[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8231-8249]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Resumed

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 410, S. 
3220.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 410, S. 3220, a bill to 
     amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more 
     effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the 
     payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are now on the motion to proceed to the 
Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Following my remarks and those of the Republican leader, the time 
until 12:30 will be equally divided. The majority will control the 
first 30 minutes and the Republicans will control the second 30 
minutes.
  The Senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the 
weekly caucus meetings.
  I ask unanimous consent the cloture vote on the motion to invoke 
cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 3220 occur at 2:30 p.m. and that 
the time from 2:15 p.m. until 2:30 p.m. be equally divided between the 
two leaders, with the majority controlling the final half.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I indicated, we are on the Paycheck 
Fairness Act, and we will have that cloture vote at 2:30 p.m. today.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, most Americans believe if they get an 
education, they work hard and play by the rules, they will have a fair 
shot at success. But for millions of American women, no amount of 
talent or dedication will bring pay equality with their male coworkers. 
In the minds of many employers, they simply are not equal.
  American women take home 77 cents for every $1 their male colleagues 
earn for doing the exact same work. That stunning fact holds true 
whether the woman has a college degree, regardless of how many hours 
she spends in the office each week or on some manufacturing floor and 
regardless of what job she holds--77 cents applies.
  But listen to this. If she is an African-American or Hispanic woman, 
the disparity is even starker. African-American women make 62 cents on 
the dollar and Hispanic women 54 cents on the dollar compared to White 
men working the same hours and doing the same jobs. They are not 
working at different jobs; these are the exact same jobs. If someone is 
Hispanic and they are a woman, they get about half as much as a man 
doing the same job. If they are African American, they get about 62 
cents compared to every $1 a man makes.
  While landmark pieces of legislation such as the Equal Pay Act and 
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act have narrowed the pay gap, they have 
not closed the gap, and that is obvious by the numbers I just announced 
to the Senate. So Congress must do more. This act that is before the 
Senate would give workers stronger tools to combat wage discrimination.
  One of the tools of retaliation employers have is they fire workers 
if they discuss how much they make with another worker. Our legislation 
would bar retaliation against workers for discussing salary 
information. Why do we have this in the bill? We have this landmark 
legislation that we had to pass because the Supreme Court ruled against 
Lilly Ledbetter.
  Lilly Ledbetter is a woman who worked in Alabama for many years, and 
she didn't know she was being paid far less than her male counterparts 
who did the same work. So when she learned of this, she filed a lawsuit 
in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said: Sorry, Lilly. You 
didn't file it in time; the statute of limitations has run, meaning she 
had to file within a certain period of time.
  We have many different places in the law where we do not start 
tolling the statute until someone learns something is wrong. For 
example, we had to go back on medical malpractice cases where people 
were treated negligently by physicians, but the poor patient didn't 
realize this until long after. For example, in the State of Nevada, 
there is a 2-year statute of limitations. So we changed that in most 
places in the country, and we need to make sure people understand, in 
this instance--now that we passed the Lilly Ledbetter legislation--the 
time doesn't start running until one has learned they are being 
cheated.
  Our legislation would bar retaliation against workers for discussing 
salary information, and it would help secure adequate compensation for 
victims of gender-based pay discrimination. Let's look at the State of 
Nevada. Over their lifetimes, Nevada women will earn about $475 million 
less than their male counterparts--almost $500 million.
  This is not just an issue for women; it is a family issue. Why? 
Because every year millions of American families are cheated out of 
money they could spend on groceries, rent, and gas. Every year wage 
discrimination puts almost 400,000 Nevada children at risk.

[[Page 8232]]

  For many families in Nevada and across the country a woman is the 
only income generator in that family. For many more women that person 
is the primary breadwinner. Yet Republicans have vowed to block this 
legislation. It is in all the news today. Every headline in the news 
talks about this bill coming up today and the Republicans are saying 
they are going to vote against it because it creates too much bookwork.
  They vowed to block legislation that would even the playing field and 
help women provide for their families even though Americans 
overwhelmingly support this legislation. Nine out of ten Americans--
including 81 percent of men and 77 percent of the Republicans--support 
pay equity legislation.
  Once again, the only Republicans who are against our commonsense 
measure are the ones who are in Congress in Washington. Even Mitt 
Romney has refused to publicly oppose this legislation. He may oppose 
it, but he is afraid to say anything about it. Why? Because it is 
obvious why. He should show some leadership. In my opinion, Governor 
Romney should tell his fellow Republicans that opposing fair pay for 
all Americans is shameful. Instead, no one knows where he stands, but 
we know where Democrats stand. Everyone knows. We stand firmly on the 
side of equality for every working woman.
  Democrats stand with middle-class women who are working to keep their 
families afloat during these difficult times. We stand with young women 
pursuing a college education who are hoping to get a good-paying job 
when they graduate. We stand with little girls whose mothers taught 
them there is no limit to their dreams.
  This evening Americans will see where Republicans stand on this 
issue. It is unfortunate they, once again, favor obstruction over 
equality.


                  Recognition of the Republican Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                             Student Loans

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to continue to discuss the 
student loan issue this morning because the administration's approach 
to this problem is nothing short of surreal.
  I have in my hand a letter that has been signed by the top four 
Republicans in Congress: Speaker Boehner, Leader Cantor, minority whip 
Jon Kyl, and myself. It lists no fewer than four good-faith bipartisan 
proposals to resolve the issue, all of which are based on offsets the 
President has proposed himself in the past.
  Let me say that again: We have recommended to the President four 
offsets that he, himself, has proposed in the past to achieve what we 
all want to achieve, which is a 1-year extension of the current student 
loan interest rates. We sent this letter to the President 5 days ago. 
Yet we have now learned that in spite of the fact they have a proposal 
recommending that on a bipartisan basis we accept offsets that they 
have previously recommended, we have now learned the Vice President 
will have a group of college presidents over to the White House today 
to ``reassert the call for Congress to stop the student loan interest 
rate from doubling.''
  Congress has acted. We have given the administration four offsets 
they previously proposed. We are waiting for a response so we can solve 
this problem. Why doesn't the Vice President simply pick up the phone, 
choose one of the proposals we laid out in our letter, and then 
announce at the meeting the problem has been resolved? That way he will 
give these folks some good news to bring back to their campuses instead 
of just asking them to be props in this elaborate farce the White House 
political team cooked up on this issue. It is an elaborate farce. This 
can be solved very easily with offsets the administration itself has 
recommended.
  The only people dragging their feet on this issue are over at the 
White House. Republicans in Congress have been crystal clear for weeks. 
We are ready to resolve the issue to give students the certainty they 
need about their loan payments. The President may find it politically 
useful to keep these young people off-balance, but we don't think they 
should have to wait another day. It is inexcusable for the President to 
allow this impasse to persist. That is why we bent over backward to 
find a solution, and it is simply disingenuous for the President to 
claim otherwise, which brings me to larger point.
  We all realize the President is concerned about his reelection. I 
understand he is placing a higher priority on fundraising and trying to 
make Republicans look bad as he ramps up to November. I get his 
rationale for running a negative campaign. If I were he, I wouldn't 
want to brag about my record either. I get it. But I would remind him 
he is still the President, even though the campaign is going on, and 
that Americans are looking for leadership and the economic problems we 
face will only get worse if he avoids them for 6 more months.
  So whether it is the student loan issue or the prospect of a massive 
tax hike at the end of the year, Republicans are ready to work with the 
President to provide the kind of certainty the American people need 
right now. But it is a two-way street. We will never solve these 
problems if the President continues to mislead the American people 
about what Republicans in Congress are willing and eager to do to help.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter I 
previously referred to printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                     Washington, DC, May 31, 2012.
     The President,
     The White House, Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Earlier this year you asked Congress to 
     extend for another year the reduced interest rate for 
     subsidized Stafford student loans. Last month the House of 
     Representatives passed a bill to do just that and to pay for 
     the cost with a repeal of the Prevention and Public Health 
     Fund created as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
     Care Act. Despite the fact that you have previously signed 
     into law legislation reducing this fund by $5 billion to 
     offset the cost of preventing a reduction in Medicare 
     physician payments, your Administration indicated that you 
     would veto a bill that would use additional savings from the 
     fund to offset the cost of extending lower student loan 
     interest rates.
       More recently. Senate Majority Leader Reid and his 
     conference have put forward a proposal to pay for extending 
     the reduced interest rate by raising taxes on small 
     businesses. As you know, this proposal cannot pass the Senate 
     and is unacceptable to the House of Representatives.
       We believe our alternative is reasonable and responsible. 
     but in the interest of finding common ground on a way to pay 
     for a one year extension of the current student loan interest 
     rate we are open to other solutions that we have all 
     supported in the past.
       The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated 
     that a one-year extension will increase the deficit by $5.985 
     billion over the 2012 to 2017 budget window. We have reviewed 
     your Fiscal Year 2013 budget request. and based on areas of 
     common agreement we believe it is possible to fully offset 
     this cost by 2018 with additional savings in the ten year 
     window and beyond dedicated to much-needed deficit reduction.
       We have attached two options for fully offsetting the cost 
     of extending the student interest rate reduction. The 
     policies in both options are either policies that you 
     recommended in their entirety or a subset of a policy you 
     recommended. We are prepared to support either option.
       There is no reason we cannot quickly and in a bipartisan 
     manner enact fiscally responsible legislation.
           Sincerely,
     John Boehner,
     Eric Cantor,
     Mitch McConnell,
     Jon Kyl.
                                  ____


                               Attachment


                                option 1

       Student Loan Interest Rate: Extend for one year (July 1, 
     2012 to June 30, 2013) the 3.40 percent interest rate for new 
     subsidized Stafford student loans. (CBO estimates this 
     proposal will increase the deficit by $5.985 billion over the 
     2012 to 2017 period and $5.985 billion over the 2012 to 2022 
     period.)
       Increase Federal Employee Retirement Contributions: As part 
     of the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget, the Administration proposes 
     to increase current employee contributions to the Civil 
     Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employee 
     Retirement System (FERS) by 0.4% in each of the next three 
     calendar years--2013, 2014, and 2015--for a cumulative 
     increase of 1.2% of pay over current contributions. The House 
     of Representatives

[[Page 8233]]

     has passed a substantially larger increase in contributions 
     (5% over current law levels phased-in over five years for 
     regular CSRS and FERS employees) as part of the Sequester 
     Replacement Reconciliation Act. (CBO estimates that the 
     Administration's proposal would reduce the deficit by $8 
     billion over the 2012 to 2017 period and $18 billion over the 
     2012 to 2022 period. Note: This estimate reflects that 
     contribution levels have already been increased for new hires 
     as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, 
     Public Law 112 -96.)


                                Option 2

       Student Loan Interest Rate: Extend for one year (July 1, 
     2012 to June 30, 2013) the 3.40 percent interest rate for new 
     subsidized Stafford student loans. (CBO estimates this 
     proposal will increase the deficit by $5.985 billion over the 
     2012 to 2017 period and $5.985 billion over the 2012 to 2022 
     period.)
       Limit Length of In-School Interest Subsidy: As part of the 
     Fiscal Year 2013 Budget, the Administration proposes to limit 
     the duration of borrowers' in-school interest subsidy for 
     subsidized Stafford loans to 150 percent of the normal time 
     required to complete their educational programs. According to 
     the Department of Education, ``The Budget request eliminates 
     the in-school interest subsidy for borrowers who do not 
     complete their program within 150 percent of their program 
     length. Beyond that point, these borrowers no longer receive 
     the interest subsidy for the Subsidized Stafford loans they 
     have taken out, and interest will immediately begin to accrue 
     on these loans. As with the 12 semester Pell limitation 
     enacted this fall, students who attend school half-time would 
     have their benefits adjusted accordingly.'' (CBO estimates 
     that the Administration's proposal would reduce the deficit 
     by $475 million over the 2012 to 2017 period and $1.055 
     billion over the 2012 to 2022 period.)
       Revise Medicaid Provider Tax Threshold: Under current law, 
     states may not tax health care providers and return the tax 
     revenues to those same providers through higher Medicaid 
     payment rates or through other offsets and guarantees (known 
     as a ``hold harmless'' arrangement). An exception to this 
     provision is that the federal government will not deem a hold 
     harmless arrangement to exist if the provider taxes collected 
     from given providers are less than 6 percent of the 
     providers' revenues. As part of the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget, 
     the Administration proposes to phase down the Medicaid 
     provider tax threshold to 3.5% from Fiscal Year 2015 to 
     Fiscal Year 2017. The House-passed Sequester Replacement 
     Reconciliation Act would lower the allowable percentage 
     threshold to 5.5 percent starting in 2013. (CBO estimates 
     that the House-passed proposal would reduce the deficit by 
     $4.65 billion over the 2012 to 2017 period and $11.3 billion 
     over the 2012 to 2022 period.)
       Improve Collection of Pension Information from States and 
     Localities: Both the Administration's Budget Proposal for 
     Fiscal Year 2013 and the House-passed Middle Class Tax Relief 
     and Job Creation Act (December 2011) include a proposal to 
     prevent Social Security overpayments by improving 
     coordination with States and local governments. By requiring 
     State and local government pension payers to identify whether 
     a worker's pension is based on government employment, the 
     Social Security Administration (SSA) can improve enforcement 
     of two benefit offset provisions affecting certain government 
     workers. (CBO estimates that the Administration's proposal 
     would reduce the deficit by $358 million over the 2012 to 
     2017 period and $2 billion over the 2012 to 2022 period.)


