[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14554-14558]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  BANK ON STUDENTS EMERGENCY LOAN REFINANCING ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                        Radzanowski Confirmation

  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, first of all, I thank the Senate for 
confirming the nominee for Chief Financial Officer of NASA, David 
Radzanowski. Now the team is fairly complete over there, and we can 
move to the next phase.
  As we move to the next phase, as we are getting ready to test the 
capsule called Orion that will ultimately be part of the vehicle that 
will take us to Mars in the decade of the 2030s, the rocket itself is 
being readied and its final design will be tested on a test stand in 
Mississippi at the Stennis Center in the next couple of years. So we 
are well on the way for NASA being able to get out and explore the 
cosmos beyond low Earth orbit.
  As you know, we have an International Space Station that is 120 yards 
long. Think of a football field from one goalpost to the other, that is 
how big it is. There are six humans up there. We rotate the crews out 
with the Russians and with the Europeans and in some cases we have had 
Japanese astronauts, so it is an International Space Station with an 
international crew. I thank the Senate for the confirmation today.


                                  ISIS

  Madam President, I am here to speak about the threat to America by 
ISIS. Every one of us has seen how brutal, how inhumane, how savage 
this group is. It was certainly brought home by the killing--the 
beheading--of the two journalists, one of them from my State of 
Florida.
  I would invite anyone to go on the Internet to see the images of what 
this group has done to others, just because someone has a different 
religious faith, in this particular case the Christians near Sinjar 
Mountain. You should see the photographs. Maybe you don't want to see 
the photographs of the infants they have beheaded because their parents 
are of a different faith.
  You should see the photographs of the women whom they are slitting 
their throats and letting their lifeblood drain into a basin bowl as 
they hold down the women. This is the savagery. That is why the 
President so appropriately, eloquently, very directly and very firmly 
last night spoke about he is using his constitutional power as 
Commander in Chief to go after them. The President also said he wants 
the support of Congress.
  It is true the President--in this Senator's opinion--has the 
authority to strike, but as he clearly reminded us last night, this is 
not a short-term deal. This is going to be a long-term and involved 
effort. So the Congress should register its support of the 
authorization to use military force. That is what we can do as we get 
into the debate of should that force be limited.
  I have filed one version. I have no pride of authorship. I want it to 
be debated. I have suggested there would be the ability to use all the 
defense force except rotational ground forces, which is the term of art 
in the Department of Defense meaning big ground armies. That is what 
the President wants to avoid when he talks about boots on the ground, 
that he doesn't want that. That is what the American people do not 
want, and that is what this Senator does not want.
  But we certainly don't want to handcuff the Department of Defense and 
our military in carrying out the successful objective of being able to 
go after and

[[Page 14555]]

help eliminate this savage beast called ISIS or ISIL or as they 
characterize themselves, the Islamic State.
  Today Secretary Kerry is in the Middle East. He is working on the 
coalition. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is making phone calls. Last 
week at the summit--the NATO summit--along with the President, he was 
already talking with his counterparts there. They are knitting together 
the coalition that will be a coalition not only of NATO but a coalition 
of so many in the region, including, we hope, a lot in the Arab League.
  So isn't it time we know this effort that is hugely supported by the 
American people--isn't it time for the Congress to register our 
approval by exercising our constitutional duty? I would suggest it is.
  I know some of the hearings are starting next week. Later this 
afternoon the Senate will have a classified briefing on the threat of 
ISIS. Many of us have already had a number of those briefings and know 
this is a threat like we have not faced before--not only because of the 
savagery but also the fact that they are well organized, they have a 
jihadist mission, and they are well funded.
  Part of our effort as we reach out to our coalition is to get them to 
stop the avenues of funding that is going in to this organization.
  I will close by saying that for the Congress to register our support, 
by the support of this type of legislation, is to show our allies and 
the world--not only to show the unity of America behind this effort, 
both clandestine and overtly military--but also to show our enemies the 
unity of America.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                        Constitutional Amendment

