George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) and thank him for his work on the business workforce partnerships and on the textbook rental program.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth) and thank him for his work on the Teach to Reach grants and the students success grants for community college students.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. How much time is remaining, might I inquire of the Chair.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and thank him for all of his work on the Historically Black Colleges and Universities and on the modeling and simulation program.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, families across America and students everywhere, it is a pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois, who revolutionized and changed and simplified the student loan application form for all of America's families and students from this day forward, Mr. Emanuel.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and I want to thank him for his work on the sustainability program and creating a summit on sustainability in colleges and universities.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and thank him for his work on the real-time writers program.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. May I inquire of the Speaker as to the time remaining.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, and members of the committee, I'm very proud of this legislation. I'm very proud of the members of my committee on both sides of the aisle. This legislation doesn't just belong to this committee at this time or to the majority party just at this time, this legislation has been worked on by many people on both sides of the aisle. When the Republicans were in the majority and Mr. McKeon was the subcommittee chair, he pushed hard for this legislation. And Mr. Kildee has spent many years on our committee working on behalf of higher education. And Mr. Hinojosa authored legislation, along with Mr. McKeon, that made it through the House in the last session. Why has that been true? Why is this legislation so broadly supported? Because we all understand the importance of a well-educated American population, and we all understand the urgency of this moment. At no time in our history has America needed a better educated population than it needs today. And we understand the importance of a college education and what it means to America's families, what it means to young people as they start out in their careers, as they start out their families, and their ability to provide for themselves and go to jobs that are interesting, that work for them, that make sense for them, and yet be able to have the skills so they can continue in the American economic system. This legislation does all of those things. This legislation helps to make college more affordable. It certainly helps to make it more accessible. And it has done that because of the agreements that we have reached on both sides of the aisle. Mr. McKeon has pushed long and hard for increases in the Pell Grants, long and hard for accountability in this system, and long and hard to make sure that the cost of college, that we have greater transparency, that we understand it better, that parents would be able to decipher, that students would be able to decipher and understand it. This legislation improves this act with respect to all of those provisions of the law. I tried to recognize the contributions made by each Member on our side of the aisle and the programs that they worked on to increase access to college for so many populations that haven't been given the full opportunity in the past that will be able to take advantage of that opportunity. And finally, this legislation makes it more affordable for many students. It's in combination with what we did in the reconciliation bill, where we provided $20 billion in new resources for students by cutting the interest rates, by providing forgiveness for loans, by increasing the Pell Grants, and providing real-time tuition assistance for those who want to go into teaching. This is an important piece of legislation; it's important to the Congress, it's important to our Nation, it's important to families and students who struggle mightily to figure out how they can finance an education. I think this is a big step in assuring that every qualified student should be able to afford college. They may have to borrow some money, but it's well worth that if they can achieve a college education. And I think it's going to make a major contribution to strengthening the American economy. This is a moment in time legislation and authorization of the Higher Education Act. But for over 45 years, there has been a fixed star in increasing the opportunity for young people to go to college and increasing the wherewithal for families and students to afford a college education, and that was the Senator from Massachusetts, who, unfortunately, is not able to be with us as we pass this conference report today in the House and in the Senate, but he is with us in great spirit. He called the other day to congratulate us with great enthusiasm. He wasn't convinced we were actually going to get it done, and he said he was quite excited that we did. And he was looking forward to the passage of this legislation. He has been a moving force for opportunity at all levels of society. But he, first and foremost, has understood the opportunity that education provides. Whether it's early childhood education, preschool education, elementary, secondary education, community colleges, 4-year colleges, graduate schools, Senator Ted Kennedy has been a champion of making sure that those doors are open to everybody in this society. And this legislation, I think, honors that commitment that Senator Kennedy has had for so many years as he has continued to sit on the Education Committee in the United States Senate and pound out this legislation that is so important to America's families, to America's students, and to America's economy. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. I thanked them earlier, but I want to thank all the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle. I want to thank Mr. McKeon for his leadership on this issue, and certainly to all of the staff for their help. And happy birthday to Joe Novotny.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, in 1963 this Nation passed the Equal Pay Act, and it was passed to end discriminatory practices in paying men and women differently for performing the same job. The law's principle is that men and women should be paid based upon their merits, not upon an employer's prejudices. Before the Equal Pay Act, women in the workplace were paid 59 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts for performing the same jobs. Although the wage gap between men and women has narrowed since the Equal Pay Act was passed, gender-based pay wage discrimination remains a very significant problem for women. According to the Census Bureau, women make 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Just as disturbing is that African American women only earn 60 cents on the dollar, and Hispanic women earn an astonishing 55 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts. Those figures do not just tell us what they lose in their wages on a daily basis, on a weekly basis, and on a monthly basis. But we must also understand that this wage disparity costs a woman anywhere from $400,000 to $2 million over a lifetime in lost wages and will follow her into retirement with lower retirement benefits, and will follow her into the Social Security system with lower Social Security benefits. These women pay a great price because the law still allows employers to pay