                              War on Coal

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, hearings on the Environmental 
Protection Agency's regulatory agenda will be held in Kentucky this 
week. One hearing will be held today in Frankfort and another later 
this week in Pikeville. Since Congress is in session this week, I will 
not be able to attend these important hearings in person, but I will 
have a representative on hand at each hearing, and I wish to express my 
thoughts on the matter on the Senate floor.
  Similar to most of the country, Kentucky is suffering from very 
difficult economic times. Far too many Kentuckians are unemployed, and 
the prospect for future employment remains daunting. That is why it is 
especially irritating that this administration has blindly followed 
ideological policies that eliminate jobs in our communities. The people 
of Kentucky are amongst the hardest working people on the planet, but 
how can they be expected to compete if our own government is actually 
working against them?
  Simply put, my constituents are under siege from the Obama 
administration's regulatory agenda, and the EPA is the worst offender--
the very worst.
  Perhaps the clearest example of this administration's regulatory 
assault is its war on coal. Since being sworn in, President Obama's EPA 
has set out to circumvent the will of Congress and the American people 
by turning the already cumbersome mine permitting process into a 
backdoor means of shutting down coal mines. Mr. President, 18,000 
Kentuckians work in coal mining, and nearly 200,000 more, including 
farmers, realtors, and transportation workers, rely on the coal 
industry for their jobs. Coal brings in more than $3.5 billion from out 
of State and pays more than $1 billion in direct wages every year. 
Attacking an industry so important to Kentucky will only succeed in 
putting people out of work, impeding future job growth, and increasing 
energy prices.
  A former senior EPA official under the Obama administration recently 
summed up the regulatory philosophy of the Agency with respect to those 
working in the coal business by saying it wants to ``crucify'' them. 
Let me say that again. This was a regulator, with respect to those 
working in the coal business, saying it wants to ``crucify'' them. With 
this radical environmental anticoal agenda, it is no wonder the 
administration has failed to answer the call of the American people for 
greater domestic energy production. The real-world impact of their 
fantasy world energy policy is that people are losing their jobs and 
energy prices will rise even further.
  It is high time the Obama administration stop treating the Kentucky 
coal industry as the problem and start recognizing that it has been and 
will continue to be part of the solution.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.
  Under the previous order, the time until 12:30 p.m. will be equally 
divided and controlled by the two leaders or their designees, with the 
majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the Republicans 
controlling the second 30 minutes.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my 
colleagues to affirmatively and unabashedly vote for cloture on the 
Paycheck Fairness Act that we wish to bring before the Senate. This is 
part of a very long march the women of the United States of America 
have been walking for a very long time.
  In 1963 President Lyndon Johnson wanted to create a great society, 
and he envisioned three civil rights acts to right the wrongs of the 
past. One was equal pay--the Equal Pay Act--which would ensure that 
women would get equal pay for equal work. The second was the benchmark 
Civil Rights Act, and the third was the Voting Rights Act.
  Lyndon Johnson picked the Equal Pay Act as his first action because 
he felt it would be one of the easier ones to pass and to implement. 
Little did he know that the corporate wrath that was against women in 
the past would come to that legislation. However, a Democratically 
controlled Senate moved that bill and began the long march for civil 
rights. But guess what happened in the ensuing 49 years. On June 10, 
1963, President Johnson signed that bill. Forty-nine years later, women 
still make less than men. Women in the United States of America make 
only 77 cents for every dollar men make doing the same job. This is 
unfair, and it is un-American.
  Remember from where we have come. Everybody likes to say to us: Oh, 
you have come a long way. Well, we don't think we have come a long way. 
We have only gained 18 cents in 49 years. In 1963 we made 59 cents for 
every dollar men made, and now it is 77 cents. So what does that mean? 
It means every 5 years we make an advancement of one penny.
  Oh, no. No more. We are just not going to take it anymore.
  When I talk to my constituents, they say to me that they are mad as 
hell and they don't want to take it anymore. They go to school, they 
get the job, they do the job, they want to be paid for the job, and we 
agree with them. We want to do it not only with words, but we want to 
do it with deeds, and we want to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act that 
would ensure equal pay.

[[Page 8234]]

  Women fight every day for equal pay, and when they do, they are side-
lined, red-lined, and pink-slipped. Right now in the marketplace, it is 
legal to fire a woman if she asks about pay, whether she goes to the 
personnel director or whether she asks the person next to her at the 
water cooler. Women are often harassed and intimidated for just asking: 
What do you make for the work you do? So we are ready to fight for 
women to get equal pay, and the best way to do it is to do it right 
here on the Senate floor.
  People say to me: Senator Barb, you led the fight on Lilly Ledbetter. 
Didn't that solve all the problems?
  It solved a big problem. We made a downpayment to keep the courthouse 
door open for women who are discriminated against, but it did not close 
the loopholes that were in the original Civil Rights Act. What Lilly 
Ledbetter did was change the statute of limitations to file a lawsuit 
from the date of each discriminatory paycheck. Now we need to pass 
paycheck fairness to close the loopholes that allow discrimination to 
happen in the very first place.
  What does this bill do? It is actually very simple. If we listened to 
the rightwing pundits, we would think this is complicated and it is 
going to rend asunder the American economy and so on. This is 
fundamental fairness.
  What does it do? First of all, no longer will employers be able to 
retaliate against workers for sharing information about wages. Remember 
what I said earlier: If you ask someone how much they get paid, you can 
get fired. For years, Lilly Ledbetter and those she represents were 
humiliated and harassed for just asking questions. No longer will women 
be able to seek only back pay when they are discriminated against; they 
will also be able to seek punitive damages. No longer will employers be 
able to use almost any reason to justify paying a woman less: Oh, the 
guys do harder jobs; oh, the guys do dangerous jobs; oh, they have a 
better education. We are talking about equal pay for equal work that 
requires the same education. No longer will women be on their own 
because we are going to include various education and training 
programs.
  As I said, in 1963 we made 59 cents for every dollar men made. Women 
now make 77 cents compared to every dollar a man makes. That is not 
progress. The consequences of this are severe.
  What does this mean? Well, let's take the college graduate, the woman 
who has had the benefit and privilege of an education. It starts the 
minute she tosses her hat in the air. When she goes for that job, say, 
in information technology or even in some of the innovative economic 
fields, she will be making less. At the rate we are going, by the time 
she retires there will be a $434,000 income pay gap. This is serious 
because it not only affects one's income as one goes through life, but 
it affects one's Social Security and it affects one's pension. It 
affects absolutely everything. The negative impact multiplies. It is 
like compound interest in reverse. It is compound disinterest. It is 
compounded unfairness. So these are real grievances. That is why the 
Paycheck Fairness Act will be able to do this.
  When we look at the life of being a woman, we women know that being a 
woman often means we pay more. We certainly pay more for health 
insurance than men with the same coverage for the exact same age or 
health status. What does that mean? It means women pay estimates of 
thousands of dollars more in medical insurance over their lifetime. We 
are often on the hook for childcare, and there are a variety of things 
on which we could elaborate.
  I believe people should be judged in the workplace for skills and 
competence and that once you get the job and you show you can do the 
job, you should be paid to do that job.
  For my colleagues who argue that 20 cents per hour doesn't matter, 
let me share some numbers. That means $4,000 less per year for a 
working family, $434,000 over a lifetime. It means we get paid 23 
percent less than a man doing the same work who has the same education.
  The Presiding Officer is a smart guy. He knows that when women go to 
get a mortgage, we don't get a 23-percent discount. When we go to buy 
food, we don't get a 23-percent discount. When we go to pay our utility 
bills, they don't say: Oh, you are paid less, so we are going to give 
you a discount. No. We get charged the same, and often more, but we are 
paid less.
  We are not going to accept being paid less. We are paying attention 
to this problem. We have listened to the voices of the people. This 
isn't just Senator Barb sounding off on her women's rights agenda. My 
women's rights agenda is about the economic empowerment of women, so 
they have a chance in this great country to be able to move ahead.
  I listened to a constituent in Silver Spring with years of teaching 
experience, and even in public employment, she was paid less.
  Then we listened to a trauma surgeon who e-mailed me from Florida--
highly educated. She filed suit because she found out that a male 
surgeon doing the exact same surgery was paid $25,000 more than she 
was.
  Another woman e-mailed me from Virginia. She claimed she was told by 
her supervisor that hiring a woman would simply be a liability. You are 
going to get pregnant. You are going to miss work. We don't know if we 
want you here. That is a whole other issue. Then she said: We don't 
need to pay you that. You don't head up a household, so why should you 
get the same money as some guy who does head up a household?
  We have faced old prejudices, but we are in a new economy and in a 
new world. More and more women are in the workplace, we want to be 
treated with respect, and we want to have equal pay for equal work.
  Mr. President, I note that my colleague Senator Murray is here. I 
yield her 5 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I wish to start off by giving a true and 
heartfelt thank-you to Senator Mikulski. There is no denying she is 
such a strong and steadfast leader on this issue, and we all so 
appreciate it. So I am very proud to come to the Senate floor this 
morning with her and many others to strongly support the Paycheck 
Fairness Act and to urge Republicans to join with us to pass this 
critical bill.
  Over the past few months, many of us have stood together to fight 
back against partisan attacks on policies that impact women across 
America. We have not started these fights, but we were not going to 
stand by and watch as others tried to roll back the clock. But every 
time we stood up to defend women, our friends on the other side of the 
aisle would jump right up and say we were creating distractions or 
manufactured issues. They said we should be focused on the economy, as 
if we were the ones changing the subject and making the partisan 
attacks. Well, we are not going to stop standing up for women and 
families.
  To those of our colleagues who claim to be so concerned about the 
economy and the middle class, now is their chance to prove to their 
constituents that they really mean what they say because the Paycheck 
Fairness Act is not just about women and it is not just about fairness, 
it is about the economy. When women are not paid what they deserve, 
middle-class families and communities pay the price.
  In 1963 the Equal Pay Act marked one of the first steps toward 
narrowing the gap between men and women. In 2009 this Senate took 
another step by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to reverse the 
Supreme Court's Ledbetter v. Goodyear case which made it almost 
impossible for our workers who suffered from discrimination to seek 
justice.
  Although we have made progress since we passed the Equal Pay Act 
almost 50 years ago, pay discrimination has not gone away. Women in my 
home State of Washington still earn 77 cents on the dollar. That is a 
pay gap that averages $11,834 in lost earnings each year. That is an 
extra 90 weeks of groceries or 179 tanks of gasoline. To women in 
Washington and to most

[[Page 8235]]

women across America, that is certainly not a manufactured issue. It is 
very real.
  This comes at a time when more and more families rely on women's 
wages to put food on the table or stay in their home or build a nest 
egg, their retirement, or help pay for their children's education.
  The importance of women in the workplace has never been as critical 
as today, and this has become even more evident in this tough economy. 
The fact is that women are now participating in the workforce at higher 
rates than ever before, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So 
it would seem most appropriate for this Senate to move our country once 
again toward eliminating pay discrimination and unfairness in the 
workplace.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act that we are going to have a vote on today 
tackles pay discrimination head-on, and it should not be a partisan 
issue or only a women's issue. It is good for women, it is good for 
families, and it levels the playing field for businesses in America 
that are doing the right thing and paying their workers fairly.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act is good for business too. It recognizes 
employers for excellence in their pay practices, and it strengthens 
Federal outreach and assistance to all businesses to help them improve 
equal pay practices. It is time to address this issue and finally close 
the wage gap for our working women and their families.
  I was very proud to stand with Senator Mikulski and other Members of 
Congress and the President as he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay 
Act of 2009 to give women who are victims of pay discrimination the 
tools they need to seek justice. But our work is far from complete. We 
are still not yet at the point where our daughters can expect to earn 
the same amount over their lifetime as our sons. That has to change. 
Now we need to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act as quickly as possible to 
keep our Nation moving in the right direction.
  Again, I thank Senator Barbara Mikulski for her tremendous leadership 
and steadfastness on this issue and her hard work to make this a 
reality for every working woman in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, there will be other Democratic Senators 
speaking during this time. I thank Senator Murray because she has been 
a real champion on this issue. She has been a champion on making sure 
women are treated with respect in the workplace and in the U.S. 
military. She has been a particular champion for ensuring that women in 
the military and women in the VA system get treated with fairness. We 
have a long way to go. This is 2012, and you would think at times it 
was 1812. But in 1812 we in Baltimore fought another revolution, and we 
will fight in 2012. So we thank her for her advocacy and look forward 
to having her vote this afternoon.
  This is not only a women's issue where the women's rights groups are 
pounding the table. We have the support and endorsement of the American 
Bar Association. I have a letter which I ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record in which the ABA absolutely endorses this 
legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     American Bar Association,

                                        Chicago, IL, May 31, 2012.
     Re Support S. 797, the Paycheck Fairness Act

     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the American Bar Association, I 
     am writing to urge you to vote for floor consideration of S. 
     797, the Paycheck Fairness Act. This legislation has the 
     widespread support of women across the country and deserves a 
     full and informed floor debate on its merits. The ABA 
     unequivocally supports S. 797 in its current form and urges 
     its prompt passage.
       Congress declared that equal pay for equal work was the law 
     of the land when it passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963. But, in 
     the 50 years since its passage, this historic legislation has 
     become outdated and ineffective, and wage discrimination 
     remains a persistent, widespread, and pernicious problem. 
     Women today, regardless of their educational level, their 
     occupation, or their state of residence, still receive 
     unequal pay for equal work, even in jobs such as secretary or 
     nurse that are predominantly held by women.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act would update key provisions of 
     the Equal Pay Act of 1963 without altering the basic scheme 
     of this historic statute or imposing excessive, novel burdens 
     on employers; indeed, the majority of its proposed changes 
     are borrowed from other civil rights statutes that have 
     proved more effective in eradicating workplace 
     discrimination.
       In anticipation of floor consideration, we offer the 
     following comments to address what we believe are 
     mischaracterizations and areas of confusion:
       The provisions of this bill apply equally to men and women 
     who experience sex-based wage discrimination. S. 797 is most 
     often described as a bill that will help working women 
     because women still are the primary victims of sex-based wage 
     discrimination. However, the bill clearly covers both sexes.
       Enactment of this bill will not make employers liable for 
     any and every wage differential. As with the current Equal 
     Pay Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act provides that an employer 
     is not guilty of wage discrimination if a pay differential is 
     based on seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, 
     or ``any other factor other than sex.'' The legislation 
     closes an existing loophole by clarifying that the ``factor 
     other than sex'' defense is valid only when it is based on a 
     bona fide factor (like education or training) that is job-
     related, consistent with business necessity, and where there 
     is no other alternate practice that would serve the same 
     business purpose without producing the wage differential. 
     This standard, adapted from Title VII discrimination cases, 
     is one with which courts already are familiar.
       Enactment of this bill will not encourage excessive 
     verdicts against employers that will bankrupt businesses and 
     jeopardize the recovery of our economy. In fact, the ABA 
     expects the opposite result. It is true that the bill would 
     strengthen and update the remedies available under the EPA by 
     allowing prevailing plaintiffs to recover compensatory and 
     punitive damages but, as with Title VII cases, the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act would permit an award of punitive damages only 
     upon a showing of malice or reckless indifference by the 
     employer. That is a very high standard to meet and, on top of 
     that, numerous existing limitations in current law that guard 
     against improperly high verdicts assure that compensatory and 
     punitive damages will not unduly burden employers.
       Enhanced remedies should make businesses more cognizant of 
     their legal obligations and more careful about how they set 
     wages. A renewed commitment by businesses to non-
     discrimination will help their bottom line by reducing future 
     lawsuits and creating a positive work environment.
       Furthermore, by helping improve the present and future 
     economic welfare of working women who make up about one-half 
     of the work force and who are the primary breadwinners in 
     more than 12 million families, the Paycheck Fairness Act will 
     foster financial security and a strong economy.
       Enactment of this bill will not impose unduly burdensome 
     and unnecessary reporting requirements on businesses. Data 
     collection is critical because it provides necessary 
     documentation of existing wage discrimination and enables us 
     to analyze the degree of success that various programs have 
     on eradicating it.
       The bill contains provisions to safeguard against 
     burdensome regulations by requiring the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission to ``consider factors including the 
     imposition of burdens on the employers, the frequency of 
     required data collection reports . . . and the most effective 
     format for data collection.'' It also directs the Secretary 
     of Labor to engage in research, education, and outreach and 
     to develop technical assistance material to assist small 
     businesses in complying with the requirements of the Act.
       It is clear that lip service alone to the American ideal of 
     a workplace free from discrimination will not help eradicate 
     gender-based wage discrimination. We urge you to transform 
     rhetoric into action by supporting floor consideration and 
     voting in favor of this much-needed remedial legislation.
       Please contact Denise A. Cardman, Deputy Director of the 
     Governmental Affairs Office, at 
     [email protected] if we can provide additional 
     information or assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                       Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III,
                                                        President.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. The ABA, which we know is a prestigious, distinguished 
representation of the American bar, says that when we passed the 
``equal pay for equal work'' act, it was landmark. Quoting again from 
their letter:

       But, in the 50 years since its passage, this historic 
     legislation has become outdated and ineffective, and wage 
     discrimination remains a persistent, wide-spread, and 
     pernicious problem.

