George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act goes to basic and fundamental American values, both in our daily lives and in our workplace, and that is that people ought to be rewarded with equal pay for equal work. It's fundamental, it's basic to our economy, it's basic to our society. It's basic to our sense of fairness, to our sense of justice, and to our sense of equality. But in far too many workplaces that's not what is done. Women, in many instances, time and time again, for doing the same job that men are doing in the same manner that men are doing it, are paid less, not because they are not doing the job equally as well as the men, but because somebody decided that they were going to pay them less simply because they were women. That runs counter to the values of this Nation. It runs counter to the values of our society. It runs counter to the best interests of women. It's rather fascinating that they are suggesting that because of tough economic times some businesses may only be able to survive if they can engage in discrimination. If they can carry out a business plan based upon discrimination, they may be able to survive, so women should underwrite that discriminatory policy and accept less. Well, let me tell you what it's like when you are trying to support a family, either as a dual wage earner or by yourself, and you are accepting less every week, every day, every hour for the work that you are doing the same as the people alongside of you, but you are getting less because you are a woman. Try that in these tough economic times. Try running your household in these tough economic times where the Republicans would have you believe we should enforce the policy of discrimination, that somehow women should underwrite these difficult times by accepting, being a victim of discrimination. I don't think so. I don't think the people in this Congress believe that. I don't believe the people in this country believe that, and that's why we're going to pass this legislation. It's fundamental to the values of this country. Now, they are trying to run up the scare tactics that this gets rid of the statute of limitation, same statute of limitations, 180 days, that somehow if you had waited a long time you would collect more recovery than otherwise. No, you get 2 years of backpay, that's the maximum, and that's it. But they want to suggest otherwise, no, that's what the law says. And because of that, because we reset the law to what it was, as it was interpreted by courts all over this country and by employers and employees, the CBO in its independent analysis said this does not increase costs because it does not create a new cause of action and they don't expect a lot of litigation as a result of this because we go back to the law as it was. So let's move along here and get rid of this outrageous discriminatory practice that was sanctified by the Supreme Court in some kind of ideological rampage against women and the treatment and the fairness of them in the workplace. We have an opportunity to do that now. We will pass this bill today, we will send it to the White House where our new President, Barack Obama, has said he will sign this legislation. And with that signature on this bill, we can change the law in this country to once again make sure that women are provided equal pay for equal work that they do in the American workplace, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, this motion to commit is clearly an effort to not only send this bill back to committee, but to kill this legislation. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle recognize the situation that we find ourselves in. The House has passed this legislation earlier, in this session, and the Senate has passed similar legislation which we are now taking up. And when we vote in a little while, this afternoon, we will pass this legislation, and it will go to the President of the United States. So this is a desperate attempt to somehow keep that from happening. And what we will be sweeping is we will be sweeping away a policy of discrimination in the workplace against women who are paid less than their male counterparts for the same work. The fact of the matter is that there were hearings held both in the Judiciary Committee, in the last session of Congress, and in the Education and Labor Committee, and all sides were allowed to present their views in those hearings. In the last Congress, it was subject to a full committee markup, which all Members could have offered as many amendments as they like. They offered two amendments. Those amendments were rejected. They could have offered more. They chose not to. The bill went to the House floor, debated, and was passed on a bipartisan vote of 225-199 in June of 2007. The minority had an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit. They chose not to. The bill went to the Senate, where it was filibustered. Filibustered. And then the bill was reintroduced identical to what the House had already passed earlier this month. On January 9 of this year, we passed the bill on the House floor again, 247-171, on another bipartisan vote. The minority had another opportunity to offer a motion to recommit. They chose not to. The bill went to the Senate, where it was subjected to amendment after amendment. The bill was passed on a bipartisan vote of 61-36. And now we are on the cusp of sending this bill to President Obama for his signature. That is what we should do. We should reject this motion to commit, an attempt to kill this legislation, and make sure that this bill goes to the President's desk and ends this discriminatory policy against women in the workplace. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to commit and vote ``aye'' on the passage of the legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds. The bill also provides $80 million to enhance worker protections on those jobs including through the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, Health and Safety, and wage and hour enforcement.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If the gentleman would yield, I want to say to the gentleman I share your concern that women receive equal opportunity to be trained and hired in the types of higher-paid positions that are traditionally occupied by men. The bill provides approximately $4 billion to train workers who need new or additional skills. Job training to train women in nontraditional job retains its priority recognition as under current law.