problems in the region, but i can assure you that they'll continue to implement fully the united states -- united nation's mandate. >> a new newly elected serbian president is sending mixed signals to the region, denying genocide, and telling they are the same of serbs, and he considers nato as an opinion organization in the air strikes in 1999. from the perspective of having mission in kosovo, what other things should you be more cautious now that there's a new political elite in belgrade? >> first of all, on further -- i think it's for the international

tribunal in the hague to make the legal judgments what they have done already. of course, we manage the situation closely. for my part, i will not rely, with all respects, on media reports of a statement from the new legislated serbian president. i hope we can continue the positive dialogue we've had with serbia. my vision is very clear. i would like to see all countries in the region integrated in the euro-atlantic structures, european union, and nato, and i also hope in that respect to see improvements in

the relationship between serbia and nato. >> television news agency. >> news agency, two questions concerning the reverse transit. the first is no u.s. agreement with -- [inaudible] what do we further know? agreement for the transit with russia, first, and secondly, are there some limitations, restrictions? for example, non-legal restrictions and so on? >> yeah, in yemen, let me say that we do not commend on the concrete content of these transit arrangements. with russia, we have a transit arrangement reverse, transit

arrangement are ready, and the fact that we have now concluded a transit arrangement, three concrete traffic arrangements at the chicago summit, will make the use of the russian transit arrangement even more effective. >> [inaudible] >> my question is on nuclear weapons. in chicago, you declared the committee to develop a concept including the case to reduce the case of nuclear weapons. do you have an idea -- any concrete agenda or what is the

committee's discussion and negotiation between the u.s.? >> there's no hidden agenda. you have seen everything clearly expressed in the review published. it is published at the chicago summits, and the general principles are very clear, and we have reiterated what nato countries signed already in 1970, non-proliferation treaty, that the grand vision is the world without nuclear weapons, but we also clearly state that as long as nuclear weapons exist, nato will remain a nuclear alliance.

it indicated in the defense review that we'd very much like to see a reduction in the tactical, nuclear weapons. so far we have in that space, we also had to ensure the right to balance that subsequent documents they place in a balance way, and that nato nuclear powers have refused their stockpiles of nuclear weapons significantly since the end of the cold war while we still have quite a number of russian nuclear weapons so that disperty has to be taken into account so in case we could reach agreement on a balanced reduction in the number of

nuclear weapons, yes, we are in favor of that. we have clearly indicated that in the posture review, but you can read everything in the defense review. there's no hid p -- hidden agenda. >> time for one more. >> meeting in the next few weeks, do you think they plan or want to meet you right now? >> we have not -- we have not crossed the concrete talent of issues. as you may recall, i called him and congratulated him on his election a few days after the presidential elections, and we agreed to meet, but actually, in the not too distant future, but, of course, at the end, it's a calendar question, and no date has been fixed yet.

>> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] the ftc is an important agency and fought many in the privacy area and reached settlements with companies and talk about the promises made to consumers. i think self-regulation is a tool that can be much more responsive to changes in the marketplace, and, you know, in a quicker way than regulation or certainly than passing laws can be. >> tonight, a look at the federal trade commission's enforcement role in dealing with privacy on the internet with the republican commissioner and

democrat julie brill on "the communicators" tonight on c-span2. returning live shortly to the discussion of international peace and talking about arming control as soon as they wrap up their break here, and agenting undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, a new s.t.a.r.t. negotiator. also, letting you know later today here on c-span2, the senate gavels back in after a week long memorial daybreak at two o'clock eastern time resuming work on the paycheck fairness act dealing with gender based pay discrimination and making it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees who share salary information. debate today with votes expected on the measure tomorrow. at five eastern, taking up the nomination for the federal district court judge in massachusetts and vote on the

nomination is expected around 5:30. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> all right, we're about to resume our program. i hope everyone's lunch was good. don't get up and leave, please. we're about to resume. please take your seats. [inaudible conversations] ladies and gentlemen --

[inaudible conversations] good afternoon, and welcome back to the 2012 arms control association annual meeting. i'm darrell kimbel to remind you that the arms control association members, and i hope you're members, for a review of our programs and work that takes place at 3:45 later this afternoon. this year has been extremely busy and productive for the arms control association, and we have lots of work to do in the future, and in part, we're going to be focused on is promoting diplomatic solutions to prevent a nuclear armed iran as we heard about this morning and to try to

resume progress to denuclearize north korea. we'll be working hard to further reduce the number of salience in all types of weapons worldwide and urge the senate to reconsider the treaty and continue to work for faster action to secure weapons usable material to keep it away from terrorists and to end the production of the material promoting better implementation and full compliance with the chemical and bilogical conventions, and we'll be working very hard to encourage our governments to conclude an arms trade treaty next month to reign in international transfers of weapons and ammunitions where there is a risk that could lead to human rights violations just as we're seeing in syria and sudan today. all of that work and more depends on you, our members and our subscribers. i want to thank everybody who

helped support the arms control association in the past and into the future, and in particular, i want to thank the institutional supporters who make our work possible including the carnegie corporation of new york, the hewlitt foundation, carter foundation, the prospect foundation, and a key sponsor of today's annual meeting, the henreich foundation, and just ask him to say a few words, and then we'll introduce our lunch -- luncheon speaker. >> thank you very much, daryl, and before you introduce the keynote speaker, we are very happy to co-host, once again, the annual forum, annual meeting of the arms control association.

the foundation is one of the public foundations, here, president in washington, d.c. with an office, and meanwhile the largest office of the political foundations, and we have 30 offices worldwide. also in some of the most difficult regions such as lebanon, two just opened, and we have an office in ramallah, and so very important work we are doing there. we share a lot of objectives and aims with the arms control association, and that's why it's no surprise that it's the third year, i think, that we are supporting the annual meeting of the organization, and we really enjoy the european perspective

to discussions here in washington, d.c., and i think we had two terrific panels this morning here. last, but not least, i want to thank you, daryl, but also tom and tim for their support and the entire aca team. i wish you an interesting keynote, and now, yeah, i look forward to more. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, sebastian, and you thanked the staff before i did. i thank you for that. my staff will say something about that later, i'm sure. [laughter] now, we have with us, honored to have with us the undersecretary, unofficially speaking. rose has been a key reason for

the progress, i think, that we've seen over the last three years on several key risk reduction initiatives. she was a key architect of the s.t.a.r.t. agreement that we spoke of earlier today, played a key role in the administration's posture review, the successful conclusion of the 2010 review conversation, and we also have with our am ambassador susan bu, a key success at the meeting, and the undersecretary has been part of the ongoing p5 transparency issues and reviving reconsideration of the test ban treaty and much, much more. we are pleased you're here today, rose, and we welcome you up to the podium to give us an update on the progress to date, and to pass ahead, and she will

be taking a few questions at the end so, rose, i welcome you up. [applause] >> always great to be in this room and to see so many friends and colleagues here, so thank you for the opportunity to speak to you here again today and to bring you up to date on where we are on arms control and non-proliferation agenda items. i'm always glad to be at the annual meeting. before coming into government, i served on the board, and i know from the inside out how important this association is so for the work that you do and for the work that all of your talented staff do as well as the membership of the organization, i truly want to thank you because now i'm on the inside of a different beast, and we really do appreciate all the work that

you do so support our efforts in the government. i know that many of you have heard me speak a few times about what's going on in the arms control arena with this administration. i'm not going to sing the same old song today about the standard metaphors, that is, we're setting the stage, preparing the way, ect.. in the simplest terms, i'd like to make clear that this president set an agenda in prague, and we have done some important things to move that agenda forward. we're approaching the lowest level of deployed nuclear weapons at any time since the 1950s of the nuclear age. we are coming to a time in object of this year where we'll mark the 50th anniversary of the cuban missile crisis, and we have to look upon this as an important anniversary to truly mark our own progress as we move

forward on the president's agenda laid out in prague to move towards the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. we have come so far since then, that is, cuban missile crisis of 1962, and now we're setting the stage to move towards new accomplishments. i understand you have taken up the topic of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty this morning, so i'm not going into details of the treaty per se, but i wanted to underscore that the implementation of the treaty is going well, indeed. the russians just arrived in the united states this weekend for another inspection under the treaty. they are out at the nolstrom airport space, 7th inspection this year, the treaty year, that begins in february. there's a pace of the treaty, and so far, we are able to state quite clearly that the treaty

certification regime works, and i'm very pleased with that because, of course, when one negotiates something, procedures and so forth, you're never sure it's going to fall in place, but it's been going well, indeed, and it's important to setting the next stage of reduction because of the mutual confidence and the trust that's being built up in the course of implementation of the new treaty. mutual trust and confidence, of course, are crucial to any future success in arms reduction of those negotiations. now we are working on the next step to set us further along the road to achieving the prague goals. as part of the 2010 nuclear posture review, u.s. government is reviewing our nuclear response requirements for nuclear manets to ensure they -- plants to ensure they are aligned to the threats, to ensure what the united states needs to maintain for strategic state in this term and to ensure