  In commenting on this bill, the ABA says:

       The Paycheck Fairness Act would update key provisions of 
     the Equal Pay Act of 1963

[[Page 8236]]

     without altering the basic scheme of this historic statute or 
     imposing excessive, novel burdens on employers.

  Remember, again, this is not Senator Mikulski, this is the ABA saying 
it will not impose excessive or novel burdens on employers. Indeed, 
most of the proposed changes are borrowed from other civil rights 
statutes that prove more effective in eradicating workplace 
discrimination. This goes to what the ABA says.
  But now, Mr. President, I would like to yield 6 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlelady from New Hampshire--a Governor, a Senator, a 
real advocate who has had to not only be a leader in passing 
legislation but in implementing it. We welcome her insights and 
advocacy.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I am so pleased to be able to join our 
colleague and leader on so many issues that affect women and families, 
Senator Mikulski. I am here today to join her and our other colleagues 
who will be coming to the floor to talk about something that is a real 
matter of fundamental importance for our country.
  Workers should have equal access to every opportunity that will help 
them put food on the table, send their children to school, and save for 
retirement. Unfortunately, here we are in 2012 and still millions of 
American women lose nearly a quarter of their potential earnings to pay 
discrimination. Almost 50 years after the landmark Equal Pay Act banned 
wage discrimination based on gender, women in our country continue to 
be paid just over three-quarters of what their male counterparts 
receive for performing the exact same work. Every day this wage gap 
exists is a further injustice to current workers, such as my daughters, 
and to future members of the workforce, such as my granddaughters and 
so many other granddaughters of Members of this body.
  Pay discrimination does not just hurt the employee, it endangers the 
families who depend on these women. One in three working moms is her 
family's only source of income. With the money that mother loses to pay 
discrimination every year, she could be paying housing and utility 
costs on her home or she could be feeding her family, with money to 
spare.
  Back in the early 1980s, I chaired a task force for New Hampshire's 
Commission on the Status of Women looking at women and employment. What 
we found was discrimination in a whole range of areas, including, of 
course, pay discrimination. The conclusion of the report was that kind 
of discrimination against women does not just hurt women who are 
affected, it hurts their families, their children, their husbands, and 
it has a ripple effect throughout our economy.
  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 they make 78 
percent. When President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law in 
1963, women made less than 60 cents for each $1 earned by men. Today we 
make 77 cents. So we have made some progress, but clearly we still have 
a long way to go and a lot of work to do.
  I recently heard from a woman named Marie in New Boston, NH, about 
her experience with pay discrimination. She wrote:

       I worked for many years in a male-dominated company where 
     the fresh-out-of-college boys were paid substantially more 
     than I was for the same position.

  She continued to recount that she actually trained these same men to 
do their jobs, and yet she still was not paid at the same rate.
  Since the Equal Pay Act was enacted in 1963, the gender gap impacting 
wages has only narrowed by an average of half a cent per year. So at 
this rate, it is going to take another 45 years for that gap to close 
entirely.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act would make commonsense updates to the law 
by requiring pay differences to be based on legitimate business 
reasons. It would also protect women whose employers try to shirk their 
responsibilities by prohibiting employees from discussing their 
salaries. Finally, this important legislation would create a program to 
strengthen women and girls' negotiation skills so they can seek 
directly the pay they deserve.
  It is long past time for us to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. I urge 
all of our colleagues to support this legislation. It is bipartisan. It 
is good for women and their families, and it is good for the country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Now I would like to yield the floor for 7 minutes to our colleague 
from California, Senator Boxer. She and I served in the House. We serve 
in the Senate. We have been fighting this for a long time. Mr. 
President, I think you will find her words welcome and insightful. Her 
passion and her devotion to women is legendary. I yield 7 minutes to 
Senator Boxer.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Mikulski so much not only 
for yielding to me but for her extraordinary leadership in the Senate 
on so many issues of fairness and justice for women, for families, for 
children, and for our seniors. It is really a legendary record that she 
has amassed, and this is just one more example.
  I also thank President Obama for his leadership in calling attention 
to this important legislation, the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  If you were to stop someone on the street and in the simplest terms 
say: Do you think it is right to pay people differently for the same 
job? Do you think that is right--they have the same experience, the 
same education, the same qualifications--people would say: No, that is 
not right. Yet that is what has been happening to America's women, even 
though we have, since the 1960s, a very important law in place that is 
supposed to guarantee fair pay to everyone, including women. But women 
earn 77 cents for every $1 earned by a man. When you drill down to 
those numbers, you find out in a vast number of cases they are doing 
the same work as the man, making less.
  Of course, Lilly Ledbetter made a very important point about this and 
became quite famous with a Supreme Court case where she had been doing 
the same things as her male counterparts--working in a tire factory, 
being a manager, being skilled, being strong, and yet underpaid. When 
she discovered it, trying to seek justice, she was unable to do so. The 
Senate stepped to the plate, and with Democrats moving forward, we 
passed the Lilly Ledbetter law, which does take care of the statute of 
limitations. It allows you to take as long as you have to to get to 
court to make your case. For Lilly, it was too late, and she never was 
able to recover what she deserved.
  So now what Senator Mikulski has done with the Paycheck Fairness Act 
is to say we are going to go the next step. We are going to make sure 
that women have justice in the workplace, that women have rights.
  Why is this important to families--not just to women but to families? 
It is because over a lifetime of discrimination that so many women 
face, it is not like here where you are a Senator, you are a Senator, 
you are a Senator, woman or man, out there it is different. When you 
are discriminated against over a lifetime and are only getting 77 
cents--and some, by the way, only make 56 cents or 62 cents on the 
dollar--the average wage loss over a working lifetime is over $400,000. 
If you take a look at what our families could do with $400,000--educate 
a child, make sure people get the best of medical care, make sure the 
family has enough so they can all take a break together and have a 
decent vacation or buy a better car--this is an issue that not only 
involves women but our families and our economy because, guess what, if 
that $400,000 during a lifetime was with the family rather than the 
corporate CEO, who is making millions, you would see the economy 
stimulated

[[Page 8237]]

because middle-class families spend those dollars.
  They do not hoard those dollars. So I am going to close by giving a 
couple of real-life examples. Mr. President, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am going to tell you some real stories.
  A woman from California had an identical advanced degree as her 
husband. They both landed exact jobs but in different parts of the 
company--different worksites. The husband was offered $5,000 more in 
starting salary. They were shocked. The same resume. The same 
qualifications.
  Then there was the health care worker in Long Island who discovered 
she had been earning $10 an hour less than her male colleagues. When 
she brought it up to her superiors, she was reprimanded for even asking 
about the rationale behind the wage gap.
  Senator Mikulski's bill says a person cannot be reprimanded or 
punished because they are trying to find out if they are being paid 
fairly. That is why we have to pass this law. Anyone voting against it 
is taking a stand against women, is taking a stand against fairness, is 
taking a stand against justice, is taking a stand against our families.
  Then there was a female employee for a major corporation in Florida 
who was told when she was hired that to disclose her salary to other 
workers was grounds for dismissal. Since then she realized her male 
counterparts made more than she did. But she did not have any written 
proof.
  Another, a female employee at that company was told because her 
husband picked her up from work in a nice car that she did not need to 
get a salary increase. One woman retired after 15 years as an award-
winning CEO of a public agency. Her male replacement, who had little 
experience, was hired at a higher salary.
  After having a child, a California woman was fired from her job at a 
nonprofit. Her replacement, a man with less experience, was given 30 
percent more in starting salary. We have example after example after 
example.
  How the Republican side of the aisle could filibuster this bill is 
beyond my imagination. I do not know what they are thinking. They will 
give an excuse. They will come up with some excuse. They will say: Oh, 
it will hurt jobs. It will hurt this and that. It is all made up. It is 
all made up.
  In this great Nation, when we move toward equality, we all prosper 
together. I urge an ``aye'' vote. I thank Senator Mikulski for this 
moment to be able to support this important bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time for the majority has 
expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, might I ask the parliamentary situation?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now 30 minutes under the 
control of the Republicans.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. President, given that it is an election year, the 
American people are going to hear a lot of highly charged political 
rhetoric over the next few months. They are likely already tired of 
what they have heard. The Arkansans I talked with during the last week 
while traveling the State certainly have told me that much.
  They do not want to see the finger-pointing. They want us to fix the 
problems we face. They are tired of the back-and-forth. They are tired 
of us seeking credit and placing blame. They see an economy in shambles 
and nobody willing to take responsibility.
  To put it bluntly, they are frustrated. I think we all hear that 
message when we go home. I think we can all agree that more can and 
needs to be done. The jobs report that came out last Friday certainly 
reinforces that. When the President pushed through his massive stimulus 
package in 2009, he claimed unemployment would be below 6 percent 
today.
  With a national unemployment rate of 8.2 percent, we are not even 
close to 6 percent, much less below it. To make matters worse, we are 
moving further away from the mark. This is the 40th straight month 
where the unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent, and 12.7 
million Americans are unemployed. Millions more are underemployed. The 
economic picture is especially troubling for young Americans looking to 
enter the workforce.
  America has the lowest employment-to-population ratio for young 
adults since 1948. Millions of Americans who are looking for work 
cannot find it. This is unprecedented, it is unacceptable, and it is 
unsustainable.
  The President met the report with a call for another round of 
stimulus spending. Look, we have tried that. It did not work. More of 
the same will not work either. More government spending will not solve 
this problem. Paying for that spending by raising taxes on small 
businesses, the people we are counting on to turn our economy around, 
is certainly counterintuitive.
  When the people we are counting on to spur the recovery tell us the 
country is going in the wrong direction, then we should listen. In 
almost every poll small business owners have responded that the 
uncertainty coming out of Washington is what is preventing them from 
hiring. Quite simply, they fear what the next wave of regulations is 
going to be and the proposed taxes, what that will do to their ability 
to grow their business.
  Small business owners are afraid to invest any capital because they 
do not know what their taxes will be. They are afraid to hire another 
employee because they are nervous about what that will do to their 
health care costs and afraid to expand until they know how big their 
energy bill is going to be.
  Washington has to change course. My colleagues and I have a better 
path to a healthy economy that restores economic security and 
opportunity. Our market-based reforms are focused on creating a 
healthier environment for businesses to hire and to expand. We want to 
cut through regulations instead of adding more. We want to fix the Tax 
Code to incentivize hiring instead of passing the tab for more wasteful 
spending on to small business.
  We want to reduce their costs by encouraging the production of 
domestic sources of energy instead of driving costs up by continuing 
our reliance on other countries for our needs. Three years of trying to 
tax and spend our way out of this problem has not worked. The American 
people are rightfully frustrated.
  All we are saying is we tried the President's way and it has not 
worked. Let's try our market-based approach. But here is where we run 
into the old election-year problem. Ever since the numbers were 
released, all the media has been talking about is what the report means 
in terms of the Presidential election. This, in turn, has Washington 
digging in deeper to its respective trenches. That angle of the story 
misses the most important part. This is about more than numbers, more 
than a report, more than a political talking point. It is real people, 
all of whom are looking to Washington for help. It is past time we 
started fighting for them instead of for our political futures.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of equal pay for 
equal work. The importance of women in the workplace is clear to every 
American. We all have women in families who have been a proud part of 
the workforce. For two decades my mother worked hard in a school 
cafeteria. My wife, a substitute teacher, has long been part of 
Nevada's workforce. My oldest daughter, in this economy, was fortunate 
enough to get a job after graduating from college just a few years ago. 
My youngest daughter, 16, recently got a summer job at a local food 
lot. Sixty percent of my Senate staff is female.
  America is a land of opportunity, and Americans are equally united 
against discrimination in any form. If my mother, my wife, or my 
daughters experienced workplace discrimination based on their gender, I 
would be the first to come to their defense and ensure any inequities 
were addressed.
  Congress passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963 to ensure every individual 
received equal pay for equal work regardless of gender. It is a strict 
liability statute