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I must say that I truly admire the courage of my friends on the other side of the aisle. In the middle of the worst economic downturn that any of us can remember, our parents told us about the Depression, an unprecedented and accelerating job loss all across the American economy in every sector, our friends on the other side of the aisle ask us just for one last time to do what they've been doing the last 8 years; to just one more time give the tax cuts to the richest people in the country; to just one more time dive into the tank of fiscal irresponsibility. They inherited a $5 trillion surplus, and they squandered it to an $8 trillion deficit. They created the slowest job creation since World War II, the slowest job creation since World War II in a recovery. They held middle income wages stagnate. In fact, many families lost ground. The wealthy did the best. They stood by while banks created liar loans, while banks created no- doc loans, while people on Wall Street played fast and easy with hardworking Americans' money in their pension plans. And what do we get for their 8 years? We see people now getting their returns on their pensions, their 401(k) plans, and 30, 40, 50 percent of their assets are gone and those who are over 55 living in panic about how will they have a retirement. And yet they stand here day after day and say just let us have more of what we were doing in the past. You know, when that helicopter took off outside here in this plaza, millions of Americans gave that President a wave good-bye because in the middle of this historic downturn, millions and millions of Americans made a decision to go in another direction because what you were doing hadn't worked for them or for their families, hadn't worked for them or their families, because that was your policy. Mr. Chairman, that was their policy, crude and rude with respect to working Americans in this country and their families. So what do we have now? We have an incredible consensus of economists who are on the left, who are on the right, who advised Republican candidates in the past, Ronald Reagan, John McCain, and they have said you have got to put together a recovery act where the government spends this money on projects to put people back to work to create jobs. It will not stop unemployment, but it will help. It will help. And that's what we're doing here. That's what we're doing here. They also said from the right and the left, as they told us that the American economy is shutting down while you're asking to do more of the same, they said don't forget education. We cannot have young people lose a year or 2 years of education because of an economic downturn. You must support education at the local level. Why? Because the States and local governments are hemorrhaging, hemorrhaging the loss of revenues. Because people can't afford to buy a car, they're not buying a car. Because home price values are dropping so fast that they're going in and getting their property taxes reestablished because of the loss of value in homes, and that's costing local governments and school districts money from sales tax and property tax. So we're trying to make sure that those students don't lose that educational opportunity. We see a number of students are now starting to forego college who are in the middle of their college education because of costs. Yes, we're going to increase the Pell grant so they can stay. We're going to give an income tax credit so they can stay in school. We're going to give them work opportunities on campus so they can stay in school. Because that's what the economists, that's what the venture capitalists said, that's the captains of industry said needs to be done. Don't lose that, because when this economy re-emerges, we need those people to be competitive with the rest of the world. Yes, we're going to help school districts and school construction so that young students can go to school in a cleaner, better environment, so they'll be connected to the latest technology, so they'll have the educational opportunities. And it will be a safe school. It will be a modern school. Yes, we're going to help them out and do that because they don't have the ability to do that because your economic policies froze municipal bonds and school bonds where people voted to impose taxes on themselves to improve their schools, to improve their cities. But the credit markets are seized; so we're trying to help them out for the time being until those markets unfreeze. And, yes, $300 billion was given to the Bush administration and Secretary Paulson, and so far it appears it was given without conditions in terms of any effort by the big banks to unfreeze the credit markets to lend to small businesses, to lend to families in need. Yes, we're changing policy. And we're doing it at the direction of the American people because the policy you gave them for 8 years was a disaster for them, their families, their retirements, their wages, their health care. They want to go in a different direction, and we will take them in a different direction. We will take them to job creation. We'll take them to better education. And, hopefully, we'll take them to a stronger economy on the advice, on the advice, with all due respect, of not the other side of the aisle, but of economists from the left to the right of impeccable credentials who said the only question about this package really is, is it large enough? Announcement by the Chair

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to Rule XI, Clause 2(a)(2) of Rules of the House of Representatives, I respectfully submit the rules for the 111th Congress for the Committee on Education and Labor for publication in the Congressional Record. The Committee adopted these rules by voice vote, with a quorum being present, at our organizational meeting on January 21, 2009. The Rules of the Committee on Education and Labor for the 111th Congress

