes 

passing the Equal Pay Act even more 

important, and I thank ROSA DELAURO

for her leadership on that legislation. 

But the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act 

provides adequate legal protections for 

wage discrimination. Lilly Ledbetter 

worked for 19 years at a Goodyear Tire 

plant and was routinely paid less than 

her male colleagues, including in her 

last paycheck. Unfortunately, the 

United States Supreme Court, in essence, said to employers, if you can 

just keep your underpaid women in the 

dark for 180 days, then you’re free to 

deny her fair pay and leave her to attempt to meet her family’s expenses on 

a salary that denies her rightful payment. 

My colleagues, in this 21st century, 

it’s time we made fairness the law of 

the land. 

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 

two critical pieces of legislation, the Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act. It is high time for the U.S. to end 

gender discrimination in the workplace and 

start paying women equal pay for an equal 

day’s work. 

As the Democratic Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women’s Issues, I am particularly concerned about how the downturn in 

the economy will impact women and their families. Today, in the U.S.A. women earn just 78 

cents for every dollar earned by a man. African American women earn just 63 cents on 

the dollar, Latinas earn only 53 cents for each 

dollar males earn and single women just 56 

cents for every dollar earned by a man. These 

alarming statistics coupled with the fact that 

women are losing their jobs at a frightening 

rate makes passing pay equity legislation even 

more important. 

I thank ROSA DELAURO for her leadership on 

this legislation. The Paycheck Fairness Act will 

help put women’s wages on par with those of 

their male colleagues. 

We must also pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair 

Pay Act to provide adequate legal protections 

from wage discrimination. Lilly Ledbetter 

worked for 19 years at a Goodyear Tire plant 

and was routinely paid less than her male colleagues including her last paycheck. Unfortunately the U.S. Supreme Court in essence 

compounded this problem when it overturned 

the lower court and denied her the right to 

seek relief from our legal system by telling her 

she waited too long to seek relief even 

through she had no way of knowing she was 

paid less. The Supreme Court’s decision 

means that if an employer discriminates in 

paying a women but she isn’t aware of it for 

six months, the employer can continue to discriminate for years or even decades under an 

immunity shield that gives that woman no 

legal recourse. 

In other words, if employers can just keep 

under paid women in the dark for 180 days, 

they are free to deny her fair pay and leave 

her to attempt to meet her family’s expenses 

on a salary that denies her rightful payment. 

Women should be allowed to seek legal remedies for employment discrimination and the 

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would remove existing barriers that prevent women from turning 

to the courts for help. 

It is time that we help the many women this 

21st century. Its time we make fairness the 

law of the land. 

Finally, I would strongly recommend to all 

my colleagues if you want to do the right 

thing, if you want to be on the side of the 

women in your district, and if you do not want 

to be on the wrong side of history, cast a 

proud yes vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act 

and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, 

may I inquire as to the time left on 

each side? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 4 minutes remaining. The 

gentleman from California (Mr. 

MCKEON) has 20 minutes remaining. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, at 

this time, I would be pleased to recognize for 1 minute a gentlelady who once 

chaired the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, who is the House’s 

leading expert on this statute, the 

gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. NORTON). 

Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman 

for his hard work and for his leadership. 

It’s a rare privilege to cosponsor a 

bill about a law that I once enforced, 

but no pleasure at this time because it 

takes me back to the future, repeating 

what Congress did on this floor more 

than 40 years ago, permitting only 

what the act previously enforced, exactly as it was when I chaired the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, both before and since that 

time. 

The plaintiff in a discrimination suit 

carries a heavy burden; Congress never 

meant it to be an impossible burden. 

This is secret information—the pay of 

your coworkers. There is no way for 

you to know that kind of information 

any more than you know the health 

condition of your coworkers. Therefore, what we usually do in enforcement is give an incentive for the employer to contain his liability through 

self-remediation. The moment he finds 

the problem, he can contain his liability by in fact correcting the problem. 