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise to speak to regret that the 
constitutional amendment proposed by Senator Udall lost 54 to 42. Of 
course, a majority voted for it, but we need two-thirds for a 
constitutional amendment. I first want to thank Senator Udall for his 
great leadership on this issue. As chairman of the rules committee and 
a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have worked with him on this, 
and I know his passion and dedication to straightening our country out, 
straightening our system of campaign finance out.
  Second, I want to say this: We are going to keep fighting until we 
get this done. The only way really to cure the Supreme Court's 
misguided ruling, whether it is in Citizens United or McCutcheon, is 
with a constitutional amendment. Our day will come. We are not giving 
up.
  When the Supreme Court issued its ruling in McCutcheon several months 
ago, it was another step on the path towards destruction of our system 
of campaign finance laws. First in Citizens United and then in 
McCutcheon, the Supreme Court has been chipping away at the actual 
foundation of our democracy that everyone is equal in the political 
arena. It just does not mean equal in terms of votes; it means that if 
you are a multimillionaire, you should not be allowed to drown out the 
messages of everybody else.
  If Congress does not respond, our system is going to collapse. This 
year, the amount of independent expenditures from a small number of 
individuals will exceed the money spent by all the others. It is just 
amazing. We cannot have it. That is why Democrats will continue to 
fight for a constitutional amendment that would finally allow us to 
fight back and regulate the dark money that is flooding our elections 
and threatening to take us back to the era of the robber barons. The 
Federal Government and the States should be allowed to pass laws that 
prevent unregulated sums of undisclosed money from pervading our 
elections.
  This constitutional amendment would do just that. Unfortunately, our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not see it that way. They 
have argued that the amendment would curtail freedom of speech. The 
Republican leader said in an op-ed earlier this week that Democrats are 
trying to take an eraser to the First Amendment.
  Well, he is dead wrong. All Democrats are trying to erase is the 
hundreds of millions dollars--undisclosed--that are tainting our 
elections, whether they are coming from the Koch brothers or George 
Soros or Tom Steyer. All of them should not be allowed to have such 
huge influence.
  Many other Republicans have portrayed this sensible amendment as an 
unparalleled attack on the First Amendment, which, they seem to argue, 
is absolute. I would say, for instance, to the Senator from Texas and 
my Republican friends that no amendment is absolute.
  You cannot yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. Child pornography is 
illegal. We have libel laws. These are all sensible limits to the First 
Amendment.
  This amendment is similarly a sensible amendment. It creates balance. 
Every amendment--and the Founding Fathers, when they created the Bill 
of Rights, and the States, when they ratified them, realized that 
``balance'' is a watchword. We believe in the right to buy arms, but 
people shouldn't be allowed to buy a tank and ride down the street in 
it. We believe in all of the amendments, but none should be stretched 
to ridiculous extremes, which any law can be.
  This amendment would go a long way to restoring fairness and 
credibility to a system of campaign laws that the Supreme Court has 
ripped to shreds over the past years.
  I don't know if these Supreme Court Justices know the harm they are 
doing to our system in their abstract view that limiting many kinds of 
campaign finance violates the First Amendment, but I wish they could be 
on the ground and see the harm they are doing.
  Simply put, unregulated dark money is poisoning our elections, and 
this amendment is the antidote. The American people want us to change 
the way elections are financed in this country not just for the sake of 
the system itself but because the current system results in a Congress 
that fails to do what average folks--the middle class--want it to do. 
Democrats want to raise the minimum wage, but the Koch brothers spend 
millions electing candidates who oppose it. Democrats want equal pay 
for equal work, but shadowy billionaires and corporate interests funnel 
millions to the campaigns of candidates who would block it.
  We have to have fair elections in order to give the middle class a 
fair shot. And on the amendment the Presiding Officer has so valiantly 
sponsored, all we want to say is if you are a multimillionaire, you 
ought to pay taxes at the same rate as everyone else and use the money 
we gain to help make it easier for everyone to afford college and pay 
their college debts at a reasonable interest rate after they get out of 
college. But those who would be the small number who would be hurt by 
this have a few clarion voices who have billions of dollars who spend 
the money and prevent candidates who believe in this view--which most 
Americans believe in--from getting elected.
  We have to have fair elections in order to give the middle class a 
fair shot. We hope our Republican colleagues will drop their objections 
and work with us to restore some semblance of fairness to our electoral 
system.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                 Hamas

