[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5849-5862]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 3:15 
p.m. will be controlled by the majority.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise today to speak on paycheck 
fairness, the bill we will be voting on tomorrow in the Senate. During 
the next hour 11 Democratic women will be coming to the floor to speak. 
I am not going to introduce each one. We want to get right to the 
issue. Rather than talking flowery talk about each other, we want to 
talk about the need for paycheck fairness.
  I ask unanimous consent that each Senator be permitted to speak for 
up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I am the leadoff speaker. I want to be very clear on 
why we are on the Senate floor. We believe women need a fair shot to 
get equal pay for equal work. We want the same pay for the same job. We 
want it in our lawbooks, and we want it in our checkbooks. We want to 
finish the job we began with Lilly Ledbetter 5 years ago.

[[Page 5850]]

  Five years ago, one of the first bills that we passed in the Obama 
administration was the Lilly Ledbetter bill. We reopened the courthouse 
doors to women who wanted to seek redress for the way they were treated 
unequally in the workplace. But we need to finish the job. That is what 
paycheck fairness does.
  What does ``finish the job'' mean? Well, right now in the United 
States of America, there is a veil of secrecy--a veil of secrecy. Where 
is it? In the workplace. Right now, in companies and businesses, 
employees are forbidden to talk about the pay they receive with another 
employee. In many places, when an employee seeks redress, she is 
retaliated against. Last but not at all least, there are loopholes that 
many employers use to justify women being paid less. They invent 
excuses, and they call them business necessity explanations. Well, we 
are on the floor today to say we want to end the soft bigotry of low 
wages for women. Equal pay for equal work. No secrecy. No retaliation. 
No loopholes. No way. Today is the day for equal pay.
  We are on the floor today because it is Equal Pay Day. What does that 
mean? It means the women of the United States of America have to work 
in many instances 15 months to earn what a man doing the same job, with 
the same experience and the same seniority, earns in 1 year.
  Now, we are not against the guys. There are many men who do jobs they 
hate so their daughters can have the jobs they love. After working to 
ensure that they have a good home and a good education, they see their 
daughters are paid less.
  We all know there is a generalized wage suppression going on in the 
middle class--another topic and another debate. But right now we are on 
the job and we want to be paid for what we do. It is hard to believe 
that women are almost half of the workforce and yet during that time, 
as we make up 50 percent of the workforce, we still make only 77 cents 
for every dollar a man makes; African-American women earn 62 cents; 
Latino women 54 cents--almost half. This is a disgrace.
  We need to change the law. That is what we seek to do by bringing up 
the Paycheck Fairness Act. Our President has tried to do his part. He 
supported the Lilly Ledbetter bill. Today we were at the White House, 
where he took an Executive order step to ban retaliation against 
employees who work for Federal contractors. So we are going to start 
being a model employer by banning retaliation not only within the 
Federal Government but with our Federal contractors. He also then 
called upon the contractors to submit data, information, so that we 
would know what are the gender differences that are going on on the 
very contracts we have.
  When we signed the Equal Pay Act--it was in 1963 under Lyndon 
Johnson--women made only 59 cents. You know what. That was 50 years 
ago. In 50 years we have gained 18 cents. Well, that is not the way to 
go. The way to go is to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. What we want to 
do is make sure that, as I said, there is no retaliation, no excuses.
  We hear this all the time: Oh, the guys do harder jobs; they are the 
breadwinners. But so are many women now who are heading households or 
who are single breadwinners.
  The other important thing is that no longer will women be limited in 
pay to just backpay when they have been discriminated against.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. My time is up. I am so into this bill. I have been at 
this legislation for a long time. But what I have now is hope. Help is 
on the way. Reinforcements are here.
  Now I turn to Senator Elizabeth Warren and then Senator Claire 
McCaskill and Senator Cantwell, in that order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I thank Senator Mikulski for her 
incredible leadership on this issue.
  I come to the floor today in support of equal pay for equal work. I 
honestly cannot believe we are still arguing over equal pay in 2014. 
Congress first moved to solve this problem more than 50 years ago when 
the Equal Pay Act was signed into law.
  In 1963 women were earning 59 cents on the dollar for every dollar 
earned by a man. Today women earn only 77 cents on the dollar compared 
to what a man earns.
  Women are taking a hit in nearly every occupation. Bloomberg analyzed 
census data and found that median earnings for women were lower than 
those for men in 264 out of 265 major occupational categories. In 99.6 
percent of all occupations, men get paid more than women--99.6 percent. 
That is not an accident; that is discrimination.
  The effects of this discrimination are real and they are long 
lasting. Women, for example, borrow roughly the same amount of money as 
men to pay for college, but according to the American Association of 
University Women, these women make only 82 cents on the dollar compared 
with men 1 year after graduating. So women take out the same loans to 
go to college, but they face an even steeper road to repay those loans.
  Unequal pay also means a tougher retirement. The average woman in 
Massachusetts who collects Social Security will receive about $3,000 
less each year than a similarly situated man because the benefits are 
tied to how much people earn while they are working.
  This is a problem--a big problem--and women are fed up. Fifty years 
and a woman still cannot earn the same as a man for doing the same 
work. Women are ready to fix it, but it is not easy.
  Today some women can be fired just for asking the guy across the hall 
how much money he makes. Earlier today the President issued Executive 
orders to stop Federal contractors from retaliating against women who 
ask about their pay and to instruct the Department of Labor to collect 
better data for the gender pay gap. Good for him, and good for women 
working for contractors. Now the Congress should extend these 
protections to all women.
  The Senate will soon vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act. This is a 
commonsense proposal: No discrimination and no retaliation when women 
ask how much the guys are getting paid. We will get basic data to tell 
us how much men and women are getting paid for key jobs.
  So there it is. It is basic protection, basic information--a fair 
shot. That is essentially what this bill does.
  Sure, sometimes men are paid more than women. Employers can pay 
different salaries based on factors such as skill, performance, 
expertise, seniority, and so forth. The Paycheck Fairness Act does not 
touch any of that. It simply provides the tools that women need to make 
sure salary differences have something to do with the actual job they 
are doing and not just the fact that they are women.
  Several States have already adopted similar rules. Businesses in 
these States continue to thrive without any explosion of lawsuits. This 
bill is about good business, a level playing field for men and women, 
an equal chance to get the job done, a fair shot for all of us.
  America's women are tired of hearing that pay inequality is not real. 
We are tired of hearing that somehow it is our fault. We are ready to 
fight back against pay discrimination.
  I thank Senator Mikulski and all of my colleagues who are speaking on 
the floor today for their leadership on this important proposal. I urge 
the Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act to strengthen America's 
middle-class families and to level the playing field for hard-working 
women.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, every once in a while it is probably 
healthy for all of us to sit back for a moment and reflect on why we 
are here. What is the Senate supposed to be about? Why do we come to 
the Senate? Why did our Founding Fathers lay out a Constitution that 
had these branches of government?
  In the branch of government in which we reside, we are called the 
legislative branch. So what is that about? I think

[[Page 5851]]

