[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 57 (Tuesday, April 8, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2223-S2230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

          PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I believe we are done with the voting 
at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in legislative session.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I would like to talk for a moment 
about the critical importance to women and families across Michigan and 
the country of ending pay discrimination against women so women will 
finally get equal pay for equal work.
  I was so proud to see so many colleagues on the floor earlier today, 
including the distinguished Presiding Officer, speaking about the 
importance of women being able to earn a full dollar instead of 77 
cents on every dollar.
  Part of giving everyone in this country a fair shot to get ahead is 
not only making sure they are getting paid a fair wage, which we are 
fighting to make sure happens, but also to make sure they are not 
getting paid less simply because of their gender. If somebody is 
working 40 hours a week, they ought to be paid the same for 40 hours a 
week if it is the same job. That is what the Paycheck Fairness Act is 
really all about. It gives everyone, regardless of their gender, the 
tools they need to help end gender discrimination in pay and hold those 
engaged in discriminatory behavior accountable. That is really what it 
is all about, and we will have a chance very soon to vote.
  I hope we would all agree that discrimination because of gender or 
for any reason has no place in our society. Yet too many Americans 
rightly feel they are trapped in a rigged game where heads, the 
privileged and powerful win, and tails, everybody else loses.
  When it comes to pay, we know the system is rigged against women. 
Today, in 2014, women still only make 77 cents for every dollar 
compared to a man doing exactly the same work. That is the national 
average. It is even worse in many places around the country. Frankly, 
it is even worse for women of color, with African-American women 
getting paid even less and Latinas doing worse still.
  My colleagues and I have been speaking on the floor today not just 
because we are voting on the Paycheck Fairness Act tomorrow but also 
because today is what we are calling Equal Pay Day. April 8 is the day 
women finally catch up. When you look at all the work that was done 
during the whole calendar year of 2013, and then add January, February, 
and March through April 8, that is how long it has taken women to make 
the same income as a man in the same job who worked last year. A woman 
has to work 1 year, 3 months, and 8 days in order to earn the same 
amount as a man who has worked 1 year. That is just not right, and that 
is what this debate is all about.
  Some people say we are just talking about pennies on the dollar and 
dismiss the issue as nonsense or worse. Those pennies add up--hour 
after hour, day after day, week after week, year after year.
  In my home State of Michigan, pay discrimination robs the average 
working woman and her family of more than $13,000 in wages every single 
year--$13,000 out of their pocket just because they are a woman rather 
than a man in the same job. While these women are working for 
discounted wages, they certainly don't get a 23-percent discount on 
their gas. They don't pay 23 cents less on every dollar at the grocery 
store or when the rent or the mortgage comes due.
  In fact, I have a chart to show what the average working woman and 
her family in Michigan could buy with the $13,000 a year she has worked 
hard every day to earn but never sees in her paycheck. She could buy 
just over 2 year's worth of food for her family. She could pay for 
almost a year on her mortgage and utility. Can you imagine that? 
Mortgage and utility payments go right out the window because she is 
not getting equal pay for equal work. She could buy almost 3,500 
gallons of gasoline for her car. That is enough gas for me to drive 
back and forth from Detroit to Los Angeles more than 16

[[Page S2224]]

times. That is how much a woman loses in her pay every year because of 
discrimination and lack of equal pay for equal work. But gender 
discrimination is not just about numbers on a page. In fact, it is not 
about numbers on a page. It is about real women who are working hard, 
who have suffered and continue to suffer, because we have not given 
women and their families the tools they need to make sure they can get 
equal pay for equal work. That is what this is about: knowing what your 
coworkers in the workplace are making so you can find out whether you 
are being paid fairly--the information, the tools women need.