  Mr. REID. Madam President, much has been said about the terrorist 
group ISIS in the past few days--and rightfully so. ISIS is a vile mob 
of fanatics whose butchery knows no bounds. I am

[[Page 14556]]

confident President Obama's targeted action will degrade and destroy 
this menace.
  But there is another evil organization in the world today that, like 
ISIS, has zero regard for humanity. They are kidnappers and 
executioners. They are violent extremists who murder innocent 
civilians. They are terrorists who cower behind women and children, 
even using them as human shields. They are saboteurs of peace and 
provocateurs of bloody conflict who will not stop their butchery. Once 
again, I am not talking about the Islamic State of Iraq; I am talking 
about Hamas.
  Hamas and ISIS are both vicious, corrupt, hateful, evil groups. Both 
are extreme, outrageous, irrational, excessive, harsh, and radical. Yet 
for some reason Hamas's brutality doesn't elicit the same horror in the 
international community as ISIS. How can that be?
  One of the few differences between these two terrorist organizations 
is that Hamas has a narrow, ghastly focus: the destruction of the State 
of Israel. Consider its actions over the past few months.
  Hamas raided its own limited supplies for housing and general 
infrastructure, intended to repair the destruction that occurred during 
the last conflict they initiated. Hamas instead used the stolen 
materials to build tunnels to hide and infiltrate Israel--infiltrating 
to kill, maim, kidnap, and murder the innocent.
  These depraved agitators launched thousands of rockets into Israel, 
hoping to inflict death and destruction. Their rockets had no aiming 
devices, no aiming capabilities. They fired indiscriminately, not 
caring whether they hit a child, a family, a school, or a place of 
worship. It begs the question: Without specific targets, why fire the 
rockets into Israel? We know why--provocation. Hamas knew Israel would 
be forced to defend itself, and, of course, that is what the Israelis 
did. Israel responded as any nation would to such attacks against its 
nation--by trying to protect its people. And what did Hamas do? They 
had such little regard for the people of Gaza that they used their own 
as human shields. Hamas used Palestinians as shields to carry out a 
sinister ploy, hoping they and their apologists could dupe the world 
into blaming Israel.
  David Brooks, a distinguished columnist, said 2 months ago on PBS's 
``NewsHour,'' referring to Hamas:
  It's a rare moment in military history where a party rejects a cease-
fire in order to get more of their own people killed. But that's part 
of the strategy.
  When Hamas wasn't scheming for more Palestinian fatalities to blame 
on Israel, it was carrying out more public executions of Gaza 
residents. For example, this is an article from the Wall Street 
Journal: ``Alleged Collaborators With Israel Killed in Gaza. Deaths 
Follow Israel's Targeted Killing of Three Top Hamas Military 
Commanders.''

       Hamas executed 18 people on Friday, some of them in the 
     streets of Gaza City in the middle of the day, after accusing 
     them of collaborating with Israel, according to media linked 
     to the Islamic group, which rules the Gaza Strip.
       In one instance, about 20 militants dressed in black and 
     with their faces covered brought six of the condemned men, 
     their heads covered with cloth bags, to an alley near the 
     Great Omari Mosque in Gaza City after midday prayers, 
     witnesses said. A militant shot the men in the head one at a 
     time with a pistol, after which he sprayed them with 
     automatic rifle fire, the witnesses said. The bodies were 
     loaded into government ambulances and taken away.

