[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 58 (Wednesday, April 9, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2313-S2315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Paycheck Fairness Act

  Mr. President, I am here for only a couple minutes to express my 
chagrin, my disappointment, my shock that not one Republican voted with 
Democrats to make sure women have equal pay to men. What a simple 
concept: If you work a job that is the same as a man, the pay should be 
equal, and that means women can get a fair shot in the workplace. And 
how do we know it is not happening? We know because there are 
statistics that prove that women are earning, on average, $11,000 less 
than a man for the same job; and that is $11,000 a year. Over the 
course of a lifetime, it is over $400,000.
  Our Republican friends, in searching to come up with a reason--I do 
not know their reason; I do not get their reason--but this is what they 
said. They said--Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, said in a 
press conference--and I just read it; I hope I am wrong, and maybe he 
did not say this--but he said: We are hurting the very same people we 
are trying to help in this legislation.
  Now, somebody explain to me how it hurts a woman to have equal pay 
with a man for the same job. How does it hurt a woman to be able to 
afford a better place to live with that $11,000 a year, or a better 
school, to send her child to college, or just to enjoy a family 
vacation or a used car that maybe they want to buy--or, or, or.
  It is unbelievable to me. Every Republican voted against equal pay 
today for women. What is even more disturbing, every Republican voted 
to filibuster equal pay for women, meaning they voted against our even 
taking up the subject. They stopped us. We had a good, solid majority 
of Democrats--54. We just wanted to take it up and work on it and get 
it through. They filibustered this. It is, to me, amazing.
  Senator McConnell said that Democrats are obsessed with this issue of 
equal pay for equal work. OK, I will take it. I am obsessed. I want 
equal pay for women.
  We are here in the U.S. Senate. Everyone knows what we earn, and 
everyone knows that a woman Senator makes the same as a man Senator. We 
have the same pension options and health care options, and that is the 
fair way. All the equal pay for equal work act says is: We want to 
enforce the civil rights laws that demand it. But employers now harass 
you, fire you, stop you from finding out what your colleague across the 
aisle makes.
  If you even ask someone: I want to just check, am I getting paid 
fairly? I am getting paid $45,000 a year, and we do the same job. Can 
you tell me?--that alone--that alone--makes that worker a target for 
dismissal, harassment, et cetera.
  This should not be. We should be able to find out and ask. That is 
all we are trying to do here. We are trying to make sure that the Civil 
Rights Act which passed in the 1960s actually works. Because the Civil 
Rights Act said: equal pay for equal work. But then all these rules 
came down and loopholes came down, and employers can fire you, harass 
you, or do whatever, if you even ask about it.
  Everyone knows--I should not say ``everyone''--a lot of people 
understand the Lilly Ledbetter case. Lilly Ledbetter worked at a tire 
company. She was a manager. She was considered one of the top people in 
the company who did this work. She found out she was getting paid 
thousands of dollars less by the owner of the tire factory. She sued.
  She won her lawsuit at the lower level. Then it went all the way to 
the Supreme Court. They said: Sorry, you waited too long to file your 
lawsuit. What? She said: I could not find out about it. I did not find 
out about it, she said, until a coworker left me a note and said:

       Lilly, I admire you. You're great. Do you know you're 
     getting paid X thousands less a year than your male 
     counterpart?

  But she did not find it out for many years. So we had to fix that 
problem. Barbara Mikulski led us, and the President led us. He signed 
the bill, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which expands the statute 
of limitations so when you find out you have been discriminated against 
you can bring a lawsuit.
  All this is, is you can find out for sure earlier by asking someone. 
So I am in shock. Do not tell me women do not want fair pay, all they 
care about is flexibility. You cannot buy groceries with flexibility. 
If you want flexibility in the workplace, you can work that out. But 
set your pay first. I have employees, men and women, who want to get 
their pay settled. Then they will say: Is it okay if I work 4 days at 
the same level, but then I do not get paid for that fifth? That is fine 
if that is the flexibility workers want. But do not substitute 
flexibility and say: Well, if you want to work 4 days a week, we will 
give you that, but, guess what, you are going to be paid less for the 
job than a man. Please.
  Yes, we are obsessed with this. We are because we Democrats believe 
in justice and fairness and equality, not just in words and speeches 
and reading great quotes from our Founders, but in reality.
  That means, in reality, we want a woman in the workplace to be able 
to find out if she is getting paid fairly. I am disappointed, but I am 
also excited that Harry Reid is going to bring this back again and 
again and again in the hopes that our Republicans in the Senate relent 
and understand this is about