these individuals on a discriminatory basis for the jobs that they produce. But today this House has an opportunity to take a critical step to ensure that the Equal Pay Act lives up to its promise: equal work for equal pay, equal pay for equal work. The Paycheck Fairness Act will strengthen the Equal Pay Act and close many of the loopholes that have allowed employers to avoid responsibility of engaging in discriminatory pay practices. Currently, an employer can refute a pay discrimination claim if he proves that the difference in pay is based upon any factor other than sex. They can pull any defense out of the air that they want, even if the factors are not related to the job. What we say is that they must provide a real business justification for not paying that equal wage. It must be related to the work. They will have to show that any gender-based wage differential is job-related, not based on or derived from sex-based differentials, and is consistent with the business necessity. H.R. 1338 will also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who discuss their pay. We all remember the Lilly Ledbetter case. She did not know that she was being discriminated on every pay period because her fellow employees were unable to discuss their paychecks with her because that's the way the corporation kept the discriminatory practice secret and hidden from Lilly Ledbetter. We would not allow that to continue to happen. The bill would also put gender-based discrimination sanctions on equal footing with other forms of discrimination by allowing women to sue for punitive damages, in addition to compensatory damages, just as business and workers may do under section 1981 for race or national origin discrimination. If we are serious about closing the gender pay gap, we must get serious about punishing those who would otherwise scoff at the current weak sanctions under the current law. The Paycheck Fairness Act will require the Department of Labor to continue collecting pay information based upon gender. It also creates a program designed to help strengthen the negotiating skills of girls and women. Any wage gap based upon gender is unacceptable, especially in these tough economic times. For families living near or under the poverty line, equal pay for women will make a significant difference in that family's well-being. By allowing wage discrimination to continue, we hold down women, their families, and harm the American economy as a whole. Today, we have a chance to rectify those practices. Today, we have a chance to ensure that, in fact, women will receive equal pay for equal work as they do not now receive in the workplace because of the barriers that have been erected to their being able to prosecute those individuals who engage in a discriminatory practice. Today, we are taking up this bill. And no one is more responsible for the House consideration of this legislation than Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. I thank her for her tireless leadership on this bill, and the 230 cosponsors who are taking a strong stand against unequal pay. Congresswoman DeLauro has worked over a decade trying to get the Congress to pay attention to this problem that women face in the workplace, to this economic devastation that takes place against women in the workplace, the discriminatory practices that women face in the workplace, but there was no response in this body to her pleas. There was no response to the practices against these women in this body. Today there is. Today, this Congress, this House has an opportunity to finally enforce the Equal Pay Act and to make sure that women no longer have to suffer the discrimination of unequal pay. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. It's a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a member of our committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. It's a pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), a member of our committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Could the Chair apprise how much time I have remaining.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, we have come to the end of a long debate, but let's get something very clear. This is all about equal pay, and this is all about whether or not women are going to receive equal pay. What this legislation does is recognize the barriers that have been put up in front of women trying to enforce the existing law. It is rather interesting that the Secretary of Labor sent us a letter, and in her random audits of businesses working with government contractors she found systematic discrimination and she collected $51 million, and this is a record year, and it is the third record year in a row because of systematic discrimination. Now, everybody has come to the floor and said they are all against this discrimination. Yes, we all are against that. Nobody is suggesting that anybody isn't. But if you can't enforce your rights, then you suffer the discrimination. Random audits, $51 million was denied to these individuals. And these are just people working with government contractors. Think what it is nationwide, and the people don't get a random audit, they don't get the Secretary of Labor, they don't get the Department of Labor. What they get is discrimination in their pay. That is what they get. Today, we are going to decide whether or not these women are going to be able to collect the pay that is owed them, whether they are going to be able to enforce the law that requires as a matter of national policy and law the equal pay for women. That is the issue here. It is not complicated. It is not complicated. Study after study has determined that pay discrimination exists whether you are in the workforce 10 years, whether you are starting out in the workforce, no matter what your life experiences are. When they control for all of that, there still is discriminatory pay against women in the American workforce, and today this House is going to change that.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I would just join in what my colleagues have already said, that I don't think this needs further study. And I think, certainly, the idea of basing whether or not this law will be enacted on a single study by this Secretary of Labor within 90 days, when we have a decade of studies, very few that have been challenged for their accuracy, that continues to tell us that, while the situation has improved, we still have this huge disparity between the pay of men and women for the same jobs, for the same responsibilities. And this legislation is designed to rid us of that disparity. It is designed to rid us of that discrimination, and it is designed to give women the tools that they need to go in and to enforce their rights. And I would hope that we would support this legislation, that we would reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I won't take that long. I just want to thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. We've discussed it for some time, and your persistence has won out. And I think it's a good amendment, and I would hope that the committee would adopt it.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We have no problem with this amendment. We agree with the gentleman. We think that these grants to increase the negotiating skills of young women and girls, all women, are very important. We would hope and we expect that they would be given on merit by the Secretary under the provisions of the law. We don't expect that they would be earmarked. Mr. Flake has offered this language so that hopefully it would not be earmarked, and that language hopefully will be respected by other committees of the Congress, and we would accept the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.