[[Page 8238]]

that requires evidence of intent to discriminate. If there is evidence 
of intentional discrimination, appropriate remedies, including punitive 
and compensatory damages are available under the Civil Rights Act.
  Let me be clear: Pay discrimination based upon gender is 
unacceptable. Despite the political rhetoric around here, everyone 
agrees on this fact.
  The question is, Will the Paycheck Fairness Act actually address 
workplace inequality? The simple answer is no. Unfortunately, the only 
winners under this legislation would be trial lawyers, giving them a 
windfall, exposing employers to unlimited punitive damages.
  This legislation opens the door to frivolous lawsuits which already 
cost our economy billions of dollars every year. Legitimate cases that 
could be addressed under the current system would be lost in a flood of 
lawsuits initiated by lawyers hoping to win a few large judgments.
  These lawsuits, if successful, could transfer billions of dollars 
from employers to trial lawyers. In an economy already marked by 
uncertainty, this legislation would surely mean lost jobs, limitations 
on benefits, and pay cuts. These changes would mean much harder times 
ahead for Nevada's unemployed and underemployed, so many of whom are 
women.
  Instead of a trial lawyer bailout, let's address the issue of equal 
pay. Instead of holding votes designed for press releases, let's 
actually work to solve our Nation's problems. Congress can strengthen 
the Equal Pay Act without handing trial lawyers a blank check.
  The Wall Street Journal today referred to this legislation as ``a 
trial lawyer doozy just in time for the 2012 election ads.'' It goes on 
to say the bill ought to be called the ``Trial Lawyer Paycheck Act,'' 
since it is a recipe for a class action boom. The law automatically 
lists women as plaintiffs in class actions when lawyers sue employers, 
thereby requiring female employees to opt out of litigation with which 
they do not agree.
  Businesses would be treated as guilty until they are shown to be 
innocent. You cannot be projobs and antibusiness. This is just another 
example of the Democrats' war on free enterprise while Americans suffer 
with joblessness and underemployment.
  In fact, under this President there are 766,000 more women unemployed 
today than when he took office. I truly wish today's discussion was 
about leveling the playing field, truly ensuring pay equality and 
improving the economy. But years-old legislation mired in politics will 
not get us any closer to either ending gender discrimination in the 
workplace or ensuring that all women who want a job have a job.
  This proposal could not pass when Democrats controlled both Chambers 
of Congress. Yet here we are today voting on the same measure again and 
again. Those who are actually victims of workplace discrimination are 
only getting lipservice from Washington. Like many of my colleagues, I 
worry about this proposal that will only increase litigation and do 
little to actually address the problems of pay inequality.
  Advancements in pay parity have been made, but more needs to be done. 
Congress would better serve the hard-working women of our Nation if we 
focused on solutions that have actually worked. To this end, I have 
introduced the End Pay Discrimination Through Information Act. This 
legislation would protect employees who are trying to determine whether 
they are experiencing pay discrimination.
  No one in this body should be so naive to say that pay discrimination 
has been eradicated. What we need to do is ensure that employees can 
find the information they need to determine whether they have a 
legitimate claim against their employer. The End Pay Discrimination 
Through Information Act provides antiretaliation and whistleblower 
protections which both sides should be able to agree upon. My 
legislation is a solution within the existing framework of our legal 
system that does not provide a handout to trial lawyers as the 
underlying bill would do. My bill also recognizes the role of women in 
America's workforce and the fact that an increasing number of U.S. 
households depend upon the income of working women.
  My legislation states that ``equal pay for equal work is a principle 
and practice that should be observed by all employers.'' Every day 
working women are going above and beyond, balancing their 
responsibilities at home and at work to provide for their families. The 
least we can do is ensure that employers who intentionally discriminate 
on the basis of sex should be held accountable for their wrongdoing.
  I believe my bill is a reasonable bipartisan step in the right 
direction. Instead of bringing up legislation that has failed in the 
past and will in the future, this Congress needs to give our Nation the 
economic certainty needed to create good-paying jobs so hard-working 
women across this country will be able to provide for their families 
and achieve the career successes they deserve.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Kansas.


                            Medical Research

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, throughout history, medical research has 
been responsible for hundreds of groundbreaking discoveries that have 
improved and saved lives, enabled health care to become more effective 
and efficient, and lowered overall health care costs.
  May was National Cancer Research Month, and I wish to take a few 
minutes and recognize the importance of medical research and the 
invaluable contributions made by scientists, doctors, and researchers 
across the United States who are working not only to overcome cancer 
but many other devastating diseases.
  With decades of research, cancer mortality rates have steadily 
declined since 1990, and today more than 12 million Americans are 
cancer survivors. In fact, the number of survivors have quadrupled 
since the mid-1970s, and the overall 5-year survival rate for all 
cancers has improved to more than 65 percent.
  Decades of research and technological advances have brought us into a 
new era of medical care for cancer. We can now sequence all the genes 
of a tumor and use that information to determine the biological causes 
of cancer. This greater understanding of the causes of cancer has led 
to advances in prevention, early detection, and treatment that have 
saved countless lives.
  Despite significant advances in research over the last few decades, 
much work remains to be done. More than 1.5 million Americans are 
expected to be diagnosed this year with cancer. It is estimated that 
one out of every three women and one out of every two men will develop 
cancer during their lifetime. In America, cancer is still the leading 
cause of death.
  But history demonstrates that with a strong commitment to medical 
research, we can change these statistics not only for cancer patients 
but for many other patients as well. Congress's longstanding bipartisan 
support of the National Institutes of Health has been an integral part 
of establishing the United States as a world leader in research and 
innovation.
  NIH is the focal point of our Nation's medical research and plays a 
critical role in laying the groundwork for the private sector to 
develop new drugs and treatments for cancer and other diseases.
  I have seen firsthand how medical research at NIH is being translated 
into new treatments with a visit to the NIH Clinical Center in 
Bethesda, MD, which is the Nation's largest hospital devoted to 
clinical research.
  The Center is uniquely designed to enable researchers to work 
directly alongside a wide range of specialists who deliver the best 
possible care to patients with the most advanced treatments available. 
This powerful arrangement has led to a long list of revolutionary 
medical discoveries, including chemotherapy for cancer, the first tests 
to detect AIDS/HIV, and the first treatment of AIDS.
  Medical research leading to successful discoveries often takes years, 
requiring the institutional knowledge and intellect of numerous highly 
qualified, committed researchers. Given the

[[Page 8239]]

vast amount of progress made over the last century and the great 
potential current research holds, we must not waiver on America's 
commitment to advancing disease cures and treatments.
  If researchers cannot rely on consistent support from Congress, we 
will squander current progress, stunt America's global competitiveness, 
and lose younger generations of doctors and scientists to alternative 
career paths. Our Nation's researchers and scientists must know 
Congress supports their work and will ensure they have the resources 
needed to carry out their important work.
  The next century holds great promise for future discoveries. By 
investing in medical research, we are investing in our future.
  In Kansas, the bioscience industry has grown at a faster rate than 
the national sector since 2001. This growth opens the doors for new 
medical and technological advancements.
  Kansas has already become a leader in advancing biomedical and 
bioscience research. One example of this is the University of Kansas 
Cancer Center in Kansas City, which has formally applied to the 
National Cancer Institute to become an NCI-designated cancer center.
  The National Cancer Institute is a component of NIH, and it is our 
Nation's principal agency for cancer research and training. Obtaining 
NCI designation would dramatically enhance the KU Cancer Center's 
ability to discover, develop, and deliver innovative treatments to 
patients in our State, improving their quality of life.
  Currently, there are no NCI-designated centers in Kansas. With that 
NCI designation, KU Cancer Center patients would have access to the 
latest clinical trials and the most advanced cancer treatments close to 
home.
  Because NCI designation is the highest recognition for an academic 
cancer center, KU Cancer Center would also be in a better position to 
recruit the best and brightest researchers and scientists to develop 
cutting-edge treatments and cures in Kansas.
  In addition to saving and improving lives, medical research helps 
create thousands of jobs and drives economic growth across our country. 
NIH directly supports 350,000 jobs nationwide and indirectly drives 
more than 6 million jobs across our country.
  Medical research also lowers costs by advancing treatments to 
chronic, debilitating diseases and improving early detection and 
wellness promotion. During a Senate Appropriations health subcommittee 
hearing last year, I asked NIH Director Francis Collins to explain how 
medical research at NIH could reduce health care spending. In his 
response, Dr. Collins pointed to the potential impact of medical 
research on Alzheimer's.
  Today, annual costs related to Alzheimer's disease are roughly $180 
billion, and those numbers are expected to rise to roughly $1 trillion 
by 2050. However, medical research leading to treatments that delay the 
onset of Alzheimer's disease could not only bring a better quality of 
life to thousands of families but also save billions of dollars.
  Medical research has changed the lives of millions of Americans and 
has the potential to impact millions more because the possibilities are 
endless. But in order to plan for the future, scientists and 
researchers need certainty.
  Today, Congress faces the difficult task of identifying our 
government's funding priorities, while at the same time righting our 
Nation's fiscal course. I will continue to advocate for fiscal 
responsibility, and I will also prioritize programs that effectively 
serve the American people.
  Our consistent, sustained support of medical research is essential to 
saving and improving lives, growing our economy, and maintaining 
America's role as a global leader in medical innovation. This 
commitment will benefit our children and our country for generations to 
come. Most important, it will give us what we all desire, which is 
hope.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains on the minority 
side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 50 seconds remaining.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Has all time expired on the minority side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator 
from Delaware, Mr. Coons. The women of the Senate welcome those men who 
stand with us on this very important battle, and Senator Coons has been 
an outstanding advocate on this and other economic empowerment issues 
related to women, such as safety in the workplace and sexual 
harassment.
  I yield the Senator 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Paycheck 
Fairness Act, legislation to ensure the women of this country earn 
equal pay for equal work. I am grateful to Senator Mikulski--and many 
of our cosponsors--for her strong and able leadership on this important 
bill, S. 3220, which we will take up later this afternoon.
  The principle of equal pay for equal work is a simple, powerful 
principle of basic fairness. In this year of 2012, no one should earn 
less for doing the same job just because of their gender. This 
legislation is an important step forward. It would plug holes and make 
critical changes in the law that would ensure the promise of equal pay 
that was first enshrined in our law decades ago.
  This legislation will deter wage discrimination by closing loopholes 
in the Equal Pay Act and bar retaliation against workers who disclose 
their wages to colleagues. Knowledge is power, Mr. President. Women who 
don't know their male coworkers are earning more for doing the same job 
can't speak up and demand to be treated fairly.
  My wife Annie and I are raising three wonderful children, all of whom 
are equally bright and driven and capable. As any parent knows, one of 
the phrases we hear more than any other from our own children is, 
``That is not fair.'' When we pick out one for more entertainment or 
more opportunity, for more travel or more close family time, the first 
thing we hear from their siblings is, ``But, Dad, that is just not 
fair.'' As Annie and I raise our wonderful twin boys and our tremendous 
and talented daughter, we try as best we can to be fair. Yet I know my 
daughter Maggie, like other women and girls all across our country, 
will earn less than her brothers even if she chooses the exact same 
career track. That is just not fair. That is unacceptable. That 
violates our bedrock belief as a country in equality of opportunity and 
the American dream that if people work hard, nothing will stand in the 
way of their success.
  I am hopeful by the time my daughter Maggie enters the workforce we 
will have reduced or ended the gender pay gap in this country. I 
believe by then our Nation's economy will be back to full strength. But 
the fact is thousands of families across my home State of Delaware, the 
Presiding Officer's home State of West Virginia, and my neighboring 
State of Maryland can't afford to wait for things to get better in the 
economy and in our legal system. They are struggling right now to pay 
their bills every month, and unfair pay discrimination adds to their 
burden.
  Women in Delaware, on average, earn 81 cents for every dollar paid to 
men. Over their lifetime that means they will earn nearly $\1/2\ 
million--or $464,000--less than their male counterparts. Women make up 
just a shade under half of Delaware's workforce, and close to 40 
percent of married, employed mothers in Delaware are their families' 
primary wage earners. When

[[Page 8240]]

women are paid less than men for doing exactly the same job, it hurts 
whole families. Over 135,000 children in Delaware live in households 
that depend on their mothers' earnings.
  I heard from one of those mothers--Patricia from Dagsboro, DE. She 
wrote to my office urging me to support this legislation. She wrote:

       Without my paycheck, we could not have afforded to pay for 
     the college tuition for two of our children. If I had been 
     paid equally for equal work, experience and education, it is 
     likely neither of them would have had to take out student 
     loans to make ends meet.

  Patricia urged me to support the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Mr. President, paycheck fairness has wide-ranging consequences--from 
covering the cost of higher education to mortgage payments to everyday 
bills and consumer spending. Income earned by women is a key driver, a 
key contributor to our economy.
  Some on this floor have attributed the pay gap to differing 
priorities or to the idea that some women choose to work fewer hours in 
order to spend more time with their families or to meet their family 
care commitment. But the facts simply do not bear out this theory. 
Women earn less starting the very moment they graduate from school, 
before they have made any choices about family or worklife balance. 
That shows us pay discrimination is real. Study after study has shown 
it is pervasive and, in my view and that of many of my colleagues, it 
needs to finally be stopped.
  The gender pay gap persists across all occupations and educational 
levels. But it is especially hard on minorities and female-headed 
households, which are much more likely, as a consequence, to be low 
income. The consequences of the gender pay gap remain even when a woman 
stops working because after a lifetime of lower earnings, the average 
Social Security benefit for American women under 65 is about $12,000 
compared to $16,000 for men of the same age.
  If I might say, in conclusion, then, Mr. President, there is not a 
Member of this body who would dispute women are just as educated, just 
as trained, just as capable in so many ways as their male colleagues 
across our whole society and there should be no difference in the 
equality of the pay they receive for that work.
  I support the Paycheck Fairness Act because it will help women fight 
for the equal pay they have earned, and I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to yield time to the Senator from 
North Carolina, Mrs. Hagan.
  Senator Hagan is a freshman Senator, but she is certainly not new to 
this issue. Both in North Carolina's legislative body and in the Senate 
her work has always been for the economic empowerment of women, 
especially those women who stand every day and do those jobs requiring 
standing on their feet and at the end of the day have earned less pay 
and will get less in their pensions. As they stand for work, she stands 
for them on the Senate floor.
  I yield Senator Hagan 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Mr. President, I certainly want to congratulate Senator 
Mikulski for all the hard work she has done, not only on this bill but 
on all the bills on which she has worked so hard on behalf of women in 
our country. I applaud her for her efforts.
  I join with my colleagues to discuss an issue that affects women and 
families across America every day; it is the wage gap. Almost 50 years 
have passed since the Equal Pay Act was signed into law, and the wage 
gap between men and women remains wide today. It is time to bring the 
wages of women in line with those of their male counterparts.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act. 
Yet some question why we need this bill. Well, the numbers make it 
pretty clear. Women in the United States earn 77 cents for every dollar 
that men earn. In North Carolina, it is a little better but not equal. 
Women earn 81 cents for every dollar earned by men doing the same work, 
the same job. Over the course of 1 year, women in North Carolina 
experience nearly $8,000 in lost wages. That is $8,000 from what her 
male counterparts earn.
  With that $8,000, a woman could spend for her family an extra $110 a 
week on groceries for 73 weeks. She could buy another 2,200 gallons of 
gas at $3.60 a gallon. If women were paid the same as men for the same 
work, these are just a few of the expenses they would be able to afford 
more easily.
  The wage gap is not isolated in one industry either. It exists across 
virtually every sector of our economy. The wage gap exists regardless 
of education level. In many cases, the most educated women are paid 
less for the same work, and it exists regardless of a woman's personal 
choices, such as becoming a mother. Working mothers should not pay a 
penalty for having children.
  A group in North Carolina called MomsRising told me in the last few 
months they have heard from women across the State--from Wilmington, 
from Durham, from Greensboro, and from Raleigh--that once these women 
actually had children, they got overlooked for promotions, overlooked 
for pay raises, and overlooked for the projects on which they wanted to 
work. However, this collective group of women are afraid to speak out 
about their wage discrimination because in this economy they are 
worried about getting fired from the job they need to support their 
families.
  Yesterday I met with women and small business owners in Charlotte to 
discuss the Paycheck Fairness Act. My visit with those fantastic women 
reinforced for me the importance of this bill, the Paycheck Fairness 
Act. One woman brought her young son with her to the event and they 
both wore T-shirts that each had a number on the front. The mom's shirt 
said 94 and the son's shirt said 50. If earnings continue at the slow 
pace they are going now, those numbers signify the ages that mom and 
that son will be when pay equality is achieved in our country. Sadly, 
at the rate we are going, most of us in the Senate will not live to see 
that day.
  This wage gap has real consequences, not just for women but for their 
children too. In North Carolina alone, women head over 500,000 
households. The economic security of women and families is put at risk 
when they are paid less than men for performing the same jobs. Later 
today I will be voting to help close this gap, to help bring the wages 
of women in line with those of their male counterparts. I am hopeful 
that petty partisan gamesmanship does not get in the way of a 
bipartisan issue that both Democrats and Republicans, men and women, 
overwhelmingly support.
  In a recent poll, 81 percent of men and 87 percent of women supported 
having a law to provide women more tools to get fair pay in the 
workplace. This poll also showed support for such a law from 77 percent 
of Republicans and 87 percent of Independents and 91 percent of 
Democrats. With such widespread approval, we should be able to address 
this issue right away.
  We need Paycheck Fairness to prohibit employers from retaliating 
against employees who discuss salary information with their coworkers. 
We need Paycheck Fairness to strengthen the legal remedies available 
for women to ensure they can be compensated for pay discrimination. We 
need Paycheck Fairness to provide businesses, especially small ones, 
assistance with equal pay practices.
  On the eve of the anniversary of the Equal Pay Act, we need to close 
the loopholes that allow pay discrimination to happen. The Paycheck 
Fairness Act would do just that by helping women successfully fight for 
full pay.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. HAGAN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 additional seconds.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the Senator an additional 2 minutes.