what the Founding Fathers wanted us to do is to make our laws reflect 
the values and priorities of the American people.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act is a simple step toward making our laws 
reflect two of the most important values we have in the United States 
of America.
  I guarantee you that if you walked up to any of my colleagues who 
intend to vote against this and said, do you believe in equality and 
justice, they would say, of course we believe in equality and justice.
  Then why would you not support this legislation, because it is just 
that simple. We are just trying to make the laws of this country 
reflect the American ideals of equality and justice.
  Well, they say, there are laws on the books.
  Well, here is the deal. You cannot get justice if you do not have the 
facts. If the facts are a secret, a protected secret, then justice is 
always going to be elusive and equality is going to be something to 
which we give lipservice, not something we will truly enjoy in this 
country.
  So this is just a step to say to American business: Let's understand 
why two people doing the same job have two different levels of pay. 
Explain it to us.
  What is so evil about that? What is so evil about expecting a 
business to be able to explain why a man and a woman with the same 
experience, the same credentials, and the same work output are paid 
differently. If there is a good reason, then there is no litigation, 
there is no rush to the courthouse. But if there is not a good reason, 
that is where that justice comes in. That is where a woman has an 
opportunity to go into the hallowed halls of our courts--the envy of 
the world, I might add--to have a fair shot at justice.
  The notion that someone can be fired for trying to get the facts 
about their own compensation, the notion that retaliation would somehow 
be embraced by my colleagues who do not intend to vote for this 
legislation I do not understand. I know they are trying to explain to 
the American people that this has something to do with us having a love 
affair with America's trial lawyers. I have never heard more rubbish in 
my life. It is not the trial lawyers whom we care about. It is the 
women. It is the single moms.
  It is the women who have this sinking feeling in the pit of their 
stomach that they are getting paid less, that they are helpless because 
they can't get at the information. When they do, they have the entire 
burden of proof of showing that somehow they weren't inferior to their 
male colleagues.
  There is absolutely no possible reason that any of us would be trying 
to help lawyers with this. It is their clients, guys; it is the women 
of America. It is the women of America who want the laws to reflect our 
values, equality, and justice. This is a simple step. It is nothing to 
be afraid of.
  Frankly, the only thing anyone who opposes this bill should be afraid 
of is the wrath of American women across this country who are sick and 
tired of being told it is none of their business what their colleague 
is getting paid and: By the way, I don't have to explain to you why you 
make less even though your work output has been superior to your male 
colleagues. It is time and it is about our values.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. I join my colleagues and thank the Senator from 
Missouri for her statement as somebody who has been involved in 
basically making sure the law is implemented and upheld too. I 
appreciate her views.
  I thank Senator Mikulski for her leadership in advocating for equal 
pay for equal work. She has been a champion for many years and she is 
insistent now that we pass this legislation, and that is why we are 
here, because we want our colleagues to understand how important it is 
to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
legislation and end the discrimination many women face in America. This 
is a critical issue, not only for women but for men because, obviously, 
the households of America deserve to have both people making equal pay.
  The message from the American people is clear: They want Congress to 
focus on the most important economic issues of the day; that is, jobs. 
And certainly having a job that pays you equally for the work you do 
with your coworkers is critically important.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act is exactly what we should be working on, 
ways to strengthen the pocketbooks of many Americans.
  While we have made progress over the past five decades since we 
passed the Equal Pay Act, we still have a long way to go. In my State, 
the State of Washington, women are paid 78 cents for every $1 that men 
earn for the same work. That amounts to an average wage gap of $11,000 
per year. The truth is that many women are the breadwinners in their 
family, and they should be paid as breadwinners. They should not face 
discrimination.
  Today women make up 48 percent of the workforce in the State of 
Washington, and these families are very important to our economy. On 
average, mothers in Washington provide 41 percent of their household 
income, and nationally 40 percent of women are the sole primary 
breadwinners for their households. This is an important issue for our 
economy. Think of the boost they would get, the boost we would see if 
they were paid equally.
  Right now one-third of those families headed by women in Washington 
live in poverty, so closing the wage gap means they would be able to 
afford 82 more weeks of food, according to the National Partnership for 
Women & Families. It would mean better economic freedom, it would mean 
the ability to buy more essentials, and it means their families would 
be better off.
  But, more importantly, people need to realize that not only does this 
pay gap affect women's ability to support their family, the pay gap 
also reduces their ability to save for the future. From around the age 
of 35 through retirement, women are typically paid about 75 to 80 
percent what men are paid, and over their lifetime a woman in 
Washington will earn $500,000 less than her male counterpart. That is 
money that can be saved and invested for the future. So we must pass 
the Paycheck Fairness Act to end this disparity because this act will 
require employers to provide justification other than gender for paying 
men higher wages than women for the exact same job. It protects 
employees who share that information with others from being retaliated 
against, and it provides victims of pay discrimination with the same 
remedies available to victims of other discrimination, including 
punitive and compensation damages.
  This is important legislation. It is important legislation that will 
end the discrimination women are seeing in the workplace.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act will also help eliminate the pay gap to 
help these families who are struggling in our economy. But just in case 
people get the wrong idea, I want to make sure people are clear. Even 
in fields such as engineering and computer science, women earn, on 
average, only 75 percent of what their male counterparts earn. A woman 
with a master's degree will only make 70 cents for every $1 of her 
equally educated male counterparts.
  It is time the Senate end the pay discrimination by passing the 
Paycheck Fairness Act. That is why I have been happy to sponsor this 
legislation and work with my colleagues. I want young women growing up 
today to know this is not an issue they are going to have to deal with 
in the future. They will get equal pay.
  I thank my colleagues. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle will help us in invoking cloture and providing the votes we need 
to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. I am proud to join this fight for paycheck fairness, 
an effort led by the dean of the women in

[[Page 5852]]

the Senate, the first Democratic woman ever elected to the Senate in 
her own right, and the longest serving woman in Congress today--Senator 
Barbara Mikulski.
  This is the same fight many of our own mothers and grandmothers 
fought, equal pay for equal work. The promise made by the Equal Pay Act 
50 years ago, literally half a century ago, continues to be broken 
every single day in this country.
  When that happens, it doesn't just hold back women individually, it 
holds back entire families. It holds back the entire American economy.
  Today women make up more than half of America's population and nearly 
half the workforce. Women are outearning men in college degrees and 
advanced degrees and a growing share of primary household earners. But 
to this day men are still outearning women for the exact same work. On 
average, women earn 77 cents for every $1 a man earns and even less for 
women of color. African-American women earn 69 cents on the dollar and 
Latinas earn just 58 cents on the dollar.
  In the years leading to the Equal Pay Act, only about 11 percent of 
families relied on women as the primary wage earner for kids under 18--
just 11 percent. Today 40 percent of primary or sole wage earners are 
women: 40 percent of families with kids under 18 who rely on women to 
pay the bills, balance the family finances, make the tough choices 
around the kitchen table, and provide for their kids.
  But you would not know this by looking at America's workplace 
policies. They are stuck in the past. They are stuck in the ``Mad Men'' 
era. Congress and State capitols have simply failed to keep up with the 
pace of the new economy and the face of the modern American workplace.
  This has to change. How can two-income families and sole female-
breadwinning households get ahead when they are shortchanged every 
single month? If we want a growing economy and a thriving middle class, 
pay women fairly. It is that simple. When women earn equal pay, 
America's GDP could grow by up to 4 percent. It is common sense, and it 
is the right thing to do to strengthen our economy and to strengthen 
our families.
  So today, on Equal Pay Day, let's get this done. Let's pass the 
Paycheck Fairness Act and give America's women the fair shot they 
deserve to earn their way ahead in today's economy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I rise to speak about the importance of closing the 
pay gap for women. I am a cosponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act--an 
important bill--and I am so honored to be here with my colleagues and 
the leader of the women in the Senate, Senator Mikulski.
  Today is Equal Pay Day, but it also marks the week where things are 
finally warming up in my State after a long deep-freeze. We look as 
though we are going to have 70 degrees. The snow will melt, the flowers 
will bloom, and the message we are all here to bring is it is time to 
stop freezing the women of America out of this economy. The women of 
America want to be treated fairly.
  Now all the work we are doing--whether it is the minimum wage bill or 
the unemployment compensation--is stuck somewhere in a deep freezer 
over in the House of Representatives, somewhere between the frozen peas 
and the chocolate ice cream, and it is time to thaw out the freezer in 
Washington, DC, and help the women of America. That is what this bill 
is about, that is what the minimum wage bill is about. People deserve a 
fair shot at the American dream.
  I thank again Senator Mikulski and I thank her for her leadership in 
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. In 2009 we passed that bill to make 
sure that workers who face pay discrimination based on gender, race, 
age, religion, disability, or national origin have access to the 
courts. In doing so, we restored the original intent of the Civil 
Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act. Now it is time to prevent that pay 
discrimination from happening in the first place.
  We all know women have made great strides in this economy. We have 
made great strides in this body. We now have 20 women in the Senate 
but, of course, we are still only at 20 percent. The Fortune 500 now 
has 23 women CEOs, but I still think anyone who looks at this knows 
there are great strides that have been made but great progress ahead.
  Despite all this progress, women in this country still only earn 
close to 80 cents for every $1 made by men. This pay gap has real 
consequences for American families. Two-thirds of today's families rely 
on a mother's income either in part or in entirety, and in more than 
one-third of families the mother is the main breadwinner.
  As Senate chair of the Joint Economic Committee, we released a report 
this week that shows lower wages impact women all through their working 
lives. I think that is something people don't always think about, the 
fact that if women consistently make less money, and then you retire, 
and you are actually going to live longer than men, you have a lot less 
money to retire with in the first place.
  In fact, women who retire have about $11,000 less per year than men. 
That is very significant when you look at the age range where women 
will be in retirement.
  The other piece we don't always think about--unless you are in their 
position--is women in the sandwich generation, women who are taking 
care of aging parents at the same time they are taking care of 
children. That is happening every single day in this country as women 
are having to take leave from work or leave their job to take care of 
an aging parent while they are still struggling to afford to send their 
kids to college, to send their kids to daycare.
  This legislation will build on the promises of the Equal Pay Act and 
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It will give women new tools and 
protections to guard against pay discrimination and will help reaffirm 
that basic principle that all women deserve equal pay for equal work.
  I am hopeful we can get this done for the people of this country. It 
was the late Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota who said: ``We all do 
better when we all do better.'' I still believe that is true, and so do 
my colleagues who join me today.
  We need to focus on this bill. We need to unfreeze some old beliefs, 
and we need to bring a little Spring into the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, Senator Mikulski and I were just 
whispering to each other about how far we have come since the day Anita 
Hill came to the Hill and we couldn't do much to help her, but we 
organized and recognized that women had to be here in numbers 
sufficient to make a difference and clearly, today, we are.
  My colleague Senator Mikulski is our dean of the women. All she is 
basically saying, with all of us as an echo chamber, is this: Women 
deserve a fair shot. It is long past time for us to stop shortchanging 
half of the country and their families.
  I want to show us a chart that looks at what happens to a woman in a 
year when she gives up $11,000 because she is not being paid, for the 
same job, the same amount a man is. What could that $11,000 do?
  She could buy a year of groceries, she could provide a year of rent, 
a year of daycare, she could buy a used car, and she could afford 
community college. That is 1 year. Look at what happens over the course 
of a lifetime when because a woman is not getting her fair share, the 
equal amount that she deserves, she is only getting 77 cents on the 
dollar. It is $443,000. What could she do with that? Pay off her entire 
mortgage, send three kids to the University of California--a great 
school, I might say--and buy 8,000 tanks of gas.
  What is the point of all of this? It is to show that the dollars 
women are not getting could be going into the community, could be 
making sure their families are taken care of, and would make all the 
difference in the world. Now, I was a little startled to see some of my 
Republican friends on the other side--

[[Page 5853]]