to u.s. allies and partners. based on this analysis, we will develop proposals for further reductions in our nuclear stockpiles which currently stands at approximately 5,000 total nuclear warheads. as the president said recently as the second nuclear security summit in the fall, we can say with confidence we have more nuclear weapons than we need. to complete the study of the deterrence requirements shapes the negotiating approach with the next agreement with the russians. regardless of numbers, the president express the the next agreement between the russians and united states should include strategic, non-strategic, and nuclear deployed weapons. no agreement is limited or monitored the last two categories, and so the next negotiations will be breaking some new grounds in important ways. we are going to need more, new

demanding approaches to verification and monitors, and i am confident that we can find ways to respond to such challenges. responsibly downing the number of nuclear weapons, this administration has committed to the role of national security as well. we are not developing new nuclear weapons. we are not pursuing new nuclear missions. we are working towards creating the conditions to make detouring nuclear use the sole purpose of our nuclear weapons, and we have clearly stated this has been our interest, and in the interest of all other states that the more than 65-year record of nuclear nonuse be extended forever. recently, we worked through the nuclear policy issues that are important and relevant to our nato allies. at the nato summit in chicago a few weeks ago, the allies approved a deterrence in posture review. the m5 appropriate mix of the

nuclear and missile defense forces that nato needs to turn to defend against future threats to the alliance. focusing on the elements, allies re-affirmed commitments to seek the conditions of the world without nuclear weapons remaining a nuclear alliance for as long as nuclear weapons exist. the review found that the alliance's posture meets the criteria for an effective deterrent and the defense posture and that the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons are extremely, extremely remote. they are up dependent and yiewn unilateral u.s. british and french in discouraging proliferation. looking to the future, reiterated that nato is prepared to consider further reducing requirements for non-nuclear strategic weapons under the

alliance in the cyclical steps by the russian federation. leaders agreed there should be two taskings, two appropriate nato committees. first, to develop con cements for ensuring the burden shares including in the event that nato decides to further reduce alliance on non-nuclear weapons based in europe, and second, to further consider what nato would expect to see in the way of reciprocal russian actions to hay low the significant reductions in ford based, non-strategic nuclear weapons assigned to nato. nato expressed support for can continued mutual efforts for the united states and russia to promote strategic stability and further reduce nuclear weapons and reiterated interest in developing and exchanging transparency and confidence building ideas with russia as a goal of developing detailed proposals on and increased mutual understanding of nato's

and russia's non-strategic nuclear weapons deployed in europe. now, let me turn to con vengessal arms -- conventional arms control, which in my view, has not received adequate attention in recent years. we're spending a lot of time on the future of conventional arms control and the role in enhancing european security. there are three conventional arms control regimes that play key roles in european security. open skies treaty, 2011, and the armed forces treaty, each is important and contributes to security and stability in a unique way. when they work in harmony, the result is greater con stance for all of europe. today, i must fell you that the conventional arms control regime in europe is facing challenges. unfortunately, russia seizes obligations in september 2007

refusing to set inspections or provide information to other cme parties as required by the treaty. after trying for several years to overcome obstacles and encourage russia to resume imp policemennation, we conclude we can no longer ensure the treaty with russia. in late 2011, united states as well as allies as well as by georgia and moldova, they seized carrying out the treaty with russia. the treaty remains, according to its term, and is being implemented at 29. the sensation of the implementation with regard to russia by 24 of 36 parties gives us an opportunity to consider the current security architecture it needs and the types of arms control measures to achieve security goals.

in other words, i see this period now as a period of true opportunity to consider what we truly need for the 21st century arms control in europe. our nato allies have reaffirmed at the chicago summit in its declaration our determination to preserve, strengthen, and mod -- modernize the key principles and commitment and continue to explore ideas to this end. we must modernize con vengessal arms -- conventional arms control to taking the for security concerns. i've been meeting with the european counterparts, soliciting views on key objectives and basic principles for the way ahead including our goals on the issue currently ongoing here in washington. moving forward together, we can arrive at solutions that will bolster the security of the united states, nato partners, allies, and also the

registration -- russian federation. i want to turn to treaties, and the ddpd is important and as we continue to lay the ground work, we remain optimistic about the entry into force, all mindful achieving the goal requires considerable effort from every single one of us. it is central in leading towards a world of diminished alliance of weapons that reduce nuclear competition. as such, united states is committed to the completion of the monetary regime, the imf system, the international monitor system, more than 85% complete, and once completed, provides global coverage to identify tests conducted in violation of the treaty. development of the on-site

inspection component is a priority task of the comprehensive test treaty organization, and we will be assessing the progress of on-site inspection efforts in the 2014 integrated field exercise, a very useful, upcoming activity. in 2011, in addition to the annual assessment, our extra budget contributions to the ctbto ohaled over $40 million, and given the tough budget in washington, this shows our commitment to the ctbt and the importance of verifying the treaty. we are also continuing our fight, and i will gladly characterize it as a fight to launch the negotiation of the material cutoff treaty or fmct. such a treaty is considered to be by the community thee next

step in the process of multilateral nuclear disarmerment. working closely with a number of countries to achieve the start of the 17 negotiations on the conference of disarmerment, and ideas have been deployed in geneva to no avail. we're very disappointed in the results so far. the current lockage on ctbt is a formidable one, and every attempt to overcome impasse makes this clearer. countries must engage. without that, there's no progress in the mar gyp or outside of it -- margin or outside of it can make real progress. it's a leadership issue as well as a practice -- practical manner. they need to be the most active, most determined in any effort to

achieve such a regime. .. review conferences action

plan. this process to bolster the longstanding u.s. russian disarmament interaction with an ongoing p5 engagement on issues related to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. during p5 conferences and the ongoing p5 meetings we've covered transparency confidence building nonproliferation and other important topics are important for establishing a firm foundation for further disarmament efforts. for example, at the 2011 paris p5 conference that was in june of 2011, a year ago, the p5 reaffirmed their unconditional support for the mpt. we affirmed the commitment set out in the 2010 action plan, stressed the need to strengthen the international atomic energy agency safeguards and worked in pursuit of their shared goal of nuclear disarmament under article vi of the npt. following up on the 2009

london conference and the 2011 paris conference, the united states is hosting the next p5 conference here in washington june 27th, to june 29th. the united states looks forward to having further in depth discussions, candid discussions. these have been very useful discussions i must say, on a variety of issues with our p5 counterparts during the conference. we also look forward to hosting a public event as part of the washington conference. this will be on june 27th for those of you who are interested. it is titled, three pillars for peace and security implementing the npt. the event will focus on the mutually reinforcing nature it of the three npt pillars and examine how all three are essential to create conditions for the elimination of nuclear weapons. now finally, let me turn to some of the work we've been doing inside my own burr re, the bureau of arms control verification and compliance. you may know that i'm

juggling two hats. i'm the acting undersecretary but i maintained my role as the assistant secretary. i'm joking that i now have one of the longest titles in washington but it does encompass a broad, a broad empire. but i want to talk a bit about the work we're doing on future verification technology. and appeal to you because as we move forward on all these fronts that i have laid out today we are going to need the help of everyone in this room. it is not just on the advocacy level. we also need your creativity and your ideas. as i mentioned before reducing to lower numbers of all kind of weapons will require that we push past the current limits of our verification and monitoring capabilities. whether we're trying to monitor missile launches, count nuclear warheads or detect and characterize an unexplained biological event we need ever-improving tools and technology. the state department's bureau of arms control verification and compliance,

avc which is my own home bureau works hard to be on the cutting-edge of new technology not merely for the sake of being on the cutting-edge but we know that where we can best leverage the small budget that exists in our government for developing such new capabilities. it is because of this need for new technology that i'm particularly proud to announce that we have for the first time ever made available to the public our so-called verification technology research and development needs document. this document has been published on an annual basis and it is a catalog of sorts telling the r&d community what we believe are the most pressing technology needs to answer arms control questions is in the future. now with a publicly available document we can expand our community of developers beyond the usual suspects of the defense and department of energy laboratories. to a certain extent the needs document is a think piece.