[[Page 8241]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HAGAN. Equal pay for equal work to me is just basic common 
sense. I hope this body can come together to address this disparity 
that exists in North Carolina and around our country.
  I again thank Senator Mikulski for the work she is doing on behalf of 
this very important bill that is truly going to make a difference in 
the lives of women throughout our country, as well as their families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is time for both Republicans and 
Democrats to speak. We invite our Republican colleagues to come and 
speak. Even within the Republican Party, we know there are those who 
agree with us and those who do not. For those who agree, we would love 
to hear their voices. For those who do not, let's have a debate. Let's 
take a look at what are some of the issues being raised as a criticism 
of the bill. We are ready to talk about it.
  I have heard some of the most outrageous things on cable TV about why 
we should not pass this bill. One was accusing us that this will 
undermine small business. Small business has protections under the 
Equal Pay Act. Under the existing law--which this would not change--the 
Equal Pay Act already exempted small businesses that make less than 
$500,000 in annual revenue per year. It keeps the Equal Pay Act 
exemption intact.
  We also have the support of the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce. 
This is a chamber of commerce of small business owners. They support 
this bill. So we do not believe that is a valid argument.
  There is another argument going around that for some reason if we 
pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, somehow or another, we are going to 
lower the wages men make. That is absolutely one of the most 
ridiculous, rhetorical, twist-and-turn arguments. It is not factual and 
it is not legal. It is illegal now to remedy wage discrimination by 
reducing wages of other employees. I will quote--it is illegal under 
the other labor protection laws--and I don't mean labor such as in 
union, I mean labor such as in workers--it is illegal to remedy wage 
discrimination by reducing wages of other employees.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act doesn't alter any other affirmative defense 
available to employers. Employers may still pay different wages to male 
or female employees if it is based on seniority or quality of 
production. If someone is a guy on an assembly line and he makes more 
hubcaps than women, fine. But we find that is no longer true in the 
information age economy.
  Equal pay, I wish to say again, is not only a women's issue, it is a 
family issue. Sometimes we find we are discriminated against by great 
guys at the water cooler who tell us where it is. What people need to 
know is that right now it is legal to fire someone if they make an 
inquiry about how much they are making and how much their male 
counterpart is making. It is illegal or they can be subject to all 
kinds of harassment and humiliation.
  You ought to hear some of the horror stories we hear from women just 
because they wanted to know: George, how much are you making?
  We thank the good men who supported us. They have often been business 
whistleblowers, where they told us what they are making. They know we 
are working just as hard. We worked as hard to get the education to do 
the job, we worked that hard on the job, but we continue to have to 
work hard to get equal pay for equal work.
  I wish to make it clear once again, this legislation will not result 
in a lower paycheck for men.
  There is also a bona fide question, which is: Why are we doing 
paycheck fairness? Didn't we solve these issues in Lilly Ledbetter? 
Paycheck fairness was a downpayment on this because it kept the 
courthouse door open. Paycheck fairness makes it harder to discriminate 
in the first place. Right now, as I said, employers have the ability to 
retaliate against workers who share salary information. Ledbetter did 
not address this issue. Paycheck fairness does. Women can now, under 
Paycheck Fairness, sue for punitive damages. Lilly Ledbetter did not 
address this. This would deal with that.
  There are a variety of things I can elaborate on, but I see one of 
the real champions for justice, civil rights, and the empowerment--
especially the economic empowerment--of women, my colleague from 
Michigan, Senator Stabenow. I yield Senator Stabenow 7 minutes and 
thank her for her longstanding advocacy and work. She has raised her 
voice for those who often do not have a voice in high places of power.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, first, let me say thank you to the 
champion. We have just been hearing from the champion, not only in the 
Senate but in the Congress, on so many issues that have led to 
empowerment for women and equality for all people to have a chance to 
succeed in our economy. Certainly, whether it is preventive health for 
women or the Paycheck Fairness Act, I thank Senator Mikulski for 
leading the way and being the person we look to. I am proud to stand 
with Senator Mikulski on the floor of the Senate.
  Since our founding, our country has been a destination for those who 
seek equal treatment and equal opportunity. Across the world, America 
is known as the land of opportunity. I am very proud we have that 
label. Our hard work and ingenuity built the country, brick by brick, 
city by city. My home State of Michigan was right in the middle of it--
building the tools, the vehicles that built our country and that, 
frankly, built the middle class of our country. Those looking for new 
opportunity, those with entrepreneurial spirit have always been welcome 
here in America.
  People still make the journey to this country in search of a better 
life. We tell the world that everyone has equal opportunity, that if 
they put in just as much hard work as their neighbor, they will earn a 
decent living and be able to provide for their family. But that is only 
half true. Everyone can work hard, everyone can be successful, but for 
some reason it is acceptable that women do not need to be paid as much 
as men for the exact same work. This is unacceptable. That is what this 
legislation is all about.
  Nationally, women make 77 cents for every $1 a man makes for the 
exact same job. In Michigan, the numbers are even worse. Women make 74 
cents on every $1 for the exact same job. I received countless letters 
from constituents describing how this affects their lives and their 
families' lives. Teresa from Detroit is a single mom with two 
daughters. One daughter is in college. Teresa tries to help her out as 
much as she can, but she gets paid less than her male coworkers for 
doing the same work so it is tough.
  Pamela from Romulus, MI, is the sole breadwinner in her house, 
supporting her husband who is a disabled Vietnam veteran and their 
children. She works at a corporation and took over a man's job. Then 
the company changed the title so they could pay her less.
  Craig from Lowell wrote in to tell me his story. By the way, this is 
a common story in Michigan over the last number of years. He lost his 
job in 2008 because of the recession. His wife had to support their 
entire family of four. The family had to go on food assistance, 
something they never thought in their wildest dreams they would have to 
do because Craig's wife has been working at the same company for 23 
years but has not gotten a raise in the last 4 years and makes several 
dollars an hour less than her male counterparts.
  Melissa from Ann Arbor is the sole breadwinner in a family of four. 
She figured out if she were paid the same as her male colleagues, she 
would take home an extra $1,000 a month after taxes. She said that 
$1,000 would make her family more stable and let Melissa and her 
husband take her children on trips, give them new opportunities, allow 
them to be enrolled in sports and save for retirement--that extra $1000 
a month.

[[Page 8242]]

  Cheryl from Okemos has had to take a second job just to make as much 
as her male counterparts at her day job, and it has cut down on how 
much time she can spend with her family. She has a second job just so 
she can make as much as her colleagues who work one job--she has two 
jobs. The tradeoff for her is as a mom spending less time with her 
family. She is able to feed and clothe their children, but she says she 
is missing out on watching them grow up--also a very important value we 
talk about all the time on the floor of the Senate, in terms of values 
for families.
  Linda from South Lyon wrote about her lifetime of being discriminated 
against just because she is a woman. Over her career she has 
consistently made less than men in the same industry with the same job 
description. One executive even told her he only hires women because 
they work harder and he can pay them less. They work harder, but he 
should not be able to pay them less.
  Sandra from Marshall has worked as an engineer at the same company 
for 28 years. She has been rated as one of the company's best 
performers. Despite this, she has never risen to the level where she 
earns bonuses and a better pension--a level in her company that is 
dominated by men. She has countless people she has hired and trained 
and watched them pass her by. These stories are real.
  Jennifer, from the west side of Michigan, is a university teacher and 
athletic coach. She was the head coach of a varsity women's team and 
taught six classes. She saw men in the same position make more money 
while they taught fewer classes. She watched them receive tenure with 
master's degrees while she was required to work toward a Ph.D. to be 
eligible for the same tenure. She was denied tenure despite good 
performance evaluations. Yet a male assistant coach at the university 
was given tenure without a Ph.D. because he had a family. These are 
real stories.
  This is about families, economic opportunities, and security for 
families. America is known as the land of opportunity, and people still 
make the journey to our great country in search of a better life. 
Everyone has an equal chance to work hard and everyone can be 
successful, but not everyone gets the same opportunity to be 
successful.
  Women in Michigan make 74 cents for every dollar a man earns for the 
exact same job. There are so many families in Michigan struggling right 
now. It should not be harder on them just because the primary 
breadwinners are women. It is just not right.
  Middle-class families need economic security, and that is why we need 
the Paycheck Fairness Act. We have made strides to move forward. This 
is not complicated. It is not rocket science. It is very simple. This 
is about equal pay for equal work. We talk the talk all the time. It is 
time to walk the walk and to pass this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois and thank him for his persistent advocacy on this issue. 
Senator Durbin was one of the people in public leadership who said we 
have to really address this as we approach the 49th anniversary of the 
Equal Pay Act. We thank the Senator for his work, and we thank him for 
his voice today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me just say to those who are following 
this debate, if we go to the dictionary and look up the word 
``persistent,'' there will be a picture of Senator Barbara Mikulski of 
Maryland. She has been our leader on so many important issues.
  The very first bill signed by President Barack Obama--and she 
remembers the day, as I do--we were standing there when he signed the 
Lilly Ledbetter law, which protected the principle of equal pay for 
equal work by allowing workers to pursue pay discrimination cases 
beyond the arbitrary, unreasonable window that had been set up by the 
Supreme Court. When President Obama signed that first bill, his first 
bill as President of the United States, he handed the first pen of that 
signing to Senator Barbara Mikulski. It was entirely appropriate. No 
one has dedicated more of her professional and public life to this 
cause of justice than Senator Mikulski.
  It is nearly 50 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act. Now we 
have to ask ourselves, well, how are things going in America when it 
comes to equal pay? It turns out that when it comes to the managerial 
positions of women and men, women make 81 cents for every dollar paid 
to a man when they are managers of a business. According to the U.S. 
Census Bureau, the gap grows larger--77 cents for your daughter as 
opposed to a dollar for your son--when you look at the entire working 
population. As the father of a daughter and a son, that is unfair.
  According to the Joint Economic Committee, on average, women in my 
State of Illinois earn about 78 cents for every dollar paid to a man. 
What does that add up to over a lifetime? That adds up to over $480,000 
in wages that are denied to a woman who is doing exactly the same work 
as a man. That is money that could be used to pay the mortgage, to buy 
the groceries, to put kids through school, and maybe even fill the gas 
tank. That money is denied to women day after day, week after week, 
month after month because of basic discrimination in the workplace.
  We cannot ignore this gender wage gap. It is too large and, 
unfortunately, shrinking too slowly. The Paycheck Fairness Act--when we 
have a chance to vote on it--will narrow that pay gap by clarifying 
that the difference between a man and a woman is not an adequate reason 
to differentiate pay. It also guarantees that women facing 
discrimination have access to the same remedies under the law as men 
and, under the law, as are afforded to racial and ethnic groups based 
on discrimination.
  I am afraid to say it--and I hope I am wrong--that this afternoon 
when the rollcall is taken, it will be a partisan rollcall. There will 
be Democrats in favor of ending this discrimination, and virtually all 
Republicans--and I hope I am wrong about this--are going to vote 
against it.
  Instead, the Republicans want to bring a different bill to the floor. 
I am not going to dwell on it other than to say that I like Senator 
Rubio, he is a friend of mine from Florida, but his bill is a very bad 
idea. It is called the RAISE Act. Simply stated, it innocently says 
that an employer who is party to a collective bargaining agreement with 
a union would be allowed to give a unilateral pay raise to selected 
employees of that employer's choice. Well, who is against a pay raise? 
So you take a closer look at it. What it does is it allows managers and 
employers to pick and choose among employees for these pay raises and, 
sadly, without any basis other than their personal decision. I am 
afraid I know where that leads. Unfortunately, it leads to the same 
kind of wage discrimination we see today between men and women. It may 
lead to nepotism. It may lead to kind of favorable treatment for some 
employees for reasons that have nothing to do with the workplace. This 
sounds so innocent, but it is not.
  Under current law, unions and employers can agree to link pay 
increases and bonuses to performance, and that is the way it should be. 
In fact, many collective bargaining agreements already provide for 
merit-based pay increases. The Rubio approach is not good news for 
workers across America. It is no help to women across America facing 
wage discrimination.
  This is not the first time or the only time we have had these battles 
of gender equity on the floor of the Senate on the question of whether 
we are going to have basic funding for health care for women across 
America. For over 40 years, we have been committed to title 10, and yet 
we have faced the elimination of title 10 funding from the Republican 
leadership in the past. In fact, they threatened to shut down the 
government rather than provide this health care that women need. Many 
can remember a few weeks back on the Senate floor when Senator Blunt of

[[Page 8243]]