Essentially what the Supreme Court 

has done is to perversely invite him to 

hold out for 180 days, and then it’s all 

over, no matter how much discrimination. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 9, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H121 

This is a bill that must be passed because it already was passed more than 

40 years ago. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I 

am pleased at this time to yield 1 

minute to the gentlelady from New 

York, a leader on the Equal Rights 

Amendment Campaign, Mrs. MALONEY. 

Mrs. MALONEY. This is a very important bill for working women in our 

country. The bill overturns the unfair 

Ledbetter decision where five members 

of the Supreme Court basically told 

employers everywhere that if you can 

just get away with cheating an employee—usually a woman—for 6 months 

and not have them call you on it, you 

have our permission to continue to 

cheat them for the rest of their working life with you, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The 

message is immoral and against all 

commonsense. If you cheat and nobody 

catches you in the first 6 months, it’s 

okay. 

A jury of Ledbetter’s peers ruled that 

in fact she had economically been discriminated against. The only question 

was, can someone cheat you week after 

week, year after year and receive a getout-of-jail-free card if they don’t get 

caught in the first 6 months they 

cheat? 

As Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her 

stinging rebuke to the Supreme Court, 

‘‘The Court does not comprehend or is 

indifferent to the way in which women 

can be victims of pay discrimination.’’ 

It’s a very important bill. Thank 

you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

Mr. ANDREW. Madam Speaker, I am 

pleased to yield 1 minute to the energetic and strong young lady from Florida, my friend, Ms. WASSERMAN

SCHULTZ. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. 

Madam Speaker, I met Lilly Ledbetter 

during a Judiciary Committee hearing 

in 2007. She told us then how it was 

only after 20 years of working at Goodyear that she learned of the long-standing pay discrimination against her. Immediately upon learning this, Lilly 

took her case to court. But instead of 

following long-standing precedent that 

each new unfair paycheck represented 

a new cause of action, the Supreme 

Court denied Lilly Ledbetter justice. 

In the real world, discrimination is 

subtle and takes years to become evident. However, Justice Alito ruled that 

victims have only 180 days after the 

start of a discriminatory action to file 

suit, even if that employee has no way 

of knowing about it. This standard is 

impossible to meet. The Ledbetter Fair 

Pay Act rights this wrong. It clarifies 

that an employee is discriminated 

against each and every time she receives an unfair paycheck. 

I thank Chairman MILLER and Congresswoman DELAURO for their outstanding leadership on this issue, and 

for my two beautiful daughters and the 

daughters of America, urge my colleagues to support fair pay in the 

workplace. 

Mr. MCKEON. Madam Speaker, may I 

inquire as to how many further speakers there are? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, we 

have one further speaker, and then we 

would anticipate closure from the minority, in which case we would then 

close. 

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to 

yield 30 seconds to a new Member, who 

is already making a very positive mark 

on this very important issue, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. CONNOLLY). 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank 

my colleague for giving me 30 seconds. 

I think today we right a wrong, a 

wrong not only about discrimination, 

but, frankly, a wrong done in the Supreme Court of the United States. The 

convoluted logic employed by a majority on that Supreme Court is also an 

injustice we, today, need to overturn. 

And so I’m so pleased to cast one of my 

first votes today on behalf of my 

daughter and all of the daughters of 

America to right this wrong. 

Mr. MCKEON. Madam Speaker, I 

yield myself the balance of my time. 

Madam Speaker, these are serious 

times. The economy is facing challenges like none we’ve faced in decades, 

and this time those challenges are on a 

global scale. 

The U.S. Department of Labor released its December jobs report this 

morning, and the news is jarring. The 

U.S. economy shed some 524,000 jobs in 

the month of December, and total job 

losses for 2008 have reached 2.6 million. 

There are now 11 million Americans 

out of work, and the unemployment 

rate has climbed upward to 7.2 percent, 

the highest level since 1993. 

The 111th Congress was sworn in this 

week amid these troubling indicators. 