we hope it will stimulate some thinking about where we go from here on verification and monitoring of arms control treaties and agreements. it is easy to find if you will go to the avc bureau, vtt page or, their website and type in vfund. 2 will come up and you will have a chance to look at it. i encourage all of your in our organizations to track 1.5 and track 2 engagement policies. we should never undervalue the, the productivity of these efforts. many of the ideas that went into the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, i know i said this time and again, but many of the ideas that went into the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty were developed in the years running up to the negotiations through track 1 and half in half and track 2 activities. i have appreciated the role of the arms control association and many of the organizations represented here as we prepare for negotiations of the armies treaty this july in new

york. this is a very important effort that has gone on and we really welcome your efforts overall. now to wrap up i want to leave you with one final thought. it is one of my favorites and one i think about constantly. it is not every day that you think of president calvin coolidge as a sort of inspiration but i always like to recall what he has to say about persist stance. i think it is not a bad message for this audience today. the president said, nothing in the world can take the place of persist stance. talent will not. nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. genius will not. unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. education will not. the world is full of educated derelicts. per citiesance and -- persist stance and determination are omnipotent. it will solve the problems of the human race. so colleagues and friends,

we must press on. we have no easy task ahead of us. we must simply press on. we have far to go go and there are problems that we can not anticipate certainly in this job over the last three years there have been many problems that i did not anticipate but we continue to press on. make no mistake. the arc of nuclear history is bending downwards, i'm quite sure of that. i look forward to your comments and questions and thank you very much for your attention today. [applause] >> thank you very much, rose, for your overview of all that is happening in this field. we have time for questions and there are microphones on either side. so once again, if you could, if you want to ask a question, raise your hand, identify yourself and the microphone will come to you and as the microphones get to these two folks here in the front, let me start with the first question, rose. you ended with the coolidge

admonition to persist which i think is always important in the field of nuclear arms control. one of the things we've been persisting with a long time of course is the effort to get the fissile materiel cuttoff talks going. and you said it is a fight. there are, only a certain number of different pathway has that can take. i mean how do you see this, this debate developing in the next several months given the opposition from one particular country in south asia that shall go nameless? and are there alternative ways in which the p5 can help make progress as the cd tries to find a way the consensus rule difficulties that it always grapples with? >> many of you are aware of the efforts of the first committee and the agenda you've been involved in

wrestling with these issues either in or out of government. and so you know that the pressures, what pressures emerged last october in the context of the first committee meeting in october and those pressures had to do with a building frustration about the inability the cd to move off the dime. i use the word impasse. it is a very formidable impasse at this moment in the cd and so pressures are developing within the first committee to basically go elsewhere. to move this negotiation to other settings. the u.n. general assembly, et cetera. so these pressures we were able essentially to, to let of off the steam i would say is a good way to put it and let off the steam by emphasizing the, again, both the responsibility and the interest of key stakeholders in moving this issue forward and that's why we have been

so intent on getting the key stakeholders to the table, working on where we can go, how we can handle this issue, pressing forward. we're slowly, slowly making progress so i for one hope the key stakeholders will continue to be able to press forward. otherwise i do fear that we may be heading in a direction will not be particularly productive in terms of getting true constraints on fissile materiels. a bunch of countries can get together and negotiate a fissile materiel cuttoff treaty but if they don't have many fissile materiels for weapons purposes it will not be all that helpful. so i think the important thing now is to keep our eye on the prices. could -- prize. to continue to have serious discussions among key stakeholders to continue to get a negotiation going. that is where we're placing our emphasis at the present time. >> thank you. for those of you who want to

dive into some of the details on this we did a extensive interview with pakistan's ambassador to the conference on disarmament in arms control today earlier this year. so i think we'll start out over here. barbara. want to go ahead. >> barbara slave vin from the atlantic council. good to see you again. talk about the relationship that developed with the russians in the arms control process and, and, the russians now have putin again as president. do you think that is going to affect the tenor of future arms control talks with them? how do you see cooperation over inran -- iran developing? do you see this arms control process might bleed into other issues with the russians or are you a little concerned that putin may play the nationalism card a little harder than medvedev did? thanks. >> i, as far as russian policy is concerned i see a great deal of consistency frankly. and if you're interested in the official russian

articulation of their policy, it's very useful to look at first of all, the remarks that putin published, they were published under his name, in some of the top russian newspapers right before the election. also he put out an election platform and since that time he has, his administration has published a foreign policy, their first foreign policy statement of policy after he entered into the presidency and there's an emphasis in each of those documents on continuing the arms control agenda, continuing arms control work. now there aren't any details laid out there but i do think it is important that that kind of emphasis has appeared and also a very positive perspective on implementation of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. so there has been a very positive and i would say practical approach to

implementation of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. so as far as the armies control traditional nuclear arms control environment i see a continuity there with the way this issue has been approached since the late '60s, early 1970 from the soviet union even though there were ups and downs in the relationship both washington and moscow saw nuclear articles control to be in their national security interest. with fits and starts and negotiations would halt for a while and certainly did in the 1980s for a while, nevertheless they would continue up again after perhaps a pause. i don't really see at the moment at difficulty in that, in that realm. i will say that the cooperation with iran at this point has actually been very, very solid and russia's playing a leading role as you all know. russia will be hosting the next meeting to talk with the iranians in the p5 plus

process. p5+1 process. there will be i think, many opportunities for russia to continue to play in moving that agenda forward. so all in all i think one has to recognize that political transitions, sometimes cause things to slow down a bit but nevertheless in terms of the overarching agenda and the willingness of the russian federation to engage on it i have not seen a problem there. >> all right. thank you. ambassador pickering, i think you had a question? then, if anyone in the back who wants to ask a question, you need to raise your hand now so that we can get the microphones to the back. thank you. >> thank you very much for everything you do and thank you very much for the speech. i would just remark on the last question i think new s.t.a.r.t. had a great deal to do with reset. i think that is a piece the arms control community shouldn't ignore and it

plays back into arms control attitudes. with respect to your speech an unfair question, what are your top three priorities and why? >> top three priorities are, well, they're hard to pick pout because i really have my top six priorities which you kind of heard this morning. but i think, in terms of, i'll tell you quite honestly. i think that new s.t.a.r.t. implementation is going along very well. so i kind of, i say, all right, we don't, don't not pay attention to that but it is going well and that is a good thing. i think a lot about where we go from here on the reductions. i think about the conventional arms control regime. it was kind of interesting but cfe was a spectacular success, it was such a spectacular success we all forego about it and we haven't been thinking about conventional arms control over time. >> cfe is a great treaty. i'm glad it is still in

force according to its terms but it was negotiated when we had the warsaw pact and nato raged against each other in europe. we need a different type of conventional arms control regime in europe today so that also preoccupies my thinking quite a bit. let me cheat a bit and say it is a combination of those p5 related issues which include the fmct which i would put in my third diplomatic priority but i'm going to cheat further and say there's a fourth which is the domestic priority of getting this e -- ctbt ratified. >> you mentioned the ctbt again. as many of us in this crowd know, the long-awaited national academy of sciences study on the technical issues related to ctbt was released in march. and what's your sense of what those findings tell us about some of the issues that were at the center of the debate in 1999, and in how much better does that put the treaty in position

going forward for a serious reconsideration? >> there are two major issues in 1999 that affected senators decision-making about ratification of ctbt. one had to do with the verifiability of the treaty and the nas study addressed sayfyability of the treaty. we welcomed their conclusions. we saw that they were in line with, with the evidence that we had seen without having such a deep dive in technical terms as the academy took but just on the face of the i mentioned in my remarks that the imf system is now over 85% complete. when the ims system was looked at back in 1999 it was barely off the ground at that point. so just if you look at, you know, what physically is available now to verify the treaty there's just so much more there. the other major issue of course was the stockpile

stewardship program and efficacy of based stockpile stewardship in comparison with nuclear explosive testing. again in 1999 the stockpile stewardship program was just barely off of the ground. you may recall i was working in doe at that point as the assistant secretary responsible for nonproliferation programs. so i was watching i was watching the process of getting stockpile stewardship off the ground and it was a very, very good process but it was still a bibby. now we can say that the baby's matured into a early adulthood and i think that it has proven its mettle in terms of the stockpile stewardship can really preserve the security effectiveness and safety of the arsenal without explosive nuclear testing. so those are the two big changes that have occurred. of course the nas study was focused on the verifiability issue. as i mentioned it basically accords with what we could

see by just looking at the physician call evidence -- physical evidence what accumulated since 1999 in the imf system. >> thanks. right here we have a question. ben, and then over here. >> thank you. i would like to ask you about the arms treaty. >> just identify yourself, please. >> i'm from the european parliament defense committee and i would like to ask you about the arms treaty because at the european parliament we're debating whether it should be a strong treaty which everybody not signs and could be a weaker treaty which everybody signs. what is the u.s. position under which conditions would you sign? >> well, if there is some code word strong versus weak treaties i should probably know what it is but in general the united states would sign up to treaties when they are strong and i will emphasize that our view is that it is a treaty that covers arms trade per se. there is a legitimate trade in armaments in conventional

arms internationally and so we see a real importance in ensuring that that trade is carefully regulated. and so that's the value that we see in an arms trade treaty but we do believe there is a legitimate trade in conventional articles and so would not support if it is treated as more a non-proliferation treaty that we should not have any kind of trade in these weapons. that is not our position. >> and those negotiations on the atts, it is called began at the united nations on july 2nd and go for about four weeks. arms control association is paying close attention to that. we have another question here and then we're going to go to the back row. so, ben, if you could bring the microphone up to trina then in the back. >> from the danish institute for international studies. you mentioned the inclusion of nonstrategic nuclear weapons in future arms control in the next step and

i would, i was going to ask you because as i understand it, it's a russian precondition for even talking about these weapons that they are first withdrawn from europe. so do you have any evidence that the perhaps the europeans will be winning to withdraw the weapons from europe in anticipation of arms control negotiations? a bit of a chicken and egg problem. >> well, you know it is very interesting about that russian condition. that has been a condition in place since the soviet union. it's not a new condition. it is a very, very long-standing condition that all so-called, we used to call them tack nukes. tactical nuclear weapons. all tactical nuclear weapons must be withdrawn to the united states before they talk about reductions in this arena. so any number of conditions that can be piled up in advance of negotiations i think we have to be very careful about considering