Missouri filed an amendment to the Transportation bill allowing any 
employer or insurance company to deny health insurance for any 
essential or preventive health care service that the employer objected 
to because of his undefined religious or moral convictions. They 
could--for any reason--deny health coverage to an employee. Well, we 
defeated the Blunt of Missouri amendment. It was another attempt to try 
to give employers a way to discriminate against employees and, in many 
cases, against the women who work for them.
  We have tried our very best to push through bipartisan legislation, 
such as the Violence Against Women Act, which in the past has passed 
overwhelmingly by a voice vote. Have you visited a domestic violence 
shelter? Have you seen a woman who has been a victim of domestic 
violence? I have. In Champagne, IL, a woman sitting across the table 
from me had a baby on her lap and had a big black eye. She had been 
punched in the face by her husband, and she came to the shelter looking 
for a helping hand. You can't look into the teary-eyed face of a mother 
and think that this is not a good cause and a just cause. Instead, it 
turned out to be a political battle here as to whether we were going to 
pass the Violence Against Women Act. We did, and I am glad we did. It 
stalled over in the House of Representatives because they refused to 
move that forward so we could provide this kind of protection.
  Time and time again, the basic legislation to protect women, 
families, and children used to be done on a bipartisan basis, used to 
be done unanimously, with supporters from both sides of the aisle, and 
it has now turned into partisan political bickering. Let's hope that 
when it comes to this bill, this question of fairness in the paychecks 
of women and men across America, that maybe I will be just flatout 
wrong. Maybe at 2:30 we are going to see a return to that thrilling era 
in the Senate history when Democrats and Republicans stood together for 
fairness and justice. We will give our colleagues a chance at 2:30.
  I thank Senator Mikulski for bringing this important and historic 
matter to the floor.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I note 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 Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. 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. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator 
from Louisiana, who chairs the Small Business Committee and really 
knows the impact of the economic issues related to the empowerment of 
women. She has worked on a bipartisan basis on this issue. Hopefully, 
she will comment on how this bill will have no negative impact on small 
businesses.
  I yield to Senator Landrieu for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, let me begin by acknowledging the 
leadership of the Senator from Maryland and the other Senators who have 
come to the floor this morning to speak on behalf of a bill whose time 
has come and, some might say, a bill whose time has passed. It has been 
almost 50 years since the original gender equity in the workplace bill 
was passed, and it has not been modernized in over five decades. So, in 
large measure, this is really a bill whose time has come, and we hope 
to make that law happen in the next few weeks. With support from both 
Democrats and Republicans and by putting common sense and heart and 
compassion and good business sense, might I say, before political 
talking points, this, in fact, could be done.
  The reason this bill is so important is because 50 years ago women 
were not major breadwinners in families. As the Presiding Officer 
knows, there was tremendous hiring discrimination against women and 
minorities. Happily, that seems to be passing and fading. There are 
women now at the highest ranks of corporate America. We have had women 
serving in the highest positions here in Washington, DC, and around our 
country. While there still is a gap that can be recognized both in the 
private and public sector, the ability for women, with the right 
credentials and the right background, to get hired is easier today and 
is happening more than ever before.
  The problem is that when we look at the wage gap, unfortunately, it 
still persists. With women now in many instances being the major 
breadwinners in their families, this is really a family issue. It is 
paying some families much less than others based on the fact that there 
is a woman as the breadwinner instead of a man. That is hurting 
families throughout America. It is not fair, and it should not be 
tolerated. That is why this bill, introduced by Senator Mikulski and 
cosponsored by many of us, is important.
  Wage discrimination is against the law and it has been for 50 years, 
but the consequences and the actions individuals can take if they feel 
as though they are being discriminated against are, in effect, 
different and not where they need to be. So this law updates the Equal 
Pay Act that was passed in 1963 to basically put the final nail in the 
coffin of wage discrimination.
  In 1967 women only earned 58 cents to every dollar a man earned in an 
equal--in an exact--position. That was grossly unfair, but it is still 
unfair today that women in the same job are still making only 77 cents 
for every dollar a man earns. It is not right, and it must be 
corrected. We can correct it by passing this law that gives people who 
believe they are being discriminated against better access to the court 
and, might I say, it also gives businesses that potentially are the 
ones being sued--even small companies or large companies--more 
protections in this bill than other businesses have in similar 
discrimination cases. In other words, frivolous lawsuits will not be 
allowed, and if a case is not strong, there is a screen that is tighter 
in this bill than in other pieces of legislation.
  I realize there is some opposition from the business community that 
contends that this bill will simply usher in more controversy or more 
courtroom time. But the fact is that is exactly the way our system was 
created. Congress passes laws and enforces equal pay for equal work. If 
people feel as though they are not being treated fairly under the law, 
they are supposed to try to modify that behavior out of court, and if 
they can't, then we ask them--we, in fact, want them--to go to court to 
try to get it settled. That is the American system. We don't want 
people to overuse courts or to abuse courts, but we most certainly want 
people who feel as though they are not being treated fairly under the 
law to have access to a court system.
  Might I say that despite the fact that our court system is regularly 
criticized, I would much prefer to show up in a court here than in Iraq 
or in Egypt or in Afghanistan or even in some places in Europe or most 
certainly some countries in Africa. America has a very transparent, 
fairly sophisticated and modern judiciary system, and it really is a 
model for the world.
  Sometimes I think we overlitigate in some areas, but where are these 
women supposed to go? What are they supposed to do--have an appointment 
with their Congressman, show the Congressman their paycheck? No. 
Congressmen don't do that. Judges do. And when they get their day in 
court, they can show their pay stubs, and they can then demonstrate 
that they have been doing the same job as the man next door but they 
have been getting paid 77 cents on the man's dollar. That is why this 
bill is important.
  I don't know for the life of me why the chamber of commerce is 
opposed. I think there are a lot of women in the chamber of commerce as 
business owners and as women who used to work for other businesses 
before they owned their own. I had hoped they would stand and speak for 
women everywhere, that when a woman shows up early in the morning and 
works until

[[Page 8244]]

late at night, they deserve to be paid the same as a man doing that 
exact job.
  According to the American Bar Association, in the 50 years since its 
passage, the Equal Pay Act has become outdated, ineffective, and wage 
discrimination remains persistent, widespread and pernicious.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. In my home State of Louisiana, wage discrimination 
based on gender is particularly problematic. According to the Joint 
Economic Committee Report, women in Louisiana do not earn 77 cents, 
they earn 69 cents for every $1 paid to men, which is significantly 
less than the national average.
  At the same time, women make up almost half--48 percent--of the 
Louisiana workforce, and 24 percent of married, employed mothers in 
Louisiana are their family's primary wage earners.
  This bill is the next step. It is the right step. It is the 
commonsense step to fight against wage discrimination, and I am proud 
to join my colleague from Baltimore, from the State of Maryland, in 
championing this particular bill.
  Again, I thank the Senator from Maryland and I look forward to 
working with her and my colleagues to try to get this bill to the 
President's desk in the next few weeks. This is an economic development 
issue, as the Senator from Maryland knows.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, 
first of all, we thank her for her statement. I wonder if she would 
yield for a question.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes, I will.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator chairs the Committee on Small Business and 
has been steadfast and has worked with the ranking member, Senator 
Olympia Snowe. Much has been said on cable TV about how this is going 
to smash and decimate small businesses. Is that true? I come from a 
small business family. My father owned a small grocery store. But 
cashiers are cashiers, male or female.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Absolutely. And it is not. That is why I stressed, I 
say to the Senator from Maryland, that in this bill, which the Senator 
has so ably sponsored and written, the screen to get into court is 
tighter than in other wage discrimination laws on the books. That is 
for the protection of all businesses, small and large, so they are not 
clobbered with frivolous lawsuits.
  But as the Presiding Officer knows, many women are employed in small 
businesses--I mean between 1 and 5 employees or 1 and 10 employees. 
They need to be protected in the workplace. Hopefully, we have created 
a balance between the owners of the business and their employees, 
whether they are union or not.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for her comments and clarification.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. 
Blumenthal, a newcomer, but certainly he is one whose experience in 
Connecticut as an attorney general, who has actually had to litigate 
some of these cases, brings excellent insight to this issue, and we 
welcome his remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, first, let me join so many of my 
colleagues in thanking the Senator from Maryland for being such a 
steadfast and strong champion and a model for me as a newcomer of 
leadership in the Senate. I thank all the women who have spoken today--
the women of the Senate--who are, on this issue and so often on other 
issues, our conscience in this body. They are cutting through the 
unfounded--indeed, counterfactual--arguments made against this measure, 
which is simply a commonsense fulfillment of the American precept that 
people who work equally hard and equally well should be paid equally.
  The question before this body is, are women worth less than men? The 
answer today and every day should be no. They are worth every bit as 
much as men when they work as hard and well, and they should be 
entitled to equal pay for equal work. Yet in too many jobs in 
Connecticut and around the country, women continue to earn 
substantially less than men.
  In Connecticut, the number is 78 cents on the dollar, and that fact 
is unacceptable.
  This issue goes beyond the women who are affected individually. It is 
about their families. Because, on average, mothers in Connecticut 
contribute 40 percent to their family's earnings.
  Closing the pay gap for women would strengthen the finances of 
families around Connecticut and across the country.
  This issue is about more than just women and families; it is about 
children. The burden of wage discrimination weighs heavily on the 
549,000 Connecticut children in households dependent on the money 
earned by their moms. The victims of this gender pay gap are the 
children of families whose mothers are discriminated against.
  This issue is about the economy. Those women who are denied equal pay 
have less to spend. If the wage gap were eliminated, working women in 
Connecticut would have additional earnings to purchase 109 more weeks 
of food for the average family, make 7 more months of mortgage payments 
or purchase 3,000 additional gallons of gasoline.
  I urge my colleagues to be on the right side of history. As Martin 
Luther King, Jr., said: The arc of history is long, but it bends 
towards justice. Let us do justice today in this measure and pass the 
Paycheck Fairness Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now yield the floor to Senator Harkin, 
the chairman of the HELP Committee, which is where this bill 
originated. We thank him again for all his hard work on this issue and 
others related to any wage discrimination and standing up for women. I 
yield the chairman of the committee such time as he requires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Mikulski for her 
tremendous leadership on this issue--a lot of issues, quite frankly. 
But she has focused laser-like attention on this issue for so long, and 
I would hope, when we have this vote at 2:30, we can at least get to 
the bill and debate the bill and have amendments on the bill. But I am 
afraid our Republican colleagues are not going to let us do that.
  Again, I applaud the senior Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski, for 
introducing the Paycheck Fairness Act and fighting so hard for so long 
for it.
  Again, to repeat what has been said before--but I think it needs to 
be repeated time and time again--in 1963, Congress responded to wage 
disparities between men and women by passing the Equal Pay Act of 1963. 
At that time, 25 million female workers earned just 60 percent of the 
average pay for men.
  Now, nearly half a century after the passage of that landmark law, we 
have made some progress toward eliminating this gross inequality, but 
it is not enough. There should be no gap. But today, a wage gap 
continues to exist within every segment of our economy, at all 
education levels and in all occupations. So for every $1 a man earns 
now, a woman earns just 77 cents. That is better than 60 cents, as it 
was in 1963. But one would think a half a century later we would at 
least be equivalent. But now it is still just 77 cents.
  Women's lower wages add up tremendously over a career. Over the 
course of a 40-year career, women, on average, earn nearly $400,000 
less than men. Women with a college degree or more face a career wage 
gap of more than $700,000 over a lifetime of work when compared with 
men with the same education.
  The consequences of the gender pay gap are enormous, impacting not 
just women but families as well. In today's economy, women represent 
half of all workers and earn an increasing share of family income. Two-
thirds of mothers are major contributors to family

[[Page 8245]]