  Let's be clear. Women aren't the only ones paying the price for wages 
lost and benefits denied. Gender discrimination in pay costs everybody 
in the family. The cost of gas is for everybody in the family. The cost 
of food is for everybody in the family. The inability to buy some extra 
sports equipment or clothing or pay for the cost of college affects 
everybody in the family. I hear far too many stories about this problem 
from my constituents in Michigan.
  Linda from South Lyon wrote to tell me her story. Not only does she 
make less than her male counterparts, but a senior executive even 
bragged to her that he hires women because he can pay them less. This 
is 2014, and we have an executive who thinks it is OK to even say that.
  Last week I met Kerri Sleeman, an engineer from Hancock, MI, who came 
to the Senate to testify about her story. I have to say, in Hancock, 
MI, we still have 20 feet of snow. This is the Upper Peninsula of 
Michigan. One has to be tough to live in beautiful Hancock, MI, and 
have a lot of great winter clothing. But it is an absolutely gorgeous 
place.
  Kerri was working for an auto parts supplier that was forced into 
bankruptcy in 2003. As with the company's other employees, she had to 
be involved in the bankruptcy process to get her last paycheck and the 
other wages she was owed. One day she received an update from the 
bankruptcy court about the claims against her former company and she 
made a shocking discovery: All of the men she had been supervising had 
been paid more than her--all of them. All of them. An engineer in 
Hancock, MI.
  Kerri said: It was heartbreaking. It was embarrassing. It was 
infuriating. And it will affect me for the rest of my life.
  Can my colleagues imagine it? First, she is out of a job. She has to 
go to court just to get her paycheck, and then, adding insult to 
injury, she finds out she has been discriminated against for years 
without even knowing it. Kerri lost out on thousands of dollars in pay 
and benefits simply because she is a woman. As is the case for most 
people, she could have used that money. She said she would have used it 
to help pay the copay for her husband's heart surgery, which instead 
she had to put on her credit card. Her story underscores why we need to 
pass this vital legislation before the Senate.
  Kerri not only lost out on her pay at her job week after week, month 
after month, she will lose out on Social Security benefits for the rest 
of her life as well. This is not fair. It is not how things should 
work. Kerri deserves a fair shot, and she has not been given it.
  We have heard other stories such as Kerri's before, and one of those 
was that of Lilly Ledbetter, who worked hard at a Goodyear tire plant 
and was discriminated against for nearly 20 years. She did not realize, 
again, that she was being paid less. Just as with Kerri, she will never 
get the Social Security benefits she would have earned if she hadn't 
been paid less for just being a woman. The law that bears her name--the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act--was a huge step in the right direction. 
But today more than 50 years after we passed the Equal Pay Act--
imagine, 50 years ago we thought we dealt with this; 50 years ago, the 
Equal Pay Act--and 5 years after we passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay 
Act, we still have so much work to do to make sure women are actually 
receiving equal pay for equal work.
  It was a great day when the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act became the 
very first bill President Barack Obama signed into law after he took 
office. I wish to thank the President for today signing two Executive 
orders that will help protect the employees of Federal contractors from 
pay discrimination. As the President has said, he doesn't want his 
daughters or anyone's daughters to be paid less just because they are 
women. I agree. I know the Presiding Officer does as well.
  Now we must do our part here in the Senate to make sure all Americans 
have the tools they need to protect themselves from this form of 
discrimination and hold those responsible accountable.
  This is not about special protections. In fact, I find any language--
any discussion of ``special protections''--so offensive, as I know 
women in Michigan and across the country do: somehow protections 
because we want to go to work and know we are being paid the same as 
the person next to us, who just happens to be a man, and we are women. 
This is simply about treating all Americans fairly. That is exactly 
what Democrats are committed to. We want to make sure everybody has a 
fair shot to get ahead. It has to start with equal pay for equal work. 
That means paying a fair wage, paying men and women what they earn, and 
it means if a woman works 40 hours a week, she should get paid for 40 
hours a week, not for 30 hours or 31 hours.
  The difference in pay simply because of gender discrimination really 
is the difference. That $13,000 I talked about earlier is the 
difference between whether a woman is able to fully benefit from her 
work and have what she needs to put food on the table and gas in the 
car and tuition for her son or daughter to be able to go to college, 
and all of the other things we want for our families.
  What this chart shows just isn't good enough. We want the full 
dollar, because 77 cents on every dollar is not enough. If we truly 
reward work, it shouldn't matter if a person is a man or a woman. A 
person's work should be equally rewarded for the same jobs. It is time 
the Senate come together--and we are going to have a chance to do 
that--to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. It is right for women and 
their families. It is right for our economy. It is simply the right 
thing to do.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                          Fair Sentencing Act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, there are reports that after we return 
from either this break or the next, the Senate may take up the so-
called Fair Sentencing Act, so I rise today to start discussing this 
bill with my colleagues, particularly those who do not serve with me on 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Over the past 30 years, this Nation has achieved tremendous success 
in cutting crime. There are fewer victims who suffer fewer physical and 
financial injuries. Neighborhood safety has improved, reducing fear and 
helping economic growth. These gains have been hard won. Congress 
played a major role, enacting mandatory sentencing guidelines, 
mandatory minimum sentences, providing assistance to law enforcement, 
and building more prisons. The mandatory guidelines, combined with 
abolishing parole, led to lengthier sentences, and what is fair about 
it all is that we have fewer disparities in sentencing. No longer would 
the sentence depend on whether the criminal faced a tough or a lenient 
judge, and factors such as the defendant's race and income could not be 
taken into account.
  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, applying novel readings of the 
Constitution, struck down mandatory sentencing guidelines. As a result, 
Federal judges are departing downward from the guidelines, issuing 
shorter sentences and injecting more disparity into the system. States 
are reducing their incarceration rates. While there are probably 
multiple contributing factors, crime rates recently have been rising. 
The only means left for Congress to ensure that criminals are sentenced 
to appropriate sentences then is mandatory minimums, now that the 
Supreme Court has judged sentencing guidelines as being 
unconstitutional.
  Those convicted of the manufacture, sale, or possession with intent 
to distribute, and importation of a wide range of drugs, including 
heroin, cocaine, PCP, LSD, ecstasy, and methamphetamine may have their 
sentences cut in half or even more from the current mandatory minimums.
  Supporters of the bill say it allows for shorter sentencing only for 
``nonviolent offenders.'' I am going to prove the bill does more than 
that. The term

[[Page S2225]]

