Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we have just exchanged some parliamentary lingo to essentially say we are going to vote shortly to see if we can pass the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, and do it without a filibuster. I hope we can vote for cloture--not to muzzle, not to have a gag rule, but so we can move expeditiously on this bill. Every single Member here should be proud of what we have accomplished in this FDA Safety and Innovation Act. We have accomplished three major objectives: No. 1, if the legislation is passed--and it is a conference agreement between the House and the Senate--we will be able to move pharmaceuticals, biotech products, and medical devices into clinical practice faster while maintaining our ethical standards around public safety. No. 2, we can demonstrate we can work together and we can govern. This is the result of the Senate working on both sides of the aisle. Now, with the House, through the conference report, we show we can work between the Senate and the House. In this time of prickly politics and political posturing when more gets said than done, we can show we cannot only pass legislation but legislation that makes a difference in people's lives. We will also show we can do it in a way that we will not only have a regulatory framework but something in which the businesses cooperated so we will have regulation without strangulation. We will have regulation that acts in the interest of public safety but does not stifle, shackle, or impede good business practices. Wow. Isn't this what we have been talking about? I am very proud of having been a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that worked on this bill. I am also very proud of the fact that FDA is in my State. In a nutshell, we are passing something called PDUFA and other UFAs. PDUFA stands for the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. There will be others that we will talk about which relate to bio user fees and medical device user fees and generics. This bill was originally enacted in 1992, and the reason for that was at that time there was an unduly long wait for patients to have access to new medicines and new medical devices. It often took close to 3 years to even review a drug application. So Congress went to work with then-President Bill Clinton to say where the pharmacy could agree that, first of all, they would pay user fees to support FDA's drug review program. It is a true public-private partnership. When we look at the funding for FDA, the people who make pharmaceuticals, biotech, and medical devices pay 60 percent of the FDA budget. That is $712 million. The remainder comes from Federal appropriations--40 percent, which is $473 million. So there is a partnership between those businesses that profit--and we want them to do so, without profiteering--and, at the same time, government pays its share. Since 1992, this legislation has been an enormous success. More than 1,500 new medicines have been approved, including treatments for cancer, infectious disease, and cardiovascular disease. It has decreased review times from more than 3 years to 1 year and a few months now. In order to make sure we had the right perspective, we not only held excellent hearings in the Senate, but I went out around my own State. I am so proud of my State. We are the home of life sciences. We have NIH there, which does incredible basic research. We actually have FDA, which reviews food safety and drug safety. At the same time, we are the home to a robust group of biotech companies. I wanted to listen to those biotech companies. When I went out, I said to them: Tell me how your government is helping you and tell me how your government is impeding you. Tell me where you want your government to get out of the way and where do you need a more muscular government. Well, we heard quite a bit from them. The first thing they told me is they need a Food and Drug Administration because when they are approved for public safety and efficacy in the United States of America, they can sell their products anywhere in the world. It often means countries--small countries, countries of modest means with limited GDP that could never afford an FDA--know that if the United States of America says it is OK for their citizens, any other country in the world knows it is OK for theirs. So it is very good to be able to export these products with confidence and reliability. This is fantastic, in their minds. Second, they said they needed more help from FDA not only to expedite but they wanted better communication. They also needed to be able to incentivize development for those rare diseases we often hear about, where there are small markets but big investments to achieve in it. They outlined the fact that they needed to be viewed not in an adversarial way but a collaborative way. Well, thanks to business sitting down with FDA, and business sitting down with Members of Congress, we have been able to do exactly that. We have improved efficiency, predictability, the regulatory environment, and, at the same time, insisting on safety and efficacy. This is going to be great for patients. Millions of Americans rely on drugs and biologics and on medical devices. If we are going to improve health care and rein in the cost of health care, we have to use drugs, biotech products, and medical devices that improve lives and extend lives. If we fail to authorize this legislation, we are going to be in big trouble. How are we going to be in big trouble? Well, first of all, we will have to give notice to FDA that there are going to be layoffs. That means we