  These are the fanatics Israel faces every day, terrorist 
organizations as violent and extreme as any other on the face of the 
planet, as indicated by this Wall Street Journal article I just read.
  There are those who refuse to condemn Hamas as they would ISIS. The 
hypocrisy is stunning. Those who reject tyranny, corruption, and 
terrorism should denounce Hamas. All those who honor peace and 
sovereignty should stand for Israel.
  I stand with Israel. The United States of America stands with Israel. 
President Barack Obama and Congress continue to affirm America's 
unshakeable bond with Israel and our strong support for the security 
and safety of its people.
  For my part, I will continue to do all I can to support Israel's 
right to self-defense. I know my colleagues join me in supporting the 
State of Israel and condemning Hamas for the depraved, horrid, 
repugnant terrorist organization that it is.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                                  ISIS

  Mr. MURPHY. Madam President, I haven't watched the gruesome videos of 
the beheadings of James Foley and Steven Sotloff, and I have no plans 
to do so. I don't think I need to do so in order to understand the 
brutality of ISIS and the threat this radical movement poses to our 
partners in the Middle East and Europe--and ultimately to the United 
States' national security interests.
  As we stand here in the Capitol today with the flags at half-mast in 
remembrance of the 9/11 attacks, I think we all understand that we 
can't just ignore this crisis and hope that it passes. The risks are 
too high. ISIS presents a new and unique threat to global stability, 
and it must be met with a robust global response. Whether we like it or 
not, in today's world of decentralized power, it is still up to the 
United States to lead this effort.
  Last night the President of the United States laid out a strong and 
compelling case for taking the fight to ISIS. I wholeheartedly agree 
with the imperative for action he outlined. ISIS represents a serious 
threat, and we would betray our bond of trust with the world if we 
ignored it simply because of a wariness here at home with protracted 
military engagements abroad.
  So for me the question is not if or whether we should confront ISIS. 
Rather, it is about the most effective way to go about this important 
task, and it is about making sure this debate happens in the proper 
context.
  Americans today, more than ever, feel like they have lost control of 
their lives, of their ability to feel financially and economically and 
even physically secure. These videos and reports of ISIS's 
unconscionable brutality add to this feeling of insecurity, and they 
invoke rage--justifiable, appropriate rage--about those who would carry 
out such acts.
  In this case this fear and anger we feel about ISIS's actions is 
complemented by the legitimate threat this group poses. So we shouldn't 
hesitate to act simply because our desire to do so is fueled by the 
intense emotion this enemy engenders in us. But our response--the 
details of our strategy--cannot be dictated by these impulses.
  Our plan of attack against ISIS needs to be well thought out, 
nuanced, not rushed into because we feel an emotional compulsion to do 
something--anything--right now. We made that mistake in the past as a 
nation, and we shouldn't misstep again. We certainly shouldn't allow 
election-year politics to play into our calculations.
  This is a debate about ISIS, but it is also a debate about how we are 
going to meet a potential plethora of anti-Western extremist groups 
that are organized and will organize against us throughout the world. 
We are creating a precedent for action, and we shouldn't rush into war 
simply because we feel pressured to get something done before an 
election.
  As the President noted last night--and it is important to repeat--
ISIS today does not have imminent plans to attack the United States. 
That doesn't diminish the necessity of taking them on. It simply means 
that we don't need to engage in a panicked response.
  So today I will lay out four principles that I believe should serve 
as the foundation for action against ISIS.
  First, our strategy needs to be guided by the recognition that ISIS's 
power comes in the first instance from a political vacuum in Iraq and 
Syria, and, second, from a military vacuum. Any strategy must lead with 
economic and political tactics to undermine ISIS's legitimacy, using 
military power as a tool to create the space for those efforts.
  We can't defeat an ideology of extremism with an air campaign. Bombs 
and drone strikes will not help win the