Republican Members of the House--say this is demeaning to women. That 
is what I got out of a news report--that women don't need this. Would 
they have said that about children? Did children need protection 
against child labor? The answer is yes. Did workers need protection 
from a 14-hour day when they were being exploited? Yes. Did we need to 
make sure people in hazardous workplaces, such as chemical companies, 
have appropriate protective gear? Yes. Did we need to make sure there 
are fire exits in a crowded factory, after we saw a horrific fire 
called the Triangle fire? Yes. Now we need to make sure that women get 
equal pay for equal work.
  This is just part of the continuum of bending that arc of history 
toward justice. That is what is happening here under the leadership of 
Senator Mikulski and all of us who stand on her shoulders. I have to 
say it is a great day. It is a great day to hear my colleagues come to 
the floor and speak as one. We are speaking not only for the women of 
America, who make up more than half, but for their families.
  That is the point. Two-thirds of women are either the sole head of 
household or they share in providing for the economic well-being of 
their families. This is a matter of justice. It is a matter of 
fairness. It is a matter of a fair shot. I am proud to stand with my 
colleagues.
  I hope and pray we will get the 60 votes necessary. There is a 
filibuster going on, as usual. We need a supermajority. But I would say 
to my colleagues on the other side that too many women have to be super 
women. So give them a supermajority. They are super women who are 
holding down not one job but two jobs. So please help us. Let's 
celebrate tomorrow with a great vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to start by expressing my deep 
thanks and appreciation to Senator Mikulski for her tremendous 
leadership in the fight for equal pay and for bringing the Paycheck 
Fairness Act to the forefront of the debate this session.
  The role of women in our families and in our economy has really 
shifted dramatically over the last few decades. Today 60 percent of 
families rely on earnings from both parents. That is up from 37 percent 
in 1975--60 percent. Women today make up nearly half the workforce, and 
more than ever women are likely to be the primary breadwinner in their 
families. Women are making a difference in our economy, in board rooms, 
lecture halls and small businesses.
  But despite the important progress we have made since the Equal Pay 
Act passed now 50 years ago, including passing the Lilly Ledbetter Act 
in 2009--thanks again to Senator Mikulski--giving women more tools to 
fight against pay discrimination, women's wages have not caught up with 
the times. Across the country today women still earn 77 cents on the 
dollar, on average, to do the exact same work as men. It would take a 
typical woman until today to earn what a man would earn doing the same 
work in 2013.
  That difference really adds up. In Seattle, in my home State, last 
year women earned 73 cents on the dollar--73 cents on the dollar--
compared to their male counterparts. That translated to a yearly gap of 
$16,346. Nationwide, over a typical woman's lifetime, pay 
discrimination amounts to $464,320 in lost wages. That is not only 
unfair to women, it is bad for our families, and it is bad for our 
economy.
  At a time when more and more families rely on women's wages to put 
food on the table or stay in their homes or build a nest egg for 
retirement or help pay for their children's education, it is absolutely 
critical we do more to eliminate pay discrimination and unfairness in 
the workplace. The Paycheck Fairness Act would tackle pay 
discrimination head on. It would ramp up enforcement of equal pay laws 
and strengthen assistance to businesses to improve equal pay practices. 
I hope we can all agree that 21st century workers should be compensated 
based on how they do their job, not whether they are male or female.
  I hope to be able to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act as quickly as 
possible for working women and their families in this country, but we 
can't stop there. We need to build then on these critical reforms with 
other steps toward giving women a better and a fairer shot at getting 
ahead. One out of four women in the United States today would benefit 
from raising the minimum wage. That is 15 million American women who 
are making the equivalent of about 2 gallons of gas per hour. It is 
clearly time to raise the minimum wage and give working women in the 
country some much deserved relief.
  There are other ways we can, and should be, updating our policies to 
help working women and their families make ends meet. For example, 
thanks to our outdated Tax Code, a woman who is thinking about 
reentering the workforce as the second earner in her family is likely 
going to face higher tax rates than her husband. That would come in 
addition to increased costs that she would then have with child care 
and transportation and the possibility of losing tax credits and other 
benefits as her household income rises. All of this means struggling 
families will experience higher tax rates than what many of the 
wealthiest Americans pay. This can discourage a potential second 
earner, such as a mom who is talking about reentering the workforce and 
returning to her professional career.
  I recently introduced the 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act, which 
would help solve this problem by giving struggling two-earner families 
with children a tax deduction on the second earner's income. The Joint 
Committee on Taxation estimates that change alone would cut taxes by an 
average of $700 for 7.3 million families next year.
  The 21st Century Worker Tax Cut Act would also expand the EITC for 
childless workers and lower the eligibility age so that people without 
dependents and young workers just starting out can benefit from the 
credit.
  By the way, this has bipartisan support. It builds on work incentives 
from the EITC and is paid for by getting rid of wasteful corporate tax 
loopholes that both Ways and Means Chairman Camp and Democrats agree 
ought to be closed.
  Opinion leaders from across the political spectrum have said this 
bill would provide much-needed relief to workers and families. One 
conservative commentator wrote in the National Review that the 21st 
Century Worker Tax Cut Act is ``a serious proposal that has the 
potential to better the lives of a large number of workers.'' A New 
York Times editorial columnist says it would be ``a huge benefit to 
low-income childless families and two-earner families.''
  So I am hopeful that here in Congress we will see similar support on 
both sides of the aisle for a bill that would help women and working 
families keep more of what they earn.
  We have come a long way in terms of the opportunities women have in 
our country today, but there is no question we have a lot more work to 
do. If we take these steps I have talked about, and that others here 
are talking about, we will do much to break down the very real barriers 
that still exist today. We will help working women and their families, 
we will strengthen our economy, and we will expand opportunity for the 
next generation of women who enter the workforce.
  So I am here today to urge my colleagues to support the Paycheck 
Fairness Act and then build on that step by continuing to help level 
the playing field for American women and their families.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, this isn't only a women's fight, 
though we reserved this time. There are many good men in the Senate who 
will stand shoulder to shoulder with us, and I know the Senator from 
West Virginia would like to have 2 minutes before he presides. I yield 
him 2 minutes. Actually, I should yield him 77 percent of what we got, 
but he is for equal pay and so gets equal time as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

[[Page 5854]]


  Mr. MANCHIN. That would be 1 minute and 45 seconds, I say to the 
Chairwoman.
  I thank the chairwoman for what she does and how well she has been 
leading this charge for all of us. As a proud husband of a brilliant 
and talented woman, my wife Gayle, and as the father of two daughters 
and the grandfather of six granddaughters, all of whom are gifted and 
make great contributions to our country, I believe it is past time 
women earn the same amount as men in the workplace. We need to correct 
this unfairness to make sure women are paid what they deserve.
  As we join together today to celebrate Equal Pay Day in the year 
2014, it just defies common sense that working women in West Virginia 
earn only 70--not 77 but 70--cents to every dollar a man makes. Too 
many families are working too hard to make ends meet, and especially in 
families where women are the breadwinners.
  In West Virginia there are more than 81,000 family households headed 
by women. About 36 percent of those families, or nearly 29,200 family 
households, have incomes that fall below the poverty level. Eliminating 
the wage gap would provide much needed income to women whose wages put 
food on the table, pay the bills, and maintain a respectable quality of 
life for their children and families.
  Growing up I was blessed to be raised by two strong, hardworking 
women--my grandmother, affectionately known as Mama Kay, and my mother. 
By example, both of these wonderful ladies taught me that women can 
work just as hard, if not harder, with more responsibilities, and they 
should get paid the same as a man. As a matter of fact, they probably 
should get overtime. There is no reason why they shouldn't have 
received the same pay for the same job as men, and that certainly 
resonates today.
  Since I joined the Senate, I have been proud to have cosponsored the 
Paycheck Fairness Act. The very first vote I took in the Senate was for 
paycheck fairness. Until Congress passes this truly commonsense bill, I 
will continue to fight for paycheck fairness because the bottom line is 
people should earn the same pay for the same work, period, no excuses.
  As a former governor, most of my decisionmaking was made around good 
strong women who sat down and gave me the facts and nothing but the 
facts, and I appreciated that.
  It shouldn't matter whether you are a man or a woman. You should be 
treated fairly no matter what, no matter where you are or what you do.
  I thank our chairman, and I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Senator Heitkamp.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Thank you so much. I want to thank our great friend and 
great leader from the State of Maryland for continuing her hard work. I 
wonder if she ever wakes up in the morning and wonders when it is ever 
going to be done. When are we going to see justice? I am sure she has 
learned over the years that until you stand up every day and live a 
life where you are trying to make positive change in America, it 
doesn't get done. She is somebody who has never given up.
  It is interesting that North Dakota, as West Virginia, is one of 
those States where women earn less than men, and below the national 
average less than men. When we look at the national average and 77 
percent, that is a horrible statistic. But what is really horrible is 
if you live that statistic.
  Not one person in this body lives that statistic. We are all treated 
equally. It doesn't matter what gender we are. If we are Members of 
Congress, we are treated equally. Imagine the outpouring of sympathy 
and support if we got 77 percent of a male's salary. We would think 
that was atrocious. We would think how could that possibly happen in 
America. But it happens every day in America.
  It happens every day for working women who are supporting their 
families, women who go to work 40, 50 or 60 hours to support their 
families and to improve the economies of their State. And they keep 
spinning their wheels. They keep working at trying to change this and 
don't seem to get any further ahead. How many of us could take a 25-
percent reduction in salary? That is really what we are asking every 
woman in America to do--not across the board but certainly on average--
asking every woman in America to take a 25-percent reduction in her 
salary. That is not fair, and it should not be the facts of 2014. It 
should not be the way things are.
  There has been a lot of discussion around the opportunities for 
women, and obviously we have grown. You cannot see 20 women in the 
Senate and not think that we are making some progress. But we have to 
think not only about women in professional occupations but women who 
are school cooks and janitors, such as my mother. The women who are 
working every day at the diner to put food on their family's table and 
food on the tables of their patrons.
  So when we are talking about this, I must also mention the need for 
an increase in the minimum wage, which is a topic for further 
discussion on the floor. I would like to remind my fellow Senators that 
the current minimum wage, which is overrepresented by women in terms of 
the number of people earning minimum wage, is less than 9 percent of a 
congressional salary. We have people in this body who think that the 
salary they receive is inadequate, but we expect people to work 40 
hours a week for the minimum wage. Even if you had two minimum wage 
jobs--think about it--working 40 hours a week on two of those minimum 
wage jobs, you still would make less than $32,000 a year working 80 
hours a week. That is the story of many women in this country.
  When we were growing up and women were in the workforce, it used to 
be they were working for that extra income. There was this excuse given 
over and over: She is just supplementing the income, and the man is the 
breadwinner. She is earning a little extra so she can buy a 
refrigerator or whatever it is.
  That is not the reality of today. The reality of today is that more 
women are the primary or the sole breadwinners for their family. We 
have to correct this problem.
  I have listened to the debate on the other side saying there are 
other ideas on how to do this. This won't promote or give a way forward 
for change. These are the same people who think if you just maintain 
the status quo, somehow things will magically change in the Senate. 
After 20 or 30 or 40 years of this struggle, what would suggest to us 
that we are going to get parity if we don't take some pretty proactive 
action here in the Senate and in the Congress to say that what a woman 
does is valuable and it is at least as valuable as what a man does in 
the exact same job. That is who we are in this country. We are gender 
neutral, and that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to 
maintain gender neutrality, maintain a good economy because we know if 
we put more money into women's family budgets, that money is going to 
go out and grow our economy even more.
  The bottom line is this. Let's have a little sympathy in this body 
for people who earn less than 20 percent of what a Senator earns. Let's 
give them a show of support, a thank you from a grateful country for 
the hard work they put in every day. Let's tell them that the words in 
the Constitution and the promise of equality are still not realized, 
but we can work together to make that a reality in their lives.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Manchin). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. President, I would like to start by thanking Senator 
Mikulski for organizing us today and much more importantly for her 
leadership over the years on this issue. We are so proud to have her as 
our dean.
  I come to the floor today on Equal Pay Day to stand and speak about 
an issue that impacts women and families in every State across this 
country. Today I rise to give voice to the belief that we need to be 
working together