them chicken and egg problems. we have to work them. russians clearly aren't going to come to the negotiating table unless they see a negotiation to be in their national interests. we would not either, nor would we expect our nato allies to join us in an effort to negotiate such a treaty unless they too joined in seeing it as their national interest but i just simply don't treat these conditions, and the russians have piled up some other conditions on the table. i don't see them as a chicken and egg problem. i see them essentially as issues that must be worked in the run-up to negotiations and biel see where we get. they may see an interest over time in enhanced transparency and understanding further what's going on in, for example, former warsaw pact facilities that have now been closed out and no longer hold nuclear weapons. they may be interested in learning more about that. let's work the issue and see where we get and then we'll see what, what we do about a negotiation but i would just urge us all, it gets a bit sometimes you kind of

scratch your head because you hear some russian commentators piling up what look like conditions after conditions. i just would be very cautious about treating them as big blockages. we just need to work them as all. >> we're going to move to the lightning round of questions. i think we have time for two or three more and i'm going to ask the folks to raise their hands. >> combined questions? >> we could take two or three at the same time. you will have to. he has got the mic. then we go to the next one and rose will take a couple at the same time. >> i worked on and struggled with the issues of the conventional arms control negotiations for about two years ending in 2009 and particularly what to do about cfe and in gates's office. now that, that find barriers to do the structure of the

new treaty even which is apparently unacceptable in many respects to russia, as well as regional issues that have gotten in the way of our ratification like moldova, georgia, mutual concerns in other areas, this is kind of an unfair question but i'm wondering what sort of paths one might explore, whether it's a totally new treaty or whether one begins with small, political confidenc confidence-raising steps perhaps in regions of tension and builds up to something bigger? i know you said you were just exploring, ideas, so i don't want to pit you on the spot but i'm curious what's in play and what one hears, whether the, the most

promising approach is a global solution or a piecemeal more lit political solution. >> let's see what rose has to say about that. natalie over here. if you could take the microphone to the right. thank you. >> thank you. hi, rose. georgetown acronym institute. appreciate the arms treaty even if 2 didn't make your top four. like to ask your question about consensus. u.s. insisted on it in the arms trade treaty process. some of the same skeptics you encountered in the arms trade treaty process and playing the same role. how do you think we keep the is insistence on consensus and keep the skeptics from using it to derail the treaty? >> actually, shall i take those two? let me come straight to natalie's question. you know the reason why it's not in my top four is as far as my heavy lifting is concerned, at least at the moment, roberto martan has

done a fabulous job preparing the way. the reason why we're talking about a four-week negotiation is that we think there's a real shot getting this thing done in four weeks. there are many difficult issues to get through in july and you know, it is not a done deal but i would say that the ground is very well-prepared and again it is thanks to the work of the nongovernmental community but also the work of the our negotiators in the prepcoms that we're in such good shape. that is why because not why i don't consider it important from a policy perspective but in terms of my own personal heavy lifting. we'll see. maybe july 31st will come and i will be up in new york all night long. we'll see what happens. but at the moment i'm very positive about the preparetory work that has gone into it so far. but your question about consensus is a very important one for those of you who don't know, the arrangement for decision-making in the att negotiations is that as matter of substantive

decision-making such decisions must be made by consensus. procedural decisions can be made by a majority kind of approach. so it's a different approach. we have been quite hesitant about it although we were willing to see how it works in this context because it's difficult many times to draw bright lines between substance and process. and we're concerned about that causing difficulties going forward. but we'll see how it goes. let's see how it goes this july and see, see where we, where we go from here. that's all i can say to you at the present time on that. as far as conventional arms control, peter those questions are very, very good ones. we're looking at a rather broad spectrum now. you made some mention of not being able to ratify a treaty. at the moment we're taking a very broad-ranging look at this arena of conventional arms control. we have a solid foundation

and the conventional forces in europe treaty is still in force according to its terms. i look particularly, given my experience on new s.t.a.r.t., new s.t.a.r.t. and cfe, conventional articles control are much different. cop conventional arms control is bilateral. both cases we have accumulated less experience in terms of verification and inspect shun regimes which we need to bear in mind. they have been great in raising confidence and may play a role in the future but at the same time i think we need to look very broadly at what the the purpose of conventional arms control in europe is these days. we're not dealing with two alliances arranged against each other. what the regional security situations are and furthermore, overall the way europe is, is, you know, handling military forces these days is much different. there's a lot of budget-cutting going on.

there is a lot of effort at having, you know, shared capabilities across, across-border lines. and so we just need to think, i think very, in a very broad-ranging way about where we want to go on conventional arms control. so that's the effort we have underway in government now. no decisions have been made but we are taking a very, very serious look at it and i expect this summer we'll be coming to some decisions about how to proceed. so if any of you out there have any ideas on this, on this agenda we would welcome the chance to talk to you about them. >> an invitation. all right. speaking of persistence, last go to last question, mr. larry wiler who persisted on these issues longer than most of us here. for those that don't know, larry was one of the non-proliferation treaty negotiators. so, larry, your question. >> i was negotiating as i mentioned to you on an earlier arer occasion i think on non-proliferation

treaty 57 years ago. time flies. [laughter] i'm getting older. and my, i have another, unfair question. what is your estimate of whether or not we're any closer to getting the necessary votes in the senate than we were three years ago? >> three years ago? >> on which -- >> on the ctbt. >> on ctbt? you know, larry i had a very interesting experience watching the ratification of the new start treaty. -- s.t.a.r.t. treaty. up until the final weeks we didn't have any votes. we had democratic side of the house. we had senator lugar. but in terms of specific votes on the republican side of the ledger we didn't know. you just got to work it. again, i found that, one of the most valuable aspects of the new s.t.a.r.t. ratification debate was that

the senators were willing to really take a serious look at the treaty and to really consider their responsibility under the constitution with regard to the national security of the united states and giving our advise and consent to treaties. to make a long story short, they wanted to hear the details. they kefl delved into the inspection regime in ways i never would have predicted. a lot of attention went to the budget side and the concern about the budget for the national nuclear security administration and so forth but to me it was very impressive how much they wanted to understand the details of the treaty and how it would improve our national security, our confidence with regard to what the russians are doing in their strategic arsenal and overall enhanced predictability with moscow. so my view is this is a time we need to get the word out

there what the ctbt can do for us, what it will do to enhance our national security. we need to ask all those concerned, both inside and outside of government on capitol hill and elsewhere to take a serious look and be ready to listen, to get some questions answered and to debate but we're not asking anybody at the moment to say yea or nay. and in fact i hope people will not say yea or nay right now but have a very, very serious and intensive debate on the merits of the comprehensive test ban treaty. >> all right. thank you. i think we're drawing to a close here. i think your time is up. i want to thank you very much for joining us here once again. and i hope to have you back again. we'll take up your invitation for ideas on the conventional forces in europe treaty. we always have sub space and articles control for that long00ing -- running issue. we will promise to persist

which is very important admonition from you, given -- >> and calvin coolidge. >> and calvin coolidge. we'll have to use that one in the future. so thank you very much, rose. [applause] . . >> to recognize two of our very dear friends who are no longer with us in 2012. um, board members who were a very big part of our work and the field of arms control. jonathan tucker, who passed away

last summer, was a longtime member of the arms control board of association directors ask be a leading biological and chemical weapons expert. there's a short essay in the back of your program about his, his clearness contributions. his departure leaves a huge void in the field, and he produced articles and books, one of which just came out in march of this year. posthumously published. and because we all depended so much on jonathan for his contributions and creativity in the field of chemical and biological arms control, we'd like to announce that beginning next year, in 2013, we're going to be organizing a biennial conference in his honor to provide a forum for new ideas and to continue to raids awareness -- raise awareness about the issues that jonathan worked so tirelessly to address.

and -- [applause] and we'll also miss stanley resor who passed away on april 17th of this year at the age of 94. stan, who was involved in talks preceding the conventional forces in europe treaty, the nbfr talks in the 1970s, served our country as a soldier, a statesman, as secretary of the army, arms control negotiator, and he was chairman of our board of directors from 1992 to the year 2000. he, along with his second wife louise who i'm afraid to report passed away last month, were the arms control power couple of their generation. stan and louise were here for many an arms control association annual meeting in the front row, and we're going to miss them

very, very much. and we owe a lot to their, to their work. louise was also a strong arms control advocate and activist in her own right. and on behalf of aca and the re, so r family, i'd like to invite those of you who knew stan and louise to join us this afternoon at 5 p.m. in this room for an event to honor them and to reflect on their lives. and that will take place, again, here at 5 p.m. be. and finally, i just want to thank sebastian greff and also to the, for their support for this event and our other work, and also to my excellent staff for orchestrating this three-ring circus, certainly feels that way for me. to tim farnsworth, program associate, for making everything happen and to the rest of the staff who do our work and to help produce arms control today.