income. In today's economy, when a mother earns less than her male 
colleagues, it is her family--her family--that often must sacrifice 
even the basic necessities, such as purchasing needed pharmaceuticals 
and putting healthy food on the table. In many cases, women have to 
work more hours to earn the same paycheck as men, reducing time spent 
with their family.
  While many factors influence a worker's earnings--including 
occupation, education, and work experience--there is overwhelming 
evidence that actual gender discrimination accounts for much of the 
disparity between men's and women's pay. But, unfortunately, our laws 
have not done enough to prevent this discrimination.
  While I am pleased that the first piece of legislation President 
Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act--again, that 
was only a first step; we need to do much more--too many women are 
still not getting paid equally for doing the exact same job as men. 
This is illegal, but it happens every day. There are just too many 
loopholes in our existing laws and too many barriers to effective 
enforcement.
  That is why we need to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. I thank 
Senator Mikulski for her leadership in advancing this bill. In 2010, we 
had a hearing on this in our committee, and I was hopeful it would pass 
in the last Congress. But as has happened too often in recent years, 
Senate Republicans filibustered the bill. So understand this: 58 U.S. 
Senators--58; that is more than just a small majority, that is a big 
majority--voted to support this legislation. But because of Republican 
obstructionism and filibusters, we could not even proceed to debate the 
bill because we had to have 60. We had 58 Senators supporting the bill. 
That was 2 years ago.
  Two years later, Republican obstructionism continues. I want the 
American people to understand this. Republicans--the minority party--
are preventing this Senate from even considering the issue of unequal 
wages and gender discrimination. Let me repeat: Republicans are not 
just preventing this important legislation from receiving an up-or-down 
vote, they are preventing the Senate--supposedly the world's greatest 
deliberative body--from even debating and considering the bill. 
Millions of women and their families are concerned about the fact that 
they get paid less than their male colleagues. Nevertheless, 
Republicans will not even allow a debate on the issue in this body, 
debate and amendment on the bill.
  As an aside, I might say another reason why we need filibuster 
reform. This country cannot go on like this. This country cannot go on 
with gridlock as we have had it in the Senate. We need to reform and do 
away with the filibuster as it now is being used. We need to do away 
with it when the Senate reconvenes after the election next January.
  Strengthening our existing laws by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act 
is the next step toward wage equality, but it cannot be the last one. 
We must also tackle the more subtle discrimination that occurs when we 
systematically undervalue the work traditionally done by women--I 
repeat, when we undervalue the work traditionally done by women.
  The fact is, millions of female-dominated jobs--jobs that are 
equivalent in skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions to 
similar jobs dominated by men--pay significantly less than the male-
dominated jobs. This is hard to fathom and impossible to justify.
  Let me point out a couple things. Why is a housekeeper worth less 
than a janitor? Mr. President, 89 percent of maids are female; 67 
percent of janitors are male. While the jobs are equivalent, the median 
weekly earnings for a maid is $387; for a janitor, it is $463.
  Truckdrivers--a job that is 95 percent male--have a median weekly 
earnings of $686. In contrast, a childcare worker--a job that is 95 
percent female--OK, we got that: truckdrivers are 95 percent male, they 
get $686 a week, median; a childcare worker, 95 percent female, has 
median weekly earnings of $400.
  Why do we value someone who moves products more than we value someone 
who looks after the safety and well-being of our children? I am not 
here to say the truckdriver is overpaid; it is to say that jobs we 
consider ``women's work'' are underpaid.
  When we connect these things we say: You are right. Jobs we think of 
traditionally as being women's jobs are totally undervalued in our 
society. That is why in every session of Congress since 1996 I have 
introduced the Fair Pay Act along with Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes 
Norton, which would require employers to require equal pay for 
equivalent jobs--equalize pay for equal jobs. This bill would require 
employers to provide equal pay for jobs that are equivalent in skill, 
effort, responsibility, and working conditions.
  Now, one might say: Well, that sounds way out. How can we do that? 
Well, in 1982, the State of Minnesota implemented a pay equity plan for 
its State employees. They found that women were segregated into 
historically female-dominated jobs, and these jobs paid 20 percent less 
than male-dominated jobs. So the State of Minnesota instituted this 
law. Pay equity wage adjustments were phased in over 4 years, leading 
to an average pay increase of $200 per month for women in female-
dominated jobs. The wage gap closed by approximately 9 percent.
  In 1984, the Republican Governor, Republican Legislature, passed 
similar legislation in the State of Iowa: pay equity for equivalent 
jobs--equivalent jobs. So this is not unheard of in this country. It is 
unheard of for us to do it at the Federal level covering everybody, but 
some States have already taken leave--as I said, Minnesota in 1982 and 
Iowa in 1984.
  This bill would require employers to publicly disclose their job 
categories and pay scales--not individual employees' pay but their 
categories and pay scales. That way a woman would know whether she 
needed to negotiate a better deal. Right now women who believe they are 
the victim of pay discrimination must file a lawsuit and endure a 
drawn-out legal discovery process to find out whether they make less 
than the man working beside them. Well, with pay statistics readily 
available for categories and pay scales, this whole process could be 
avoided.
  I asked Lilly Ledbetter at a hearing once: If the Fair Pay Act, the 
one I am talking about now, had been law, would it have obviated your 
wage discrimination case? She said with the information about pay 
scales this bill provides, she would have known she was a victim of 
discrimination and could have addressed the problem much sooner, before 
it caused a lifelong drop in her earnings and before she had to go all 
the way to the Supreme Court to try to make things right.
  If Republicans allowed us to proceed to the bill, I would offer the 
Fair Pay Act as an amendment. Yet I emphasize again, because of the 
Republican obstructionism, we cannot even debate or amend the bill. We 
cannot even bring it up and amend the bill.
  Finally, I want to comment on the RAISE Act. My Republican colleagues 
would have us believe that we can solve the pay gap by allowing 
employers to give merit-based pay increases above levels negotiated in 
a collective bargaining agreement. Well, this is nonsense. The RAISE 
Act has nothing do with women's pay. Rather than seriously discussing 
gender discrimination, the Republicans have tried to change the subject 
by resorting to yet another partisan attack on organized labor--on 
labor unions.
  In fact, not only does the RAISE Act do nothing to address the 
discrimination faced by women in this country, the RAISE Act would both 
exacerbate the wage gap and lower pay for all workers. Collective 
bargaining agreements raise wages for all workers. The RAISE Act would 
undermine collective bargaining by requiring that all union contracts 
include provisions allowing employers to unilaterally grant wage 
increases to select employees.
  The primary effect would be to weaken the union's ability to bargain 
for higher wages for all workers. It would

[[Page 8246]]

also give employers unfettered discretion to dole out pay increases to 
preferred employees. That is a recipe for more discrimination, not 
less.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with Senator Mikulski in support of the 
Paycheck Fairness Act today. It is a simple, commonsense piece of 
legislation. There is no reason we should not take it up and pass it 
right away. Once we have closed the loopholes and ensured effective 
enforcement of the Equal Pay Act, we must turn our attention to the 
millions of women, especially low-wage workers, whose work is 
undervalued. Think of childcare workers. Think of the women who are now 
taking care of our elderly who are living longer but need supportive 
care in their later years, mostly women. Why is that work being 
undervalued? We must ensure they receive the recognition and fair 
treatment and fair pay they deserve by passing the Fair Pay Act.
  In closing, the fight for economic equality is far from over. It 
should not be over until every working woman in America receives a fair 
day's pay for a fair day's work.
  As the chair of the HELP Committee, I plan to keep advocating for 
fair pay and focusing on equal wages until we have achieved real 
equality for women across the country. But first things first. It is 
time for our Republican colleagues to end the filibuster and allow the 
Pay Check Fairness Act to come to the floor this afternoon for debate, 
amendments, and a final vote.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, we have an opportunity to take 
another long overdue step to close the wage gap between men and women. 
Equal pay for equal work should not be a Democratic nor a Republican 
issue but an American issue of basic fairness. It is shameful that 
gender discrimination still exists in our country and more so at a time 
when women make an ever-increasing number of heads of households. That 
is why I am proud to join Senator Mikulski as a cosponsor of the 
Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Vermont has been a leader in the fight of equal pay for equal work. 
According to a recent report by the American Association of University 
Women, the State of Vermont leads the Nation, second only to the 
District of Columbia, in equal pay issues, yet Vermont women still make 
just 84 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts. Over a 
decade ago, the Vermont Legislature passed legislation requiring equal 
pay for equal work, barring employers from retaliating against 
employees for disclosing the amount of their wages, and made it easier 
to file wage discrimination claims. Unfortunately, not all States offer 
these protections. The Paycheck Fairness Act is a step in the right 
direction to bring Vermont's inclusive example to the Federal level.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act sets out a clear path to address the 
systemic problems that result from pay disparities. It takes critical 
steps to ensure that employers follow the law; prohibits retaliation 
against workers for disclosing their own wage information or for filing 
a charge in an Equal Pay Act proceeding; strengthens penalties for 
equal pay violations; adds programs for training, research, technical 
assistance to help better identify and handle wage disputes; and 
establishes a national award for pay equity in the workplace 
recognizing employers who demonstrate ``substantial effort to eliminate 
pay disparities between men and women.''
  The Paycheck Fairness Act would also narrow the criteria under which 
an employer can defend pay disparities and enlist the Department of 
Labor to help eliminate gender-based pay gaps. This bill would ensure 
that American women and their families aren't taking home smaller 
paychecks because of their gender. Another piece of this legislation 
specifically deals with reforming the procedures and remedies for 
enforcing the law. It would mandate record-keeping and data collection 
for better enforcement of the law. Under this bill, the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission would be directed to issue 
regulations for the collection of wage data from employers based on 
sex, race, and ethnicity.
  This legislation would be another in a series of bills seeking to 
address the harms against working women. The Equal Pay Act was enacted 
in 1963 to protect employees against wage discrimination with respect 
to an individual's race, ethnicity, religion, or sex. It is true that 
we have closed the wage gap for women versus their male counterparts 
from 61 cents on the dollar in 1961 to 77 cents today, according to the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, that decreases to 62 cents on the 
dollar for African-American women and just 53 cents on the dollar for 
Hispanic-American women. Being 77 percent right is not good enough. The 
efforts to achieve parity for women in the workplace must continue.
  In 2009, I joined Senator Mikulski and others in introducing the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. That bill was necessary to 
remedy the Supreme Court's divided decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, 
which struck a severe blow to the rights of working families across our 
country. The Ledbetter decision stripped back 40 years of progress to 
eliminate workplace discrimination.
  In that case, Ms. Ledbetter worked for nearly 20 years as a manager 
at a Goodyear factory in Gadsden, AL. After decades of service, she 
learned through an anonymous note that her employer had been 
discriminating against her for years. She was the only woman among 16 
employees at her management level, yet Ms. Ledbetter was paid between 
15 and 40 percent less than all of her male colleagues, including 
several who had significantly less seniority. After filing a complaint 
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a Federal jury found 
that Ms. Ledbetter was owed almost $225,000 in back pay. However, five 
members of the Supreme Court overturned her jury verdict because she 
had filed her lawsuit more than 180 days after her employer's original 
discriminatory act. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act 
restored victims' ability to file suit for pay discrimination and was 
among the first bills to be signed into law by President Obama. It is 
not surprising that yesterday the administration announced its strong 
support for the Paycheck Fairness Act. Congress should send this 
legislation to President Obama to be signed into law, without delay.
  Wage discrimination affects women of every generation and every 
socioeconomic background. It is not limited to one line of work or 
level of education. The Paycheck Fairness Act is a step in securing 
that equal pay for equal work is more than just a slogan or an ideal 
but a reality for every American, regardless of gender, race, or any 
other factor that does not evaluate people on the basis of what they 
can offer and what they can contribute to the workforce. I urge all 
Senators to join in passing the Paycheck Fairness Act to ensure all of 
our daughters and granddaughters and future generations of Americans 
are not subject to the same injustice that has plagued women for 
decades.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, above my desk in Washington is a copy of 
the labor contract that was signed by my grandfather, Asakichi Inouye, 
in July 1899. In the agreement, my grandfather would be paid $15 a 
month to work at the McBryde Sugar Company on the Island of Kauai. My 
grandmother, Moyo, would be paid $10 a month. Women like my grandmother 
were an important part of the workforce for Hawaii's sugar plantations, 
but they were paid less for doing the same type of work as men and did 
not receive the same advancement opportunities. While our Nation has 
made great strides in promoting gender equity since 1899, there is 
still more to do.
  According to the Joint Economic Committee, women in Hawaii today earn 
76 cents for every dollar paid to men. Over a 40-year career, a woman 
in Hawaii would earn $433,000 less than her male counterparts. Women 
represent 48 percent of my State's workforce and 41 percent of married 
women are their families' primary wage earner. Studies have shown that 
the gender wage gap affects women regardless of their educational level 
or occupational field. Eliminating the wage gap is not only a matter of 
fairness for equal pay

[[Page 8247]]

for equal work; it is also one of economic security for middle-class 
families.
  In a challenging economy, men are more likely than women to lose 
their jobs. This means that families across the country increasingly 
have had to rely on a woman's paycheck to make ends meet. For 
vulnerable families hard hit by unemployment, closing the wage gap 
would help put food on the table or pay the mortgage. Let us also 
remember that the wage gap undermines women's retirement security 
through reduced Social Security benefits.
  S. 3220, the Paycheck Fairness Act, strengthens the foundations of 
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. 
The Paycheck Fairness Act would provide for stronger enforcement of 
prohibitions against wage discrimination. It would also prohibit 
retaliation against workers who ask about pay practices or disclose 
their own pay. In short, the Paycheck Fairness Act would help women 
successfully fight for the equal pay they have earned.
  In 1963, when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act, women earned 59 
cents to every dollar earned by men. Today, women earn 77 cents to the 
dollar. At this rate, the wage gap would take more than 40 years to 
close. Women and their families cannot wait any longer. My vote today 
is not only to recognize and honor the work of women since my 
grandmother's generation, but it is also a vote for economic justice 
for future generations of young women like my granddaughter. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to stand in support of 
equal pay for equal work.
  Forty-nine years ago, the Equal Pay Act was signed into law. Yet, 
gender-based wage discrimination remains a serious problem for women in 
the U.S. workplace and it has very real implications for their 
families.
  Today we will vote on legislation that is a matter of basic justice 
and fairness. The Paycheck Fairness Act will update the Equal Pay Act 
by closing loopholes and strengthening incentives to prevent pay 
discrimination by employers.
  Without a doubt, the Equal Pay Act has helped women achieve 
significant progress in the workplace. However, the gender pay gap 
remains just as real today as it was almost 50 years ago.
  It is true: Although women make up about half of today's workforce, 
women still earn only about 77 percent of what men earn. That's wrong.
  Women in the workplace, the women who head households or earn the 
only paycheck in a family--the women in the trenches of this economy--
know this fundamental truth:
  The gender wage gap exists--it is not a myth.
  It has implications for families and our economy.
  It has been with us too long and we have a chance and obligation to 
fix it.
  I have heard lots of stories about paycheck disparities in 
California. I know my colleagues have heard similar stories from women 
in their states.
  In-depth studies reveal the existence of gender pay disparities, 
regardless of age, occupation, education or marital status.
  According to the National Partnership for Women & Families, the pay 
gap has been narrowing by one-half of a cent every year since 1963.
  This means, without Congressional action, women will not achieve pay 
parity with men until the year 2056.
  Let me share a story about a woman from Sylmar, CA who worked at a 
local retail store. She wrote me a letter and said:

       I know firsthand about unequal pay for equal jobs. I worked 
     with two male associates, all doing the same job. I was hired 
     at 25 cents more an hour than the two males because I had 
     more job experience.
       Less than six months later, I learned that one of the males 
     had received a `merit raise' which put his hourly rate higher 
     than mine. He had been absent many times.
       When I asked for a merit raise, based on no absences, good 
     customer comments and always going above and beyond in my 
     job, I was told by male management: ``You don't deserve a 
     merit raise.''