[[Page 14557]]

hearts and minds of Sunnis who currently feel disenfranchised or 
ostracized by the Iraqi Government. As with any conflict, the real 
solution has to come from the people of the region. Elements of Iraq's 
Sunni population will continue to support radical Islamic insurgents--
or, at best, just passively allow them to operate--as long as they see 
no future for them in their country.
  So I applaud President Obama for making the centerpiece of his speech 
last night a call for continued efforts to create a truly inclusive 
political process in Iraq. The new Prime Minister has a difficult road 
ahead, and both Congress and our regional partners should do our part 
to support this tough political work.
  For instance, as a complement to new military funding for operations 
in the Middle East, we should be debating funding a surge for political 
and economic work in the region. If we are going to spend hundreds of 
millions of dollars dropping bombs inside Iraq, we and our allies 
should commit to double that amount to support political efforts to 
empower moderates in the region.
  Second, we will fail if we do not unite Shiite and Sunni nations in 
the region behind a military plan to confront ISIS.
  I agree with the President that in the short term the United States 
is going to need to step up its military operations in Iraq, and I 
cannot disagree with the President that there may be limited 
imperatives to use the Air Force inside Syria should we have 
intelligence that ISIS there poses a threat to the United States. But 
any military campaign has to be fully cloaked in the legitimacy of a 
true regional coalition with Sunni partners front and center.
  Further, it is clear that ISIS is getting funding and a flow of 
equipment and recruits from countries in the region. We need to turn 
off this spigot immediately. We need to hear from our partners in the 
region that ISIS does not truly represent Islam, that they do not 
condone the slaughter and rape of other innocent Muslims, Christians or 
Yazidis, for that matter. The United States needs to lead the effort to 
combat ISIS, but we must do so as part of a broad international 
coalition.
  Third, a strategy to confront ISIS does not require America to become 
fully and overtly enmeshed in the increasingly complicated civil war in 
Syria. Over the last 2 years I have consistently opposed arming and 
training the Syrian rebels. Since the last time Congress debated this 
subject, the prospect that this intervention could be counterproductive 
to our national security interests has only increased. To begin with, 
it will be very difficult to thread the needle of supporting a Shiite 
regime against a Sunni insurgency in Iraq while at the same time 
supporting a Sunni insurgency against a Shiite regime in Syria. That 
inconsistency is going to make it difficult to put together lasting 
regional coalitions.
  More importantly, it is increasingly impossible to sort out the so-
called vetted moderate rebels from the truly bad rebels. All of our 
focus on ISIS over the past months has diverted our attention from the 
fact that, increasingly, some moderate Syrian rebels are openly 
collaborating with Jabhat al-Nusra, a wing of Al Qaeda, inside Syria, 
and there are even reports that ISIS itself is working with elements of 
the moderate rebels.
  Our goal would be to support the rebels and simultaneously defeat 
ISIS and Assad. But the very real possibility exists that the rebels 
could align with ISIS to defeat Assad or our military campaign against 
ISIS allows Assad to prevail. Both are plausible and unacceptable 
options.
  I want ISIS defeated in Syria. I want Bashar Al-Assad to pay for his 
crimes against humanity. But too much can go wrong for not enough 
possible gain for the U.S. to increase our involvement in the Syrian 
civil war--if necessary, using limited counterterrorism measures to 
attack ISIS in Syria, but leave the civil war inside Syria to parties 
that, whether we like it or not, have much more at stake in the fight 
than we do.
  This brings me to my fourth point. All of this should be done with 
congressional authorization. There is no viable excuse for Congress to 
abdicate its constitutional responsibility to authorize war.
  President Obama finished his speech last night with a spectacular 
charge to the American people, and few can disagree with it: America is 
exceptional. We continue to stand as a symbol and a beacon of freedom 
and democracy to the world. Because of that standard that we bear, we 
should respect the version of democracy that our Founding Fathers 
granted to us by having a debate in Congress about the policy that the 
President has proposed.
  Respectfully, I disagree that the authorization for military force 
passed in the days following September 11 grants the President the 
power to conduct an open-ended, long-term war against ISIS. If that 
were to be the case, then there is absolutely no congressional check 
upon the Executive's power to open military fronts against extremist 
groups anywhere in the world at any time.
  The 9/11 AUMF was not intended to be perpetual, but it would 
transform into a permanent, easily manipulated authorization if we 
interpret it to cover ISIS, a group that specifically disavows an 
association with the only named group in the 9/11 AUMF.
  Frankly, I believe a well-crafted, limited authorization of military 
force against ISIS could pass the Congress. I also believe the 
Constitution requires us to find out if it can.
  I commend the President for having the courage to refuse to rush to 
rash judgment. We need to build a strategy that uses military action as 
a complement to political reform--not the other way around. We need to 
build a real sustainable regional coalition to support any military 
action, with Sunni nations as the lead. We need to recognize the limits 
of American power and stay out of the Syrian civil war. And we need to 
unite the Nation by a congressional authorization of a sound plan to 
take on ISIS.
  I am glad my Commander in Chief made his case last night, 
understanding the foreign policy mistakes of the past decade and with a 
willingness to learn from them. I am confident that if we get this 
strategy right, the American people will stand squarely with him as we 
fight back against an enemy like few we have ever faced before.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2199

