George Miller

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee. (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), a member of the committee. (Ms. HIRONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. So we're reserving 3 minutes each. You've got a half minute. You and I will close, and we will each have 3 minutes for tomorrow.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Yes.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, let us understand something here. They can say it until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is, this legislation restores the law to what it was before. Up until the Supreme Court made its ruling, each discriminatory check that was issued was a violation of the law, and you had 180 days from the issuance of that check when you discovered it to file a claim. This legislation would restore that law as it was. If you file that claim, if you were successful in proving your claim, you could receive up to 2 years back pay. That was the law up until the Supreme Court decision. That would be the law if we passed this legislation. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that if we pass this law, the courts will be inundated with lawsuits. The people will wait 5, 10, 15, 20 to file a lawsuit, that there will be cases where the witnesses die and memories fade and long times will expire and we won't be able to have justice. It will be a huge cost on the business community. It will change our competitive stature in the world. It will limit economic growth. All of that from little Lilly Ledbetter. What's the problem with that? If all of that was true, why haven't my colleagues come to the floor of the House in the 12 years they controlled the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and asked to change the law? Why hasn't the President of the United States, who's been in office for 6\1/2\ years, asked to change the law? Why hasn't that happened? Because none of the things you talked about happened under the previous law. It didn't change our competitiveness. They weren't involved in thousands of cases. People didn't wait 40 or 50 years to get 2 years back pay. No, none of those things happened. But they want to scare people into believing if we go back to the law as it was before the Lilly Ledbetter case and the Supreme Court overturned all of these years of laws and justice and fairness and anti-discrimination provisions, that somehow all of these terrible things would happen, but they didn't happen, and that's been the law all of these years. So, tomorrow we will get an opportunity to vote to restore the protections of every American citizen against pay discrimination, to restore justice to the workplace, to restore the right of an individual to be paid the same as those who are doing the same job for the same reasons and the same purposes. That's what we seek. That's all Lilly Ledbetter sought, but she couldn't get justice at the Supreme Court. No, she couldn't get it even though a jury found that that could be the situation. So we're going to have to restore this for the people of this country, and again, we'll simply be restoring the law. You can tell the doomsday scenarios all day long. You can predict all of the things that are going to happen, but none of them have happened in the last 35 years. None of them have happened in the last 35 years. So at least you ought to properly represent what the law was and what the law will be, and with that, I look forward to the conclusion of the debate tomorrow

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, discrimination is anathema to everything this country stands for. It is anathema to the promise that is America. Regrettably, the recent Supreme Court's recent Ledbetter v. Goodyear decision threatens to turn back the clock on the progress we have made since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 more than 40 years ago. The Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter severely restricts the right of employees to challenge pay discrimination. It ignores the realities of the workplace, prior precedent, and the clear intent of Congress. Justice Ginsburg's dissent in this narrowly divided 5-4 decision called on Congress to reverse this decision, and that is what we are here to do today. Lilly Ledbetter, the plaintiff in this case, worked for Goodyear for over 19 years. When she retired as a supervisor in 1998, she discovered that her salary was 20 percent lower than that of the lowest-paid male supervisor. Not only was Ms. Ledbetter earnings nearly $400 a month less than her male colleagues, she also retired, obviously, with a substantially smaller pension. A jury found that Goodyear discriminated against Ms. Ledbetter, and she was awarded $3.8 million in back pay and damages. This amount was reduced to the $360,000 damage cap in title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Despite the jury's finding, the Supreme Court decided that while Goodyear discriminated against Ms. Ledbetter, and it is important that the Members understand that that is what the jury's determination was, they decided that her claim was made too late. Not that she was wrong, not that Goodyear was right. Her claim simply came too late. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires an employee to file an EEOC charge within 180 days of unlawful employment practices. Ms. Ledbetter filed within 180 days, as required, of receiving the discriminatory pay from Goodyear. In fact, she filed as soon as she found out that she was receiving discriminatory pay. She found out thanks to an anonymous note left in her mailbox. But a slim majority of the Supreme Court found that, because Ms. Ledbetter did not file within 180 days of the discriminatory decision to write those discriminatory paychecks that she received for many, many years, her time had run out. She could not recover anything from Goodyear. The majority's decision is absurd and entirely shuns the reason in order to satisfy this ideological agenda. H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, is narrowly tailored and designed to restore the law on pay discrimination as it was before the