``nonviolent offenders'' is highly misleading. First, that phrase 
conjures up people in jail for simple possession, and this bill does 
not apply to simple possession at all, for any drug.
  Second, the types of offenses the bill applies to are violent. 
Importing cocaine is violent. The whole operation turns on violence. 
Dealing heroin also involves violence or the threat of violence.
  Third, the crime for which the defendant is being sentenced might 
have been violent. The mandatory minimum sentence would be cut even if 
the criminal's codefendant used a gun.
  Fourth, the criminal himself could have a violent history. Although 
the bill does not apply to a drug crime for which the defendant used 
violence, it does apply to criminals with a history of violence. That 
is, the bill would permit a shorter mandatory minimum where the 
defendant was not violent on this occasion, but was in the past. 
Supporters of the bill never acknowledge that it would apply to drug 
dealers with a history of violent crime.
  Other provisions of the bill expand the safety valve that allows 
judges to impose mandatory minimum sentences on offenders with minimal 
criminal history. The bill's proponents never identify which violent 
offenders who fail to qualify for even the bill's expanded safety valve 
should be able to receive the bill's shorter mandatory minimum 
sentences.
  And don't pay attention to the smoke screen that the bill leaves the 
maximum sentence alone. Judges are not sentencing anywhere near the 
maximum today. The whole point of the bill is to allow judges to ignore 
current mandatory minimums for serious offenses such as heroin 
importation and cocaine dealing, and sentence defendants to half the 
minimum they are now receiving.
  We know from the experience of the States that when mandatory minimum 
sentences are reduced, judges use their greater discretion only to 
sentence the same or more leniently, even when the drug offender has a 
history of violence. For instance, the State of New York changed its 
drug sentencing laws to give judges more discretion. Judges began in 
the overwhelming majority of the cases to sentence offenders to the now 
lower minimum sentences. New York judges have sentenced drug 
offenders--even offenders with prior felony convictions--to the lower 
minimums. Do we really want offenders such as these out on the streets 
earlier than is the case now, and while out there on the street to prey 
on our citizens? That is what they will do.
  Although supporters of the bill claim it will reduce costs, what it 
will really do is shift costs from prison budgets to crime victims.
  As Professor Matt DeLisi of Iowa State University testified before 
our Judiciary Committee, juvenile drug use is the best predictor of 
chronic offending and that, in his words, ``drug users offend at levels 
3-4 times greater than persons not convicted of drug crimes.'' He 
stated that criminal justice research shows that ``releasing 1% of the 
current Bureau of Prison population would result in approximately 
32,850 additional murders, rapes, robberies, aggravated assaults, 
burglaries, auto thefts, and incidents of arson.''
  So the empirical data are clear. Lower mandatory minimum sentences 
mean increased crime and an increased number of victims. Why would we, 
then, vote to increase crime and create more crime victims?
  Various police organizations answer that question by coming out 
against this bill.
  The National Narcotic Officers' Association has written--and I will 
give you a fairly long quote:

       As the men and women in law enforcement who confront 
     considerable risk daily to stand between poison sellers and 
     their victims, we cannot find a single good reason to weaken 
     federal consequences for the worst offenders who are directly 
     responsible for an egregious amount of personal despair, 
     community decay, family destruction, and the expenditure of 
     vast amounts of taxpayer dollars to clean up the messes they 
     create.

  End of quote from the National Narcotic Officers' Association.
  The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association has also come out 
against the bill. They stated:

       It is with great concern that the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Officers Association views any action or attempt . . . that 
     would alter or eliminate the current federal sentencing 
     policy regarding mandatory minimum sentencing.
       The mandatory minimum sentencing standard currently in 
     place is essential to public safety and that of our 
     membership.

  End of quote from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
  Law enforcement is telling us that this bill would be bad policy and 
create more crime victims, but it is also saying that were this ill-
considered legislation to pass, the safety of police officers, who 
safeguard us, would be jeopardized. How can we possibly do that to 
those who bravely protect us--our law enforcement people?
  The bill is particularly misguided in light of current conditions 
concerning drug use. We are in the midst of a heroin epidemic right 
now. Deaths from heroin overdoses in Pennsylvania are way up. In the 
State of Vermont, the Governor devoted this year's entire state of the 
State message to the heroin problem. Cutting sentences for all heroin 
importation and dealing makes no sense at all considering the concerns 
of these Governors and other State leaders and law enforcement people.
  Now let's turn to what the Obama administration thinks. Typical of 
its pattern of disregarding the law across a large range of areas, this 
administration refuses to charge some defendants for crimes they duly 
committed if doing so would subject them to mandatory minimum 
sentences. Typical with this administration's pattern of disregarding 
the law, it is not taking action in most situations where States have 
enacted laws decriminalizing marijuana, even though that is contrary to 
Federal law. Do you think the Obama administration would stand silently 
by if a State enacted laws that allowed guns, rather than drugs, to be 
sold inconsistently with Federal law? Well, of course not.
  According to a story this week in the Washington Post, one of the 
reasons for the heroin epidemic is that marijuana decriminalization is 
leading growers to produce more heroin for importation into this 
country. That is because the availability of marijuana is rising and 
consequently the price is falling. So there is money available to be 
spent elsewhere. So many who used to grow marijuana now can make much 
more money cultivating opium poppies for heroin export to this country. 
But the administration supports this bill, which allows judges to lower 
mandatory minimum sentences for heroin importation. Doesn't that boggle 
the mind?
  My conservative colleagues who rightly oppose the administration's 
lawlessness in so many areas should think twice before supporting the 
administration here. They should oppose a bill that gives judges 
additional authority only for lowering sentences for dealing, 
manufacturing, and importing LSD, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, and 
methamphetamine.
  The National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys has 
courageously disagreed with the public opinion of their employer, the 
Department of Justice and Attorney General Holder. The National 
Association of Assistant United States Attorneys--and, remember, these 
people are on the Federal payroll enforcing and prosecuting under 
Federal law--this organization has written in opposition to the bill:

       Mandatory minimums deter crime and help gain the 
     cooperation of defendants in lower-level roles in criminal 
     organizations to pursue higher-level targets.
       They have been demonstrably helpful in reducing crime.