[[Page S2314]]

fairness and justice and equality and the right thing for women in this 
country. Not only women in this country, but for their families, their 
children. Two-thirds of women either are the sole supporters of their 
families or they are cosupporters of their families. This is an 
economic issue.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the American economy is the envy of the 
world, primarily because it is still seen as a place where anyone--
regardless of who you are or where you come from--can work hard, play 
by the rules, and succeed. That belief is predicated on the notion that 
America has a thriving, competitive, and free enterprise economy in 
which the best ideas and hardest workers win the day, while those who 
are less successful always have a fair chance to try again.
  The free enterprise system is not perfect, by any means, but it is 
fair. Unfortunately today, Americans increasingly believe our system is 
rigged. In President Obama's America, they have good reason. From the 
stimulus to Cash for Clunkers, from the bailouts to cap-and-trade, from 
Dodd-Frank to ObamaCare, every namebrand initiative of the President's 
term of office has distorted public policy to privilege well-connected 
insiders and elites at the expense of taxpayers and consumers.
  The Export-Import Bank is another taxpayer-funded example of 
distorted public policy that further erodes Americans' confidence in 
our markets and our system. In short, the Ex-Im Bank exists to dole out 
taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to help American exporters. Most of the 
benefits go to large corporations that are perfectly capable of 
securing private financing anywhere in the world. That is to say, 
Congress allows Ex-Im Bank to risk taxpayer money unnecessarily to 
subsidize well-connected private companies.
  This kind of public policy privilege, best described as crony 
capitalism, is a threat to the free market and to its moral 
underpinnings. Crony capitalism corrupts the free market by rewarding 
political connections over competitive excellence. It subverts the rule 
of law by codifying inequality. It undermines social solidarity by 
pitting citizens against one another, twisting cooperative communities 
into rival special interests.
  That is why in Obama's crony economy, we are seeing record corporate 
profits but stagnant middle-class wages and an anemic, jobless 
recovery. Cronyism has promoted and exacerbated inequality. It has 
isolated the poor and it has squeezed America's middle class.
  There are three principal reasons why we should start making this 
discussion part of the public debate and why we should start doing it 
right now: First, we should do this to fix the economy. Nearly all of 
our Nation's net job creation comes from firms that have existed for 5 
years or less. But cronyist policies tilt the playing field against 
those very firms, and make it next to impossible for those companies to 
succeed, to grow, and to create new jobs that we so badly need, and 
that the American people so significantly deserve. Leveling the playing 
field creates competition in both directions. It allows smaller, 
younger firms to compete, and it forces larger, older firms to do the 
same. That dynamic competition is what creates new jobs. It is what 
creates new economic growth. It is what gives rise to new opportunities 
up and down the economy on every step on the economic ladder.
  Second, this is a matter of basic justice. The American people have a 
fundamental right to equal opportunity under the law, and it is the job 
of the government to protect equal opportunity. If the very people who 
work hard and play by the rules are forced by government to bail out, 
prop up, and subsidize elite insiders who do not, then the land of 
opportunity, well, is not.
  Third, as those who most support free enterprise and equal 
opportunity, Republicans must bear the burden of reform. We believe in 
the power of free markets and a voluntary civil society to expand, lift 
people out of poverty, and support a secure and prosperous middle 
class. So it is our responsibility to follow through on our own 
convictions and close our own branch of the beltway favor bank. It 
starts with conservatives having an agenda to reform government and to 
end cronyism. Fortunately, some of us have already started working on 
it.
  These proposals focus on protecting the American people from the 
economic harm that comes from the collusion of big government, big 
business, and big special interests.
  For example, we have policy reforms that force Congress to 
periodically reevaluate expensive regulations; level the playing field 
for all energy producers; open our higher education system to new 
students, teachers, and competition; give Americans the right to choose 
whether to join a union; cut out the bureaucrats who waste critical 
infrastructure funding; and, yes, eliminate taxpayer subsidies to 
organizations such as the Ex-Im Bank.
  This agenda will create jobs, grow the economy, increase 
opportunities by allowing small businesses and forcing big businesses 
to compete on a level playing field where success depends on customer 
service and not on political connections. A conservative agenda to get 
right on cronyism will be good for jobs, for the economy, and above all 
it will be the right thing to do.
  Eventually, later this year, the reauthorization of the Ex-Im Bank 
will be before the Senate, and I hope my colleagues will keep these 
points in mind. But before us today is the nomination of Wanda Felton 
to be First Vice President of the Export-Import Bank. This is a 
position she already holds, but it is being renominated so that she can 
continue holding that position.
  Ms. Felton, significantly, sat on the board of the Ex-Im Bank, and 
she did so at a time when the Ex-Im Bank declined to take several 
recommendations from its own inspector general to lower its risks, 
which, in turn, put taxpayers at greater risk.
  The Ex-Im Bank has also continued to make claims about the importance 
of Ex-Im on job creation without necessary caveats or references to the 
bank's methodology--claims the GAO has heavily criticized.
  I cannot support putting someone back into this position after that 
person largely ignored these recommendations by government watchdogs.
  For all the reasons I have mentioned, I respectfully and strongly ask 
my colleagues to oppose the renomination of Wanda Felton to be the 
First Vice President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Wanda Felton, of New York, to be First Vice President of the Export-
Import Bank of the United States?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Bennet) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and 
the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) 
would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 75, nays 21, as follows:

[[Page S2315]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 104 Ex.]

                                YEAS--75

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Begich
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coats
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Crapo
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Walsh
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--21

     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bennet
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Cruz
  The nomination was confirmed.

                          ____________________