Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I understand amendment 29 is now the pending business. I thank Senator Enzi for allowing us to dispose of his amendment through a voice vote. I move to table the Enzi amendment No. 29.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we have now concluded the debate on the Hutchison amendment. It is time for change. It is time to turn the page rather than turn back the clock. It is time to defeat the Hutchison amendment and proceed with the bill. We have five pending amendments. We are fired up, and we are ready to go. I yield back my time, and if the Senator does so, I will ask for the yeas and nays and then vote.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Well, thank you very much, Mr. President. It was in my enthusiasm that I neglected a few parliamentary housekeeping tasks. On April 23, when we had the vote in the Senate to vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, we lost it by two votes. On that day, I said we would continue our fight and that we needed to--we the women of America and the men who supported us--square our shoulders, suit up to fight for a new American revolution. I called upon the other women of America to put their lipstick on and be ready to go. Well, today is ``go day.'' And we are actively debating this amendment. One of the arguments that is often made is that this Fair Pay Act we are advocating could trigger either needless and enormous volumes of lawsuits or it creates a shifting ball of the statute of limitations. Both of those criticisms are false. First, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will not trigger more lawsuits. Because this bill the Democrats are advocating--and, oh, by the way, it is a bipartisan bill. We have over 54 cosponsors; Republicans are joining with us. It does not in any way trigger enormous lawsuits, because it simply restores the law, with greater clarity, that existed before the outrageous Supreme Court decision. We were not flooded with volumes of lawsuits on wage discrimination. There was an orderly process that occurred. The other is this floating statute of limitations argument. Well, that is a foggy term. But I tell you what is foggy is the Hutchison amendment. Now, I so admire the gentlewoman from Texas. We have worked together, as I said, on many issues. I know her intentions are good, but her language is flawed. I should say, not her language, but the language of her amendment. It is foggy. Let me go on to this a little bit. The amendment does not address the fundamental problem of the pay discrimination case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which created unreal and strict limitations for filing pay discrimination claims. It also fails to recognize that pay discrimination, unlike other kinds of discrimination, is repeated each time a worker receives an unfair paycheck. I want to repeat that. The Hutchison amendment fails to recognize that pay or wage discrimination, unlike other forms of discrimination, is repeated each time someone receives an unfair paycheck. Instead, the Hutchison amendment creates a new confusing standard that requires workers to either be subject to the Ledbetter rule or prove they had no reasonable suspicion of discrimination when the employer first decided to pay them. Well, you have to prove a negative. That is almost impossible. From the day you walk onto the job or the day your coworker who gets a raise, when the guys get it and the girls do not, you would have to be snooping around and creating a very hostile workplace, branded a troublemaker, because you were saying, well, you would have to every week say, well, what did you get paid, Mr. Udall? What did you get paid, Mr. Tester? What did you get paid? Well, I know we get paid the same pay, and I know we are doing the same, equal work. But that is not true in the workplace. So we believe the Hutchison amendment actually creates more fog than solutions. I want to continue the debate on this. I note that the gentlewoman from Texas has not come in, but I see the gentleman from South Carolina.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on my side?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, while we are working this out, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time equally divided, while we establish our next steps forward.