  End of quote from the National Association of Assistant United States 
Attorneys.
  So why on Earth, then, would we cut sentences for sellers and 
importers of the worst drugs now plaguing our cities, our suburbs, and 
even rural areas?
  Not every mandatory minimum sentence may be set at the perfect level. 
We should and can have a discussion concerning lowering some sentences 
and maybe even raising others--others that probably should be raised, 
such as for child pornography, terrorism, sexual assault, domestic 
violence, and various fraud offenses.
  We can reduce jail time but not sentences. Many States have done this 
for inmates whose risk assessments and behavior in jail, including 
successful completion of programs proven to reduce recidivism, earn our 
confidence that these people, out of prison, are

[[Page S2226]]

less likely to reoffend. But we should not cut sentences up front for 
serious offenders such as heroin dealers. We should not do so where 
these offenders have a history of violence. We should not drastically 
cut the only tool we have to reduce sentencing disparities among 
judges.
  The mislabeled Fair Sentencing Act is the wrong answer to the 
problems we face. I hope the Senate will not take up this bill, but if 
it does, my colleagues should take a clear-eyed look at this very 
dangerous bill and oppose it, as I will.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. More than 50 years ago, President Kennedy signed the 
Equal Pay Act, making equal pay for equal work the law of the land. Yet 
wage discrimination still persists. Today women continue to be paid 
just over three-quarters of what their male counterparts receive for 
performing the same work. More women than ever before are graduating 
from college, but over the course of their careers they will each make 
an average of $1.2 million less than a man with the same level of 
education.
  Unfortunately, that is not unique. Across a wide array of industries 
and with all different occupations, well-qualified women continue to 
earn an average of 77 cents for each dollar that our male counterparts 
earn, regardless of performance or educational background. Pay 
discrimination hurts women, it hurts families, and it hurts our 
economy.
  Back in the early eighties, I served on New Hampshire's Commission on 
the Status of Women. During that period I chaired a task force on 
women's employment in New Hampshire, and we wrote a report about what 
we found. Sadly, we found a lot of discrimination against women in 
employment. At that time women were only making 59 cents for every $1 a 
man earned, but the conclusion of our report was this was not only an 
issue for the women, it was an issue for their spouses, for their 
families, and for the economy of New Hampshire. The same is true today.
  In 2011, women were the sole or primary breadwinner in more than 40 
percent of households with children. Equal pay for these women is not 
solely about a fair paycheck. It is also about paying for a visit to 
the pediatrician, it is about being able to afford the prescription 
their children need, it is also about paying the heating bills during a 
long winter or providing Internet access so their kids can do their 
homework. There is a lot the average woman could do with the extra 
$10,000 she would earn each year if it were not for pay discrimination.
  As Governor, I signed a law to prohibit gender-based pay 
discrimination in New Hampshire and to require equal pay for equal 
work. In the year before that law was signed, women in New Hampshire 
made 69 percent of their male colleagues' wages. Today, in New 
Hampshire, they make 78 percent, so we make about 1 penny more in New 
Hampshire than national average. But at this rate, my granddaughters--
some of whom are still in grade school--will enter and leave the 
workforce before we achieve equal pay for equal work. The estimate is 
that if we continue at this rate, it will be 2056 before we achieve 
equal pay for equal work.
  Today on Equal Pay Day, I call on Congress to pass the Paycheck 
Fairness Act so that all of our daughters, granddaughters, their 
husbands, families, and their children can get a fair paycheck. This 
commonsense legislation would update the Equal Pay Act to require that 
pay differences be based on legitimate business reasons, and it would 
protect women so they can't be penalized by their employers for 
discussing their salaries. Pay discrimination is not fair, it is not 
right, and it needs to end.
  I urge all of our colleagues to support the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank Senator Shaheen for her leadership on these 
issues and so many other issues in the Senate. I listened to the 
Senator's comments and I fully concur in the information the Senator 
has brought forward, that paycheck fairness is not just a matter of 
fairness for women, it is a matter of fairness for our country. Not 
only will women benefit, our economy will benefit and our country will 
benefit by making sure that equal pay for equal work is what happens in 
our country.
  I thank the Senator, and I yield.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank Senator Cardin of Maryland and point out that I 
know this is an area where he also has worked very hard over many 
years. It is the kind of issue that men and women should be able to 
agree on. This is something that is not fair for women, but it is also 
not fair for their husbands and their sons. I know the Senator feels 
that way. Because when your wife isn't getting what she deserves, then 
you and your family are also hurt as a result.
  Mr. CARDIN. It is not just my wife, I also have two beautiful 
grandchildren, granddaughters, and they are going to do just fine, but 
I want to make sure they are treated fairly in the workplace--and I 
want all people treated fairly in the workplace.
  I thank Senator Shaheen. As I said, equal pay for equal work. 
Paycheck fairness is truly an American value. I thank all our leaders 
here. I particularly want to acknowledge Senator Mikulski, my colleague 
from Maryland, for her extraordinary leadership on pay equity issues, 
on this particular issue of paycheck fairness, and for the work she has 
done throughout her whole career as a real leader on gender issues.