What we do on this floor has the potential to help, but it also has the potential to harm. What we do here makes a 

difference, substantively, of course, but 

also symbolically. And what signal 

does it send to the Nation and the 

world that the first substantive order 

of business of the 111th Congress is not 

job creation or tax relief or economic 

stimulus, but, rather, a trial lawyer 

boondoggle that could put jobs and 

worker pensions in jeopardy. 

We should have done better, and perhaps we could have done better if we 

had taken the time to craft a bipartisan bill, or if we would have had an 

open debate process that allowed all 

Members of this body to contribute in 

a thoughtful way. 

Had this truly been a narrow fix, as 

its supporters would have the American people believe, this rush to approval may not have been such a problem. However, this is a major fundamental change to civil rights law, and 

no less than four separate statutes. 

The last change to civil rights law of 

this magnitude, the 1991 Civil Rights 

Act, took 2 years of negotiation, debate 

and partisan accord to accomplish. Instead, what we have before us is a partisan product that is fundamentally 

flawed. It guts the statute of limitations contained in current law, and in 

doing so would allow an employee to 

bring a claim against an employer decades after the alleged initial act of discrimination occurred. Trial lawyers, 

you can be sure, are salivating at this 

very prospect. 

Madam Speaker, this is a bad bill 

that is the result of an equally bad 

process. I urge my colleagues to join 

me in opposing this bill. 

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I 

yield myself the balance of our time. 

Madam Speaker, Lilly Ledbetter won 

an award for being the best at her job 

in her company. She was woefully underpaid compared to the men along 

whom’s side she worked doing the same 

job. She said that she was underpaid 

because she was a woman, the employer said she was underpaid because 

she wasn’t as good at her job. So they 

both went before a jury of their peers 

in Alabama, and the jury unanimously 

decided that Ms. Ledbetter was right 

and the employer was wrong, and they 

decided that she should be financially 

compensated for that wrong. But then 

she got an unwelcome surprise, that 

because she hadn’t acted at precisely 

the right moment, because she hadn’t 

acted against a wrong she did not know 

existed yet, because she did not have 

the power of a stance, she could not file 

her claim. 

The Supreme Court, with all due respect, turned this law into a trap and a 

game. Today, we are recorrecting that 

law, restoring the notion that when a 

woman goes to work in this country, 

she should be compensated on how 

good she is at her job, not her gender. 

Vote ‘‘yes’’ on this bill. 

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker. I am 

pleased to rise today to join with my colleagues in passing H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter 

Fair Pay Act. 

Ms. Ledbetter worked at Goodyear for over 

19 years, retiring as a supervisor in 1998. Unbeknownst to Ms. Ledbetter during her time at 

Goodyear she earned 20 percent less in salary and a smaller pension than the lowestpaid male supervisor. While a jury found in 

Ms. Ledbetter’s favor, agreeing that she had 

been discriminated against and awarding her 

$3.8 million in back pay, the Supreme Court 

did not agree. 

In 2007, the Supreme Court overturned this 

decision finding that Ms. Ledbetter made her 

claim too late. This decision ignored the fact 

that Ms. Ledbetter filed her charge within 180 

days of a discriminatory paycheck from Goodyear, which is in line with the 180 days requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act. 

Today this Congress has an opportunity to 

pass this legislation that will not only help Lilly 

Ledbetter recover the wages she rightly deserved, but it will ensure that the women who 

come after Ms. Ledbetter will not have to suffer her same fate. Under this bill every paycheck or other compensation that is discriminatory in nature would restart the clock for filing a charge. Furthermore, it entitles employers up to two years of back pay, unlike the 

180 days of back pay given to Ms. Ledbetter. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
H122 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE January 9, 2009 

During today’s economy more and more 

families are relying on two paychecks to put 

dinner on the table, buy school supplies for 

their children or visit the doctor. A smaller paycheck not only hurts female employees who 

deserve proper compensation, but the families 

they also must provide for. I urge my colleagues, to join with me in supporting both this 

bill. A vote in favor will go a long way in ensuring our daughters and granddaughters are 

treated as equals in the workplace. 