Ms. MIKULSKI. First, let me say to my good friend from Pennsylvania, one, I wish to thank you for your cooperation on this bill. I wish to thank you for your cosponsorship in a previous Congress. We hope we do have the Senator's support at the conclusion of the amendment process. I wish to say to my friend the bill does not change the law on the topics he has raised. But in all fairness, he is a superior lawyer. I am not a lawyer. Rather than me responding, kind of shooting from the lip, I would like to have a proper colloquy with the Senator at such time that I know we are on firm ground so we can clearly establish the legislative intent. Could I suggest the absence of a quorum while the Senator and I discuss this and see how we can proceed?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we are in the closing minutes of the debate on the Hutchison substitute. We know there is one more speaker besides the Senator from Mississippi. This is not going to be my last say for this bill, but I do wish to offer my concluding arguments on the Hutchison amendment. First, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a Q&A on the question of the Hutchison amendment because when all is said and done, I wish for there to be a very clear record on congressional intent so we won't have the type of Supreme Court decisions that brought us here today. So I ask unanimous consent to have a Q&A on the Hutchison amendment printed in the Record.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I just wanted to say a few words. First of all, let's go to the remarks that were made that, somehow or another, by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, we are going to further undermine our economy and our ability to hire people. I find it surprising--first puzzling, then surprising--to say that the way we are going to get out of this economic mess is if we continue the status quo--or the stacking quo--which is that if you have discrimination in the workplace, don't pass the law to do greater clarification. I think that is a flawed argument. First of all, women of America already subsidize our economy. And you know what. We are mad as hell, and we don't want to take it anymore. Everyone needs to hear that: We, the women of America, are mad as hell, and we don't want to take it anymore. Now, why do I say that? We are already paid 77 cents for every dollar that men make, so we are already subsidizing the economy in the workplace. Then when you go into the home, our work is often undervalued and it is certainly not compensated. So somehow or another women's work doesn't quite count in the same way. Well, we want to be counted, and we want what we do to be counted. We want the world to know that if we are doing equal work, we want equal pay. We do not want to subsidize the economy. We don't want any subsidies. We want fairness, we want justice, we want the law on our side, and we want the courthouse doors open to us. Now, if business thinks the only way they can succeed is by continuing these practices, then business has a lot of lessons to learn. And by God, when you look at what the banks did, you can certainly see that. If business doesn't want lawsuits, there is one clear, right way of avoiding a lawsuit: don't discriminate. If you are an employer and you are paying equal pay for equal or comparable work, you will not be sued, you will not be challenged, and you have no need to fear. If you want to have some economic stimulus, give us that 23-cent raise--all those single mothers out there; as Senator Lincoln spoke about earlier, all those Norma Rays, all those Lilly Ledbetters, all those people who have lined up through the ages. So 23 cents might not sound like a lot, certainly in Washington where we give zillions to banks and they do not even say thank you. They don't even promise they will send out more or promise they will join with our President and work through this. So we are very clear that we want to be paid equal pay for equal work, and we want it in our checkbooks. But we know we have to get to that by having the Ledbetter bill in the Federal lawbooks. I can understand some of the fine points, the concerns raised by Senator Enzi. I think I have presented a sound legal argument that shows that the only thing we mean by the ``affected party'' is that person who is actually discriminated against, or if a Federal entity sues on their behalf. I think we have clarified it. But I believe we also need to be clear why we are doing this legislation. We are righting a wrong, we are addressing a grievance, and we are ensuring those fundamental principles of our society, which are fairness, equality, and justice. Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor, and I yield back my time.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all the following votes be limited to 10 minutes in the agreed-upon sequence.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I thank someone who is not with us tonight for his steadfast work on this bill, our beloved Senator Kennedy. We can't wait to have him back. I thank the distinguished ranking member, Senator Enzi, for his wonderful cooperation in enabling us to move this bill and to proceed with civility and focus and, I might add, timeliness. I thank all of my colleagues, Judiciary Committee as well as HELP Committee members. I thank the Kennedy staff who worked with me on doing this--Sharon Block, Portia Wu, and Charlotte Burrows--and my own staff: Ben Gruenbaum and Priya Ghosh Ahola. I want to, then, proceed to the first bill the Senate will actually vote on since the inauguration of our new President. I think this debate shows we can change the tone. Let's keep that up. I move to table the Vitter amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I had a question for Senator DeMint, and if the Senator will withhold, after I make my remarks, he can address the Chair. The consequence of the DeMint amendment is that it amends the National Labor Relations Act. Let me tell my colleagues the consequences. First of all, let's go to the facts. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is about pay discrimination, about wage discrimination. That is what we have been debating on both sides of the aisle. The debate has been focused, it has been targeted, it has been precise and, I might add, quite civil. It has nothing to do with right-to-work laws. This is not the time nor the place to debate whether we should have a Federal right-to-work law. We need to restore the ability of victims of pay discrimination to pursue justice. If we want to have a debate on a Federal right-to-work law, then I suggest to the Senator from South Carolina that he offer his own bill, let's put it through the committee, and let's vote on it, but let's not bring right-to-work laws into the wage discrimination focus of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. So let's go now to the facts or the merits of the amendment being offered by Senator DeMint. No. 1, it reverses decades of established labor law and addresses the issues that have nothing to do with the Fair Pay Act. The DeMint amendment undermines States abilities to choose what labor laws work best for them. That is the point made by the Senator from Tennessee. It would also impose right-to-work laws on workers who do not want them. Federal labor policy has been neutral on right-to-work issues for over 60 years. That means States are free to decide whether they want to impose right-to-work laws. The amendment would impose right-to-work laws on States that do not want them, and it would even impose such laws in the railroad and aviation industry, which has never been subjected to them. We have debated this issue before. A bipartisan majority of Congress rejected this approach in the 104th Congress, which was in 1996. We had a vote on a similar amendment, and it was defeated 31 to 68. I hope we defeat the DeMint amendment today. Let's stick strictly to the Lilly Ledbetter discussion. We have been having an excellent discussion all day long. Again, I urge defeat of the DeMint amendment. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining, and, of course, answer the questions of our colleagues as to time.

Ms. MIKULSKI. The Senator from South Carolina has how much time remaining?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, how much time remains?

Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I don't know whether the Senator wants to yield back his time or use the time for further debate.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today is a great day in the Senate. We have now overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill to correct an injustice that has been prevailing among people--women, minorities, and people with disabilities--in the area of wage discrimination. What is so great about today is not only our overwhelming legislative victory, but we showed, No. 1, that we can change the tone. I thank Leader Reid for the leadership he provided in creating the legislative framework where we can move ahead with open debate. Notice that we did this bill in a well-measured, well-modulated, well-paced way. There was no need for cloture motions. There was no need for parliamentary quagmires. What it showed, though, is there is a need for civility and cooperation. We, as Americans, have to know, given this economic situation, that we are all in it together. When we work together, we now know each and every one of us makes a difference. But when we truly work together, we can make change. Today we changed the law, we changed direction, we change history, and I thank all my colleagues and all the staff who have made this possible. I also wish to say a special thanks to Senator Ted Kennedy. I hope he is watching tonight because, Ted, we miss you. We know you are not on the floor; you are with us in spirit. There is more to be done. We cannot wait for you to be back. Let's go and get the job done. America is counting on us to do the kinds of things we have done today and act the way we did, the way we got the business done. vote explanation

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, this amendment reverses decades of established labor law and addresses issues that have nothing to do with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. While the Senator from South Carolina debated right to work, I want to keep on fighting for the right to get equal pay for equal work. I understand the DeMint amendment No. 31 is now the pending business. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I object to the Isakson amendment. It would create an arbitrary and unfair cutoff for those who get the benefits of this bill. If the Isakson amendment is agreed to, it would create a 20-month gap in the law. Those workers who were unfortunate enough to have been discriminated against during that 20-month period would be treated worse than those who came before them or after them. It is arbitrary and it is unfair. I understand that the Isakson amendment is now the pending business. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 22, 2009 at 10 a.m.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``What States are Doing to Keep us Healthy'' on Thursday, January 22, 2009. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 22, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.