  As Senator Shaheen pointed out, today is Equal Pay Day, and the 
reason for that is women, on average, earn about 77 percent of what a 
man earns for doing the same work. We are not talking about different 
work, but we are talking about doing the exact same work that women are 
discriminated against in the amount of compensation they receive. So on 
average women have to work 3 additional months every year to earn the 
same amount of money a man earns for doing the same work. That is not 
right and it needs to change.
  Today I was at the White House with the President and some of our 
colleagues. Lilly Ledbetter was there. I know the Presiding Officer 
recalls that Lilly Ledbetter has been one of the real leaders on pay 
equity. She worked at Goodyear for over 20 years, and after being there 
for two decades she found out from one of her coworkers--who 
anonymously passed along information to her about what people were 
making--that for 20 years she was receiving less compensation for doing 
the exact same work her male counterparts were doing. She had no idea 
about this. There was no justification for the difference. So she 
decided she would do something about it, not just for herself but for 
those who are in the workplace and should be treated fairly.
  So she filed an action and she took this case all the way to the 
Supreme Court of the United States, but guess what the Supreme Court 
did. They said: Lilly Ledbetter, you are right. You were discriminated 
against. You were paid less because of your gender, but guess what. 
Because it has been going on for so long, you don't have any remedy. 
Now that is absolutely ridiculous, that 5-to-4 decision of the Supreme 
Court.
  That cost Lilly Ledbetter hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost 
compensation as a result of that discriminatory action. So Congress 
took action and changed that, and I was proud to be part of the 
Congress that cast that vote. It was the first bill signed by President 
Obama shortly after he took office, and I remember the pride we all had 
that we were able to take a major step forward on behalf of an 
enforceable right for women to be paid equal pay for equal work.
  But the job wasn't done. Tomorrow we can take another giant step 
forward by advancing, and I hope enacting, the Paycheck Fairness Act. I 
hope colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this 
legislation so we can continue to make progress down this road of equal 
pay for equal work.
  In the White House today President Obama took action on his own. As 
he has said he would, he used his Executive power to do what he can to 
advance the cause of equality in this

[[Page S2227]]

country. So he signed two Executive orders. The first is what we call 
the sunshine executive order that will require Federal contractors to 
allow their employees to share information about their salaries. They 
can no longer take retaliatory action because coworkers share their 
salary information. The second Executive order will require contractors 
to provide information to the Department of Labor as to what their 
salary and compensation amounts are based on gender so there can be a 
record to make sure employers that are doing work for the Federal 
Government and that are benefiting from the U.S. taxpayers are doing 
the right thing as far as equal pay for equal work.
  These are two very important changes the President has instituted 
through the use of the power of the White House. We can do something 
permanent about it by the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. That is 
our responsibility, and I hope we will get that done. It will make a 
better America. As we pointed out, yes, it is about women being treated 
fairly in the workplace, it is about my two granddaughters being 
treated fairly in the workplace, but it is also about our economy and 
it is about our values. It is all of the above.
  I might also mention that it affects retirement security. Because 
women aren't paid as much, they do not have as much money when they 
retire. They are more strapped when it comes to how they spend their 
money. They have less money available for their retirement security. 
Women over the age of 50 receive only about 56 percent of what men of 
similar age receive in pension benefits because they haven't earned as 
much. A good part of that is because they are not being paid fairly in 
the workplace. Paycheck fairness will certainly help.
  We want to give a fair shot to every woman in this country. Many are 
the sole support for their families. Eliminating the wage gap will 
provide $450 billion of additional income into our economy. You know 
what that goes for. It goes to buy a new car or help pay for their 
children's education. It provides the wherewithal so women can go out 
and pay their rent, their mortgage payments, the wherewithal to take 
care of their families. They can even put money away for retirement so 
they have the security they need after they retire. It helps to grow a 
middle class in this country, and that is what we all should be about.
  So paycheck fairness helps give women a fair shot of equal pay for 
equal work. It requires employers to demonstrate that wage disparities 
between men and women holding the same position and doing the same work 
are not related to their gender. That seems simple enough. Doing 
different work, obviously the pay is different. Same work, why is there 
a difference?
  The bill ensures the remedies available to victims of gender 
discrimination are similar to the remedies available to those who are 
discriminated against based upon their race or national origin. We have 
in place a way we can correct this. We know how to use those tools. Let 
us also use them for those who have been discriminated against in their 
pay because of their gender.
  The legislation updates the Equal Pay Act to make it more in line 
with class action procedures available under title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act of 1964. This gives us an effective remedy to take care of a 
class of workers who have been discriminated against in the workplace, 
and it also prohibits employers--this is very important--from punishing 
or retaliating against workers who share salary information.
  That is what the President did today with the stroke of his pen for 
those companies that do business with the Federal Government. We can 
make it universal in the workplace. We can shine a light on what is 
happening. As former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis observed: 
``Sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant.'' We strive for greater 
transparency in our government because we know that will help provide a 
better government. So we allow our workers to share information without 
fear that they will be discriminated against or that actions will be 
taken against them by their employer.
  Our mission as Senators is clearly written in the first few words 
contained in the preamble of the Constitution. Our mission is to ``form 
a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, 
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure 
the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.''
  Paycheck fairness is essential for our carrying out that mission. I 
urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Tribute to Governor Michael O. Leavitt

