[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 117 (Friday, July 20, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9659-S9661]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bennett, Mrs. Boxer, 
        Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Dole, 
        Ms. Klobuchar, Ms. Landrieu, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. 
        Mikulski, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Stabenow, 
        and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 1841. A bill to provide a site for the National Women's History 
Museum in Washington, District of Columbia, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the National Women's 
History Museum Act of 2007, a bill that would clear the way to locate a 
long-overdue historical and educational resource in our Nation's 
capital city.
  In each of the last two Congresses, the Senate has approved earlier 
versions of this bill by unanimous consent. I appreciate that past 
support, and I appreciate the cosponsorship today from 18 of my 
colleagues, Senators Akaka, Bennett, Boxer, Cantwell, Clinton, Coleman, 
Durbin, Dole, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Lincoln, McCaskill, Mikulski, 
Murkowski, Murray, Snowe, Stabenow, and Voinovich.
  Women constitute the majority of our population. They make invaluable 
contributions to our country, not only in traditional venues like the 
home, schools, churches, and volunteer organizations, but in 
Government, corporations, medicine, law, literature, sports, 
entertainment, the arts, and the military services. The need for a 
museum recognizing the contributions of American women is of long 
standing.
  A presidential commission on commemorating women in American history 
concluded that, ``Efforts to implement an appropriate celebration of 
women's history in the next millennium should include the designation 
of a focal point for women's history in our Nation's capital.''
  That report was issued in 1999. Nearly a decade later, although 
Congress has commendably made provisions for the National Museum for 
African American History and Culture, the National Law Enforcement 
Museum, and the National Building Museum, there is still no national 
institution in the capital region dedicated to women's role in our 
country's history.
  The proposed legislation calls for no new Federal program and no new 
claims on the budget. It would simply direct the General Services 
Administration to negotiate and enter into an occupancy agreement with 
the National Women's History Museum, Inc. to establish a museum in the 
long-vacant Pavilion Annex of the Old Post Office building in 
Washington, DC.
  The National Women's History Museum is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, 
educational institution based in the District of Columbia. Its mission 
is to research and present the historic contributions that women have 
made to all aspects of human endeavor, and to present the contributions 
that women have made to the Nation in their various roles in family, 
the economy, and society.
  The Pavilion Annex to the Old Post Office was a commercial failure 
and remains a continuing drain on Federal maintenance budgets. Putting 
the building to use as a museum would provide lease payments and 
establish a new historical and educational destination site on 
Pennsylvania Avenue that would bring new visitor traffic and new 
economic activity to the neighborhood.
  These are sound reasons for supporting this bill. The best reason, 
however, is the obligation to demonstrate the gratitude and respect we 
owe to the many generations of American women who have helped build, 
sustain, and advance our society. They deserve a building to present 
their stories, as well as the stories of pioneering women like 
abolitionist Harriet Tubman, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 
astronaut Sally Ride, and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
  That women's roll of honor would also include a distinguished 
predecessor in my Senate seat, the late Senator Margaret Chase Smith, 
the first woman nominated for President of the United States by a major 
political party, and the first woman elected to both Houses of 
Congress. Senator Smith began representing Maine in the U.S. House of 
Representatives in 1940, won election to the Senate in 1948, and 
enjoyed bipartisan respect over her long career for her independence, 
integrity, wisdom, and decency. She remains my role model and, through 
the example of her public service, an exemplar of the virtues that 
would be honored in the National Women's History Museum.
  I thank my colleagues for their past support of this effort, and urge 
them to renew that support for this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Levin, 
        Mr. Akaka, Mr. Feingold, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Menendez, and Mr. 
        Whitehouse):
  S. 1842. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for patient protection by limiting the number of mandatory 
overtime hours a nurse may be required to work in certain providers of 
services to which payments are made under the Medicare

[[Page S9660]]