would have to send out notices in July telling 4,000 people: Look, we know you are the best and the brightest and we want you to have integrity as well as regulatory sensibility and a great deal of scientific competence, but we couldn't get our act together so you are going to be laid off. Hello. We want these people out there, helping America be able to provide health care in a way that is safe and efficacious. Again, as I said, if we don't act, thousands of FDA people will be laid off. It is not about government. If those people are laid off, it means the review process for every single drug that is now in the pipeline will come to a halt. So we are hurting patients, thousands of people who need new drugs; new ways of helping them, whether it is for that dread C word--cancer--or diabetes, which takes so much of our national budget to manage chronic illness. What about the breakthroughs on this epidemic of Alzheimer's we have or autism? We need all the help we can develop. If America is going to continue to be America the exceptional, we have to do an exceptionally good job of making sure we produce some of the newest and most reliable drugs, biotech, and medical devices. This is why I think we have good legislation. Is it perfect? No. But is it pretty close to it for what business and government and providers--the doctors themselves--say we need? Absolutely. I urge my colleagues today, when we vote on this motion to proceed on cloture to have in mind--whether a colleague is a Democrat or a Republican--that we don't make the perfect the enemy of the good; rather, we think of all those people to whom we talk every day. We talk to them at townhall meetings and out there with diners, and they say: You know, my little boy has leukemia; my mother has breast cancer; my dear father who stood up for me is facing the ravages of Alzheimer's. We need breakthroughs. We need help, then, for our private sector, so it can go global and create jobs in this country and well-being in other countries around the world. We have to be able to do it. I am also pleased this bill combats drug shortages, improves the safety of the drug supply chain, and makes permanent those special considerations that require that children's needs are being met with both medical devices and prescriptions, either in terms of dosage or that a device actually fits them. I wanted to come to the floor to lay this out. I am very proud of FDA, and I am very proud of the Congress, including Senator Harkin and Senator Enzi, who pulled us together. We have the right legislative framework. Now let's act and do it in a way we can all be proud of. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Coons. The women of the Senate welcome those men who stand with us on this very important battle, and Senator Coons has been an outstanding advocate on this and other economic empowerment issues related to women, such as safety in the workplace and sexual harassment. I yield the Senator 5 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time remains on the minority side?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Has all time expired on the minority side?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to affirmatively and unabashedly vote for cloture on the Paycheck Fairness Act that we wish to bring before the Senate. This is part of a very long march the women of the United States of America have been walking for a very long time. In 1963 President Lyndon Johnson wanted to create a great society, and he envisioned three civil rights acts to right the wrongs of the past. One was equal pay--the Equal Pay Act--which would ensure that women would get equal pay for equal work. The second was the benchmark Civil Rights Act, and the third was the Voting Rights Act. Lyndon Johnson picked the Equal Pay Act as his first action because he felt it would be one of the easier ones to pass and to implement. Little did he know that the corporate wrath that was against women in the past would come to that legislation. However, a Democratically controlled Senate moved that bill and began the long march for civil rights. But guess what happened in the ensuing 49 years. On June 10, 1963, President Johnson signed that bill. Forty-nine years later, women still make less than men. Women in the United States of America make only 77 cents for every dollar men make doing the same job. This is unfair, and it is un-American. Remember from where we have come. Everybody likes to say to us: Oh, you have come a long way. Well, we don't think we have come a long way. We have only gained 18 cents in 49 years. In 1963 we made 59 cents for every dollar men made, and now it is 77 cents. So what does that mean? It means every 5 years we make an advancement of one penny. Oh, no. No more. We are just not going to take it anymore. When I talk to my constituents, they say to me that they are mad as hell and they don't want to take it anymore. They go to school, they get the job, they do the job, they want to be paid for the job, and we agree with them. We want to do it not only with words, but we want to do it with deeds, and we want to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act that would ensure equal pay. Women fight every day for equal pay, and when they do, they are side- lined, red-lined, and pink-slipped. Right now in the marketplace, it is legal to fire a woman if she asks about pay, whether she goes to the personnel director or whether she asks the person next to her at the water cooler. Women are often harassed and intimidated for just asking: What do you make for the work you do? So we are ready to fight for women