Providing for Consideration of H.R. 2831, Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2831, LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - July 30, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 579 provides for the consideration of H.R. 2831, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007, under a closed rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This legislation can be summed up in one word, ``fairness.'' And what better summarizes the idea of fairness than equal pay for equal work.
We've all heard it; we've all said it in speeches, but right now we have a real opportunity to make it happen. I wish we did not have to be here today, but the shortsighted and unfortunate recent Supreme Court ruling has forced us to revisit this painful issue from our Nation's past.
Lilly Ledbetter spent 19 years of her life working at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in its Gadsden, Alabama plant. What she did not know for most of that time was that she had been subjected to systematic pay discrimination over the course of 15 years simply because she is a woman. By the time of her retirement, she was earning $45,000 a year. The lowest paid male supervisor at the plant was making $6,500 a year more.
As the case of Lilly Ledbetter clearly shows, there is still discrimination in the workplace, and it is our responsibility and it is our duty to ensure that every worker in this Nation receives fair compensation for their work.
We had a bipartisan solution to this problem, known as title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While this legislation was groundbreaking and certainly was a giant step forward for our workers, there was clearly a hole in the law, and that is what we are filling today.
Lilly Ledbetter proved her case. A jury found that she had been discriminated against and awarded her the back pay she should have received, attempting to fulfill the purpose of title VII, to make her whole and to discourage other employers from discriminating in the future. But those goals were thwarted by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision earlier this year. The Court held that in order to recover the back wages she was owed, Lilly Ledbetter needed to file a complaint at the time the discrimination began, even though she did not become aware of it until more than a decade later. What we are doing is reclaiming the original purpose, the legislative intent of title VII, which unfortunately the Supreme Court, in one fell swoop, completely, outrageously undermined.
Their decision was as if to say that because Lilly Ledbetter didn't know she was being treated unfairly, that therefore she was not being treated unfairly. This was, of course, irrespective of the fact that the Court and those of us here in this Chamber unequivocally know Lilly Ledbetter suffered the consequences of discrimination throughout the course of her life and her career.
Mr. Speaker, Lilly Ledbetter joined the workforce and worked hard, assuming that she would receive fair compensation for her efforts. But her story and the stories of countless others is not one of fairness or justice.
I will not retell her story because I think we have all heard it and we all understand that she was wronged. Instead, I will share with you some of her testimony before the House Education and Labor Committee in June. And although I was not there to hear her speak, you can feel the passion of someone who knows she was wronged. These are the words of Lilly Ledbetter, and I quote: ``What happened to me is not only an insult to my dignity, but had real consequences for my ability to care for my family. Every paycheck I received I got less than what I was entitled to under the law. The Supreme Court said that this didn't count as illegal discrimination, but it sure feels like illegal discrimination when you are on the receiving end of that smaller paycheck and trying to support your family with less money than the men are getting for doing the same job.''
Mr. Speaker, what happened to Lilly Ledbetter should not have happened, and today we have an opportunity to make sure it will never happen again.
You know, Mr. Speaker, Lilly Ledbetter could be bitter and angry, and most certainly she has every right to be. But instead, her concern is about what will happen in the future.
And let me quote her again: ``My case is over, and it is too bad that the Supreme Court decided the way it did. I hope, though, that Congress won't let this happen to anyone else. I would feel that this long fight was worthwhile if at least at the end of it I knew that I played a part in getting the law fixed so that it could provide real protection to real people in the real world.''
Lilly Ledbetter's concern is with those workers who come after her who, just like her, will work hard at their jobs and assume that they are receiving equal pay for equal work. This is not something that they should have to hope for; it is something they deserve and are owed under the law. And this Congress owes these workers and their families, because last November they voted for change because they were tired of the economic injustices that people like Lilly Ledbetter had suffered.
Mr. Speaker, the American people expect their government to stand up for fairness and justice. And for this reason, let me say how disappointed I am in our President, who has said he will veto this legislation if it comes to his desk. This is a President who, time and time again, stands up before audiences and claims that he is against discrimination in all forms, yet now we get this threat.
If this Congress is truly committed to ending discrimination in this Nation, we cannot let this President have the final word. If he vetoes this bill for fairness and justice, I hope that this Congress will stand up and overturn his pen stroke that strikes at the heart of what makes this Nation great.
Mr. Speaker, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is not only about changing the way we treat our working men and women; it's about paying rent, putting food on the table, and paying for our children to go to college. For this to happen, we must return to the roots of a Nation and what has made us great and moved us forward in times of strife. Fairness has been at the heart of all that makes America strong, and this Congress cannot turn away from that.
For Lilly Ledbetter and all the workers who simply want to earn a fair wage for the hard work that they do do for their families and for justice, let's pass this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say in response to the gentleman from California's remarks, that obviously we disagree on the importance of this legislation. Many of us on this side, I hope all of us on this side, and a good number of Members on that side, believe this is serious, a serious bill and a very important bill, and that the issue of discrimination is something we cannot tolerate under any circumstances.