[[Page 5855]]

across party aisles to build an America where hard work is rewarded and 
where there is a fair shot for everyone to realize their pursuits and 
dreams.
  In America today the growing gap between rich and everyone else is at 
its largest point in 100 years. The absence of upward mobility for 
hard-working families demands action because if we cannot close this 
gap we might someday talk about the middle class as something we used 
to have, not something that each generation can aspire to.
  As I have traveled through my home State of Wisconsin, they have told 
me that the powerful and well connected seem to get to write their own 
rules while the concerns and struggles of middle-class families often 
go unnoticed here in Washington. They feel as if our economic system is 
tilted towards those at the top and that our political system exists to 
protect unfair advantages, instead of making sure that everybody gets a 
fair shot.
  I rise to give voice to the fact that there is paycheck inequality 
for hard-working American women across this country and that it is time 
we do something about it. Working women make up over 50 percent of our 
workforce, and they are working harder than ever to get ahead. And they 
deserve to get ahead. Many are working full time, and many are working 
two jobs to make ends meet. Yet far too many are barely getting by, and 
far too many women and children are living in poverty. The least we can 
do is level the playing field and give women a fair shot at getting 
ahead because they deserve equal pay for equal work. It is simply 
unfair that women are paid on average 77 cents for every dollar paid to 
a man. This reality is holding women back, and it is holding our entire 
economy back.
  I am proud to join my colleagues today to deliver a call for action 
to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and give women equal pay for equal 
work. This legislation will help close the paycheck gap for women, it 
will help create upward mobility for women, and it will help strengthen 
the economic security of millions of families across our country.
  Let me take the time to tell you just one story of one woman. Shannon 
is a single mother of three from Two Rivers, WI. Shannon is working 
hard to support her family, but the pay gap is holding her back. 
Shannon has continued her education to advance her career as an 
interpreter in a school, but she faces the grim reality that women 
teachers are often paid less than their male counterparts.
  In fact--and this is so hard to believe--statistics collected by our 
Department of Labor make it clear that women earn less than men in 
almost all occupations commonly held by women. Passing the Paycheck 
Fairness Act will help close the pay gap and provide Shannon and so 
many others with financial freedom for their families.
  It would help Shannon manage issues that working moms face every 
single day--unexpected car problems, children outgrowing their pants 
and shoes, the anxiety of not being able to save a little bit from 
their paycheck to someday send their children to college. To put this 
in the simplest terms possible, it would give Shannon a fair shot at 
passing on a stronger future for her children.
  Today women working full time in Wisconsin go home with $10,324 less 
a year than their male counterparts. In Wisconsin, 31 percent of 
households headed by working women have incomes that fall below the 
poverty level. This is simply wrong, and it is our job to work together 
to change that. Millions of American women get up everyday to work hard 
for that middle-class dream: a good job that pays the bills, health 
care coverage you can rely on, a home you can call your own, a chance 
to save for your kids' college education, and a secure retirement. But 
instead, gender discrimination is holding women and their families 
back. Eliminating the pay gap will make families more secure.
  Nearly 60 percent of women would earn more if women were paid the 
same as men of the same experience with similar education and hours of 
work. The poverty rate for women would be cut in half. It is wrong for 
us to ignore the gap between the economic security that American women 
work so hard to achieve and the economic uncertainty that they are 
asked to settle for. With a record number of women in the workforce 
today, the right thing to do is to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and 
empower women with a fair shot at equal pay.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in working to pass the Paycheck 
Fairness Act because it would strengthen families and our economy by 
providing working women with the tools they need to close the gender 
pay gap. It will show the American people our commitment to working 
together to provide a fair shot for everyone.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Paycheck Fairness Act. 
I would like to first commend the senior Senator from Maryland for her 
fearless and tireless leadership on this issue. She has been a protean 
force when it comes to this issue and many others. I deeply admire and 
respect her.
  This week I held my annual roundtable with the Women's Fund in 
Providence. We talked about equal rights, equal pay, and economic 
opportunity and justice with women who are creating jobs and fighting 
inequality everyday.
  Today, as my colleagues have pointed out, we mark Equal Pay Day. 
Women would have to work until April 8 of this year just to earn what 
men did as of December 31 of last year. Passing the Paycheck Fairness 
Act will move us one step closer to being able to commemorate Equal Pay 
Day on December 31 each year for both men and women, and that is what 
we should be striving for.
  This year we are marking the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act 
and the war on poverty. We have come a long way, but our efforts to 
form a more perfect, more equal union must continue forward. When 
President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law in 1963, women were 
earning an average of 59 cents on the dollar compared to men.
  No matter how you slice it, median annual earnings, weekly earnings, 
by level of education or occupation, there is still a gender gap in pay 
today.
  The Women's Fund of Rhode Island issued a report showing that gender 
discrimination in pay is even more striking for minority women. In 
Rhode Island African-American women make 61 cents for every dollar that 
a white male makes. For Latinas the figure is 51 cents. This gender 
discrimination pay gap affects women at all educational levels.
  According to the Council of Economic Advisers, women are more likely 
to complete college--that is right. Today women are completing college 
more than men. In 2012, 25- to 34-year-old women were 21 percent more 
likely than men to be college graduates, but this is not closing the 
earnings gap. To all those who say it is all about education, and these 
people have more education, that is wrong. It is not.
  Women who earn advanced degrees start off on a relatively even 
footing--people with a Master's or a Ph.D. But again, over the course 
of their careers the wage gap widens in favor of men. The National 
Partnership for Women and Families reports that women with Master's 
degrees are paid 70 cents for every dollar paid to men with Master's 
degrees, and women with Master's degrees earn less than men with 
Bachelor's degrees.
  Equal pay for equal work is not only an issue of equity. It has real 
economic consequences. Families rely on women's income. Data analyzed 
by the National Partnership for Women and Families show that women are 
the primary or sole breadwinners in 40 percent of families. If we 
eliminate gender discrimination in pay in Rhode Island, a working woman 
would have enough extra money to buy 74 more weeks of food for her 
family, to make 6 more months of mortgage and utilities payments, or to 
pay 11 more months of rent. That just doesn't help the woman; it helps 
the family.