to get equal pay, and the best way to do it is to do it right here on the Senate floor. People say to me: Senator Barb, you led the fight on Lilly Ledbetter. Didn't that solve all the problems? It solved a big problem. We made a downpayment to keep the courthouse door open for women who are discriminated against, but it did not close the loopholes that were in the original Civil Rights Act. What Lilly Ledbetter did was change the statute of limitations to file a lawsuit from the date of each discriminatory paycheck. Now we need to pass paycheck fairness to close the loopholes that allow discrimination to happen in the very first place. What does this bill do? It is actually very simple. If we listened to the rightwing pundits, we would think this is complicated and it is going to rend asunder the American economy and so on. This is fundamental fairness. What does it do? First of all, no longer will employers be able to retaliate against workers for sharing information about wages. Remember what I said earlier: If you ask someone how much they get paid, you can get fired. For years, Lilly Ledbetter and those she represents were humiliated and harassed for just asking questions. No longer will women be able to seek only back pay when they are discriminated against; they will also be able to seek punitive damages. No longer will employers be able to use almost any reason to justify paying a woman less: Oh, the guys do harder jobs; oh, the guys do dangerous jobs; oh, they have a better education. We are talking about equal pay for equal work that requires the same education. No longer will women be on their own because we are going to include various education and training programs. As I said, in 1963 we made 59 cents for every dollar men made. Women now make 77 cents compared to every dollar a man makes. That is not progress. The consequences of this are severe. What does this mean? Well, let's take the college graduate, the woman who has had the benefit and privilege of an education. It starts the minute she tosses her hat in the air. When she goes for that job, say, in information technology or even in some of the innovative economic fields, she will be making less. At the rate we are going, by the time she retires there will be a $434,000 income pay gap. This is serious because it not only affects one's income as one goes through life, but it affects one's Social Security and it affects one's pension. It affects absolutely everything. The negative impact multiplies. It is like compound interest in reverse. It is compound disinterest. It is compounded unfairness. So these are real grievances. That is why the Paycheck Fairness Act will be able to do this. When we look at the life of being a woman, we women know that being a woman often means we pay more. We certainly pay more for health insurance than men with the same coverage for the exact same age or health status. What does that mean? It means women pay estimates of thousands of dollars more in medical insurance over their lifetime. We are often on the hook for childcare, and there are a variety of things on which we could elaborate. I believe people should be judged in the workplace for skills and competence and that once you get the job and you show you can do the job, you should be paid to do that job. For my colleagues who argue that 20 cents per hour doesn't matter, let me share some numbers. That means $4,000 less per year for a working family, $434,000 over a lifetime. It means we get paid 23 percent less than a man doing the same work who has the same education. The Presiding Officer is a smart guy. He knows that when women go to get a mortgage, we don't get a 23-percent discount. When we go to buy food, we don't get a 23-percent discount. When we go to pay our utility bills, they don't say: Oh, you are paid less, so we are going to give you a discount. No. We get charged the same, and often more, but we are paid less. We are not going to accept being paid less. We are paying attention to this problem. We have listened to the voices of the people. This isn't just Senator Barb sounding off on her women's rights agenda. My women's rights agenda is about the economic empowerment of women, so they have a chance in this great country to be able to move ahead. I listened to a constituent in Silver Spring with years of teaching experience, and even in public employment, she was paid less. Then we listened to a trauma surgeon who e-mailed me from Florida-- highly educated. She filed suit because she found out that a male surgeon doing the exact same surgery was paid $25,000 more than she was. Another woman e-mailed me from Virginia. She claimed she was told by her supervisor that hiring a woman would simply be a liability. You are going to get pregnant. You are going to miss work. We don't know if we want you here. That is a whole other issue. Then she said: We don't need to pay you that. You don't head up a household, so why should you get the same money as some guy who does head up a household? We have faced old prejudices, but we are in a new economy and in a new world. More and more women are in the workplace, we want to be treated with respect, and we want to have equal pay for equal work. Mr. President, I note that my colleague Senator Murray is here. I yield her 5 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, there will be other Democratic Senators speaking during this time. I thank Senator Murray because she has been a real champion on this issue. She has been a champion on making sure women are treated with respect in the workplace and in the U.S. military. She has been a particular champion for ensuring that women in the military and women in the VA system get treated with fairness. We have a long way to go. This is 2012, and you would think at times it was 1812. But in 1812 we in Baltimore fought another revolution, and we will fight in 2012. So we thank her for her advocacy and look forward to having her vote this afternoon. This is not only a women's issue where the women's rights groups are pounding the table. We have the support and endorsement of the American Bar Association. I have a letter which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record in which the ABA absolutely endorses this legislation.