  The discrimination was obvious.
  In California, there are 5.3 million children--2.6 million 
households--wholly or partially dependent on a mother's earnings.
  According to recent census estimates, in California, the average pay 
for a woman working full time, year round is $41,302 per year, while 
the average for a man is $49,453.
  This means that women are paid 84 cents for every dollar paid to men.
  Put another way, this amounts to a yearly gap of $8,151 between full-
time working men and women in the State.
  The figures are even worse for women of color. African American women 
earned about 62 cents and Latinas only 57 cents for every $1 earned by 
a male.
  As a group, full-time working women in California lose approximately 
$36 billion each year due to the wage gap.
  According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, if the 
wage gap were eliminated, a working woman in California would have 
enough money for approximately 62 more weeks of food, four more months 
of mortgage and utilities payments, seven more months of rent, 25 more 
months of family health insurance premiums or 1,914 additional gallons 
of gas.
  Equal pay in not only a women's issue--millions of families rely on a 
woman's paycheck for its family's earnings.
  Women are critical to driving this economy. So ensuring equal pay for 
equal work benefits the entire economy.
  When women earn less than men, fewer dollars are available to go back 
into the economy as consumer spending.
  As we emerge from one of the worst recessions in history, the 
Paycheck Fairness Act would ensure that American women and their 
families aren't bringing home smaller paychecks because of 
discrimination. Let's pass this commonsense bill and move one step 
closer to paycheck fairness.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, at a time when families across America are 
struggling to make ends meet, equal pay for equal work isn't just a 
women's issue, it is a family issue. As the father of two daughters, I 
also see it as a fairness issue. I am an original cosponsor of the 
Paycheck Fairness Act because all of our daughters deserve the right to 
be compensated and valued fairly. This bill would take strong action to 
address the gender pay gap by helping women successfully fight for the 
equal pay they earn.
  This bill would address the pay gap by enhancing enforcement of equal 
pay laws. Specifically, it would prohibit retaliation against workers 
who ask about or discuss wage information, and would provide more 
effective remedies for women subjected to discriminatory pay practices. 
It also requires the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to collect 
pay data to enable better enforcement of laws prohibiting pay 
discrimination.
  Across the Nation, women continue to earn substantially less than men 
for performing the same work. Women earn only 77 cents for every $1 men 
earn, with women of color at an even greater disadvantage with 64 cents 
on the dollar for African-American women and 56 cents for Hispanic 
women. As more and more American families rely on women's wages for a 
significant portion of their income, the pay gap hurts not only women, 
but the families that depend on them.
  Today, in my home State of Massachusetts, women make up 49 percent of 
the state workforce and 31 percent of married employed mothers in 
Massachusetts are their families' primary wage earners.
  Unfortunately, women in Massachusetts earn less across all 
occupations and educational levels. Research clearly demonstrates that 
regardless of occupation, education, industry, marital status, and 
other factors, pay for women lags behind their male counterparts. 
Women's median earnings are less than men's median earnings in almost 
every major occupation.
  This burden of wage discrimination weighs heavily on the almost 1 
million Massachusetts children in households dependent on their 
mothers' earnings. As the main breadwinners, women are asked to carry a 
greater economic load

[[Page 8248]]

while only earning 81 cents for every $1 paid to men. Over their 
lifetimes, these Massachusetts women will earn $475,000 less than their 
male counterparts. This pay gap has harmed the families of roughly 
1,576,000 women in the Massachusetts workforce, especially as the 
workforce participation rate of women has risen. On average, mothers in 
Massachusetts contribute to 37 percent of their family's earnings. 
Closing the gender pay gap would strengthen the finances of these 
families, and the State economy. If the wage gap is eliminated, these 
families would have additional earnings to purchase 83 more weeks of 
food or 5 months of mortgage payments or more than 2,500 additional 
gallons of gasoline.
  I am disappointed and frustrated that the Senate failed to move ahead 
on this important legislation due to minority opposition. Republicans 
filibustered this commonsense legislation that would ensure fair pay 
for equal work--and then not a single Republican Senator voted in favor 
of moving it forward. It is incomprehensible to me that Members who 
claim to want to strengthen the economy and provide jobs for everyone 
would vote to ignore half of our population. Economic security should 
be for all Americans and legislation ensuring a level playing field 
just makes sense. Eliminating the pay gap will make Massachusetts 
families and families across the Nation more secure.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today the Senate is once again attempting 
to move forward with the Paycheck Fairness Act. This legislation would 
strengthen and modernize the Equal Pay Act of 1963 by providing new 
tools to combat gender-based wage discrimination. Among other things, 
this bill would require employers to demonstrate that wage differences 
between genders for comparable work are due to business decisions, and 
not gender. It also would prohibit employers from retaliating against 
employees who inquire about wage practices or share salary information 
with their colleagues. And it would strengthen penalties for equal pay 
violations.
  Closing the gender pay gap is always an important and worthwhile 
goal, but this is the case especially in the current tough economic 
climate where it is increasingly common for women to be the primary or 
even sole bread winner in a family. For example, in Michigan, over a 
third of families with dependent children rely on a working mother's 
salary for their primary income. This represents the families of over 
half a million children. And here is the important part--while the 
averages have varied, current figures indicate that women still only 
make 77 cents for every dollar made by their male counterparts.
  These are prolonged, tough, economic times, and there is no 
justifiable reason for the U.S. Senate not to do everything in its 
power to support policies that can help women in this country support 
themselves and their families by ensuring they are being paid the same 
wage as their male counterparts for comparable work. This is not just 
an issue of gender equality; it is one of economic equality and 
fairness. It is deeply discouraging for our Republican colleagues to be 
filibustering this measure.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, when the Senate rejected this legislation 20 
months ago in a bipartisan vote it did so for the right reasons. The 
fact is, discriminatory pay practices are already illegal, and properly 
so. Congress has put two laws on the books to combat such 
discrimination--Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal 
Pay Act of 1963. These are both good laws that have been well-utilized 
to combat discrimination where it exists, and I support full 
enforcement of those laws. When a female or male employee is being paid 
less simply because of gender it must be corrected and penalized. 
According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, 
employees received more than $150 million through successfully-resolved 
Title VII and EPA discrimination claims last year, the largest amount 
awarded in 15 years.
  I am confident that there is no member of this Senate who would 
tolerate paying a woman less for the same work simply because she is a 
woman. As husbands, fathers and mothers of working women, I believe we 
all recognize the gross inequity of discrimination in pay based on 
gender. But what the majority is trying to push through here today is 
of a very different nature. The so-called Paycheck Fairness Act is 
misnamed. It should actually be called a Profiteering Trial Lawyers 
Bonanza bill. The primary beneficiary of this legislation will be trial 
lawyers. They will be able to bring bigger class action lawsuits 
without even getting the consent of plaintiffs, and they will have the 
weapon of ``uncapped damages'' to force employers to settle lawsuits 
even when they know they have done nothing wrong. The litigation 
bonanza this bill would create would extend even to the smallest of 
small businesses, only further hampering the lagging economic recovery.
  With unemployment trending back up to 8.2 percent, this is simply not 
a chance we can afford to take. When the Senate last rejected this 
bill, unemployment had been above 8% for 20 months. Now, it has doubled 
to 40 months, and it is trending higher. If we include the significant 
numbers of people that have simply dropped out of the workforce, the 
unemployment rate is over 14 percent. The United States is in very 
dangerous territory right now. This is not the time to pass this 
harmful legislation.
  There are a number of other concerning provisions of this bill, such 
as authorizing the government to require reporting of every employer's 
wage data by sex, race and national origin. Had this bill gone through 
committee mark up under regular Senate order, we may have been able to 
address some of these concerns. But this bill, like so many others this 
Congress, has circumvented regular order.
  The Senate rejected this identical bill on a bipartisan basis 20 
months ago because it will insert the Federal Government into workplace 
management decisions like never before. This intrusion will benefit 
trial lawyers and harm job growth and employment, which will affect 
both women and men.
  Supporters of the bill cite wage data that the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics itself says ``do not control for many factors that can be 
significant in explaining earning differences.'' In fact, studies show 
that if you factor in observable choices such as part-time work, 
seniority and occupational choice, the pay gap stands between 5 to 7 
percent. Some of these choices are simply personal prerogative, and I 
would not question the choices that anyone makes with regard to family 
obligations, job security and the quality of fringe benefits such as 
health, retirement and childcare. But to a large extent this remaining 
gap is due to occupational choice. It is unfortunate that this Congress 
has not done more to foster a job growth environment and improve job 
training programs like the Workforce Investment Act that could prepare 
more women to enter higher earning occupational fields. Surely this 
would be a more reasonable solution than a trial lawyer bonanza sure to 
disadvantage all employers and depress job growth to the disadvantage 
of all employees.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of 
opposition to S. 3220. I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     May 24, 2012.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Leaders Reid and McConnell: The undersigned urge you 
     and your colleagues to VOTE NO on cloture on the motion to 
     proceed to the Paycheck Fairness Act (S. 3220). The vote is 
     currently scheduled for June 5. Our organizations represent 
     millions of employers who are committed to ensuring equal 
     employment opportunities for men and women alike. While we 
     have no tolerance for unlawful discrimination, we vigorously 
     oppose S. 3220.
       The Paycheck Fairness Act would impose unprecedented 
     government control over how employees are paid at even the 
     nation's smallest employers. This flawed legislation could 
     outlaw many legitimate practices that employers currently use 
     to set employee pay

[[Page 8249]]

     rates, even where there is no evidence of intentional 
     discrimination. Common practices that a court could find 
     unlawful under S. 3220 include providing premium pay for 
     professional experience, education, shift differentials or 
     hazardous work, as well as pay differentials based on local 
     labor market rates or an organization's profitability. This 
     level of government intervention in employee compensation is 
     both unprecedented and unwarranted in the United States.
       The provisions of the Paycheck Fairness Act would harm 
     employers of all sizes, as the bill would apply to employers 
     with as few as two employees. The threat the bill poses to 
     small business is particularly troubling given the draconian 
     penalties found in this legislation, which include unlimited 
     damages regardless of whether a pay discrepancy was 
     unintentional.
       A number of federal laws already specifically protect 
     employees from pay discrimination, including the Equal Pay 
     Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay 
     Act. These laws prohibit pay disparities based on gender and 
     provide robust remedies and damages to victims of pay 
     discrimination. As The Washington Post editorial board stated 
     in 2009, adding the Paycheck Fairness Act to these existing 
     laws ``risks tilting the scales too far against employers and 
     would remove, rather than restore, a sense of balance.'' In 
     2010, the Boston Globe wrote ``the measure as a whole is too 
     broad'' and the Chicago Tribune described the bill as 
     ``grossly intrusive.''
       Once again, we urge all senators to oppose the Paycheck 
     Fairness Act.
           Sincerely,
         American Bakers Association, American Bankers 
           Association, American Hotel & Lodging Association, 
           Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc., College and 
           University Professional Association for Human 
           Resources, Food Marketing Institute, HR Policy 
           Association, International Public Management 
           Association for Human Resources, National Association 
           of Manufacturers, National Association of Wholesaler-
           Distributors, National Council of Chain Restaurants, 
           National Council of Textile Organizations, National 
           Federation of Independent Business, National Public 
           Employer Labor Relations Association, National 
           Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, 
           National Roofing Contractors Association, Printing 
           Industries of America, Retail Industry Leaders 
           Association, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, 
           Society for Human Resource Management, U.S. Chamber of 
           Commerce.
                                  ____

                                         U.S. Chamber of Commerce,


                               Congressional & Public Affairs,

                                     Washington, DC, June 4, 2012.
       To The Members of The United States Senate: The U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation 
     representing the interests of more than three million 
     businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and 
     region, strongly opposes S. 3220, the ``Paycheck Fairness 
     Act.'' The Chamber strongly supports equal employment 
     opportunity and appropriate enforcement of the Equal Pay Act 
     (EPA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, 
     this bill would, among other things, expand remedies under 
     the EPA to include unlimited punitive and compensatory 
     damages, significantly erode employer defenses for legitimate 
     pay disparities, and imposes invalid tools for enforcement by 
     the Labor Department.
       The EPA, while allowing recovery for lost back pay, does 
     not provide for compensatory and punitive damages, nor should 
     it. The EPA is a strict liability statute in that there is no 
     requirement that the employer intend to act unlawfully. It 
     strains logic to mandate that damages conceived and designed 
     to punish and deter wrongful conduct should apply to claims 
     of inadvertent, unintentional conduct that has the effect of 
     violating the EPA. If a plaintiff can demonstrate that a wage 
     disparity is due to intentional discrimination, then he or 
     she should bring a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964, where punitive and compensatory damages (capped 
     at certain levels) are available.
       S. 3220 would also significantly erode the defenses 
     available to employers under the EPA. For example, the bill 
     would permit plaintiffs to challenge otherwise legitimate 
     employer pay decisions by showing that some other employment 
     practice might achieve the same business purpose without 
     creating the disparity. Further, the employment decision in 
     question must also be proven to be required by ``business 
     necessity.'' These provisions would open up compensation and 
     employment decisions to limitless review by courts and juries 
     and would ultimately lead to an inefficient, cumbersome, and 
     costly salary-setting process. In addition, the bill would 
     modify existing rules concerning collective actions, making 
     it easier for plaintiffs' attorneys to mount class action 
     suits.
       In addition, the bill would make a number of regulatory 
     changes at the Labor Department related to equal employment 
     opportunity requirements for federal contractors. Re-imposing 
     the flawed Equal Opportunity Survey and requiring use of 
     dubious statistical models for determining whether employers 
     engage in systematic compensation discrimination, would do 
     nothing to combat discrimination and instead would waste both 
     enforcement and employer resources.
       Litigation in employment discrimination has exploded since 
     the inclusion of compensatory and punitive damages under 
     Title VII, resulting in increased costs associated with 
     attorneys' fees and employment investigations as employers 
     must respond to each charge filed, whether frivolous or not. 
     Further increasing the opportunity for frivolous litigation 
     will only further serve to undermine our nation's civil 
     rights laws.
       The Chamber strongly opposes S. 3220 and urges you to vote 
     against this legislation. The Chamber may consider including 
     votes on, or in relation to, S. 3220--including on procedural 
     votes and any motion to proceed--in our annual How They Voted 
     scorecard.
           Sincerely,
     R. Bruce Josten.
                                  ____



                                   National Retail Federation,

                                     Washington, DC, May 31, 2012.
     Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Enzi: On behalf of the National Retail 
     Federation, I am writing to urge you to oppose S. 3220, 
     legislation that would greatly increase government 
     involvement in pay decisions in businesses of all sizes and 
     give trial lawyers an incentive to pursue unlimited 
     litigation against American employers. Votes on S. 3220 will 
     be considered a ``key vote'' by the National Retail 
     Federation and the retail industry.
       Retailers strongly oppose discrimination of all types. Sex 
     discrimination in employment is no exception. Two federal 
     laws protect employees from gender-based pay inequity: Title 
     VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 
     1963. Both laws have broad coverage, prohibit intentional 
     gender-based pay discrimination and impose liability on 
     employers for gender-pay differences, even where there is no 
     evidence of intentional discrimination if the employer fails 
     to justify the pay discrepancies.
       The pending legislation, S. 3220, would dramatically expand 
     the Equal Pay Act to allow workers who claim they are the 
     victims of gender-based wage discrimination to sue for 
     unlimited compensatory and punitive damages. Moreover, its 
     provisions would allow business owners to be sued if wage 
     differentials exist due to local market rates, revenue 
     production, or profitability. As a result, S. 3220 could 
     effectively block retailers from considering issues such as 
     store location and local economic conditions in setting wage 
     rates.
       Furthermore, the bill expedites class action lawsuits by 
     requiring employees to ``opt-out'' of the class, effectively 
     using size to force settlements against the Main Street 
     businesses that will become its target. The legislation would 
     also direct the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( 
     EEOC) to collect employee pay and compensation data from 
     covered employers. Nothing in the bill would prevent this 
     data from being publicly disclosed by the EEOC or made 
     available through a Freedom of Information Act request.
       Again, the National Retail Federation strongly urges you to 
     oppose S. 3220, and we will consider a vote on this 
     legislation a key vote for the retail industry.
           Sincerely,

                                                 David French,

                                            Senior Vice President,
     Government Relations.

                          ____________________