[[Page 5856]]

  One of the best tools in fighting poverty is to close the pay gap. 
The Paycheck Fairness Act will help fulfill the promise of the Equal 
Pay Act by improving the remedies available to women facing gender 
discrimination. These are commonsense and fair improvements for our 
mothers, our daughters, our sisters, our fathers, our sons, and our 
brothers.
  We must pass the Paycheck Fairness Act. We believe everyone deserves 
a fair shot, and that includes equal pay for equal work. I urge my 
colleagues to come together to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, and with 
that I will yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, almost 51 years after the enactment 
of the Equal Pay Act, women now make up almost half of the workforce; 
however, gender-based wage discrimination is still pervasive. 
Statistics show that there is a significant difference in the pay of 
men and women performing the same or substantially similar jobs, 
regardless of the education level or type of occupation. Looking at the 
average pay for women, women get paid about 77 cents for every dollar 
earned by similar male workers.
  The experience of women in the workforce is better in California but 
not by much. According to the most recent census estimates, in 
California, the average pay for a woman working full time, year round 
is $41,956 per year, while the average for a man is $50,139. This means 
that, on average, women in California are paid less than 84 cents for 
every dollar paid to men. Put another way, this amounts to a yearly gap 
of $8,183 between full-time working men and women in the State. Over 
the course of a career, on average, women stand to lose $434,000 in 
income and thus enjoy fewer Social Security, pension, and retirement 
benefits.
  Latina women face greater disparities in the workplace as they are 
paid approximately 54 cents for every dollar paid to men. Women of 
color fare similarly.
  As a group, full-time working women in California alone lose over 
$37.5 billion each year due to the wage gap.
  According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, if the 
gender-based ``pay gap'' were eliminated, a working woman in California 
would have enough money for approximately 59 more weeks of food, 4 more 
months of mortgage and utilities payments, 7 more months of rent, or 
2,103 additional gallons of gas.
  A Redondo Beach resident wrote to me, ``I know that at my current 
age, I have been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars less than my 
colleagues, though I am also paying my rent . . . supporting my kids, 
and trying to figure out how I can possibly pay for colleges for them. 
If I had been earning a fair wage, I could afford college, and 
healthcare, and would have some retirement savings, all things that I 
cannot currently do.''
  She is absolutely right--it is estimated that it takes a woman 4\1/2\ 
more months of work to earn the same as her male counterpart earns in 
just 1 year. Yet she still must pay for the same monthly expenses as 
her male colleagues. In Redondo Beach, her monthly expenses can be 
crippling.
  A single adult with two children living in Redondo Beach spends 
monthly around $536 in food, $767 in child care, $451 in medical care, 
$1,420 in housing, and $639 in transportation, not to mention taxes. 
Considering that over 1.7 million households in California are headed 
by women, over 500,000 of whom fall below the poverty level as it is, 
denying California women equal pay for equal work adds to their burden 
and affects their families.
  This is not just a problem for low-income women and families. The pay 
gap exists across the spectrum of education levels and occupations. 
According to the 2012 S&P 500 CEO Pay Study, although companies run by 
female chief executive officers performed better on average than those 
run by men--looking at the total shareholder return for their 
companies--those female CEOs were paid an average of about $500,000 
less per year than their male CEO counterparts. And the pay gap is 
wider for women with higher education, making it more difficult for 
them to pay off their school loans.
  Congress tried to address the problem by passing the Equal Pay Act in 
1963, which amended the Fair Labor Standards Act, making it illegal for 
employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who perform 
substantially the same work. However, as is reflected in wage data 
statistics and in the stories shared by women across the country, while 
the Equal Pay Act was a step in the right direction, more needs to be 
done to clarify the law.
  Congress recently had to correct the courts on how to interpret pay 
discrimination laws in line with their original intent by passing the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Through Lilly Ledbetter, Congress 
amended title VII of the Civil Rights Act to clarify the timeframes in 
which employees could bring a claim against employers who engage in pay 
discrimination.
  But according to recent studies, Congress needs to strengthen the law 
further in order to effectively close the pay gap between men and women 
across the spectrum. The disparity in pay between men and women is the 
same as it was in 2002. If we keep going at this rate, without 
congressional action, women will not reach pay equity until 2058.
  The Paycheck Fairness Act therefore provides Congress with an 
opportunity to eliminate this unfair pay gap. It will reasonably update 
the Equal Pay Act by eliminating loopholes used for far too long in 
courtrooms; strengthening incentives to employers to prevent pay 
discrimination through remedies available under current law to victims 
of race-based and national origin discrimination; improving wage data 
collection so that we can better evaluate the pay gap; and by 
strengthening education, training, outreach, and enforcement efforts to 
close the pay gap.
  This bill also importantly provides that employers are prohibited 
from retaliating against employees who share salary information with 
their coworkers. Nearly half of all workers in the United States are 
strongly discouraged or even have workplace policies against the 
sharing of salary information. This secrecy makes it extremely 
difficult for employees to detect pay discrimination and contributes to 
the pay gap. For example, Lilly Ledbetter was paid less than her male 
coworkers for almost 20 years but did not realize it because a company 
policy prohibited her from discussing her pay with her coworkers. She 
discovered the pay discrimination only when someone sent her an 
anonymous note.
  Under the Paycheck Fairness Act, employees would therefore generally 
be protected from retaliation when they discuss or inquire about their 
wages or the wages of another employee. They would also be protected 
from retaliation if they make a charge, file a complaint, or 
participate in a government or employer-initiated investigation. These 
antiretaliation provisions would generally not protect employees such 
as payroll or HR personnel who have access to wage information as an 
essential function of their job. Rather, the antiretaliation provisions 
would enable employees to learn about their employers' wage practices 
without being afraid of losing their jobs. With such information, 
employees will be better suited to close the gender pay gap for 
themselves and others.
  I recognize the concerns of business owners who maintain that 
amending the Equal Pay Act will open them up to liability and risk 
harming their business. I have heard concerns that employers fear that 
this bill will infringe on their private business practices should it 
become law.
  After considering and reconsidering the effects of this legislation 
with the concerns of business owners in mind and after consulting with 
experts in employment and labor law, I came to the conclusion that this 
bill is necessary to level the playing field and does not have to 
necessarily affect business practices so long as those business 
practices do not discriminate against women.
  As under the current law, employers would not be helpless or 
defenseless--they can proactively conduct an internal pay-equity 
analysis to ensure equal pay for equal work before government

[[Page 5857]]

intervention. In fact, the bill provides for a 6-month waiting period 
from the time of enactment, and the Department of Labor would assist 
small businesses with compliance.
  Should a claim arise, employers have affirmative defenses that they 
can raise to justify pay differences, such as if the wages are set 
based on a seniority system; a merit system; a system that measures 
earnings by quantity or quality of product; or a bona fide factor other 
than sex, such as education, training, or experience, which is job-
related and serves a legitimate business interest.
  I am not in the habit of supporting bills that advance women just 
because I am a woman. I am supporting this bill because I believe in 
advancing equal rights and uplifting millions of families who rely on a 
woman's paycheck in order to eat.
  I am not alone in hearing stories about paycheck disparities in 
California. My colleagues have heard similar stories from women in 
their States. We also know that women are critical to driving this 
economy, and by ensuring equal pay for equal work, the entire economy 
benefits.
  With the knowledge of pervasive inequality still today in pay among 
men and women and considering that the majority of Americans support 
the government taking steps to enable women to get equal pay for equal 
work, it is our duty to vote in favor of cloture and for swift passage 
of the Paycheck Fairness Act.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for those comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority's time has expired.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:30 p.m., 
the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar Nos. 556 
and 502; that there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided between the 
two leaders or their designees prior to each vote; that upon the use or 
yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote, with no intervening 
action or debate, on the nominations in the order listed; further, that 
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; 
that no further motions be in order to the nominations; that any 
statements related to the nominations be printed in the Record; that 
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the 
Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for weeks Republicans have been trying 
to get Democrats to focus on the one issue Americans say they care the 
most about, and that is jobs and the economy. Everyone agrees we are in 
the midst of a jobs crisis in our country. Republicans are saying: Here 
are some concrete things we can actually do about it. But Democrats 
have completely shut us out. If government isn't part of the solution 
or if it doesn't drive a wedge between one group of people and another, 
they are just not interested.
  Here is one idea that I proposed and Democrats have brushed aside: 
How about helping workers better balance the demands of work and family 
by allowing them time off as a form of overtime compensation? This is 
an idea that is tailored to the needs of the modern workforce. It is 
something a lot of working women say they want, and it is something 
government employees have already enjoyed for years. What we are saying 
is to give today's working women in the private sector the same kind of 
flexibility working women have in the government.
  Everybody is familiar with the idea of getting paid time-and-a-half 
for overtime work. What this bill would do is give people the choice of 
getting a proportionate bump in time off for overtime work. So if you 
work an extra hour, you can get an hour-and-a-half off work. This 
should be a no-brainer. This is a concrete proposal to help men and 
women adapt to the needs of the modern workplace and for the workplace 
to adapt to the modern workforce. This is not just a way to help 
workers, it is a way to especially help working women. Flexibility is a 
major part of achieving work-life balance, especially for working moms. 
That is what this amendment is all about.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the 
motion to proceed to S. 2199, that all postcloture time be yielded back 
and the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill and that it be 
in order for me to offer amendment No. 2962, and then for the majority 
leader or his designee to offer an amendment, and then it be in order 
for the leaders or their designees to continue to offer amendments in 
an alternating fashion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request I would 
like to put forward as well. I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is 
invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 2199, that all postcloture time 
be yielded back and the Senate proceed to consideration of the bill, 
and that it be in order for me to offer amendment No. 2964, and then 
for the majority leader or his designee to offer an amendment, and it 
be in order for the leaders or their designees to continue to offer 
amendments in an alternating fashion with the following amendments on 
the Republican side in order: McConnell amendment No. 2962, Fischer 
amendment No. 2963, Alexander amendment No. 2965, and Lee amendment No. 
2966.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, would my friend give the subject matter of 
those three amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator from South Dakota state the 
subject matter of those amendments?
  Mr. THUNE. The McConnell amendment has to deal with flexibility in 
the workplace and comp time, the Fischer amendment has to do with 
antidiscrimination in the workplace, and I believe the Lee amendment 
also deals with comp time flexibility in the workplace.
  The Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, is here, and I think 
he can speak to his amendment. Most of them deal with the pending 
business, S. 2199, which is the Pay Equity Act that the majority leader 
expects to get a cloture vote on later. We simply ask to have an 
opportunity to offer amendments that pertain to that bill, on issues we 
think are important in addressing the issue that is before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, is the Alexander amendment, 
which the Senator from South Dakota suggested, the 350-page amendment 
that was offered last week?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, if I may respond to the majority 
leader, the answer is no. The Alexander amendment, I say to my friend 
from Nevada, is a pretty simple amendment. It talks about giving 
working parents more flexibility so they can go to soccer games and 
piano recitals; in other words, to be better parents.
  A few years ago Captain Kangaroo, Robert Keeshan, and I--along with 
some other people--started a company. After our company merged with 
another company, it became the largest worksite daycare company in 
America. What we found out was that the greatest value working parents 
with young children wanted was flexibility. Our fear is that this 
proposal, which is called paycheck fairness, would actually limit the 
flexibility of employers can give to working parents so they can go to 
their children's activities.
  My amendment is a very simple amendment. It is only a paragraph or 
two, and it simply restates the law and makes it clear that if you run 
a dry cleaner with three people in it, you don't have to hire a lawyer 
to define a job for an employee with a child in such a way that that 
employee can go to the piano recital or soccer game. Instead of being 
about more litigation, it