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam 

Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 

Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 11), which is 

the first of two bills the House will consider 

today focused on ensuring fair and equal pay 

for women in our workforce. 

By now, most of us have heard the heartrending story of Lily Ledbetter. Despite being 

intentionally paid 20 percent less than her 

male colleagues for 19 year, Ms. Ledbetter 

was denied damages by Supreme Court. In its 

May 27, 2007, the Court, by a narrow majority, 

ruled that because Ms. Ledbetter failed to file 

a claim within 180 days of the initial discriminatory action, she had missed her opportunity 

to challenge her employer. 

Thankfully, we have the opportunity today to 

overturn the Supreme Court’s egregious decision by approving the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay 

Act. This legislation clarifies that each discriminatory paycheck represents a new act of discrimination and therefore restarts the 180 day 

statute of limitation. By restoring the law to as 

it was prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, we 

will ensure that women, such as Lily 

Ledbetter, who are unknowingly discriminated 

against for years retain the legal right to challenge their employer and obtain compensation 

for the discrimination that they have endured. 

Madam Speaker, the legislation before us 

today does nothing more than restore common sense to the laws that protect our nation’s women from discrimination. I urge all of 

my colleagues to fully support it. 

Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in 

strong support of H.R. 11, ‘‘The Lilly Ledbetter 

Fair Pay Act.’’ The time has come for the Congress to reverse the wrongheaded and discriminatory Supreme Court case of Ledbetter 

v. Goodyear Tire Co. If left intact, this case 

will not only continue to undermine the validity 

of our Nation’s gender discrimination laws, but 

also laws that prevent employer discrimination 

based on race, religion, national origin, disability, or age. 

Madam Speaker, I was shocked when I 

heard the story of Lilly Ledbetter, the Goodyear Tire plant employee who suffered from 

pay discrimination for nearly two decades. 

After learning that she had been victimized by 

her employer, she brought an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint 

against Goodyear. Unfortunately, in 2007, a 

majority of our anti-worker, pro-corporate Supreme Court denied her claim, ruling that employees must file a wage-discrimination complaint within 180 days of the very first discriminatory payroll decision. This means that in 

order to have her day in court, Ms. Ledbetter 

would have needed to file suit in 1979, even 

though there was no way she could have 

known that discrimination was occurring at 

that point. And even though each successive 

payroll left her with fewer dollars than her 

equally qualified colleagues, the Justices of 

the Supreme Court argued that Ms. Ledbetter 

had missed her chance at justice. 

Ms. Ledbetter, a clear victim of discrimination, was left without recourse in a country 

founded on a respect for the rule of law. For 

this, we should be ashamed. 

Adding insult to injury, federal and state 

courts packed with conservative jurists have 

taken the precedent created by the Roberts 

Court’s Ledbetter decision and expanded upon 

its logic—for the sole purpose of undermining 

a wide range of antidiscrimination laws. Because statues which prevent discrimination are 

extremely similar in form to one another, it has 

been extremely easy for these jurists to employ the logic found in a gender discrimination 

case like Goodyear to disenfranchise claimants seeking redress under provisions of the 

Civil Rights Act, The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Immigration Reform and Control 

Act, The Age Discrimination in Employment 

Act, and many other laws aimed at ending 

anti-discrimination. 

If enacted, this bill will clarify that each paycheck resulting from a discriminatory pay decision is a new violation of employment nondiscrimination law. As long as a worker files a 

charge within 180 days of a discriminatory 

paycheck, the charge would be considered 

timely. 

Madam Speaker, I believe that our courts 

are our last line of defense when it comes to 

protecting the fundamental rights enshrined in 

our Constitution and in our civil rights laws. 

With our marketplace and court systems unwilling to correct obvious injustices, we need a 

legislative solution that will ensure that the universal values of fairness, respect, and decency continue to be a part of the American 

workplace. For the sake of ‘‘equal pay for 

equal work’’ and the continued utility of all of 

our federal discrimination laws, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. 

