Paycheck Fairness Act - Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source