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The ABA, which we know is a prestigious, distinguished representation of the American bar, says that when we passed the ``equal pay for equal work'' act, it was landmark. Quoting again from their letter: But, in the 50 years since its passage, this historic legislation has become outdated and ineffective, and wage discrimination remains a persistent, wide-spread, and pernicious problem. In commenting on this bill, the ABA says: The Paycheck Fairness Act would update key provisions of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 without altering the basic scheme of this historic statute or imposing excessive, novel burdens on employers. Remember, again, this is not Senator Mikulski, this is the ABA saying it will not impose excessive or novel burdens on employers. Indeed, most of the proposed changes are borrowed from other civil rights statutes that prove more effective in eradicating workplace discrimination. This goes to what the ABA says. But now, Mr. President, I would like to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from New Hampshire--a Governor, a Senator, a real advocate who has had to not only be a leader in passing legislation but in implementing it. We welcome her insights and advocacy.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. Now I would like to yield the floor for 7 minutes to our colleague from California, Senator Boxer. She and I served in the House. We serve in the Senate. We have been fighting this for a long time. Mr. President, I think you will find her words welcome and insightful. Her passion and her devotion to women is legendary. I yield 7 minutes to Senator Boxer.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, might I ask the parliamentary situation?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to yield time to the Senator from North Carolina, Mrs. Hagan. Senator Hagan is a freshman Senator, but she is certainly not new to this issue. Both in North Carolina's legislative body and in the Senate her work has always been for the economic empowerment of women, especially those women who stand every day and do those jobs requiring standing on their feet and at the end of the day have earned less pay and will get less in their pensions. As they stand for work, she stands for them on the Senate floor. I yield Senator Hagan 5 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the Senator an additional 2 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, this is time for both Republicans and Democrats to speak. We invite our Republican colleagues to come and speak. Even within the Republican Party, we know there are those who agree with us and those who do not. For those who agree, we would love to hear their voices. For those who do not, let's have a debate. Let's take a look at what are some of the issues being raised as a criticism of the bill. We are ready to talk about it. I have heard some of the most outrageous things on cable TV about why we should not pass this bill. One was accusing us that this will undermine small business. Small business has protections under the Equal Pay Act. Under the existing law--which this would not change--the Equal Pay Act already exempted small businesses that make less than $500,000 in annual revenue per year. It keeps the Equal Pay Act exemption intact. We also have the support of the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce. This is a chamber of commerce of small business owners. They support this bill. So we do not believe that is a valid argument. There is another argument going around that for some reason if we pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, somehow or another, we are going to lower the wages men make. That is absolutely one of the most ridiculous, rhetorical, twist-and-turn arguments. It is not factual and it is not legal. It is illegal now to remedy wage discrimination by reducing wages of other employees. I will quote--it is illegal under the other labor protection laws--and I don't mean labor such as in union, I mean labor such as in workers--it is illegal to remedy wage discrimination by reducing wages of other employees. The Paycheck Fairness Act doesn't alter any other affirmative defense available to employers. Employers may still pay different wages to male or female employees if it is based on seniority or quality of production. If someone is a guy on an assembly line and he makes more hubcaps than women, fine. But we find that is no longer true in the information age economy. Equal pay, I wish to say again, is not only a women's issue, it is a family issue. Sometimes we find we are discriminated against by great guys at the water cooler who tell us where it is. What people need to know is that right now it is legal to fire someone if they make an inquiry about how much they are making and how much their male counterpart is making. It is illegal or they can be subject to all kinds of harassment and humiliation. You