Ms. MCCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, I rise 

today in strong support of the Lilly Ledbetter 

Fair Pay Act (H.R. 11, which addresses gender-based wage discrimination. This is a historic day in the fight for equal rights for 

women, and I would like to thank Speaker 

NANCY PELOSI and House leaders for making 

pay equity for women among the first votes in 

the 111th Congress. 

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

ever that women, who are often the head of 

the household and make up nearly half the 

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

measures to reverse gender-based wage bias 

is a clear signal of the level of commitment 

American families can expect from this Congress. 

The disastrous economic policies of the 

Bush administration failed to address major 

workforce equity issues over the last eight 

years. It is unacceptable that on average, 

women only make 78 cents for every dollar 

earned by a man, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That could mean a difference of 

$400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost 

wages. Furthermore, the wage disparity grows 

wider as women age and threatens their economic security, retirement, and quality of life. 

The new Congress and the incoming administration must act quickly to protect America’s 

workers from wage-discrimination. 

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act seeks to 

level the playing field between men and 

women. This bill is named for a woman who 

worked for nearly two decades at a Goodyear 

Tire and Rubber facility in Alabama. She sued 

the company when she learned that she was 

the lowest-paid supervisor at the plant, despite 

having more experience than several of her 

male counterparts. A jury found that her employer had unlawfully discriminated against her 

on the basis of sex. However, the Supreme 

Court said that Ledbetter had waited too long 

to sue for pay discrimination. This legislation 

will restore the intent of the Civil Rights Act 

before the Supreme Court decision and will 

keep employers from being able to run out the 

clock by keeping discriminatory practices hidden. 

There is no question that our top priority is 

to get Americans and our economy working 

again. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act recognizes that equal pay is not only an issue of 

fairness for women, but also one of fairness 

for working families. In these tough economic 

times, this bill could make all the difference for 

working families to make ends meet in their 

everyday lives. Through these efforts we can 

help give families the resources they need to 

give their children a better future. Pay equity 

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

must ensure. 

I urge my colleagues to support this bill to 

ensure economic security for women, their 

families, and our communities. Through this 

legislation we can ensure a better future for 

our daughters granddaughters, and generations to come. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in 

strong support of H.R. 11, the Lilly Ledbetter 

Fair Pay Act. As an original cosponsor of this 

bill, I am pleased to see this legislation on the 

House floor today. 

H.R. 11 would correct an injustice and break 

down barriers to equal pay. From 1979 until 

1998, Lilly Ledbetter worked as a supervisor 

for the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. Although Ledbetter initially received a salary 

similar to the salaries paid to her male colleagues, a pay disparity developed over time. 

By 1997, the pay disparity between Ledbetter 

and her 15 male counterparts had widened 

considerably, to the point that Ledbetter was 

paid $3,727 per month while the lowest paid 

male colleague received $4,286 per month 

and the highest-paid male colleague received 

$5,236 per month. An anonymous note informed Ms. Ledbetter of this discrimination, 

which had been going on for years, and she 

immediately filed a complaint in 1998. A jury 

found in her favor, but, in a misguided Supreme Court decision, the jury’s verdict was 

overturned. According to the Supreme Court, 

her complaint was too late. 

This decision makes it more difficult for employees to sue for pay discrimination under 

Title VII, which was not the intent of Congress 

when the title was written into law. H.R. 11 

would clarify that the statute of limitations for 

suing employers for pay discrimination begins 

each time they issue a paycheck and is not 

limited to the original discriminatory action. 

This change would be applicable not only to 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but also to the 

Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. 

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 

support this bill to protect women like Lilly 

Ledbetter from taking their case for equal pay 

all the way to the Supreme Court, to support 

single mothers who may worry whether or not 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
January 9, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H123 

they are being treated fairly by their employers 

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

their full potential when they graduate. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ledbetter v. 

Goodyear was a giant step backwards for 

America in its commitment to fairness and 

equality. It is hard to believe that at the end 

of the first decade of the 21st century, our 

country is still struggling with gender based 

employment and wage equity. The Ledbetter 

decision made a legal remedy for this discriminatory practice considerably more difficult. 