The gentleman mentions the promises that the Democrats made when they campaigned in the last election. One of those promises was that we would combat discrimination wherever it existed. That is what we are doing here today.
We think it is wrong that women get paid less than men for doing the same job.
The gentleman says this bill is an assault on entrepreneurship. Equal pay for equal work is an assault on entrepreneurship?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
I never said that equal pay for equal work is an assault on entrepreneurship. What I said is that this legislation would create an open-ended prospect for frivolous lawsuits and undermines the ability of entrepreneurs to be able to succeed and create jobs and ensure the future of our economy.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for his clarification, but the underlying point of this bill is to make sure that there are no more cases like Lilly Ledbetter's case. With almost every piece of legislation that deals with civil rights, the other side always trots out this litigation argument. There will be more lawsuits and more lawsuits and more lawsuits.
We hear the lawsuit in D.C. brought up about this man who is suing a dry cleaners for losing his pants. To the best of my knowledge, that has nothing to do with discrimination. I agree with the gentleman that that is a frivolous lawsuit, but to bring that case up in the context of what we are debating here, which is the civil rights and the equal rights and the equal pay protections for women in this country, I don't think is appropriate, quite frankly.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend. I am really confused with the argument that has just been propounded because the gentleman says every time there is a concern, we bring up the issue of frivolous lawsuits, and the gentleman has just talked about one of the worst cases of a frivolous lawsuit, the $57 million case that was brought against a small business owner. That is a problem.
Mr. McGOVERN. Reclaiming my time, I guess my confusion was you are bringing up that case in the context of the debate we are having here today with regard to equal pay for equal work.
I should also point out to the gentleman that the CBO expects that this bill would not significantly affect the number of filings with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That appears in the report on the bill.
Again, I say to my colleagues that this issue is very simple. This is about combating discrimination. This is about fairness, and this is the way to do it, and this is the opportunity to do it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot from the other side about how nobody supports what happened to Lilly Ledbetter, yet it was this Republican President's Solicitor General who argued against Lilly Ledbetter in the Supreme Court. For all of the years I can remember that the Republicans were in the majority in Congress, I don't remember any groundbreaking equal pay for equal work legislation being brought to the floor to deal with these kinds of issues.
So we can talk all we want about the need to eliminate discrimination in the workforce against women, but unless we back those statements up with our votes on legislation that will change that, then those words ring hollow.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) 3 minutes.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) who spoke before and wanted to know where the Democrats were on this issue. We didn't know we had a problem until George Bush's Supreme Court made this awful decision on this case, and now what we're trying to do today is fix it. We thought, quite frankly, that reasonable judges, rational judges, would interpret the law accordingly and believe that the discrimination against women who were being paid less than men was, in fact, wrong. And so here we are today to try to fix this mess.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I think it's inconceivable that any Member in this Chamber can stand up and say that they are against discrimination and that they are dedicated to equal pay for equal work and vote against the underlying bill.
My friends on the other side of the aisle have talked about how committed they are to this issue of equal rights; yet when they controlled this Congress, I don't recall a single equal pay for equal work bill being brought to this floor.
My friends say that this is an issue they feel strongly about, yet I don't recall hearing a single voice on the other side of the aisle complain when George Bush's Solicitor General argued against Lilly Ledbetter. My friends say this is an important issue to them, yet I don't recall anybody on their side of the aisle standing up and decrying the Supreme Court when they came down with this awful decision against Lilly Ledbetter.
Today's debate has been about justice and fairness. It is hard to believe this is even an issue that needs to be debated. No one argues that Lilly Ledbetter was denied equal pay for equal work. No one argues against the fact that women in this country still only earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men.
No one will refute the fact that, unfortunately, discrimination in the workplace towards too many Americans is still rampant. But today we can send a message that this unfairness in the workplace is unacceptable and will no longer be tolerated.
Those who discriminated against Lilly Ledbetter were wrong, and they deserve to be fired. Because of the insult she suffered, Ms. Ledbetter deserved compensation.
What's amazing is that the Supreme Court doesn't deny this. They recognize the problem, yet a bare majority, for some reason, decided that justice was not to be granted. Justice Ginsburg, in her dissent, stated that the opinion did not, and I quote, ``comprehend, or was indifferent, to the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.'' Justice Ginsburg also made clear that now it was up to Congress to act. Today we shall.
It does not matter if you suffer pay discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, religion, national origin, disability or age. It is wrong. If it happens, there must be a system in place to ensure that justice is accomplished.
As Lilly Ledbetter said, and I quote, ``I wish my story had a happy ending ..... I hope ..... that what happened to me does not happen to other people who suffered discrimination like I did.''
Let's fulfill Lilly Ledbetter's hope today and ensure that what happened to her never, ever happens to another worker in this great country.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source