Mikulski Leads Senate Democrats Speaking on Senate Floor Urging Passage of Paycheck Fairness Act

Senate Set to Vote Tuesday Afternoon on Equal Pay for Equal Work Bill

49 Years After Equal Pay Act, Women Earn Just 77 Cents for Every Dollar a Man Earns; Costs Women, Men & Families $434,000 Over a Woman’s Career 

June 5, 2012

WASHINGTON –U.S. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), the Dean of the Senate women, today spoke out on the Senate floor to urge the Senate to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation which will help close the wage gap between women and men working equivalent jobs, costing women and their families $434,000 over their careers. A cloture vote to allow an open debate on the bill is schedule for this afternoon.  

Senator Mikulski is being joined this morning by Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) speaking out in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act.

While women still make on average 77 cents to every dollar made by a male, the Paycheck Fairness Act builds on the promise of the Equal Pay Act, passed 49 years ago on June 10, 1963. It helps close the pay gap by empowering women to negotiate for equal pay, closing loopholes courts have created in the law, creating strong incentives for employers to obey the laws and strengthening federal outreach and enforcement efforts.

The legislation would require employers to demonstrate that wage gaps between men and women doing the same work have a business justification and are truly a result of factors other than gender. The bill would prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information with their co-workers. The Paycheck Fairness Act also would strengthen the Department of Labor's (DOL) ability to help women achieve pay equity by requiring DOL to enhance outreach and training efforts to work with employers in order to eliminate pay disparities and to continue to collect and disseminate wage information based on gender. The bill would also create a competitive grant program to provide negotiation skills training programs for girls and women.  

Senator Mikulski's remarks, as delivered follow:  

"I come to the floor to urge my colleagues to affirmatively and unabashedly vote for cloture on the Paycheck Fairness Act that we wish to bring before the United States Senate. This is part of a very long march that 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 the corporate wrath that was going against women in the past would come down on that legislation. But 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 of 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 what men doing the same job make.  

"This is unfair and it's un-American.  

"Remember where we have come. Everybody likes to say to us, 'Oh, you've come a long way.' But we don't think we've come a long way. We've only gained 18 cents in 49 years. In 1963 we made 59 cents for every dollar that men made. Now it's 77 cents.  

"What does that mean? It means every five years we make an advancement of one penny. Oh no. No more. We're not just going to take it anymore. When I go out and talk to my constituents, they say to me they're mad as hell. They don't want to take it anymore. If 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 don't only want to do it with words, we want to do it with deeds, and we want to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act that would ensure this.  

"Women fight every day for equal pay. When they do, they're sidelined, redlined or even pink slipped. Right now in the marketplace it is legal to fire a woman if she asks about her pay, whether she goes to the personnel director or if she asks the person next to her at the water cooler. Often, women are harassed or intimidated for just asking, 'What do you make for the work that you do?'  

"So we're 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, 'Hey, Senator Barb, you led the fight on Lilly Ledbetter. Didn't that solve all the problems?' It solved a big problem. We made a down payment to keep the courthouse door open for women who are discriminated against, but it did not close the loopholes that were there in the original Civil Rights Act. What Lilly Ledbetter did was change the statute of limitations to file a lawsuit from the fate 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's actually very simple. If you listen to the right-wing pundits, you would think that this was complicated, that it was going to rend asunder the American economy and so on.  

"This is fundamental fairness. First of all, what does it do? Number one, no longer will employers be able to retaliate against workers for sharing information about wages. Remember what I said earlier – if you ask someone what you get paid, you can get fired. For years, Lilly Ledbetter said 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. 'The guys do harder jobs. The guys do dangerous jobs. Oh, they have a better education.' We're talking about equal pay for equal work that requires the same education. No longer will women be on their own, because we're going to be able to include various education and training.  

"As I said, in 1963 we made 59 cents. Women now make 77 cents. That's not progress. The consequences are severe. What does this mean?  

"Well, let's take the college graduate, the woman who's 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 innovation economy fields, she will be making less. At the rate they're going, by the time she retires, there will be a $434,000 income pay gap.  

"Now, this is serious because it not only affects your income as you go through your life, but it affects your Social Security. It affects your pension. It affects absolutely everything. The negative impact multiplies. It's like compound interest in reverse. It's compound disinterest. It's compound unfairness. So these are real grievances.  

"Now, when we look at the life of being a woman, we women know that being a woman often means that 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 we estimate that women pay thousands of dollars in medical insurance over their lifetime. We're often on the hook for child care. There are a variety of things that we could elaborate on. I believe that people should be judged in the workplace for skills and competence. Once you get the job and show you can do the job, you should be paid to do that job.  

"For my colleagues who argue the 20 cents per hour doesn't matter, let me give you some numbers. That means $4,000 less per year for a working family. $434,000 over a lifetime. This means we get paid 23 percent less than a man doing the same work who has the same education. When women 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 you're paid less; we're going to give you a discount. No. We get charged the same and often more for what we do, but we're paid less.  

"Well, we're not going to accept being paid less. We're paying attention to this problem, and we've listened to the voices of the people. This isn't just Senator Barb sounding off on her women's agenda. My women's rights agenda is about the economic power of women. It's about making sure they have a chance in this great country to be able to move ahead.  

"When I listen to a constituent in Silver Spring with years of teaching experience, even in public employment she was paid less. We have listened to a trauma center professional who e-mailed me from Florida; highly educated. She filed suit because she found out her male surgeon doing the exact same surgery was paid $25,000 more than she was. Another women e-mailed me from Virginia. She claimed she was told by her supervisor that hiring a woman would be simply a liability because you're going to get pregnant. You're going to miss work. We don't know if we want you here. Then they said we don't need to pay you that. You don't head a household. Why should you get the money for some guy who does head a household?  

"We face old prejudices, but we're in a new economy and a new world. More and more women are in the workplace. And when we come, we want to be treated with respect and we want to have equal pay for equal work."