Program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to introduce the Safe 
Nursing and Patient Care Act today, and I am pleased to have my 
colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, joining me in this effort. 
This important bill will limit mandatory overtime for nurses in order 
to protect patient safety and improve working conditions for nurses.
  The widespread insistence on mandatory overtime across the country 
means that over-worked nurses are often forced to provide care when 
they are too tired to perform their jobs. The result is unnecessary 
risk for their patients and for the nurses themselves. A recent study 
by the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing found that nurses 
who work shifts of 12\1/2\ hours or more are three times more likely to 
commit errors than nurses who work a standard shift of 8\1/2\ hours or 
less.
  A study by researchers at Columbia University Medical Center and RAND 
Corporation found that when nurses work too much overtime, their 
patients are more likely to suffer hospital-related infections.
  These studies, and many more like them, compellingly illustrate the 
critical threat to patient safety when nurses are overworked.
  The grueling conditions in which nurses are obliged to work 
jeopardizes the future of this essential profession. We face a critical 
shortage of nurses. The American Hospital Association reports that 
hospitals needed 118,000 more RNs to fill immediate vacancies in 
December 2005. This is an 8.5 percent vacancy rate, and it is expected 
to rise to 20 percent in coming years, undermining their ability to 
provide emergency care. In addition, nearly half a million trained 
nurses are not currently working in the nursing profession, even though 
they are desperately needed.
  Job dissatisfaction and harsh overtime are major factors in the 
nursing shortage. As a 2004 report by the CDC concluded, poor working 
conditions are contributing to difficulties with retention and 
recruitment in nursing. Nurses are not treated with the respect they 
deserve in the workplace, and many caring nurses refuse to work in an 
environment in which they know they are putting their patients at risk.
  Our Safe Nursing and Patient Care Act deals with these critical 
problems. By restricting mandatory overtime for nurses, the act helps 
ensure that nurses are able to provide the highest quality of care to 
their patients. By improving the quality of life of nurses, the act 
encourages more dedicated workers to enter nursing and to make it their 
lifetime career.
  This legislation is obviously needed to protect public safety. 
Federal safety standards already limit work hours for pilots, flight 
attendants, truck drivers, railroad engineers and other professionals. 
We need to guarantee the same safe working conditions for nurses, who 
care for so many of our most vulnerable citizens.
  Some hospitals have already taken action. In recent years, after 
negotiations with their nurses, Brockton Hospital and St. Vincent 
Hospital in Massachusetts have agreed to limit mandatory overtime. Mr. 
President, 11 States have adopted laws or regulations to end forced 
overtime. These limits will protect patients and improve working 
conditions for nurses, and will help in the recruitment and retention 
of nurses in the future.
  Improving conditions for nurses is an essential part of our ongoing 
effort to reduce medical errors and improve patient outcomes. But it is 
also a matter of basic fairness and respect. Nurses perform one of the 
most difficult and important jobs in our society. They care about their 
patients and want to provide the best possible treatment. They cannot 
do their job when they're exhausted and overworked. Nurses, and the 
patients they care for, deserve better. The Safe Nursing and Patient 
Care Act respects the dignity of hardworking nurses, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Obama, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Dodd, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Whitehouse, Mrs. Boxer, 
        Ms. Stabenow, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 1843. A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to clarify that an 
unlawful practice occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to a 
discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's an honor to join my colleagues in 
introducing the Fair Pay Restoration Act to correct the Supreme Court's 
recent 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, 
which undermined basic protection for workers against pay 
discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision also 
undermines pay discrimination claims under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Our bill 
would restore the clear intent of Congress when we passed these 
important laws that workers must have a reasonable time to file a pay 
discrimination claim after they become victims of discriminatory 
compensation.
  No American should be denied equal pay for equal work. Employees' 
ability to provide for their children, save for retirement, and enjoy 
the benefit of their labor should not be limited by discrimination. The 
Court's decision undermined these bedrock principles by imposing 
unrealistically short time limits on such claims.
  The jury in this case found that Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company 
discriminated against Lilly Ledbetter by downgrading her evaluations 
because she was a woman in a traditionally male job. For over a decade, 
the company used these discriminatory evaluations to pay her less than 
male workers who held the same position and performed the same duties. 
Supervisors at the plant where she worked were openly biased against 
women. One told her that ``the plant did not need women,'' and that 
they ``caused problems.'' Ms. Ledbetter's pay fell to 15 to 40 percent 
behind her male counterparts.
  Finally, after years, she realized what was happening and filed suit 
for the back pay she had been unfairly denied. The jury found that the 
only reason Ms. Ledbetter was paid less was because she was a woman, 
and she was awarded full damages to correct this basic injustice.
  The Supreme Court ruled against her, holding that she filed her 
lawsuit far too long after Goodyear first began to pay her less than 
her male colleagues. Never mind that she had no way of knowing at first 
that male workers were being paid more. Never mind that the company 
discriminated against her for decades, and that the discrimination 
continued with each new paycheck she received.
  The Supreme Court's ruling defies both Congress's intent and common 
sense. Pay discrimination is not like other types of discrimination, 
because employees generally don't know what their colleagues earn, and 
such information is difficult to obtain.
  Pay discrimination is not like being told ``You're fired,'' or ``You 
didn't get the job,'' when workers at least know they have been denied 
a job benefit. With pay discrimination, the paycheck typically comes in 
the mail, and employees usually have no idea if they have been paid 
fairly. They should be able to file a complaint within a reasonable 
time after receiving a discriminatory paycheck, instead of having to 
file the complaint soon after the company first decides to shortchange 
them for discriminatory reasons.
  The decision actually creates a perverse incentive for workers to 
file lawsuits before they know a pay decision is based on 
discrimination. Workers who wait to learn the truth before filing a 
complaint of discrimination could be out of time. As a result, the 
decision will create unnecessary litigation as workers rush to beat the 
clock in their claims for equal pay.
  The Supreme Court's decision also breaks faith with the Civil Rights 
Act of 1991, which was enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support, a 
vote of 93 to 5 in the Senate, and 381 to 38 in the House. The 1991 act 
had corrected this same problem in the context of seniority, 
overturning the Court's decision in a separate case. At the time, there 
was no need to clarify Title VII for pay discrimination claims, since

[[Page S9661]]

the courts were interpreting Title VII correctly. Obviously, Congress 
now needs to act again to ensure that the law adequately protects 
workers against pay discrimination.
  The Congressional Budget Office has made clear that this bill will 
not create costs for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the 
Federal courts. It simply restores the status quo as Congress intended 
and as it existed on May 28, 2007, before the Ledbetter decision was 
made.
  It is unacceptable that some workers are unable to file a lawsuit 
against ongoing discrimination. Yet that is what happened to Lilly 
Ledbetter. I hope that all of us, on both sides of the aisle, can join 
in correcting this obvious wrong.
  In recent years, the Supreme Court also has undermined other 
bipartisan civil rights laws in ways Congress never intended. It has 
limited the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, made it harder to 
protect children who are harassed in school, and eliminated peoples' 
right to challenge practices with a discriminatory impact on their 
access to public services. The Court has also made it more difficult 
for workers with disabilities to prove that they're entitled to the 
protection of the law.
  Congress needs to correct these problems as well. The Fair Pay 
Restoration Act makes sure that what happened to Lilly Ledbetter will 
not happen to any others. As Justice Ginsburg wrote in her powerful 
dissent, the Court's decision is ``totally at odds with the robust 
protection against employment discrimination Congress intended.'' I 
urge my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to restore the law 
as it was before the decision, so that victims of ongoing pay 
discrimination have a reasonable time to file their claims.

                          ____________________