As Justice Ginsberg pointed out in her dissent, the decision counsels women to sue 

early on, ‘‘when it is uncertain whether discrimination accounts for the pay disparity you 

are beginning to experience. Indeed, initially 

you may not know that men are receiving 

more for substantially similar work. Of course, 

you are likely to lose such a less than fully 

baked case. If you sue only when the pay disparity becomes steady and large enough to 

enable you to mount a winnable case, you will 

be cut off at the court’s threshold for suing too 

late.’’ 

Under this precedent, evidence of an employer knowingly carrying past pay discrimination forward must be treated as lawful. This 

was clearly not the intent of the legislation. 

Today’s legislation attempts to remedy the 

destructive effects of the Court’s actions. 

Under this bill, each sex-based discriminatory 

salary payment constitutes a new violation of 

Title VII. As a result, if an individual uncovers 

a sex based discriminatory act related to compensation that has been going on for years, 

like Ms. Ledbetter, that individual can seek redress. 

If we oppose discrimination in compensation 

then we must provide a legal recourse for 

those who have been discriminated against. 

The Fair Pay Act effectively restores this just 

and necessary remedy. 

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker. I 

rise today in support of H.R. 11, The Lilly 

Ledbetter Act. This legislation was passed by 

the House in the 110th Congress and we 

should pass it again today so the Senate can 

act swiftly and get this important initiative 

signed into law. 

Mrs. Ledbetter was a victim of a system 

gone awry. When she was hired as a supervisor at Goodyear’s tire assembly department 

in Gadsden, Alabama, her wages were exactly 

on par with those of a male employee working 

by her side. Mrs. Ledbetter didn’t know her 

first paychecks matched her co-workers’ paychecks. She just assumed they did. 

Then, in 1998, an anonymous note informed 

her that her annual salary was lagging 

$15,000 behind a certain male co-worker. In 

fact, she was being paid less than all her male 

counterparts in the tire assembly department, 

even recent hires. 

Within a month after receiving the note, 

Ledbetter filed a discrimination charge with the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

But Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights imposes 

a six-month limitation period on discriminatory 

acts; Ledbetter’s evidence was limited to 

events that took place after Sept. 26, 1997, or 

180 days prior to her EEOC charge. 

In November of 1998, she filed suit to determine and recoup her losses. Goodyear said 

Ledbetter’s poor job performance was to 

blame. But she prevailed and was awarded 

nearly $4 million in pay and punitive damages, 

which the judge reduced to $360,000. Of 

course, Goodyear appealed, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ unanimous opinion 

tossed out the award and dismissed 

Ledbetter’s complaint altogether. 

In 2007, in a 5–4 decision, the United 

States Supreme Court upheld the 11th Circuit’s decision, finding that the limitations period for a disparate pay claim cannot be extended or disregarded. But how can a claim 

be filed if there is no knowledge of the discriminatory act? 

Congress must now act on Justice Ruth 

Bader Ginsburg’s dissenting comment that she 

read from the bench: ‘‘the ball is in Congress’s 

court,’’ and ‘‘correct this parsimonious reading 

of Title VII.’’ I agree with Justice Ginsburg; this 

court ‘‘does not comprehend, or is indifferent 

to, the insidious way in which women can be 

victims of pay discrimination.’’ 

Colleagues, let us pass this bill and correct 

this gross inequity. 

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. 

Madam Speaker, today, I am pleased to 

speak about two bills that will go a long way 

towards establishing gender equity in American workplaces. The Paycheck Fairness Act 

and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will help 

close the legal loopholes and restore the initial 

intent of our civil rights laws. 

It has been 45 years since the passage of 

the landmark Equal Pay Act of 1963, and 

while pay disparities have narrowed, a strong 

wage disparity still exists. In fact, according to 

the U.S. Census Bureau women still make 

only 78 cents on the dollar to their male counterparts. 