Supreme Court's decision, the law as it was for some 35 years, the law as it was reaffirmed in circuit court after circuit court, as it was affirmed by the Congress of the United States. This bill restores the law so that the 180-day statute of limitations clock runs when a discriminatory pay decision or practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to the pay decision or practice, or when a person is affected by the pay decision or practice, including whenever she receives a discriminatory paycheck. In other words, every discriminatory paycheck is a violation of the act. That is as the law was for these many, many years. That is what we seek to do. The bill makes it clear that a victim of pay discrimination is entitled to a full 2 years of back pay. That is as the law currently is. You are entitled to recover up to 2 years' back pay under title VII. The bill ensures that these simple reforms extend to the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. H.R. 2831 restores the law to what it was for years before this recent Supreme Court decision in the Ledbetter case. Circuit court after circuit courts have held that the receipt of a discriminatory paycheck is a new violation of the law. Lilly Ledbetter received her last discriminatory paycheck. She was then informed about it, and she filed within 180 days. That's what the law was, that's what she did, and then this Supreme Court decided somehow that she wasn't within her rights and that her claim came too late. The EEOC, in its own compliance manual, states that ``discriminatory paychecks can be challenged so long as one is issued within the filing period, regardless of when the decision to issue them was made.'' Again, the law before the Supreme Court. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office reports that this would not establish a new cause of action for pay discrimination, it will not significantly effect the number of filings in the EEOC, and it will not significantly increase the cost of EEOC in other Federal courts. Understand this: Unless Congress acts and employers who have made discriminatory pay decisions before 180 days ago, they will be allowed to lawfully continue discriminating against the people that they employ. If they can hide the discriminatory act for 180 days, they can then continue to discriminate far into the future if they got past the 180 days. That is why this is so important. The law now tells employers it's okay to discriminate; if you can get away with it for 180 days, you're home free. All we're asking here is to restore the law as it was, which was that each paycheck was a discriminatory act, and under the law you had 180 days to file a claim. That's what this bill says. That's what the law said before. If you file that claim and you're successful, you can receive up to 2 years back pay to make up for that. That's what the law was. That's what we seek to do in this legislation. This is the only decent thing to do. People say, well, she should have known or she should have asked around or she should have done this, should have done a lot of things. Except we know that also in many instances employers, in fact, have policies where they prohibit employees from asking another employee about their level of pay, about their compensation. So the fact of the matter is this legislation is absolutely necessary to end these discriminatory practices on pay, be it against a woman, an African American, Hispanic, a person over 60. Whatever the conditions are, it should not be allowed to stand. We should return to the law as it was these many years. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), a member of the committee.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. We're reserving 3 minutes; is that right?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If I can inquire of the Chair as to the allocation of time?

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. As I understand, I have the right to close.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my unexpired time, and I reserve the 3 minutes for tomorrow.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr Speaker, this water recycling legislation, H.R. 1526, enables local agencies across California's Bay- Delta region to invest in sustainable and reliable new water supplies. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Authorization Act will provide Federal assistance for an ambitious and forward-thinking regional water recycling program that will reduce demand on the Bay- Delta and drought-proof our regional municipal water supplies. The legislation will assist efforts in Pittsburg, Antioch, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Pacifica, South Santa Clara County, Redwood City, and San Jose. The city of Pittsburg and the Delta Diablo Sanitation District, in my congressional district, have been leading the charge on this effort, investing time, energy, and local funds in developing water recycling projects to help meet regional water needs. Water recycling is good for the environment and for local budgets. In Pittsburg, for example, instead of using fresh water from the Delta, recycled water will be applied to city parks, golf courses, medians, and other green spaces. As the Contra Costa Times wrote about the bill, ``There is no good reason to flush wastewater into rivers, bays, estuaries, and the ocean if it can be treated and used again for other purposes such as irrigating parks and golf courses.'' I want to thank Chairman Nick Rahall and Chairwoman Grace Napolitano, and the staff of the Natural Resources Committee and the Subcommiteee on Water and Power, for their assistance in this effort, and I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, this week marks the 63rd anniversary of America's worst home-front disaster of World War II. This weekend, the National Park Service will join the community in commemorating the anniversary of the Port Chicago explosion and honoring those who were injured and gave their lives for their country. I am introducing legislation today that honors the anniversary of Port Chicago by improving and enhancing the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial, in