Madam President, first of all, for all Members, we are close to having agreement on the veterans bill when we get to it. Let me just say initially, I really like my counterpart, the Republican leader. But I have trouble understanding how…
Madam President, first of all, for all Members, we are close to having agreement on the veterans bill when we get to it. Let me just say initially, I really like my counterpart, the Republican leader. But I have trouble understanding how he could stand on the floor and say that when we have been trying to do legislation on the veterans bill since last Thursday and
we have been prevented from doing that.
Understand, there is nothing we could do, unless by unanimous consent, to change this vote. It occurs automatically an hour after we come in. There is no secret. We have two Senators running for President of the United States--three, as a matter of fact. I am only concerned about two of them. Their schedules were very difficult recently. They could be here at 6 o'clock. So I made the suggestion, which I thought was reasonable--we haven't been able to legislate on the veterans bill since last Thursday; how about doing it on Wednesday, until 5 o'clock. That would be 6 hours more than we have done since last Thursday. There was a refusal to allow us to do that. To have my friend, the Republican leader, come here and say we haven't done anything today because we had a vote scheduled at their convenience--he didn't use the names, but Senators Clinton and Obama--that is absolutely without any foundation. I have trouble understanding how my friend would have the gall to stand on the floor and make the comment he did, but he did.
Now to the issue at hand, Lilly Ledbetter. Put your mind to this. We have a woman who is working. She has worked for 20 years and worked hard, very hard, and after 20 years she comes to the realization that people are making a lot more money than she. They are men, and they are doing the same work as she is. That is what this is all about. As a foundation, understand that for a woman to make the same amount of money as a man in our country--that is, how much a man makes in our country for 1 year--for similar work, she must work not only that whole year but an additional 113 days. In fact, women who work full time earn about 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man who does the same work.
That is why yesterday, April 23, which was the 113th day of the year, was Equal Pay Day, to illustrate how women are treated unfairly in the workplace in America. I can think of no better way for us to honor Equal Pay Day than to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
She was a manager at a Goodyear factory in Gadsden, AL. She worked there for 20 years. She was the only woman among 16 men at her same management level. She was paid at various times 20 percent less than some of her male colleagues doing the same work and as much as 40 percent less than other colleagues doing the same work. That included fellow workers who had a lot less seniority than she had. They got paid more because they were men.
At most jobsites, especially office work, salary is not a topic that you discuss. It is private. It wasn't until Ledbetter had been with the company for 20 years, as I have indicated, that Mrs. Ledbetter became aware of the disparity in her paycheck, and only then because someone anonymously tipped her off.
After she learned, after 20 years, that people were being paid more money than she was for doing the same work, she became concerned, and she did what we should do in a situation like that. She went to talk to a lawyer. She had been cheated for 20 years. A jury that was called in that court listened to what she had to say. They found she had been discriminated against. Why? Because she was a woman. The jury awarded her appropriate damages.
Her employer appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. No way are we going to let this happen. They overturned the lower court's verdict, claiming she was entitled to nothing because she waited too long. The statute of limitations had run. The Supreme Court upheld that decision. They upheld the reversal of the decision that she had gotten, the award by the jury that she had gotten. The Supreme Court held that the 180- day filing deadline for discrimination cases like hers should be calculated from the day of Ms. Ledbetter's first discriminatory paycheck. So using that faulty logic, this woman is only protected if, after the first 6 months, she had filed a lawsuit. Well, she didn't know. The ruling reversed the position that most courts had previously held--contrary to what my good friend Senator Isakson said--that each discriminatory paycheck represents a new case of discrimination and therefore the 180-day filing period applies to each subsequent paycheck.
The practical result of the Supreme Court decision is that women like Lilly Ledbetter must sue for discrimination no later than 6 months after their employment begins, 6 months after her first paycheck. The Supreme Court's ruling puts unfair conditions on legitimate discrimination claims, and it applies not only to millions of women in the workforce but also to those discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, age, or disability.
As Justice Ginsburg said--and rarely from the Supreme Court does one of the Justices read their opinion; she did that--she noted in her strong and compelling dissent that the Supreme Court's ruling is wrong because it overlooks the realities of the workplace and the realities of the world. Think about that. She had worked there 20 years. She had been cheated for 20 years. They are telling her she should have filed her lawsuit 19\1/2\ years ago.
Many employers explicitly or implicitly prohibit employees from discussing their salary with coworkers. Could Ms. Ledbetter be expected to have known the salaries of her male colleagues after just 6 months on the job? Of course not. And even if a new employee is aware of a discrepancy in pay, many choose not to make waves, preferring to hang on to their job, preferring to quietly build job security. But over the years, these initial discrepancies, which may start out small, will often widen considerably--in her case, to as much as 40 percent when compared to a man.
The Supreme Court's ruling ignores basic facts. As long as discrimination continues, an employee's right to challenge discrimination should continue as well. That is why the legislation now before us is so important. We can talk about court cases and hearings before the committee and doing things in regular order. Let's have some regular order of fairness. That is what this legislation is all about.
This legislation would restore the previously accepted interpretation of law: that each and every discriminatory paycheck constitutes a new act of discrimination and that restarts the 180-day clock.
By supporting this motion to proceed and voting in favor of this legislation, we have the opportunity to correct this important injustice for millions of women and millions of others who work hard but are unfairly deprived of compensation they deserve.
Some on the Republican side argue that this legislation would lead to a flood of litigation. Obviously, we know the Republicans are not excited about trial lawyers. We know their first attack to take care of the housing crisis was to lower taxes and do something about litigation. So it is no surprise they are concerned about litigation, even though they are wrong.
That argument has no basis in fact. The Congressional Budget Office has researched this issue and found no reason--no reason--to believe it would increase the number of discrimination cases.
Furthermore, this legislation maintains the current law's 2-year limit on back pay. Employers would not be liable for salary differences that occurred in years past. In her case, Ledbetter could sue, but she could only get 2 of the 20 years she had been cheated. That is what this legislation does. How much fairer could it be?
The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest Court in our country. But in this case, they simply got it wrong. I am sad to report, in my opinion, many times they have done the same thing since Justices Roberts and Alito have joined that Court.
Many of us have spoken against recent Supreme Court nominees for fear they would not uphold our Nation's proud tradition of civil rights and equal rights in law. This faulty judgment on the part of the Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, lends credence to our concerns that we must support judges with a reliable history of support for the values of equality that we cherish.
There is no reason for the Fair Pay Act to be a partisan issue.
I urge my Republican colleagues to join us in sending a strong and powerful message that in America, discrimination will never be tolerated and justice will always be blind. But no matter the result today, that message--and our commitment to those enduring values--will continue.