PAYCHECK FAIRNESS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
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…
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.
I object.
Mr. President, would my friend give the subject matter of those three amendments?
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?
Before my friend from South Dakota leaves the floor, 2964 is the big one?
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.
Is there anything pending? I want to make sure there are no pending requests for unanimous consent.