  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
Senate resumes consideration of S. 2199 it be in order for my amendment 
No. 3808 to be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Connecticut
  Mr. MURPHY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Madam President, I know that in just offering the 
amendment I sought to offer on the Senate floor I have received an 
objection. Let me briefly describe what I am trying to offer. The 
objection that I just received from the other side of the aisle is a 
demonstration of what is wrong in the Senate right now.
  What is happening in the Senate right now is the majority leader 
keeps bringing legislation to the floor, and people are not allowed to 
offer amendments that directly pertain to the legislation.
  In fact, right now pending on the Senate floor is the so-called 
Paycheck Fairness Act. I have an amendment I want to offer on the 
Senate floor to that act that deals with addressing pay discrimination, 
but I am not going to be allowed to offer that amendment.
  I guess the first question we have to ask is: Why is that? Why is it 
that when we have such an important issue, which I acknowledge is an 
important issue--that people in this country be treated fairly, that we 
be paid solely based on our experience and qualifications, that we 
eliminate discrimination in the workplace; something I would hope we 
could work together on and

[[Page 14558]]

about which we could have a real debate on this Senate floor--if 
someone comes to the floor and offers an amendment, what we get is an 
objection, because, really, what we are doing right now on the floor--
let's be clear about it--is a political charade. It is trying to score 
political points on an issue that is very important that we shouldn't 
be sitting here trying to score political points on.
  Why can't both sides of the aisle offer their amendments on ideas on 
how to eliminate discrimination in the workplace? It seems to me that 
if they are serious about the issue, the majority leader would allow 
individuals like me and other Senators on both sides of the aisle to 
come to the floor and offer their amendments. But we have just seen 
that when I have done that, I got an objection instead of allowing my 
amendment to be debated fully on this floor.
  All Americans should be treated fairly and paid solely based on their 
experience and qualifications, and discrimination has no place in the 
American workforce.
  There are important laws we have passed on a bipartisan basis in the 
Congress. Laws like the Equal Pay Act and title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act are there to combat workplace discrimination. Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 became the first Federal law designed to 
protect U.S. workers from employment discrimination based upon a 
person's sex.
  The Equal Pay Act of 1963 requires employers to pay female employees 
the same wages that they pay male employees for equal work--very 
important laws.
  Both title VII and the Equal Pay Act provide a way for those who are 
discriminated against to file complaints against their employers and 
pursue financial remedies if they are discriminated against in the 
workplace. Our focus, of course, always needs to be on enforcing those 
important laws that were passed by the Congress to ensure that both men 
and women in the workplace will be judged based on their performance 
and not based on their gender.
  Unfortunately, despite these laws there are instances where pay 
discrimination still exists. With 60 percent of women serving as the 
primary earners in their households, this disparity must be addressed, 
and this is an important issue. But the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act 
that is pending on the floor, in my view, is not the answer. Instead of 
ensuring that women are treated fairly, the Paycheck Fairness Act would 
limit the ability of women in some instances to have flexible work 
schedules if that is what they need, and it would make it easier--much 
easier--to file frivolous lawsuits that, frankly, are a boon to trial 
lawyers. One concern I have about the bill pending on the floor--and I 
think it is a legitimate concern--is that it could have an impact on 
reducing the ability of employers to award merit pay.
  I had the privilege of serving as the first woman attorney general in 
New Hampshire, and before that I worked in private practice in a law 
firm. In my position and in the work I have done throughout my life, I 
have had the opportunity to meet incredible women in all fields in New 
Hampshire and throughout this country, whether it is leaders in the 