so thanks, all, for your interest, your participation. we look forward to seeing you at future events, and we are adjourned for the afternoon. thanks. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> if you missed any of the earlier discussion about arms control, you can find the remarks online in their entirety at the c-span video library. and in less than an hour here on c-span2, the senate gavels back in after a weeklong memorial day

break. they're going to resume work on the paycheck fairness act dealing with gender-based pay discrimination and making it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for sharing salary information. votes on the measure expected tomorrow, and at 5 eastern today a look at the nomination of timothy hillman to be a federal district court judge in massachusetts and a vote on his nomination is expected around 5:30. and live right now coverage underway at the national press club over on c-span. msnbc host chris matthews is the featured speaker at the gerald ford presidential foundation journalism awards. the winners include scott wilson for his reporting on the presidency and the be virginia january pilot's corrine reilly for national defense be coverage. and that's live now on c-span. the head of abc, anne sweeney, recently sat down with "wall street journal" deputy managing

editor alan murray for a discussion about the future of television and the impact of mobile technology. anne sweeney also co-chairs disney media works and fortune magazine has described her as one of the 50 most powerful women in business. "the wall street journal" hosted this event in new york as part of its view points executive breakfast series. [applause] >> thank you. advanced digital strategies, sounds like something we all need. [laughter] anne, thanks, thanks for coming, especially right on the heels of your up fronts. how did they go? >> well, first of all, good morning, america. [laughter] and i'm sorry -- >> we'll get to that. [laughter] >> yes, i hope we do. i'm sorry we're missing the second hour because you're here with me. the up fronts went very well. i'm -- we're looking at a strong marketplace. as bob iger reported in our last earnings call, we're coming out

of a strong quarter. we see a lot of new product launches coming in the next year, and on the abc front i am very proud and very encouraged by our strong schedule across the board; prime time, news, late night -- >> you said our bachelors don't stay engaged, but our audience does. >> yeah. [laughter] >> that works. and jimmy kimmel had a line there that got him in a little bit of trouble with les moonves, he said cbs is big with the 18-49 trips to the bathroom demographic? >> that's not true? [laughter] >> cbs is doing well with the younger demographic these days. >> cbs does well in total viewers, and i give them credit for a lot of the shows they put on. abc's strategy is very different, and the makeup of the abc audience is different. if you look at what we did last year in prime time, we have the number one drama in grey's anatomy, we have the number one

new drama in once upon a time, we have the number one scripted and number one comedy on television with modern family. so that is a very strong base for us to build a new schedule for the '12-'13 season. >> any of the new shows you're particularly excited about? >> i'm excited about all of them because we're at that wonderful moment in the year where everything is possible, everything looks great, and everything's going to be a hit. [laughter] and i just want to stay there for a couple more minutes. [laughter] >> but i think some of not only the new shows, but i think some of the scheduling moves that we made were very smart. i think revenge, which was the most buzzed-about drama of the year produced by abc studios moving to 9:00 on sunday in the "desperate housewives" time slot was a very, very smart move. >> broadcast generating all the excitement, the big shows that the network lineup, but viewership for those as a group is going down, right? we've seen broadcast viewership

drop pretty sharply in the last year. >> well, it depends on how you define broadcast viewership. we look at viewership very, very broadly, and one of the things jerry wong talked about in her part of the presentation was looking at it across all screens. and we've been working with nielsen to make sure that we have truly accurate measurement. you know, we've moved as a television industry from one kind of, one way of measuring television into c3, we actually have some advertisers who are working in c7 with us, but we have to add abc.com numbers to that, we have to add mobile because that's where our app is offered as well. we have settop box vod. there are a lot of ways that -- >> so you're not concerned about the fact that traditional broadcast viewership is on the down trend? >> no, because i think it's because we as the walt disney company see television holistically. we have a number of content engines just in our division alone, and we also have espn

and, of course, we have the movie studio. but within our division, you know, if you look at the disney channel portfolio of disney channel, if you look at abc and the great work of abc studios, abc family, we are producing a tremendous amount of scripted and unscripted material that is seen on a variety of screens. so i actually see a very bright future. >> so that was really, i mean, one of the reasons why i was eager to get you here for this conversation, you have been very aggressive about pushing into other screens, into other platforms, pushing onto digital and internet platforms. but it's a bit of a jump into the dark, isn't it? i mean, you're not making a lot of money on -- obviously, cable is making a lot of money, but beyond cable, you're not making a lot of hundred on any of those -- >> you have to remember in the early days of any technology, remember when television came out, and everyone said, oh, this is terrible, this is the worst thing in the world, who will want it? everyone loved their radios,

they loved to go to the movie theaters, they didn't think there was any kind of entertainment that needed to happen. and then television happened, and it didn't kill radio or movies. everyone figured out who they were in this new world orderly, so change has always been part of our industry. you know, just on the technology side moving to color tv, hd, plasma, look at all the different ways we're watching just on the set at home and then adding all of the other screens to it. you know, it's evolve or die, and i think what digital gave us, and for our company it was that phone call from steve jobs to bob iger, and then bob calling me and saying steve wants to talk to you about something. and that was, actually, the video ipod which when you think back, i remember the video ipod, but i'm so addicted to my iphone, and i've got everything there now that it just seems a very natural progression. so --

>> is that a good business for you? >> yes, it is a good business for us. because it connects us to our viewers in a way we never dreamed possible. >> you don't make the kind of profits there with your contents that you would make on a cable channel. >> no. they're very different business models. one is 30 be years old, and the other one is a few years old. so i think they're apples and oranges. >> but one thing that happens, once you, once people start consuming video that they're pulling down over the internet, then you go from a limited group of competitors to an unlimited group of competitors. you've got the jay-z channel, the deepak chopra channel, "the wall street journal" channel. there's infinite competition out there. is that, doesn't that effect the value of what your doing? >> no. because, for two reasons. number one, we've always had a lot of competition. we have always competed with people's leisure time activities. we've competed with video games, we have competed with, you know, not just other it's channels --

television channels or television shows. and quite frankly, i love competition. i think it's the healthiest thing for our industry to have, you know, other people doing great work out there. but with i think what you -- but i think what you really have to pay attention to in this new digital world and will set us apart from everyone else are the brands that we have at the walt disney company. and it's disney, it is abc, it's espn, it is marvel. you know, we have a tremendous amount of strength in those brands. those brands are meaningful. and if you go to -- >> so they can withstand unlimited competition? >> well, they can withstand, as long as we keep them relevant. because my very simple definition of a brand is the relationship you have with your consumer. and that relationship has to be as important, as relevant and as current as the relationship you have with your family and your friends. >> um, because another piece of this new world when you move out

of the multiple platforms and deliver digitally, the notion of a channel is very likely to change, right? >> yes. >> and that's okay? >> well, already changed. >> yeah. >> but what we've learned, we do a tremendous amount of research in the company, and the research isn't do you like this show or that show. anyone can do that. the research is really more along the lines of what's going on in your life, you know, what kind of entertainment are you experiencing and how? and one of the things that we've learned is that we know disney is a brand. we know and understand that, and we have brand equity studies that we do every year. couple of years ago we threw abc into this mix. and what we discovered was that there were, actually, two television brands that popped for people. unaided recall of abc shows was higher than unaided recall of, you know, some movies to movie

studios. people really knew and understood what an abc show was. and if you looked at, if you just heard paul lee's speech, paul actually started to touch on that. paul actually started to speak to the abc brand and what it meant to people. >> how much of that is disney? be. >> in abc? >> yeah. >> you know, it's interesting, i think disney and abc share a true quality. they think they are defined by quality, i think they are defined by the stories that they tell. they tell extremely good stories, very well written, highly-developed characters. i think even, you know, that's talking about entertainment, but when i look at abc news, i see many of the same similarities. i see great journalism which is great storytelling. i see tremendous anchors who deliver this information in a way that is relevant and important to the american

people. so i think that that is the distinguishing characteristic. and i think that is what will continue to set us apart. >> so we talked about declining broadcast viewership, but you nodded to this, the video viewership overall seems to be going up. >> video viewership is going up. >> we're now talking about people spending an average of five hours a day watching video? >> uh-huh. >> is that a good thing? >> it is a good thing, as long as it's our video. [laughter] i'm happy. >> no, but seriously. there's nothing else human beings do other than sleep that much every day. >> but did you also know that the most-tweeted topic last year worldwide was television? people talked about it's, they tweeted about television more than they tweeted about any other subject. >> so you're saying it's not completely passive. >> no, it's not completely passive. and i think that is something to think about in the future. and that's actually what a lot of this new technology gives us. you know, whether you're

tweeting or blogging, or posting or pinning, whatever you're doing, you're talking, you're sewer -- interacting with your community about our television content. and i think that is something we were missing when we were flat screen at home. >> so much more interactive, much -- can you give us some examples of some interactivity that you're working into your television? >> well, one of the things that we've been doing last number of seasons with "dancing with the stars" is voting. now, it seems like a very simple idea, you're, you know, you can text, you can vote at abc.com. but what actually has happened is communities of people, so you go to facebook and look at the "dancing with the stars" community, what we have realized is these very simple first tens that were relatively easy to take have spurred larger commitment involvement in our shows. >> they're also disagreeing with the judges on "dancing with the