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my deep concern over the increasingly grave situation in the Gaza Strip and to express my disappointment that Congress has not spoken more clearly and forcibly in favor of a cease-fire. The latest fighting between Israel and Hamas has led to a humanitarian crisis. According to news reports, quoting various official sources on both sides of the battle, the impact on civilians in Gaza is severe and growing worse. Madam Speaker, like every Member of this House, I support the right of Israel to defend itself and its people, and, like my colleagues, I strongly denounce Hamas' ongoing indiscriminate destabilizing rocket attacks against civilian populations in southern Israel and Hamas' clear intent to terrorize the people of Israel. In no uncertain terms, I call on Hamas to end its rocket attacks against Israel immediately. But I also believe in no uncertain terms there must be a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel and it must commence immediately. The loss of life to children and their families, the vast destruction of homes and the enormous suffering in Gaza that is being caused by the escalation of this conflict must end. Last week, the House spoke out on this latest conflict in the Middle East by passing H. Res. 34 that ``recognizes Israel's right to defend itself against the attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.'' I was disappointed that, as this body has done so often in the past, the House voted only to reiterate its support for Israel and its right to defend itself, rather than also to have used our considerable influence to pressure both sides to agree to a cease-fire in order to protect civilians on both sides caught in this conflict and in order to work toward a lasting resolution of this conflict that will lead to the protection and security of Israel. I support much of the language in the resolution, but I regret that H.R. 34 in its entirety was not a correct statement for the House to make at the time. The question for the House and the international community is how the Israeli people will be able to live in peace and security without the constant threat of attack from Hamas and others and how the United States and all other nations can assist in achieving that outcome in a lasting manner. The House has not weighed in on this question. The House of Representatives should throw its considerable weight behind the call for an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. The cease-fire is in the best interests of Israel and the United States. The fact is that there has been a failure of political leadership that has led to this renewed and devastating fighting in Gaza. The Bush administration failed to adequately and successfully address the Middle East conflict during its time in office and during the time in which we knew the cease-fire was coming to an end, and conditions might have been changed so that it could have been extended. The international community has failed to adequately address the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Experts in the Middle East had warned that a conflict of this nature would eventually come, and will continue to come in the future if conditions on the ground do not change. Their warning went unheeded, and now a new and costly war has broken out. Hamas rocket attacks against Israel are indefensible. But neither can the disproportionate military response by Israel be defended. The latest fighting was preceded by a lengthy and crushing blockade by Israel of Gaza that caused an humanitarian crisis. Hamas, unfortunately, chose to break the cease-fire and continue shelling of Israel. And Israel chose the breaking of the cease-fire to launch, as it should have, a defense of Israel, but unfortunately, with an all-out attack on Gaza. Lost in all of this is the answer to the question of how the Israeli people can be assured the protection they deserve. The rocket attacks against Israel continue, albeit lessened now, despite the enormous firepower brought against Hamas by Israel. There is no clear answer as to how Israel will bring this conflict to an end in Gaza or clear what Israel's ultimate goals are in this conflict. Only a cease-fire and a new international commitment to negotiate a cessation of hostilities between Hamas and Israel can protect the people of Israel.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honoring Gwen Regalia for her many accomplishments and contributions to the city of Walnut Creek. Gwen Regalia has provided remarkable leadership as a member of the Walnut Creek City Council since 1987. As Mayor of Walnut Creek, Gwen served for an unprecedented five terms and my congressional district has been greatly enhanced by over two decades of her service. Now, as Gwen retires from public office it is my great privilege to pay tribute to her work in the Congressional Record. Gwen's career began upon her graduation from the University of California at Berkeley. She began teaching elementary school when she moved to Walnut Creek in 1958 and now holds a Life Credential in Elementary Education. Gwen's political career began in 1978 when she ran for the Walnut Creek School District board and served for almost ten years; she also served as president for two of those years. In 1987 Gwen was elected to the City Council, but her duties did not stop at the Walnut Creek boarder. While in office she also served as President of the Kennedy-King Memorial College Scholarship Fund, she was president and former director of the Diablo Valley Foundation for the environment, she is a forty-year member of the American Association of University Women, member of the League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley, Diablo Regional Arts Association member, as well as other local cultural organizations. Under Gwen's leadership in the City Council several capital projects were completed, including the Lesher Center for the Arts, the Shadelands Art Center, the Iron Horse Trail Bridge, two gyms, five parks and seven ball fields, as well as the acquisition of 305 acres of open space. Gwen Regalia's twenty-one years of public service is an example to us all, and we are lucky to have her vision and her commitment to the citizens of Walnut Creek. It is my honor to recognize Gwen Regalia as she retires from public service and I wish her success and happiness in her future endeavors.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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.

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 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. 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. GEORGE MILLER of California. May I inquire of the Chair my time remaining?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McMahon).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

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.