[[Page 5858]]

is about giving more flexibility for working parents.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Before my friend from South Dakota leaves the floor, 2964 
is the big one?
  Mr. THUNE. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I am happy to see a number 
of Republican colleagues come to the floor. We have been talking about 
this issue for days now and to discuss, I thought, the subject of equal 
pay for women. But there has been no talk about equal pay for women. 
The closest of anything in that regard that has been suggested has been 
a bill that says if you have to work overtime, then you have a choice 
of going home or doing the overtime.
  The reason we don't have laws like that is because the employer can 
take advantage of the employee because the employee is at the beck and 
call of the employer, and I think most labor laws would protect against 
that now.
  I am surprised we have literally heard no one come to the floor 
except on the one occasion--and I could have missed it--where the 
Republican Senator made the statement that Senator Mikulski's 
legislation was a trial lawyer's dream. The women who have come to the 
floor to talk about this--and the men who have come to talk about this 
today, including the Presiding Officer, and I heard his statement--are 
simply trying to say we need to be sure this is a fair shot for the 
middle class, and in this instance it is women. But the Republicans 
always want to change the subject. Why don't we have a debate on 
whether women are entitled to have the same pay as men?
  The Senate is debating the motion to proceed to the equal pay bill, 
so the question before the Senate is whether we should even begin 
debate on this matter. If Senators wish to offer amendments, they would 
have to begin the debate.
  I am always happy to talk about amendments, but the amendment of my 
friend from South Dakota is nothing that is reasonable. What that 
amendment does is offer lots of amendments. I think if we look closely 
at this 350-page amendment, we might even find the kitchen sink in it. 
It has everything else in it. It is really a perfect example of trying 
to divert attention from the subject at hand. This is not a serious 
effort to legislate equal pay for equal work.
  My colleague's unanimous consent request would also allow for a 
potentially unlimited number of amendments. We have been there before, 
and we know that does not work. Providing an unlimited number of 
amendments is just another way of saying they want to filibuster the 
bill, which they have done so artfully over the last 5 years.
  My door remains open to further discussions, but I object to the 
requests that have been made, including the one that I anticipate from 
my friend from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Is there anything pending? I want to make sure there are no 
pending requests for unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No.
  The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I think what we just heard was a number of 
our Members have amendments they are going to talk about and offer when 
we get on the bill--and I assume we will at some point--so we can 
debate and vote on them. We are talking about an issue that is 
important to people across this country, and we have amendments that we 
think would improve, strengthen, make better the bill that is going to 
be on the floor that has been described as the Pay Equity Act by the 
Democrats.
  We actually think there is a better way to do this. We think there is 
a way that actually would improve the wages, provide better job 
opportunities, and better opportunities for advancement for women.
  This morning the majority leader quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson who said, 
``America is another name for opportunity.'' I could not agree more 
with that statement. The American dream is to work hard and achieve 
upward mobility. Americans want good jobs, and they want to earn a fair 
wage. But the current Obama economy is doing everything it can to hurt 
the American dream.
  The economy is stagnant. There are 10 million Americans who are 
unemployed--nearly 4 million for 6 months or longer. Household income 
has fallen. Right now there are 3.7 million more women living in 
poverty than there were when the President took office. I will repeat 
that. There are 3.7 million more women living in poverty today than 
there were when the President took office. The median income for women 
has dropped by $733 since President Obama took office. That is why this 
body should be focused on enacting policies that lift the government-
imposed burdens that impede job opportunities and economic growth.
  I have offered an amendment--and I just asked unanimous consent to be 
able to have it debated and voted on when we get on this bill--that 
actually is focused on enacting policies that lift the government-
imposed burdens that impede job opportunities and economic growth. It 
is called the Good Jobs, Good Wages, and Good Hours Act. It would help 
return America to a place where there are good job opportunities.
  My amendment would help create good-paying jobs by reining in 
burdensome regulatory requirements, shielding workers from the damaging 
effects of ObamaCare, approving the Keystone XL Pipeline, and providing 
permanent tax relief to employers that are looking to expand and hire.
  Republicans could not agree more that women should have equal 
opportunities and pay in the workplace. Unfortunately, the legislation 
our friends on the other side are pushing will not accomplish that 
goal. Their legislation would increase Federal regulations that would 
cut flexibility in the workplace for working moms and end merit pay 
that rewards quality work.
  The Democrats seem to be trying to change the subject of how their 
ideas are actually hurting women in the workforce. Of those affected by 
the Democrats' ObamaCare 30-hour workweek that is reducing wages, 63 
percent are women. So that policy of going to a 30-hour workweek that 
was defined as such in ObamaCare, 63 percent of the impact of that is 
being felt by women. Of the roughly 500,000 jobs that CBO projects will 
be lost by the end of 2016 thanks to the Democrats' 40-percent minimum 
wage hike, 235,000 of those--or 57 percent--would be jobs that are held 
by women. Disproportionately, these policies are going to hurt women.
  The poverty rate for women has increased to 16.3 percent from 14.4 
percent as of when the President took office. So the poverty rate is 
higher. We have women who are living in worse economic conditions than 
when the President took office. If the Democrats were truly serious 
about fixing that problem--if they are truly serious about helping 
women--they would work with us on bills to create jobs and to expand 
workplace opportunities for women and for men as well. That is exactly 
what my amendment does. It addresses the problems created by ObamaCare, 
it includes a provision pushed by Senator Collins that would restore 
the 40-hour workweek I mentioned earlier, and it will finally repeal 
the job-destroying medical device tax for which Senators Toomey, Hatch, 
and Coats have been tirelessly fighting.
  My amendment ensures that veterans and the long-term unemployed are 
not punished by the costs of the ObamaCare employer mandate in that 
legislation. Senator Blunt has raised that issue in the Senate on 
behalf of veterans, and in the House a similar bill passed by a margin 
of 406 to 1.
  My amendment also provides permanent, targeted tax relief to millions 
of small businesses. Small businesses create 65 percent of all new 
jobs. Yet this administration has done little more than punish them 
with more regulations and higher taxes.
  The amendment also halts harmful EPA regulations until the EPA 
conducts additional analysis of the impact those existing rules would 
have on jobs.
  It is time this body recognizes that the policies the other side is 
advancing

[[Page 5859]]