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, this week the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce 
will honor my friend, the former Governor of Utah, Michael Leavitt, 
with our Giant In Our City Award. I would like to take this opportunity 
to honor my fellow Utahn, whose example as a public servant is 
instructive for all those who wish to make a difference.
  Mike Leavitt, who is a native of Cedar City, was the 14th Governor of 
the great State of Utah. He was handily elected to three terms as 
Governor, a feat that only one other Utahn has ever accomplished. In 
2003, during his third term, he was nominated by President George W. 
Bush and confirmed by the Senate as Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. After just over 1 year at the EPA, Governor Leavitt 
was nominated and confirmed as the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, where he served through the end of the Bush administration. 
He is the coauthor and author of several books, and he has most 
recently served on Mitt Romney's campaign as the head of Governor 
Romney's transition team.
  These accomplishments alone are enough to warrant praise and 
admiration for Governor Leavitt, but I would like to underscore the way 
in which he served in these positions to explain the virtues of 
leadership and service. It has been said those who lead best lead by 
example, and Mike Leavitt is one of those best leaders. He has 
continuously focused on efficiency, relationships, professionalism, and 
improvement. These qualities are not only cultivated in Mike Leavitt 
personally, but they are also fostered in all those with whom he works.
  Governor Leavitt's efforts to make government work for the people--as 
government always should work--stands as one of his greatest 
accomplishments. Such accomplishments often require innovation and 
entrepreneurship, which Mike Leavitt learned prior to his governorship 
as the president and CEO of the Leavitt Group. An example of this 
innovation is the emergence of a new kind of education in the mid-
1990s. When many in the education sector were skeptical of the 
possibility of online learning, Governor Leavitt proposed a new idea 
for a competency-based online university. He worked to gain the support 
of other Governors, and after many months of preparation, Western 
Governors University was established. This institution was part of 
Governor Leavitt's mission to expand access to and reduce the cost of 
higher education. Today WGU is recognized as one of the most innovative 
and affordable universities in the country.
  Governor Leavitt encouraged his fellow Utahns to avoid focusing on 
what is wrong with America, a lesson we as Senators would do well to 
follow. He reminded Utahns to focus on what is right with America, as 
he believes wholeheartedly in the greatness of our Nation. He once 
said: ``In the history of mankind, there has never been a nation as 
admired, as willing and as capable of inspiring and fulfilling hope.'' 
The dignified competence of that statement is needed in these Halls and 
needed around the world today.
  Utah was an example of such dignified confidence in 2002 when the 
State hosted the Winter Olympics. Governor Leavitt's precision in 
preparing the State for the games produced a tremendous success not 
only for Utah but also for our country. Working on the issues that are 
constitutionally reserved to the States and to the people, Governor 
Leavitt oversaw the expansion of Utah's transportation network and 
managed facilities and lands with great care. He

[[Page S2228]]

sought out skilled leaders to help in this grand effort, and thousands 
upon thousands of Utahns volunteered countless hours to make the 2002 
Olympics one of the most successful Olympic Games in history.
  Multiple volumes of the Congressional Record could be filled with 
examples of service and leadership exemplified by this great Utahn, 
especially from his years leading the EPA and HHS. However, in the 
interest of brevity, I will simply say that this country needs more 
citizens like Mike Leavitt. We need men and women who are able to focus 
on the details and simultaneously think on a macro scale. We need 
leaders who believe in our founding principles and who make important 
decisions with those very same principles in mind. We need leaders who 
will make government more efficient, more responsive, more deliberate, 
and more meaningful. Such meaningfulness may often require less from 
the Federal Government. When action is required from us in this body, 
let prudence, love for country, love for our fellow beings and 
dedication to principles, displayed so admirably by Governor Mike 
Leavitt, be our guide.

  Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                               Fort Hood

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise 
today to speak about the tragic shooting last week at Fort Hood. The 
shooting claimed the lives of three innocent people. One was a son of 
Illinois, and 16 others were wounded.
  As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I often begin 
subcommittee hearings by quoting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, General Martin Dempsey. At his speech at the National Press Club 
2 years ago, General Dempsey spoke about the number of challenges 
facing the military, from Afghanistan to sequestration, and the need to 
take care of our troops when they transition to civilian status. 
General Dempsey said: ``No matter how well we address the other 
challenges''--and I quote him--``if we don't get the people right, the 
rest of it doesn't matter.''
  His words reflect a basic truth. More than weapons systems or 
stockpiles of ammunition, the strength of our military and the security 
of America depend on the men and women who volunteer to risk their 
lives for us.
  Investigators are still trying to understand what happened as an Army 
specialist went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood. Press reports 
speculated on a host of possible motives, from mental health 
difficulties following a recent deployment, grief over the death of his 
mother, and even financial pressure. As we wait for the answers to this 
tragedy, we are grateful for the discipline and bravery of the military 
policewoman who confronted the shooter and cut short what could have 
been an even worse tragedy. We are grateful for the military chaplain 
who shielded bystanders and helped them reach safety.
  In my State of Illinois, we are mourning Army SGT Timothy Owens. He 
is from downstate, my neck of the woods, born in Effingham, IL, and 
dreamed of being a soldier since he was a little boy. He used to wear 
camouflage and bomber jackets with sunglasses to look like a soldier, 
in hopes that someday that would come true.
  He went to high school in Rolla, MO, where he met Billy, the young 
woman who would later become his wife. They were married just last 
August.
  After high school Tim and his family moved back to Effingham where 
Tim worked and taught tae kwon do in the local gym. In 2003 Tim Owens 
decided to pursue his life long dream. He enlisted in the U.S. Army. 
Sergeant Owens served proudly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and he recently 
signed up for 6 more years. His tours in Iraq and Afghanistan gave him 
special understanding and empathy for other soldiers who faced 
difficulties when they returned home. He used his skill and compassion 
in his work as a counselor at Fort Hood helping veterans deal with post 
traumatic stress disorder and other mental health challenges. It was a 
heartbreaking irony that Sergeant Owens was killed when he tried to 
persuade the shooter at Fort Hood to lay down his weapon. Sergeant 
Owens was 37 years old.
  I offer my deepest condolences to Sergeant Owens' friends and family, 
especially his wife and his parents. Tim Owens served America 
honorably, and I know they are proud of him.
  We also pray for the families of the other soldiers who lost their 
lives last week at Fort Hood and all those who were injured. Losing 
soldiers on friendly soil seems almost incomprehensible. Yet this is 
not the first time we have seen this sort of senseless death at a U.S. 
military facility. It is not even the first time we have seen it at 
Fort Hood.
  Tomorrow at Fort Hood President Obama will lead a memorial service to 
honor those who died last week. As we remember the soldiers who were 
lost and pray for those who were wounded, we also need to ask ourselves 
if there is more that we can do to protect the members of our military 
and their families.
  In the speech 2 years ago, General Dempsey said the vast majority of 
servicemembers end up stronger from the experience that they served. He 
said: ``They are disciplined, they are courageous . . . they have a 
sense of purpose.'' They are men and women we should be very proud of, 
and we are.
  There are also a few who for some reason or another need help. Some 
may bear invisible wounds from war. As we wind down our involvement in 
Afghanistan, our task as a Nation is to get all of the people right, as 
General Dempsey reminded us. Servicemembers and veterans who are 
struggling with health issues, including mental health issues, need to 
get the care that is necessary to bring them back to a full 
participation in life.
  Military families shouldn't have to struggle to put food on their 
table or a roof over their heads. A grateful Nation can do a lot better 
than that. No member of the military who risked his or her life 
overseas should have to worry about losing his or her life on a 
military base in America. In the midst of the tragedy last week many 
people at Fort Hood acted nobly and courageously, but something went 
terribly wrong.
  We owe it to our servicemembers and their families to understand how 
this terrible loss happened so we can work to make sure it does not 
happen again.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much.