my district in California. Thousands of tons of ammunition exploded on the night of July 17, 1944, at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine in the east San Francisco Bay area. The blasts instantly killed 320 sailors, wounded hundreds more, and damaged and destroyed merchant ships, the pier, a train, and the buildings of Port Chicago. Less than a month after the tragedy, three divisions were ordered to resume work at a new site a few miles away. Most of the men refused to continue their dangerous tasks until supervision, training, and working conditions were improved. In response, the Navy charged fifty men with conspiring to mutiny; all were convicted. The majority of the men killed while handling ordinance at Port Chicago, and all of those convicted of mutiny, were African-American. This injustice had clear racial implications, and was a turning point in our Nation's history. Following the conviction, Thurgood Marshall, then a lawyer with the NAACP, took up the case. The Port Chicago disaster and its aftermath strongly influenced America's move towards racial equality, including the Navy's move toward desegregation in 1945, and President Truman's 1948 Executive Order desegregating the Armed Forces and guaranteeing ``equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.'' Recognizing the importance of the site to our Nation's history, I sponsored legislation in the 102nd Congress to designate the site of the Port Chicago Naval Magazine as a national memorial. Since the bill became law in 1992, the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial has been managed by the National Park Service to remind Americans of the contributions made by the Port Chicago sailors. Today, to honor the anniversary of the 1944 disaster, I am introducing the ``Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial Enhancement Act of 2007,'' a new bill designed to increase the National Memorial's accessibility, provide additional visitor services, and preserve the site for future generations. The legislation enhances the memorial in several ways. First, it directs the Secretary of the Interior to administer the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial as a unit of the National Park System. Second, when the site is determined to be excess to military needs, this new bill would transfer the property to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. In order to improve public access to the Memorial, this legislation authorizes the Interior Department to work with the City of Concord and the East Bay Regional Park District to establish and operate a facility for visitor orientation and parking, administrative offices, and curatorial storage for the Memorial. Finally, the legislation directs the Defense Department and the Interior Department to work together to repair storm damage to the site. I am including for the record a letter I received today in support of the Act from the president of the National Parks Conservation Association. As Mr. Kiernan says, the story of Port Chicago ``deserves commemoration at the highest possible level, and clearly is worthy of being fully vested in the care of the National Park Service, the guardians of our Nation's natural and cultural heritage.'' This new bill will protect and enhance the memorial, and will allow future generations to honor this important moment in American history. I urge my colleagues to support the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial Enhancement Act of 2007. National Parks Conservation Association, Washington, DC, July 19, 2007. Hon. George Miller, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Miller: On behalf of the 330,000 members of the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), I am writing to express our strong support for your bill changing the designation by the Port Chicago Memorial from an affiliated NPS site to a full unit of the National Park System. This legislation brings the nation one step closer to fully honoring those whose service and sacrifice exacted such a heavy toll in blood and honor. As you know, the Port Chicago Naval Magazine was the scene of a deadly explosion on July 17, 1944, which claimed the lives of 320 sailors and civilians and wounded 400 more. The blast, felt up to 500 miles away, occurred as merchant ships were being loaded with 5,000 tons of high explosives. Unaddressed concerns about safety led to a refusal by African American sailors assigned to an ordnance battalion to load or unload other ships. The subsequent court martial of 258 of these men on charges of bad conduct and mutiny was a highly controversial decision with decidedly racial overtones. Establishing the Port Chicago Naval Magazine Memorial as a fully-fledged unit of the National Park System will complete work first started in 1990, when formal efforts to create a memorial first began. The explosion, work stoppage, and mutiny trial, provide invaluable insights into the injustice of racial discrimination, the African American experience in the U.S. military, and home front life during the Second World War. You are to be commended for the many years you have championed this cause and honored the legacy of the surviving veterans. This story deserves commemoration at the highest possible level and clearly is worthy of being fully vested in the care of the National Park Service, the guardians of our nation's natural and cultural heritage. We pledge to do all we can to help see your bill enacted into law. Sincerely, Thomas C. Kiernan, President.