are not achieving the outcomes they claim will occur. We need to renew 
our commitment to helping all Americans, including women, find job 
opportunities that allow them to achieve the American dream. We need to 
return this country to a place where America truly is another name for 
opportunity.
  Earlier today the President and CEO of the Small Business & 
Entrepreneurship Council, Karen Kerrigan, wrote an article that says 
this proposal I am speaking about ``offers a set of really good policy 
proposals to help women entrepreneurs and women in the workforce.''
  That is why I sought unanimous consent to have this amendment debated 
and voted on, along with many of my colleagues, including the Senator 
from Nebraska Mrs. Fischer and the Senator from New Hampshire Ms. 
Ayotte, who are here to speak about amendments they want to put forward 
as a part of this debate. I asked unanimous consent earlier for those 
amendments to be considered as well and once again that has been 
blocked by the majority leader. That is the wrong way to deal with an 
issue of this consequence.
  If we want to help people--if we want to create jobs and grow the 
economy, which ultimately helps lift all the boats, improves the 
standard of living for middle-class families, women and men--the best 
way to do that is to get a growing, vibrant economy instead of a 
stagnant economy, which is what we have today, with too many who have 
been unemployed for a long period of time.
  I hope our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will come to the 
conclusion that if we are going to debate this issue, we need to debate 
it in a comprehensive way that takes into consideration all of the 
ideas out there, including those that will be offered by my colleagues 
this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I strongly affirm the principle of equal 
pay for equal work. Both the Equal Pay Act and title VII of the Civil 
Rights Act, which were passed on a bipartisan basis, have helped 
increase career opportunities for women and ensure they receive equal 
pay for equal work. That is a principle we strongly support.
  Women have made progress. They now hold more than half of all 
managerial and professional jobs--more than double the number of women 
in 1980--and women comprise a majority in the five fastest growing job 
fields. According to the Department of Education, women receive 57 
percent of all college degrees, 33 percent more than in 1970.
  We believe--the reports prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor 
recognize--that commonly used wage gap statistics don't tell the full 
story. Factors including differences in occupation, education, fields 
of study, type of work, hours worked, and other personal choices shape 
career paths and they shape earning potential. Moreover, salaries alone 
don't account for total compensation. Still, some women continue to 
struggle with gender-based pay discrimination, directly impacting a 
woman's livelihood, financial future, and her job security. With 60 
percent of women working as the primary breadwinners, lost wages 
detrimentally impact families as well as single women.
  We fully agree that gender-based pay discrimination in the modern 
workplace is unacceptable. We just have different ideas from some of 
our colleagues about the best way to combat this. Prevailing concern 
among women with wage discrimination indicates that there is more work 
to do. That is why I have worked with Senator Collins, Senator Ayotte, 
and Senator Murkowski to file an amendment to modernize key portions of 
that 51-year-old Equal Pay Act.
  Our proposal prevents retaliation against employees who inquire 
about, discuss or disclose their salaries. It reinforces current law 
which prohibits pay discrimination based on gender, and it requires 
employers to notify the employees of their rights, but we don't stop 
there because I believe we need a solution that addresses both 
discrimination and the opportunity gap or the need to provide both men 
and women with good-paying jobs.
  Our amendment consolidates duplicative job training programs and it 
provides Federal grants to States for the creation of industry-led 
partnerships. This program is meant to provide to women and men who are 
underrepresented in industries that report worker shortages with the 
skills they need to compete. Such industries include manufacturing, 
energy, transportation, information technology, and health care. 
Importantly, no new spending is appropriated.
  Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
blocking consideration of what I believe is this very commonsense 
amendment and a number of other Republican amendments that would also 
help with job creation.
  This is nothing more than election year politics. I find it very 
disappointing. As women and as lawmakers, we believe our proposal to 
directly address discrimination in the workplace is reasonable, it is 
fact-based, and it is a great approach. More government and more 
lawyers will not lead to more pay for women.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I wish to praise my colleague from 
Nebraska for her leadership on the important amendment she has just 
described, the Workplace Advancement Act, which will address legitimate 
issues to ensure that laws we have had in place for half a century, 
including the Equal Pay Act and title VII of the Civil Rights Act, are 
enforced and that women are informed of their rights in the workplace 
to ensure what we all believe in, which is that women should be paid 
the same for the same job. Frankly, as a woman, I would like the 
opportunity to outperform and to be paid more.
  One of the concerns I have is about what I view the majority leader 
meant when he came to the floor and said that this was an important 
issue to them. If this is such an important issue, why didn't they have 
a markup in the HELP Committee where everyone could offer their 
amendments to deal with this legitimate issue that I believe my male 
and female colleagues feel is important? Why is it that when we have 
brought legitimate amendments to the floor, including my colleague's 
amendment, the Workplace Advancement Act, as well as a provision that 
would allow greater flexibility for employees with comp time--the same 
that is enjoyed by those in the public sector--and my colleague from 
South Dakota who has a strong amendment to help create a better climate 
for job creation and more opportunity in this country--if this is such 
a serious issue, which I agree this is an important and serious issue, 
then why is it these amendments are being blocked? Why is it we are not 
having a legitimate debate? Unfortunately, what I fear is that an 
important and legitimate issue is being turned into a political ploy of 
election-year politics.
  I share the sentiments of my colleague from Nebraska. I am very 
disappointed by this. In fact, one of the concerns I have about the 
bill pending on the floor--the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act--is that 
it will actually have the impact of reducing flexibility for working 
families. It could have the impact of reducing the ability of employers 
to award merit pay.
  I had the privilege of serving as the first woman attorney general in 
my State. Before I went to the attorney general's office, I worked at a 
private law firm. I have had the opportunity, in the position in which 
I serve, to meet incredible women leaders in the health sector and in 
the business sector. There are many instances, frankly, where women, 
based on merit, have outperformed their male colleagues. So what we 
don't want to do is create and pass a law that actually reduces the 
opportunity for employers in the workplace to reward merit because 
women want the opportunity to earn more than men when they do a better 
job, just as my male counterparts want. That is one of my concerns 
about the so-called Paycheck Fairness Act.
  That is why I very much appreciate what I think is a better approach 
by my colleague, which reinforces the enforcement of laws that have 
been in

[[Page 5860]]

place, that rightly prohibits discrimination based on sex in the 
workplace, including discrimination based on people being paid 
differently even though they are performing the same job, where there 
are no merit differences. That is wrong. It is unacceptable. The ideas 
of my colleague from Nebraska are very good and I would hope the 
majority leader would allow a vote.
  I would also like to discuss the amendment that was offered by 
Senator McConnell, of which I am a cosponsor, that would provide 
working families with more flexibility in the workforce. In fact, what 
it would do is allow the same options currently available to those in 
the public sector to working families in the private sector. It would 
allow workers--if they want to; and it is their choice--to receive comp 
time instead of overtime pay so they can have more time off if they 
want and they choose. This is all voluntary. So if they want more time 
off to go to that soccer game, if they want more time off to have time 
to care for their children or more time to care for an elderly parent, 
then private sector employers will have the same ability to enter into 
those agreements voluntarily with their employees, to give their 
employees more flexibility in the workplace.
  What we know is that today nearly 60 percent of working households 
have two working parents. I happen to live in one of those households, 
and we struggle in our household to get to all the events we want to 
get to for our children. I have a 9-year-old and a 6-year-old, and this 
is a huge challenge that so many parents face.
  So the Family Friendly and Workplace Flexibility Act, which is an 
amendment Senator McConnell offered earlier, that I am a proud 
cosponsor of, would provide this needed flexibility for employees, 
workers, and let them decide with their employer whether they would 
like to receive more comp time. Right now public sector employees have 
the right to do this. They have this flexibility. It seems we should 
provide the same legal framework allowing private sector employees this 
type of flexibility, with more and more families trying to balance both 
parents working and challenging circumstances in the workplace.
  In fact, some companies, such as Dell, Bank of America, and GE 
already provide flexible workplace arrangements to their salaried 
employees who are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. What this 
would do is allow these types of agreements to other employees, to have 
access to the same kinds of benefits, if they choose. It is their 
choice. This is giving families more flexibility, more opportunity to 
deal with the challenges so many of us are dealing with in terms of 
balancing work and family and wanting to be good parents, wanting to be 
good at our jobs.
  It seems to me this is a commonsense amendment, and I am disappointed 
the majority leader would also block this amendment, as well as the 
excellent amendment offered by my colleague from Nebraska, and, 
obviously, the amendment that was offered--a very good amendment--by my 
colleague from South Dakota to deal with this underlying issue of 
creating a better climate of opportunity for women and men throughout 
this country.
  I believe this is a serious issue. But if it is a real serious 
issue--which I think we all share a feeling of on both sides of the 
aisle--then why is this being treated more like a political ploy 
instead of having a legitimate debate on the floor? Why didn't this go 
through the regular committee process, where people can offer their 
amendments and have a markup that can improve and make sure we are 
addressing the underlying issue?
  To me, it is disappointing that the Senate continues to operate in 
this way because this is not the first time I have come to the floor or 
my colleagues have come to the floor with a legitimate amendment that 
is relevant to the bill that is pending on the floor, yet have been 
blocked by the majority leader on an important issue.
  I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah has an amendment he 
is going to speak to in a moment. I just want to say one thing. I 
appreciate the observation made by the Senator from New Hampshire Ms. 
Ayotte with regard to this going through a regular order process. If 
this were a serious discussion, there would have been an opportunity to 
have a debate at the appropriate committee, the HELP Committee.
  You just heard great presentations by the Senator from Nebraska and 
the Senator from New Hampshire on amendments that they would like to 
have considered and debated and voted on--substantive amendments that 
address what is at the heart of this issue. I think we all understand 
what this is about. I mentioned this morning on the floor the New York 
Times story from a couple weeks ago about what the intention is with 
regard to these issues. Again, this is from the New York Times story, 
and I quote: ``to be timed to coincide with campaign-style trips by 
President Obama.'' ``Democrats concede,'' the Times reports, ``that 
making new laws is not really the point. Rather, they are trying to 
force Republicans to vote against them.'' The article goes on to say--
and I quote again:

       Privately, White House officials say they have no intention 
     of searching for any grand bargain with Republicans on any of 
     these issues. ``The point isn't to compromise''. . . .

  That is reporting from the New York Times, and quoting a White House 
official with regard to this.
  This is clearly designed as a political ploy, as my colleagues from 
New Hampshire and Nebraska pointed out. If we were serious about this, 
there would be an open process where we could consider amendments--
amendments that improve and strengthen the legislation that is before 
us--and actually it would be a better approach to addressing the issue 
that is before us; that is, to try to create better salaries, better 
wages, better opportunities for women. I say that as somebody who is 
the father of two adult daughters who are both in the workplace. I want 
to see them have every opportunity to advance themselves and to 
maximize the potential they have. But we cannot do that if we have 
policies coming out of Washington, DC, that make it more difficult, 
more expensive to create jobs, that throw a big wet blanket on our 
economy, and stifle the growth we need to create those types of 
opportunities for all Americans.
  The Senator from Utah is here. He is going to speak to his amendment. 
But I think it is very clear what this is about; that is, simply trying 
to score a political point rather than have a serious, meaningful, 
substantive debate about solving an issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from South 
Dakota, for his leadership in this area. I agree with his comments and 
support those statements, along with the other actions taken by my 
colleagues from New Hampshire, Kentucky, and Nebraska, in addition to 
others.
  I too had an amendment I wanted to present in connection with this 
legislation. I too offered that up and identified reasons why this is 
both relevant and germane to the legislation at hand. Unfortunately, 
the majority leader saw fit to block this, to object to it, to refuse 
altogether to allow the U.S. Senate--which is supposed to be the 
world's greatest deliberative legislative body--to consider these or 
any of the other amendments that were presented along with them.
  We are not asking for passage by unanimous consent. We recognize some 
people might not share our views. We recognize there might be a 
diversity of opinion within the body. We nevertheless believe, as U.S. 
Senators, we are entitled to have these amendments considered because 
they are relevant, because they are germane. We also think they should 
be considered because they would benefit the American people.
  This is the sort of thing we are supposed to do. It is what we do. 
What we are supposed to be doing as Senators is to be offering 
amendments and voting