stars." [laughter] >> yes, they are. especially len. >> can you tell us who's going to win? >> no, because i don't know. i wish i knew. [laughter] >> talk about the comcast deal because that was a pretty extraordinary agreement. tell us why you did it and what you hoped to be getting out of it and whether you're going to be doing more deals like that. >> well, to answer the last question first, yes. the comcast deal expanded the scope of our industry, it expanded our opportunities, and i think the most important piece of it was that both comcast and the walt disney company realized how fast, how nimble and how available we needed to be to our viewers, to our customers. and that was baked into the comcast deal in many different ways. now, espn had gone first with time warner with watch espn -- >> watch espn anywhere as long as you authentic you are a

subscriber to time warner cable. >> that's correct. and that carried through, that's something espn did with comcast as well. but it was the first time that the disney/abc television group did that. and we will be launching our disney channel suite of services as watch disney channel, watch disney xd and watch disney jr. next month. and it's very, very exciting. we did a beta a number of months ago, because you can imagine this just created such excitement inside of disney that we created beta, and i sat down with brian roberts to show him what it would look like. and you'll see a live-streaming disney channel. you'll have video on demand content, and you'll have other things in the mix as well. and it really, i do have bill baker to thank for signing that initial contract for disney channel because i think what you brought to the world was something very big. and when we signed that comcast contract, i realized the great

step that we were taking with this great brand of disney channel. it was really bringing it just that much closer. we did research, and we actually videotaped the research, so, you know, we would have a chance to really see the way kids and parents were talking about this app. and we had a moment where a mom was sitting next to her daughter, and the researcher said, well, you know, tell me about you've just been watching disney jr., and tell me about, you know, what you're doing. and she said, what i'm doing, i'm watching my show, and i can see heist curled up on -- i can see myself curled up on my couch with my be ipad. and i thought when were we ever going to hear that you were going to curl up on your couch with your ipad? is but another bell went off which is people need to be able to take us with them. >> and you're completely indifferent to what screen they watch you on?

>> i am pretty imp different. -- indifferent. because i realize that they, our audience is going to watch on the available screen. there will be properties, my great prediction -- "let it shine" is a great movie we have coming out soon on disney channel, and i believe that's going to be one of those big screen experiences like "high school musical" was for people. but i also believe that no one will want to miss it, and you'll be able to see it on your ipad or your phone. >> and as people, a lot of that, of course, is on demand. i don't know, do you have statistics on how much of your viewing is on demand versus live for these shows? >> low double digits is on demand but it's, again, this is a business that is continuing to grow, and it's going to be very interesting to look at the difference between kids using on demand and adults using on demand. >> kids seem to be using it more. >> kids continue to use it more. and it was very interesting, i

remember doing focus groups a couple of years ago and watching the moderator in the room ask the kids questions about what they were doing, you know, just lifestyle questions. and the kids were talking with their hands, and they were doing a lot of this and that. and we realized, and when we got the question in the room what does this mean and what does that mean, oh, when i'm in carpool, my mom hands her iphone back to me. and then we started hearing stories about parents who had just gotten their first ipad, and it went missing because their kids had it. so, you know, we're live anything a world now of kids that's very different than when i started at disney channel. we're living with this, we're live anything a world of touch screens. >> a video, a youtube video of a 1-year-old baby playing with a magazine and going like this on the pages of the magazine, and the caption says, this magazine

doesn't work. [laughter] now, nickelodeon said recently that that, the kids' interest in video on demand was actually hurting them in some ways, they were seeing people migrate to netflix where you have subscription video on demand. are you seeing that at all? is disney, are the disney channels, for instance, prepared for a big move to video on demand? >> well, actually, we've been on netflix, but actually we've seen our ratings go up. in fact, nickelodeon -- or disney channel beat nickelodeon with 6-14-year-olds and broke their streak. and it's remained very strong -- >> so you're not threatened by anybody? >> no, no, no, no. [laughter] >> we're all just friends. [laughter] >> it's the happiest place on earth, what do you want me to do? [laughter] no, actually, netflix was great opportunity for us. and you have to remember that with our disney channel and our

abc series, they do go on at the end of the season. we do have a couple of exceptions, we have phineas and fresh and secret life of the american teenager that start, i think 5 days after they've -- 15 days after they've gone on our pay channel. >> so what in this rapidly-changing world scares you? what cause causes you to wake up and say, oh, my god, we better be prepared the or that one. >> well, i think it's what we don't know yet. one of the things that i preach constantly at work and, sadly, even at home is paying attention to what's going on. and always thinking about -- we've an unofficial mantra in our group called, that we say to each other, we create what's next. so it is being that half step or maybe full step ahead of the audience and having that -- when the ipad came out. we went to the presentation, we saw it, went back to the office and in our staff meeting we asked the question if you could

do anything with that device, what would you do? and everyone went away and thought about it and came back, and the first be thing that came up -- the first thing that came up, there were two things that came up. we would do an app for abc news, and we would do abc.com which we had established as abc.com, but we would create that app. and the goal abc.com went first, abc news followed, but the goal was to be ready for launch day. and a very interesting thing happened. we were ready, but you never really know how many bugs you have in an app until you're out there. so our very smart digital team decided to monitor people testing out our app on twitter. and we actually established probably our first customer service department because as people were racing to the apple store, buying their ipad and seeing what was available, abc.com came up, and we started to monitor the twitter feeds, and we started to hear about the

bugs. so we actually started to communicate with people on twit twitter, and what came back was i just heard from abc, and they heard that i had a problem, and they're going to fix be it, and at 4:00 they're going to release a new version. you know, it's a very, very interesting process for us. and, you know, it's also important to note that that abc.com app is the sixth most-downloaded free ipad app of all time. >> and how's the relationship overall with apple? and i should say i ask that partly because we were, we went through the same sort of experience, you know, had an app out there at the launch, it's been quickly adopted, very popular. but the relationship with apple is far from perfect. >> really? >> yeah. [laughter] you want me -- but i don't want to turn this interview around. >> no, we can talk about that. >> we'll get to that later. but, i mean, how do you feel

your relationship with apple has been? >> you know, i think it is strong and productive because we're providing important products. and i think the beginning of that was really supplying our shows to itunes and taking, as you mentioned earlier, that great leap into the unknown. you know, we didn't know that it would work, but we had a very strong feeling that it was a good thing to do because we believed in this device, we saw the device, we saw how they were going to manage the itunes store. we had a criteria developed of the people that we would want to work with. not companies by name, but, you know, who companies had to be in this new space. they had to have integrity, they had to be very connect today their consumers, they had to be high quality, they had to protect us from privacy, and apple did all of that. >> where does this, where does this go? how much viewership is going to be on mobile devices five years from now on ten years from now? >> you know, i would say in ten years from now when it's being driven by, you know, the

millennials, i allegation believe if you need to know -- i always believe if you these to know something, you should ask a 9-year-old. when they hit that millennial stage of their life, somewhere within that 18-24 range, i think a lot of video viewing will be on digital devices, but i don't think all of it will leave television. i think television -- because televisions have become so much better and so much bigger and, you know, are, you know, really a movie experience in a lot of homes, i do believe that they will play a role. but i think what will become critically important for us is that we have absolutely the best measurement of all of these devices so we can monetize our content. >> let's talk about your global business, and particularly disney be. i mean, disney has become a truly global brand, right? >> it has.

we have 103 disney channels in 167 countries. and that has happened -- >> can you name them all? >> yes, i can. [laughter] some days. but that's happened in a very short space of time which i think really speaks to the power of the brand. i was in russia in march. we launched a disney channel there in january, and you're -- it's also frieda air which is a model with do use in turkey, russia and in spain. and very different from the cable business that we have in the u.s. >> the advertising markets support that? >> yes, they do. they do. but it was very interesting, i asked our country manager if she would take me into a classroom because i wanted to meet our new, our new disney channel viewers. and i went in, and we had only been on the air for less than 90 days. and be i started out, i was -- and i started out, i was very

curious about who they were and what stories were important to them, and i wanted to know what their favorite lullaby was, and we eventually got around to stories on television. and 25% of the kids named phineas and ferb as their favorite television show. now, this is a very small sample, but i thought less than 90 days in the marketplace and that show is resonating, that's an important fact for us. >> and those 167 countries, they're watching the same content? >> yes. well, there is a lot of local production. depending on whether disney channel launched in the country, we do have a lot of original production which makes you feel that this is your disney channel, this is not an american export. >> and so how much of your revenues now come from outside the united states? >> that is a very healthy business for us. we don't split out domestic from international, but it is very -- >> [inaudible] >> really healthy. [laughter] >> very rough.