We cannot deny that this gender disparity 

exists, and it is essential that we close the 

loopholes that allow it to continue. The Paycheck Fairness Act increases enforcement 

and accountability in cases of discrimination, 

and provides relief for women who face retaliation for standing up for equal pay. It also requires the Department of Labor to increase 

their efforts to end pay disparities. 

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a longstanding prior law making it increasingly difficult for workers to pursue legal 

remedies for pay discrimination. Today we will 

work to restore the intent of the Civil Rights 

Act through passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair 

Pay Act. We will no longer unfairly turn back 

to the clock on discrimination claims. An incident of pay discrimination occurs each time a 

worker receives a lesser paycheck because of 

their gender, and we must treat it as such. We 

can no longer distort the intent of the law to 

protect those who seek to discriminate. 

These bills are not only for women, but for 

children and families. For the millions of working mothers in America—many of whom are 

heads of households—it offers financial stability. This wage disparity is costing women 

between $400,000 and $2 million over a lifetime. 

Lower wages factor into long-term financial 

planning. Retirement and Social Security are 

based on income. Retirement aged women 

today are far less likely to receive a pension, 

and rely on Social Security benefits to survive. 

The wage discrimination women are facing 

today will continue to follow them well into retirement. 

We cannot continue to simply accept this 

disparity, and the Paycheck Fairness Act and 

the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act are strong 

statements that this type of discrimination will 

not be tolerated. I would like to thank Congresswoman DELAURO and Chairman MILLER

for offering these important pieces of legislation, and commend the Democratic leadership 

for bringing these bills to the floor. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, today 

I am proud to support two important workplace 

civil rights bills addressing pay discrimination—the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the 

Paycheck Fairness Act. In the years since the 

1963 Equal Pay Act, women have made enormous advances toward economic equality. 

However, the goal of ‘‘equal pay for equal 

work’’ is not yet reality. 

Today, the average full-time working woman 

earns only 78 cents for every $1 a man 

makes. Women of color are worse off. AfricanAmerican women make 69 cents on the dollar, 

while Hispanic women make only 56 cents. A 

recent study of college graduates showed that 

in their first year after graduation, women 

earned only 80 percent as much as male 

graduates, demonstrating the gender pay disparities only compound over time. 

These pay disparities equal a significant 

loss of income—anywhere from $400,000 to 

$2 million over a lifetime—which has a tremendous impact on lives of women and their 

families, especially as so many are struggling 

with the economic turndown. 

In 2007, the Supreme Court made it virtually 

impossible for victims of pay discrimination to 

go to court to vindicate their rights, holding 

that any challenges to pay discrimination must 

be filed within 180 days of an employer’s initial 

decision to discriminate. The Lilly Ledbetter 

Fair Pay Act will overturn the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Fire & Rubber Co., and restore the long-standing interpretation of civil rights laws that employees 

can file pay discrimination claims within 180 

clays of each discriminatory paycheck they receive. 

The Paycheck Fairness Act strengthens the 

Equal Pay Act to ensure that it provides effective protection against sex-based pay discrimination by closing loopholes and barring retaliation against workers who disclose their wages. 

Additionally, it also allows women to receive 

the same remedies for sex-based pay discrimination that are currently available to those 

subject to discrimination based on race and 

national origin. 

This meaningful legislation will help further 

advance American women and families’ economic security and I am proud to support 

both. 

Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise today 

to express my strong support for H.R. 11, the 

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I salute the extraordinary work of Chairman MILLER and Congresswoman DELAURO to bring these important bills to the floor today. 

Lilly Ledbetter worked for nearly 20 years at 

a Goodyear Tire and Rubber facility in Alabama. After 20 years, she received an anonymous note alerting her to pay discrimination 

against her. She learned that she was the lowest-paid supervisor at the plant, despite having 

more experience than many of her male counterparts. For 20 years she worked hard and 

played by the rules only to be paid less and 

treated unfairly. She then sued Goodyear for 

pay discrimination. A jury of her peers found 

that her employer had unlawfully discriminated 

against her on the basis of sex and awarded 

her back pay. Her case was appealed and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HOUSE
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