[[Page 5861]]

on amendments to make legislation we consider better. You see, the 
amendment process can make a bad bill good or at least better, and that 
is exactly why we have an obligation to consider amendments.
  It is important to point out here that one of the reasons why I ran 
this amendment in the first place has to do with the fact that one of 
the struggles facing working families today is the constant struggle 
moms and dads feel as they try to juggle the work-life balance. Parents 
today need to juggle work, home, kids, community, and other obligations 
they face.
  For many families, especially families with young children, the most 
precious commodity parents have is time. But today Federal labor laws 
severely, and I believe unfairly, restrict the way moms and dads and 
everyone else can use their time. That is because many of those laws 
were written decades ago--decades ago--before the Internet existed; 
decades ago, when a number of demographic factors were aligned much 
differently than they are today, when a number of social trends 
operated much differently in our economy than they do today. Because of 
these laws--these same Buddy Holly-era, Elvis-era laws--because of 
these same antiquated laws that need to be updated, an hourly employee 
who works overtime is not allowed to take comp time, not allowed to 
take flextime. Even if she prefers it, her boss cannot even offer it 
without violating Federal law.
  Today, if a working mom or a working dad stays late at the office on 
Monday or Tuesday, and instead of receiving extra pay wants to get 
compensated by leaving early on Friday and spend the afternoon with the 
kids, that kind of arrangement could well be violating Federal law. 
That sounds unfair, especially to parents, and it is unfair, especially 
to parents and their children and everyone else.
  It also seems like the kind of arrangement that should not be 
prohibited by Federal law but ought to be perfectly acceptable. But how 
do we know that for sure? Well, we know that for sure because Congress 
gave a special exemption from that very law--the law I just described a 
moment ago--that is available only for government employees. This is 
unacceptable. The same work-life options that have been made available 
by Congress itself to government employees should be available to the 
citizens they serve.
  In May of last year, the House of Representatives responded to this 
deficit in existing Federal law by passing the Working Families 
Flexibility Act, sponsored by Representative Martha Roby of Alabama, to 
equalize the comp time rules, existing within a government employment 
context, for all workers. Last fall, I introduced companion legislation 
in the Senate proposing to do exactly the same thing.
  Now, today, I would like to offer an amendment that is modeled on 
this same legislation to end this flextime discrimination, this comp 
time discrimination against private sector workers. You talk to any 
working mom or any working dad and they will tell you they need more 
time.
  Now, Mr. President, as you well know, we cannot legislate another 
hour in the day. If we could, I am sure it would have been done by now, 
and, frankly, I am a little surprised someone has not tried it. But we 
know mathematically it will not work. It would not do any good. But 
what we can do is to help working people so they can better balance the 
demands they face--the demands of family and work and community and 
every other demand they face. We can ease some of this pressure by 
removing an unnecessary, outdated, and manifestly unfair Federal 
restriction on utilizing comp time in the private sector.
  There are real problems in this world. There are bad things that can 
be and must be prohibited by Federal law. But the fact that working 
parents would prefer, quite understandably, to spend more time with 
their families is not one of those things that needs to be prohibited, 
nor is it one of those things that we should allow to continue to be 
prohibited, especially when it is prohibited in a patently unfair 
discriminatory fashion--one that inures to the benefit of government 
employees, inures unfairly to the detriment of everyone else.
  Congress needs to stop punishing America's moms and dads for wanting 
the same fair treatment that government employees are able to receive 
through comp time and flextime programs. The United States of America 
deserves to have amendments like this one, and other amendments, that 
would make our laws less intrusive, less oppressive, less unfair, that 
would lead to the development of a more fair, just economy, and a more 
fair, just system of laws.
  We are never going to be able to get there if we are not even allowed 
to debate and discuss and vote on it, consider, much less pass, 
amendments. It is time to restore the Senate to what it was always 
intended to be, which is the world's greatest deliberative legislative 
body. That cannot happen when amendments like this one are 
categorically blocked from consideration. We must end this. We must do 
better. We can and we must and we will.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Highway Trust Fund

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, last October families and communities 
across our country were forced to endure a completely unnecessary 
government shutdown. Coming after years of budget uncertainty and 
constant crises, the shutdown hurt our workers and threatened our 
fragile economic recovery. It shook the confidence of people across the 
country who expected their elected officials to come together to avoid 
such a needless and self-inflicted crisis. It was a dark time here in 
Congress. I think many of my colleagues regret letting the tea party 
minority push us into that.
  When the shutdown finally ended, I sat down with House Budget 
Committee chairman Paul Ryan in a budget conference that many of us had 
been trying to start for months. We worked through the issues. We 
compromised. We reached a 2-year budget deal that rolled back the 
devastating cuts from sequestration. We prevented another government 
shutdown and restored much needed certainty to the budget process.
  That budget deal was a strong step in the right direction, but it was 
not the only step Congress needs to take to create jobs and economic 
growth. It was not the only step we need to take to ensure that we do 
not lurch to another avoidable crisis because if Congress does not act, 
we are headed toward another crisis in just a few months--not a budget 
crisis this time but a construction shutdown that could ramp up when 
our highway trust fund reaches critically low levels.
  It will get worse and worse if we do not solve the problem. So I have 
come to the floor today to call on my colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans, to work together to avert this looming crisis and to do it 
in a commonsense way that gives our States the multiyear certainty they 
need to plan projects, to invest in their communities, and to create 
jobs.
  Since the mid-1950s our Nation has relied on the highway trust fund 
to support transportation projects that create jobs and keep our 
economy moving. The fund helps to repave our roads so they are not 
pockmarked with potholes. It helps congestion on our Nation's highways, 
and it helps repair bridges that are outdated and unsafe.
  But as soon as July--just a few months from now--the Department of 
Transportation predicts the highway trust fund will reach a critically 
low level. If this is not resolved, construction projects to improve 
our roads and our bridges could shut down and leave workers without a 
paycheck.
  We are already seeing some consequences from this crisis. In 
Arkansas, 10 construction projects, such as building highway 
connections and replacing bridges, have already been put on hold. The 
State of Colorado wants

[[Page 5862]]

to widen a major highway to ease congestion between Denver and Fort 
Collins, but officials say that with this funding shortage in the 
highway trust fund, that project could be delayed. These are not 
isolated cases. States from Vermont to California might have to stop 
construction in its tracks because of this highway trust fund 
shortfall.
  This crisis will also cut jobs. As we all know, construction is at 
its peak in the summer months. But without funding States may have no 
choice but to stop construction and leave workers without a job. That 
is going to hurt communities with needless delays on the very 
improvements that would help our businesses and spur economic growth.
  This is unacceptable. It is unnecessary. Congress needs to work to 
avoid this construction shutdown. There is no reason--none--to lurch to 
another avoidable crisis when workers and families across the country 
are struggling. We need to ensure that construction can continue this 
summer. We need to support workers. We need to deliver a multiyear 
solution for the highway trust fund.
  Fortunately, we can solve this in a way that should have bipartisan 
support. President Obama and House Republican Dave Camp, who chairs the 
House Ways and Means Committee, have proposed using corporate revenue 
to shore up the highway trust fund. That approach makes a lot of sense. 
By closing wasteful corporate tax loopholes, we can support 
improvements to our roads and bridges that benefit everyone--including 
our big businesses, so they can move their products quickly and 
efficiently--and make our broken Tax Code a bit fairer in the process. 
We can start by taking a close look at the tax loopholes House 
Republicans have proposed closing in Chairman Camp's recent plan.
  Replenishing the highway trust fund with revenue by closing wasteful 
corporate loopholes will provide multiyear funding so we can provide 
our States with the certainty they need to plan. That kind of certainty 
has been absent for a long time. It has forced States to hold off on 
bigger projects that will help create jobs and long-term economic 
growth.
  I am very hopeful that Democrats and Republicans can work together to 
restore some certainty to States around our country. I know bipartisan 
support is possible, especially on an issue as important as this one. 
Since the highway trust fund's inception under Dwight D. Eisenhower, 
Republicans and Democrats have come together to invest in this national 
priority. Under Democratic and Republican Presidencies--from President 
Clinton to President Reagan to President Clinton--we updated and 
supported the highway trust fund. Even 2 years ago in a hyperpartisan 
election year, Congress reached a bipartisan agreement so that we could 
continue to build the roads and bridges and transit systems our 
communities need. In the past Republicans and Democrats have stepped up 
to support our workers and make sure we can invest in our 
transportation systems that put workers on the job and help businesses 
move their goods and help our economy grow.
  There is no reason to wait until the last minute to get this done. 
The threat is growing on our construction sites and for jobs across the 
country. We have to give our States and our communities the confidence 
that Congress will not push them into another crisis.
  Six months ago our communities and families endured a needless 
government shutdown. Americans are sick and tired of the dysfunction of 
Washington, DC, and constant crises. There is no reason for Congress to 
put them through anything even remotely similar, especially over 
transportation projects that will benefit our families, our 
communities, and our economy.
  We must act to prevent a construction shutdown this summer. Let's 
build on the common ground that Democrats and Republicans share on this 
issue. Let's work together to show the American people that Congress 
can act to support our workers, families, and communities. Let's 
prevent a construction shutdown and give the highway trust fund some 
certainty. We need to make sure our States can keep investing in jobs 
and economic growth at this critical time.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I ask that all time be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________