                             Climate Change

  Madam President, I am now here for the 64th time to ask my colleagues 
to wake up to the threat of climate change. It was almost exactly 2 
years ago in April 2012 that I began speaking on the floor every week 
that the Senate is in session.
  I have tried to make a compelling case for my colleagues. First and 
foremost I have relied on the overwhelming scientific evidence and the 
near unanimity of the scientific community.
  Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that the increase of 
carbon dioxide in our atmosphere due to human activities is driving 
unprecedented changes, and, of course, they are changes that Americans 
see all about them in their lives now. If 97 doctors told you that you 
needed surgery, who among us in our right mind would heed the advice of 
the three doctors who said they were unsure and we should delay the 
treatment?
  I have talked about global warming. I have talked about the weirding 
of the weather--heat waves, extreme downpours, drought, shifting 
seasons. I have talked at length about the devastating toll on our 
oceans, which hold such peril in my home State, Rhode Island, the Ocean 
State. Our oceans are warming, rising, and becoming more acidic, and 
all of that is undeniable. It is measurable. It threatens our coastal 
communities and marine species alike.
  I have described the potential for deep economic disruption in 
industries such as fishing and farming or inundation or wildfire. I 
have looked at the threat to human health. I have conveyed the deep 
concerns of corporate

[[Page S2229]]

leaders who understand that climate change is bad for business and of 
faith leaders who appeal to our moral duty to conserve God's creation 
and to spare those who are most vulnerable to catastrophe. I have 
answered the claims of those in this Chamber who deny the reality of 
climate change and the need for action, and I have called out the 
network of fossil fuel propaganda that seeks to mire this Congress in 
phony manufactured doubt.
  I have been joined by colleagues who share my commitment to rouse 
this Congress from its oil- and coal-induced slumber, including the 
historic all-night stand on the floor that reached hundreds of 
thousands of Americans. But unfortunately, it seems we still have some 
ways to go. I could stand here until I am blue in the face supplying 
the Chamber with reasoned arguments and scientific facts on climate 
change, and some here in Congress would ignore it because they reject 
information from scientists and they ignore empirical evidence.
  So maybe it is time to bring in some muscle--the American military. 
Climate change threatens our strategic interests, our military 
readiness, and our domestic security in many ways. It is a serious 
national security issue. Don't take my word for it. Our top military 
commanders and strategic planners at the Department of Defense say so.
  Four years ago the Department of Defense released the Quadrennial 
Defense Review, clearly linking for the first time climate change and 
national security. The 2010 review concluded that the effects of 
climate change can contribute to increases in regional instability 
driven by demand for food, water, and natural resources, and to extreme 
weather events which will increase the need for humanitarian aid and 
disaster relief, both within the U.S. and abroad.
  Then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen put 
it this way. I will quote him:

       The scarcity of and potential competition for resources 
     like water, food, and space, compounded by the influx of 
     refugees if coastal lands are lost does not only create a 
     humanitarian crisis, but it creates conditions of 
     hopelessness that could lead to failed states and make 
     populations vulnerable to radicalization.

  That is the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  Last year 9 retired generals and admirals joined 17 former members of 
the House and Senate and several former cabinet level officials and 
issued this warning. They said:

       The potential consequences to climate change are 
     undeniable, and the cost of inaction, paid for in lives and 
     valuable U.S. resources will be staggering.

  The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review was released last month in tandem 
with the Department of Defense budget request, and it is just as 
straightforward in its warnings on climate change.
  I will quote:

       Climate change poses another significant challenge for the 
     United States and the world at large. . . . Climate change 
     may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in 
     food costs. The pressures caused by climate change will 
     influence resource competition while placing additional 
     burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions 
     around the world.