very rough. univision -- >> yes. >> -- interesting deal with univision to attract domestic hispanic audiences with english-language contempt. >> exactly. >> so can you give us a little more texture how that's going to work? >> well, first of all, thank you to ben sherwood for bringing this partnership to us. >> you have a lot of reinforcements here. >> i do. [laughter] >> diane sawyer is here. >> yes, they are my lifeline. this, but this is a really exciting venture for abc news, for abc and really for the walt disney company be because this is an english-language service, this is a service that is built for the fastest-growing and youngest demographic in the united states, and we're building it with univision, you know, an absolutely amazing media partner. so we will go mobile with the election this summer, and you'll see the general launch next

year. >> and what does univision bring? >> i think univision brings -- the beauty of the partnership is that they bring a deep and embedded knowledge of the audience, they bring tremendous information to our company, to the walt disney company and to the news division, and i believe that they will be great partners in the creation of programming, in the creation of relevant, important programming for this audience. >> so you started this discussion by mentioning "good morning america." the "today" show has dominated that top place for a long time. you've hit them now a couple of times. does it matter? how important is that to your business? >> oh, it's really important. [laughter] and it was, i have to tip my hat to the gma team and all of abc news because this is bigger than a labor of love.

gma is a terrific show, it does belong in the number one spot, and i have long believed that "good morning america" opens the day for the abc television network. and it's a very dynamic show. the news is strong, and all of the information that that great team provides to the american public, i think, is critical. and i think they have earned that spot. >> do you think they'll keep it? >> ben? [laughter] they will. yes, they will. >> and can you talk a little bit about the economics of the morning show? it's important symbolically, but it's also important economically, right? >> it is important chickly. there is -- economically. there are very healthy budgets for morning television, and we certainly have enjoyed even in the number two position, we've been the beneficiaries of those budgets. but there is money to be made in the morning. >> are your demographics in the morning different than "today"

show graphics? do you get a different kind of person? >> no, i believe our network overall skews probably more female than nbc does, but i'd say the demographics are probably comparable in the morning. >> um, news. you mentioned news on "good morning america," you talked about news, the importance of news earlier, but abc doesn't have a cable news channel like cn, in the way nbc does. does it matter? can you really have a strong presence in news without a realtime cable news network? >> actually, i believe you can, and can i believe that we do. and as, you know, we have had discussions, we did have -- we do have a small cable network called abc news now that's been out for a couple of years now, but i really believe as i watch our digital world evolve, as i watch people turn to their ipads and their iphones, i do believe in some ways that we --

it was a step that we missed, but we didn't miss a step. meaning that because of the devices that we now have access to, because of the construct of our news division, and i look at what we have done with our partnership with yahoo! and the tremendous growth that we've experienced with abc.com, when i look at the upcoming joint venture with univision, i feel that we are very well positioned without having a 24-hour cable news network. >> so no need to go back and revisit that? >> no, no. i believe our future is very different, and i'm very happy about it. >> so jerry baker mentioned at the beginning the story we had that highlighted you, had a picture of you as one of the ten women likely to become ceos at disney or someplace else, i would point out, is the way i

read the story. is that what you -- and i should also point out i think you're the first person who's been on this stage for our viewpoints stage who hasn't been a ceo. so we're delighted to have you. but is that something you want? is that what you aspire to? where do do you see your career going? >> well, you know, i've never aspired to a title, ever. i've always, i've really charted my career based on what i was curious about. i started at nickelodeon because i was really curious that, about the idea that you could have 24 hours of kids' programming, you know, what was a channel devoted to kids, what would that mean? i went to fox to launch fx because i had never launched a cable network from scratch without an infrastructure, wild west, get on your horse and go launch it. and i went to disney because i had, when you grow up at nickelodeon, you're insanely curious about how do they do it?

i thought there must be a book somewhere, someone will tell you this is how they do it, this is how they launch those movies, this is how they built those parks. so i had a great curiosity about the walt disney company. that's really what's guided me. and that will guide my next step. but i have to tell you where i am right now, i think, is the most exciting place on earth. i look at what we've done over the last 16 years that i've been with the company, and really especially the last five years have just been probably the most exciting and the most fulfilling years of my career. >> part of the reason i asked the question and i think part of the reason that we did that story is if you look at the ranks of fortune 500 ceos, i believe right now there are 18 who are women. amazingly small number. >> uh-huh. >> why as somebody who's fought your way up the ranks, why do you think that is? >> i don't know. i don't know.

you know, i do think there should be more women because i know many talented women in our industry. abby raise sin is here today -- raisin is here today. diane sawyer, we can point to so many women that we know who have achieved great things. >> have you felt it's been more difficult for you as a woman? >> you know what? i don't really -- it sounds funny, but i think of myself as a person, and i believe that, i believe that -- >> you can go with that, yeah. >> yeah, perfect. i believe that i'm judged every single day on what i bring to the table, i'm judged on my successes, i'm judged on my failures, i'm judged on innovation, i'm judged on how i grow this great division for the walt disney company. i don't think it along gender lines, i think of it as it's about performance. so there are a lot of women out there who are delivering great performance. >> this is always a very yeasty audience, they'll have lots of questions, so why don't we go ahead and open it up.

hang on just a second for the microphone and, please, introduce yourself before you ask. >> hi. john chachas. you've talked a lot about the digital transition, could you speak about the degree to which measurement of your eyeballs and viewers is keeping up? because in a world where told we're going to see a little tiny company price with the a bigger market cap than the entire walt disney company, it's all about, you know, people looking at things on these. as everybody moves, and i agree children live on these devices, is the traditional way in which your audience is measured keeping up to allow you to sell your advertising? we have no doubt it's going there, but is the measurement of that viewership staying with you? >> you know, you make a great point because i think measurement is the key to a healthy future and our ability to monetize this content. we're working very close hi with nielsen and have been working closely with them on a number of projects to make sure that we

capture not only the eyeballs and knowing how many clicks or how many viewers, but who these people are and doing it in a way that, obviously, respects privacy. but it is, it is key to the future of our business. and i do believe that people are awake to it now. i believe that they're working on it, and i've seen a lot more work coming out of nielsen in that regard. >> part of it is knowing where the eyeballs are, but part of it is can you command the same sort of advertising dollars that you command on those platforms that you command on the big screen? >> i do believe you can say to an advertiser this is who i have, i am delivering to you -- as we do at abc -- highly-educated, very engaged, upscale, you know, college-educated consumers, and those are the consumers you want for this specific brand lawn. you will get them, and the dollars will follow. >> how about if you're using

this new dish machine that skips over the ads? >> i've only read about it, and i'm anxious to have our technologists take a look at it and see what it actually means. >> question right here. >> [inaudible] >> oh, sorry. next time i'll let you do it. [laughter] other questions? right here. >> alan able, abc. if you, if you consider the fact that the viewers who are using the new technology are younger and younger, do you imagine that sometime within the next, i don't know, 10, 20 years it's possible that you won't ever have to schedule anything in a traditional way and that it'll all be, we'll basically all -- >> it's all on demand? >> all on demand? abc will issue a list, basically, and instead of having the up fronts be delivering the

new schedule, it'll be, basically, you know, just a list of shows and how you can get to them? is it possible -- >> that's an interesting question. do we go to a completely on demand world? >> yeah, it's an interesting question, but it could be 20 years from now. and the people using these devices are not necessarily younger and younger. i thought that too. when the ipod went out i actually remember saying to steve jobs, oh, so this must be a big 12-18-year-old market for you. he said, no, it's everyone who loves music. and i think that the same holds true for the ipad. it's everyone who wants information, everyone who wants to watch entertainment. regardless if you're a kid or a boomer. but your point about the schedule's interesting. i think it's, actually, a long way off because i think what the schedule does, and i, as i looked at it and as we were formatting our presentation for the up front this year, i was thinking about how we were

laying out the nights and what that moment. and i realized as i saw the nights go up on the big screen for the 20th time that what we were telegraphing to people was actually very, very important. we were telegraphing when we stack "america's funniest home videos," and then we go into "once upon a time," we are sending you two messages about how compatible these shows are, so that tells you who the audience is, and we're also telegraphing very strongly that this is abc, and you have expectations about abc that, you know, with those two shows we are certainly meeting. so i think that the network schedule will remain very useful for people because, truly, everything that we have is on demand right now. >> i'm sorry. >> everything. and be it's on a number of devices. >> i was going to say, there's also a social experience here,

right? i know when my kids were, my two girls were, you know, sort of in their early teens, i knew the one time of the week that i could get my whole family into one place was during "american idol." and so i always rushed home to make sure i was there for "american idol" because i knew they would be there. and in some ways the interactivity experience, the facebook experience may reinforce that because people want to talk with their friends or chat with their friends while they're watching "dancing with the stars" or whatever. so how powerful is that kind of social experience around a set time? >> it's even more powerful now because as people are experiencing television, and i had this with my -- my daughter's been away at college for a couple of years now, but there was one season of "the bachelor" that the two of us were addicted to. >> which one was it, by the way? [laughter] >> it was alli -- the girl who resigned, the facebook girl who gave it all up for lover?

