[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 57 (Tuesday, April 8, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2205-S2206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my wife and I are blessed with a son and
daughter who are good people, hard workers with good values. We
basically believe the following: If they did the same job, they deserve
the same pay--my daughter and my son. Most Americans agree with that.
People should be judged on what they do, their performance, their
productivity, not on their gender. That is at the heart of the issue
pending before the Senate at this moment.
Tomorrow we will take a vote. It is a procedural vote, so it takes 60
Senators to vote to move forward on what is known as the Paycheck
Fairness Act. We have 55 Democrats. The simple math tells you that
unless five Republican Senators join us to move forward on this issue,
that is the end of the story. It would be unfortunate if it is the end
of the story.
The Paycheck Fairness Act amends the Equal Pay Act to discourage
discrimination based on gender and to help narrow the pay gap in
America. No. 1, the bill provides women the same remedies for sex-based
pay discrimination that are available to people today based on racial
or national origin discrimination. No. 2, the bill prohibits
retaliation against workers who disclose their wages. Think about that
for a second.
Lilly Ledbetter worked in a tire factory in Alabama for years. Toward
the end of her work life, she received an anonymous note that said:
Lilly, you have been underpaid. You have been making less than the men
do in the same job in this plant since you have been here. She was
crushed. She thought she was a valued employee. No one ever questioned
the quality of her work, and she was being paid less than the men doing
the same job at her factory.
She filed a lawsuit, and it made it all the way to the Supreme
Court--across the street. Not surprisingly, this conservative,
business-oriented, Republican-oriented Supreme Court said: Sorry, Ms.
Ledbetter. You should have reported that pay discrimination when it
first started. Well, why didn't she? She didn't know. How could she
know? Payroll information is not published--except perhaps for
government employees. That payroll information was not available to her
to file the lawsuit when it first occurred. When she found out about
it, she filed the lawsuit across the street, and the learned Supreme
Court said: Too late.
So we changed the law. The very first law signed by the President of
the United States Barack Obama was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,
which said that Lilly Ledbetter and women just like her across America,
deserve an opportunity for equal pay for equal work. What we have
before us today--this Paycheck Fairness Act--is an effort to make sure
that law is strong and helps women across America.
No. 1, it says that women cannot be discriminated against in the
workplace simply because they are women. No. 2, you can't threaten
retaliation if one worker tells another what the pay is at that
particular place of work. No. 3, it adds programs for training,
research, technical assistance, and awards to recognize pay equity
employers.
The Equal Pay Act was signed into law almost 50 years ago, but the
pay gap between men and women in America is just about the same today
as it was then. According to the U.S. Census Bureau--as we heard over
and over--women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. African-
American women make 70 cents on the dollar, and Hispanic women make
about 60 cents on the dollar.
In my State of Illinois, 37 percent of married employed mothers are
their family's primary wage earners. Yet they face the same income
disparity. It turns out to be a yearly gap of $11,596 on average
between men and women who work full time in my State. That is what the
disparity in pay between men and women means in the State of Illinois.
It is not just less take-home pay for women doing the same job, it
means fewer Social Security benefits when they retire. They are not
earning at the same level as men. They pay for this discrimination for
a lifetime.
The National Partnership for Women and Families found that ending
this wage gap would provide women in my State with additional earnings
that would be the equivalent of 97 weeks of food, 13 months of rent, 7
months of mortgage payments or 3,000 gallons of gas. It is a big deal
for a struggling family--particularly for a woman who is a struggling
wage earner in Illinois.
Regardless of occupation, education, industry or marital status, pay
for women in my State lags behind their male counterparts. Women in
Illinois who work in business and financial management earn 72 percent
of their male counterpart's salary. That is what is before the Senate.
Is it wrong? Yes, it is. Are we prepared to say so in legislation?
Tune in tomorrow and find out whether five Republicans will join us to
raise this issue of pay fairness for women across America.
I am not encouraged by the statement that was just made on the floor
by the Senate Republican leader. He referred to this whole conversation
about paycheck fairness and minimum wage increases--so that people who
go to work every single day do not live in poverty--as ``the left's
latest bizarre obsession.'' He said that we were blowing a few kisses
to our powerful pals on the left with this legislative agenda. He
called it tone deaf, blame deflection, and shadow boxing on the Senate
floor.
The Senate Republican leader said the divide between the two parties
is in stark relief. He is right. He went on to say: We should drop any
pretense of doing anything serious in this Chamber if this is what we
are going to discuss.
How serious is equal pay for equal work to working people across
America? I think it is critical. It is one thing for the Senate
Republican leader to talk about job creation. We all want it. We are
desperate for it. We are moving toward it in many different ways, but
let's talk to those who are working and have jobs and whether they are
paid fairly. Is that important to them? Of course.
Simply having a job may be important, but when you get to the heart
of it, people want to be rewarded for good work. They don't want to
work 40 hours a week, get up every morning, get on the bus in the dark,
put their kids in their neighbor's house for daycare, head to their
job, and at the end of the week realize they are still living in
poverty. And that is what today's minimum wage does.
The women on those buses and the CTA trains that we see every morning
in Chicago, with their shopping bags full of the basics so they can go
to work and leaving their kids behind, want to believe they will be
paid fairly for what they do. That is not much to ask.
According to the Republican leader, it shows the stark contrast
between the two parties. It is a stark contrast. The Republican leader
says that we want to work for a commitment to jobs and focus on the
power of ideas. I want to focus on the power of an idea too. It is the
idea of fairness and fair play. It is as basic as being an American, to
believe that people ought to be treated fairly, and that when they do
the same work they are entitled to the same pay. That is not too much
to ask. In fact, we should demand it.
I suppose we are going to have a critical, historic vote tomorrow. I
am hoping five--just five--Republicans will step up on behalf of
working women across America and join us on this Paycheck Fairness Act.
Without them, this idea will die for now, but it is not going to die
forever. The American people have the last word. They will have it in
the election. They can decide if this is important. They can decide
whether--as the Republican leader said--this is just a bizarre
obsession on the part of the left to think of fair pay for the same
work. I think it is pretty basic to America.
This is our chance. Paycheck fairness and a minimum wage to keep
people who get up and go to work every day out of poverty are
fundamental to a good workplace and a workforce across America which is
respected by the Senate.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
[[Page S2206]]
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________