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I would hope that all of our colleagues would oppose this amendment. The student loan application that is in question here, the criticism of it and the concern with it is not because it is printed in Spanish or English. The real criticism is that it is so complicated that families have an incredibly difficult time in filling out this form. Our committee has been working, Mr. Emanuel and others have been working, to try to simplify this form to make it useful. This form has more questions than if you went to the World Bank to get a loan. But to now suggest that a student may be denied access to a loan and the family may be denied access to financial support for that education solely on the basis of whether or not the parents speak English, they fill out the form right and whether or not the form is printed in Spanish, you know the old saying, I'm here from the Federal Government; I'm here to help you. This has nothing to do with the parents' status. Nothing to do with the status. It is a question of whether or not we make some effort to reach out to these individuals to make it easier for them to fill out the forms that are necessary for their young people, their children to go on to college and have the financial resources to do that. The question of whether it's printed in Spanish or not is simply now arbitrary. And as would they, if they don't fill out the form correctly, if they have do it with their child or somebody else trying to interpret the questions, interpret the answers to them, I think that's incredibly unfair to people who are here in this country. They're here legally, and they don't happen to speak English and they made need this assistance. What we know about people trying to learn English is that in every city, in every part of this country, where there are classes to teach English, they're oversubscribed, they have waiting lists because these people understand that English is the language of this country. It's the currency of the country, it's the means by which you get ahead in this country, and that's why they want their children to learn English. To now come along and say that we're going to make it more difficult, based upon this characteristic that has nothing to do with your qualifications for the financial assistance, with the qualifications of your child to go to school, what they've accomplished with their lives, I think is outrageous and arbitrary. I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I think the gentleman makes a point. This is about American citizens who are here who are paying taxes, whose children have done well enough to go on to college. They're seeking the financial resources to do that. They may not speak English. And this is a service that we provide to those individuals so that they can accurately fill out a form. They can understand the form, they can understand the liabilities that they're taking on. They can understand the qualifications. To arbitrarily come along and tell one group of citizens, based upon this question of whether or not they speak English, they will be able to have the same access to these resources as others or not seems to me to be very unfair, very un-American. It promotes a set of values that really aren't consistent with the values in this country. And it really is about whether or not the Federal Government is in the business of looking at the people they're trying to serve as customers, people who should be served. I would hope that we would oppose this amendment. We continue to struggle to try to make this form comprehensible to those who speak English and understand English. And I think to make it more difficult now for those who don't is a very poor service to that part of American society. And I would urge opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak against the amendment and claim the time in opposition.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, my colleague, Mrs. Ellen O. Tauscher, and I rise in honor of Dale D. Peterson who is retiring after more than 40 years of service to his country, our community, and the educational system of Contra Costa County. After earning a degree from Contra Costa College, Dale Peterson began his long career of public service by enlisting in the United States Marine Corps, serving from 1965 to 1969. Having completed this service to his country, Dale achieved his journeyman status after completing a 4-year electrical apprenticeship. From 1973 to 1993, Dale worked as general electric contractor, a foreman, and a superintendent. His service during these years involved the responsibilities of managing commercial, residential and industrial electrical construction jobs in Contra Costa County. During this time Dale also served as the Assistant Business Manager of the IBEW Local 302 and on several committees of that same labor union. For over 20 years, Dale Peterson has continued to share his time and talent with our community by serving on a number of Boards and Councils. His work as a Trustee of the Contra Costa Building Trade Council and as a member of the Contra Costa Central Labor Council reflect Dale Peterson's continued dedication to his fellow tradesmen and the labor movement in this county. Dale's work as a Contra Costa County Library Commissioner and as a member of the Board of Directors for both the East County Business Education Alliance and the Delta Advocacy Foundation demonstrates his enduring commitment to education and educational reform. In 1991, Dale Peterson became a Parent Education Facilitator at the Family Stress Center where he served for 8 years. In 2000 he enrolled in a Cornell University Course on Mutual Gains Bargaining. Over a period of 2 years, Dale completed three courses on land use planning, urban redevelopment, and environmental and planning law at a UC Berkeley Extension Campus. Since 2004 Dale Peterson has mobilized the construction industry to support high quality school reform in Contra Costa County and was instrumental in the creation of two high school career academies. Throughout his illustrious career, Dale Peterson has been a strong and steady voice for labor and education in Contra Costa County. He has always been a champion of youth and community programs and of preparing our children for higher education and the workforce. This continued commitment to labor and education in Contra Costa County have set Dale Peterson apart as a leader in our community. Today we recognize Dale Peterson's enduring strength, visionary leadership, and his lasting commitment to the workers, students and families of Contra Costa County and our Nation. Madam Speaker, please join me and my colleague, Mrs. Ellen O. Tauscher, in recognizing Dale D. Peterson as he retires from a long and honorable career.