health sector, in the business sector--women working very hard every 
day in this country. There are many instances, I have to tell you, 
where women, based on merit, have outperformed their male colleagues. 
So what we don't want to do is create a law and pass a law that 
actually reduces the opportunities for employers in the workplace to 
reward merit, because women--like men--want the opportunity to earn 
more than their male counterparts when we do a better job.
  We had this debate last April on the Senate floor, and when we had 
this debate on the Senate floor we experienced what we are experiencing 
right now. Paycheck fairness was brought to the floor and, in fact, I 
worked on an amendment with some of my colleagues--Senator Fischer, 
Senator Collins, and Senator Murkowski. We offered an amendment that we 
thought would help address the discrimination that can occur in the 
workplace and to address retaliation when employees discuss the 
salaries they make so that they can become informed in the workplace. 
But when we offered that amendment in April, we were denied a vote on 
it. We were in the same situation we are now.
  So it is like ``Groundhog Day.'' The Senate rejected the bill pending 
in April, and we were denied all amendments and the ability to really 
debate and amend it and have a real discussion about this important 
issue. Here we are again leading into the November elections, and again 
the bill is on the floor, and again Senators like me who have offered 
an amendment that I hoped we could discuss and consider are going to be 
denied the ability to do so.
  When I came to this floor in April, when this bill was pending on the 
Senate floor before, I said then and I firmly believe it now: If the 
majority leader believes this is an important issue, then we should 
have a real debate and an open amendment process and not engage in a 
political charade. I think the American people deserve better.
  In New Hampshire, Republicans and Democrats actually got together and 
they were able to pass a bipartisan pay equity law which was signed 
into law in July. It is a commonsense measure that helps address wage 
disparities between men and women, and that law was the basis for the 
proposed amendment which I have just tried to offer on the Senate floor 
so that the Senate could consider some of the very good ideas that were 
worked through on a bipartisan basis in my State as a way to address 
discrimination in the workforce.
  This amendment that I have filed--but that I am not being permitted 
to offer--is modeled on New Hampshire's law and, again, it was 
bipartisan. In fact, the amendment that I have offered is called the 
Ensuring Fairness in Pay Act. It would make clear that employers have 
to pay men and women equal wages for equal work. It ensures equal pay 
for workers performing equal work under similar conditions regardless 
of sex. In fact, it also prohibits retaliation against employees who 
discuss their pay information and prohibits employers from requiring 
employees to sign a contract or a waiver that prohibits the employees 
from disclosing their pay. This would allow employees to know what 
their situation is so they can ensure that they are being treated 
fairly.
  What was passed in New Hampshire--my amendment here--also contains 
teeth. In fact, similar to New Hampshire's law, my amendment would 
impose a $2,500 penalty for any violation of this law and for pay 
discrimination. So putting teeth in it is important as well. We did 
that at the State level, and I thought we should consider doing this at 
the Federal level if my amendment could be considered by this body.
  It also requires employers to post a notice that sets forth excerpts 
or summaries of the pertinent provisions of what is the law--title VII 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--and information pertinent to how you 
file a complaint if you feel you are subject to discrimination in the 
workforce.
  Finally, my amendment encourages States to provide pay disparity 
statistics including historical analysis and any information that would 
help the public understand and address this issue.
  I urge the majority leader to put politics aside so that we can work 
together on a bipartisan solution, just as New Hampshire was able to 
do. In my home State of New Hampshire, when there is an amendment 
offered, you actually will get a vote on it. I think we are doing a 
real disservice to the American people, regardless of what the issue 
is, that Senators on both sides of the aisle when they are offering an 
amendment aren't permitted to have a vote on it on the Senate floor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________