ought to hear some of the horror stories we hear from women just because they wanted to know: George, how much are you making? We thank the good men who supported us. They have often been business whistleblowers, where they told us what they are making. They know we are working just as hard. We worked as hard to get the education to do the job, we worked that hard on the job, but we continue to have to work hard to get equal pay for equal work. I wish to make it clear once again, this legislation will not result in a lower paycheck for men. There is also a bona fide question, which is: Why are we doing paycheck fairness? Didn't we solve these issues in Lilly Ledbetter? Paycheck fairness was a downpayment on this because it kept the courthouse door open. Paycheck fairness makes it harder to discriminate in the first place. Right now, as I said, employers have the ability to retaliate against workers who share salary information. Ledbetter did not address this issue. Paycheck fairness does. Women can now, under Paycheck Fairness, sue for punitive damages. Lilly Ledbetter did not address this. This would deal with that. There are a variety of things I can elaborate on, but I see one of the real champions for justice, civil rights, and the empowerment-- especially the economic empowerment--of women, my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow. I yield Senator Stabenow 7 minutes and thank her for her longstanding advocacy and work. She has raised her voice for those who often do not have a voice in high places of power.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois and thank him for his persistent advocacy on this issue. Senator Durbin was one of the people in public leadership who said we have to really address this as we approach the 49th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act. We thank the Senator for his work, and we thank him for his voice today.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana, who chairs the Small Business Committee and really knows the impact of the economic issues related to the empowerment of women. She has worked on a bipartisan basis on this issue. Hopefully, she will comment on how this bill will have no negative impact on small businesses. I yield to Senator Landrieu for 5 minutes.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, first of all, we thank her for her statement. I wonder if she would yield for a question.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator chairs the Committee on Small Business and has been steadfast and has worked with the ranking member, Senator Olympia Snowe. Much has been said on cable TV about how this is going to smash and decimate small businesses. Is that true? I come from a small business family. My father owned a small grocery store. But cashiers are cashiers, male or female.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator for her comments and clarification. I now yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal, a newcomer, but certainly he is one whose experience in Connecticut as an attorney general, who has actually had to litigate some of these cases, brings excellent insight to this issue, and we welcome his remarks.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I now yield the floor to Senator Harkin, the chairman of the HELP Committee, which is where this bill originated. We thank him again for all his hard work on this issue and others related to any wage discrimination and standing up for women. I yield the chairman of the committee such time as he requires.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Will the leader yield for a question? Mr. Leader, I noted that on the last vote, you voted no. Was that so the bill could be reconsidered?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I would like to respond to the majority leader. We want to fight too. We thank him for his vote and his voice. I want him to know that although we lost the vote today, we are not going to give up on this vote. It is a very sad day here in the Senate, but it is a sadder day every day when paycheck day comes and women continue to make less than men. We are sorry that this vote occurred strictly on party lines. Under the leader's effort to reconsider, we hope to bring up this bill again. We hope to forge a bipartisan vote. We are coming up on the 49th anniversary of equal pay for equal work. We are not going to let this bill die in parliamentary entanglements. The majority should rule in the Senate. I want to say this, in the words of Abigail Adams. While John Adams and all the guys were sitting around Philadelphia writing the Constitution, she wrote him a letter and said, ``Don't forget the ladies.'' And they did it for 150 years, and then they forget, too, to get rid of the loopholes in the Equal Pay Act now. Well, Abigail said: If you forget us, we will foment our revolution, and we are going to foment our revolution. So I say to the women here, to the good men who support us, to the women out there in America, let's keep this fight going. Put on your lipstick, square your shoulders, suit up, and let's fight for this new American revolution where women are paid equal pay for equal work. Let's end wage discrimination in this century once and for all.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 5, 2012, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Veterans Employment and Government Contractors.''

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 5, 2012, at 10 a.m., in room SD 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Combating Poverty: Understanding New Challenges for Families.''