  The second installment of the current Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change assessment report, released just last week, echoes what 
our own military leaders are already telling us. According to the 
report, ``Climate change can directly increase risks of violent 
conflicts in the form of civil war and inter-group violence by 
amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty 
and economic shocks.''
  In response to our changing climate, the Department of Defense is 
conducting a comprehensive assessment of the risks to U.S. military 
installations. This is not a trivial effort and it is not being 
undertaken without cause.
  The Pentagon is also working with other nations to strengthen the 
network of humanitarian assistance for disaster response. The reach of 
our military stretches to every corner of the globe and so do the 
effects of climate change. Our commanders recognize the need to adapt 
in every theater.
  Much has been made of the U.S. military and diplomatic pivot to the 
Pacific region. While ADM Samuel J. Locklear, commander, U.S. Pacific 
Command, has called climate change the biggest long-term security 
threat in the Pacific because it ``is probably the most likely thing 
that is going to happen . . . that will cripple the security 
environment, probably more likely than the other scenarios we all often 
talk about.'' The head of our Pacific command is describing this as the 
most likely thing to happen to cripple the security environment.
  The threat extends from pole to pole. Former Supreme Allied Commander 
and Commander of U.S. Forces in Europe James Stavridis is wary of the 
ongoing reduction in Arctic sea ice. He states, ``This will present 
potential problems, from oil spills, dangers to wildlife, search and 
rescue for commercial shipping and tourist boats, and open zones of 
maneuver for the navies of the Arctic nations to interact.''
  Our American military leaders are clear in sounding this alarm. In 
Congress some of us are taking these warnings seriously. The Bicameral 
Task Force on Climate Change, which I lead with Congressman Waxman, 
invited national security experts to share their perspective on climate 
change. Retired Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Stephen Cheney is CEO of the 
American Security Project, founded in 2005 by former Senators John 
Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Gary Hart, and Warren Rudman. He stressed that 
climate change is not a new issue within national security issues and 
that the United States must engage the world on this issue, which of 
course we cannot do while we are paralyzed by false denial.
  Retired Army BG Gerald Galloway spoke of the risk extreme weather 
events pose to military installations. He said:

       When communities and installations are unaware of their 
     vulnerability to these events, the results can be disastrous. 
     A failure to be prepared shifts the military's focus from 
     maintaining a constant level of readiness to dealing with 
     each of these climate change impacts as they occur. Both 
     floods and increased temperatures can bring training to a 
     halt or restrict critical movements.

  This message was echoed by retired Army CPT Jon Gensler, who 
described the difficulty of maintaining our readiness, particularly in 
responding to ever-increasing requests for disaster-related 
humanitarian assistance.
  The consensus is clear from the people to whom we have entrusted our 
national security: Climate change is a serious threat to national 
security and to global security for which we need to plan and prepare. 
That is the message Secretary of State John Kerry brought to an 
audience in Jakarta, Indonesia, earlier this year. He said:

       In a sense, climate change can now be considered another 
     weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world's most fearsome 
     weapon of mass destruction. . . . The fact is that climate 
     change, if left unchecked, will wipe out many more 
     communities from the face of the earth. And that is 
     unacceptable under any circumstances--but it is even more 
     unacceptable because we know what we can do and need to do in 
     order to deal with this challenge.

  Yet Congress sleepwalks, refusing to listen, refusing to speak of it, 
refusing to act when duty calls us to act, when history calls us to 
act, and when decency calls us to act.
  I have a book in my office written by Geoffrey Regan. It is entitled 
``Great Naval Blunders: History's Worst Sea Battle Decisions from 
Ancient Times to the Present Day.'' It is an interesting book to read. 
It is a long history of episodes of folly and error that have ended in 
disaster. It contains the account of a fleet of British naval ships 
docked at harbor as a great typhoon bore down on them. The ships' 
captains knew the typhoon was so strong that it would tear the ships 
loose from their anchors and wreck them. They knew their only safe 
strategy was to up anchor, head out of the harbor, and try to weather 
the storm at sea, but none of the captains wanted to be the first ship 
to leave the port so they all stayed and the typhoon swept down and 
they were destroyed.
  Regan calls this ``an error of judgment that will forever remain a 
paradox in human psychology.'' We can make those kinds of errors of 
judgment, and for those captains and crews, the error was fatal. Facing 
certain destruction, those sea captains refused to take the action that 
they knew was necessary to save their ships, to save themselves, and to 
save their crews.
  I think of that story as we stand in the Senate unable to respond to 
what

[[Page S2230]]

is looming down on us from climate change. The science could not be 
clearer. It is grownup time around here, and we need to take it 
seriously. The fact that one side of the aisle can't even use the word 
``climate change'' is a terrible sign.
  John Wayne, a great American actor whom we all know, had a number of 
wonderful roles in his life. One of John Wayne's roles was to play 
Sergeant Stryker in the movie ``Sands of Iwo Jima.'' In that movie, 
Sergeant Stryker had a memorable phrase: ``Life is tough, but it's 
tougher if you're stupid.'' We have all the information in front of us 
that we need to avoid being stupid. Collectively, that is what we are 
being. Similar to those captains, knowing what is bearing down on us, 
we are somehow unable to take the action that will protect us, our 
country, and will protect our children and future generations. There is 
no better way to describe it than through the words of Sergeant 
Stryker: ``Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid.''
  It is time to wake up.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNET. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________