>> we were big on that one too. >> oh, yeah, we loved that one. it was so interesting because i would watch the east coast feed at home, and she's in college on the east coast, and we would -- if we weren't on the phone, we were -- >> text messaging. >> texting each other about it. and i thought this has just expanded. and people are, we know people are tweeting because we see it, we know, you know, they're on facebook. we know that this conversation is going on which makes that show so much bigger than it was before all of this technology existed. >> yeah. that's very interesting. a lot of questions. right here. >> hi, anne, cheryl idell with nielsen. >> oh, there you are. >> going to solve all our measurement problems. >> we're working on it. >> they already are. >> we work very closely with your team, and it's a great team. my question is more about the marketing of the shows now. so as all of this technology changes how viewers get to the programs, how do you think

differently about marketing, how much greater is the challenge, the investment? can you talk a little about that? >> sure. well, we still start start with the essence of the show. we still make sure that we are all able to identify what the show is about and what its importance is in the schedule. and then we start, and who's the audience. and then we start to plot and plan how we launch. some of it is when we launch it, because, you know, as we've all seen, the fall turns into clutter fest with everybody having the biggest, the newest, you know, the most attractive, the most dramatic, the funniest show on television. and part of it is being very strategic about when we launch. and then there's also how we launch. and is this a show that, where social media is very, very important, somewhat important, will become important after the show is launched? we make that determination, and then we work through the marketing plan and determine what are the best venues for

reaching the intended audience. so it's a very strategic exercise, really no two shows are alike. and we really just have a few new shows on your schedule this fall which i think is helpful. the year that we launched "desperate" and "lost," it was the fall of '04, we looked at our budget and said, you know, not a lot of money here. we have to be very strategic. and we picked three properties to launch, and they were "desperate," "lost" and "wife swap." >> that's not a bad batting average. [laughter] >> no, not a bad batting average. >> martin reid, boston consultant group. you painted the picture of a fast-moving, volatile technology environment. 40 how do you manage and plan a business in that environment? how do you think about planning? >> well, r&d, i think, is at the heart of the walt disney company, and if you go back to

the history of walt and marrying sound and picture, if you look at his work in animation and realize the genius of experimentation and how important it is to invest in r&d, i think that's what our foundation is. the second piece of it is working with people who are as excited about the future as you are and who are as willing to interact and pay a very critical piece. every time a new piece of technology has come out whether it was the video ipod or the iphone or the ipad, i made sure that my executive -- everyone on my executive team had one as close to day one as possible. and we bring all of these devices into our staff meetings and talk about what can these devices do for the walt disney company, what can these devices do for abc news, abc entertainment, abc daytime, late night, the disney channel portfolio, abc family? what do you know about your

audience? how are they using them? get out in the field, find out. so i actually think all of these pieces are critical to building a business model and understanding, too, that we're creating with every new device that comes out, we have to reevaluate the business models that we're using. we cannot rely on the and believe that that will make us successful in the future. we have to stay one step ahead, thinking about how we're measured, thinking about how we use these devices, how these devices are useful to advertisers and what our role will be. >> oh, right here and then here. >> alan -- [inaudible] silver cup studios. and i want to ask you a question, but i first have to tell you a prejudice. my prejudice is that devices and social media, they're tools for people to interact. they're not content. >> uh-huh. >> a strong believer that at the

end of the day content is no king. content has shifted somewhat over the last few years between reality-type shows, scripted shows. it's gone back and forth. where do you see the shift happening in the next five years? >> you know, it's a great question, and i don't disagree with you. i think social media in large part for us right now is a very important tool. on the content side, i think it's really dependent on the mood of the nation. and one of the things that paul lee has spoken about both last year and this year in the up front is being responsive. now, during a recession, after a crash, you know, we looked back at the shows, at the movies that were popular in the '30s, we looked at the shows that were popular in the '70s, and that informed a couple of choices for us last year. that informed the choice of "revenge." that was a very satisfying show

for people. [laughter] and also "once upon a time," which was an escape to fantasy, but with a good dose of reality and drama inside of it. and one of the things that paul is launching this fall is a drama called "666 park avenue" -- >> that's like a creepy new york show. >> yes, it is. [laughter] not too far from here. and i will tell you, that building will become one of the characters. >> is there, there is a real 666 park avenue? >> i don't believe there is a real 666. there could be. any new yorker is welcome to correct me. but that was the other piece that we found out is that monsters and scary things worked very well. >> and what better place than new york? >> there you go. [laughter] we love new york. >> john. >> john -- [inaudible] boston consulting group. i want to go back to the

question that alan was asking early on around competition, proliferation of entertainment opportunities and implications. and take it a little bit away from the walt disney company and abc specifically because you have an extraordinary set of assets, you're making a wonderful set of moves. but there's an alternative to the narrative that says, you know, when television came up, everybody thought it was the death of everything else. i think we've seen in the recent years, um, a different dynamic. the record industry has lost most of its economic value, and that's now moved into newspapers, and it's moving into magazines and starting to move into radio as you look at slow gdp growth in the united states, relatively fixed ad budgets and a limit to how much consumers will pay for stuff. so if you leave the walt disney company and abc alone for a second and look more broadly just at the video, the television industry, the

studios, the networks, the tv stations, the cable msos, it's hard not to imagine that someone in that value chain loses. [laughter] because there's not an infinite amount of money either on the ad side or on the consumer pay side, and when you talk to cmos -- which i've been doing a lot recently -- they are fundamentally shifting their media mix. their advertising and marketing mix. >> so the question is who loses? >> who loses? >> you know, i think the people who lose are the people who do not understand their consumers and are not paying attention to them, people who do not have strong brand or, if they have a strong brand, they're not continuing to build it. they're not continuing to expand it. and, you know, i think we've seen it throughout the history of business, you know, fondly-remembered brands. oh, yes, they had that product. what did they do after that? well, they didn't do anything. they just, they got stuck.

>> but those are individual companies. are there elements of this business, tv stations, for example, who don't generate other -- >> pieces in the chain. >> are there pieces of the chain that are structurally at risk? as opposed to companies individually? >> none that i can name, and i wouldn't say tv stations because tv stations are, we all know the relationship between the tv station and the network, of course, but the tv stations' connection with their audience is incredibly deep and very, very important and, actually, plays into the success of the network. and i can say that because we have eight stations, seven of them were number one in the last sweeps period. and that speaks volumes to the effort that is made. but as far as your question, i don't, i don't have an answer for it. i don't know who falls out of the chain. >> does cable? i mean, cable's, obviously, a

hugely-profitable business at the moment, but every tv that best buy sells now is internet enabled. does the internet become the delivery pipeline eventually? >> you know, i think the strong cable brands and certainly our company has always been platform agnostic. so i think that the brands really will roll with the technologies that are out there. >> wherever it goes. >> you know, as long as they're good business models for them. >> other questions? >> [inaudible] >> yeah, right here and then here. >> hello. my name is -- [inaudible] i would like in disney environment how do you see a relationship with media agencies that represent media agencies? how we can work together to deliver advertisers in this very complicated world? how do you see our relationship going? >> i think the big idea for us is that we should be together at the forefront of reinventing advertising. i think we should be thinking in

very big and very bold and in very scary ways about what advertising will look like ten years from now. what will it look like on an ipad? what should it look like on a mobile phone? what will it look like on television, what will it look like on a device that hasn't even been created yet? but i think we all need to move beyond, you know, we've done a lot of great things together, we've done integrations that, you know, dazzled people, we have done intersticial work, we have done 15s and 30s and 60s and two minute trailers. but i think there is a whole new chapter to be written, and i think it needs to be written together. so i think -- >> is there a campaign you can point to that's been across devices or -- >> you can watch the last few minutes of this discussion online as we take you now to the floor of the senate gaveling back in today after a weeklong memorial day break. resuming work on the paycheck fairness act dealing with gender-based pay discrimination.

and at 5 eastern, debate on the nomination of timothy hillman to be a federal district court judge in massachusetts, with a vote scheduled for 5:30. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, whose presence is the source of our strength. as we return from. memorial day recess. we pause to thank you. for those who have made. the ultimate sacrifice. for the freedoms we enjoy.

please hold all. our service men and women. in your strong arms. protecting them from dangers. seen and unseen. bless the families. of our service members. fill their lives with your peace and provision. strengthen them to trust. in your mighty power. to sustain them. help our senators this day. to live lives worthy. of your goodness and grace. may they discover. that real fulfillment. comes when they seek. to glorify you. place your hand on the senators' shoulders today, reminding them that. you are with them. and will guide them.

we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the clerk: washington, d.c., the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., june 4, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, hereby appoint the honorable richard blumenthal, a senator from the state of connecticut, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore.

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 410, s. 3220. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to consideration of s. 3220, a bill to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to discrimination on the bases of sex and for other purposes. mr. reid: we're on the motion to proceed on this measure called the paycheck fairness act. at 5:00 this afternoon the senate will vote on the nomination of timothy hillman to be united states district judge for massachusetts. there will be 30 minutes of debate at that time, led by senator leahy. at 5:30 there will be a roll call vote on confirmation of the hillman nomination. mr. president, s. res. 41 is

now due for a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: senate joint resolution 41, expressing the sense of congress regarding the nuclear program of the government of islamic republic of iran. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any further proceedings with respect to this joint resolution. the presiding officer: the objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: mr. president, back in 1963 when congress passed equal pay act, women at that time working full time took about 15 cents for every dollar paid to their male coworkers doing the same job. and while passage of this landmark legislation helped narrow the pay gap, today american women still take home 77 cents on the dollar compared to male colleagues for doing the exact same job. jane working at a job gets 77

cents, jack working at that job gets a dollar. that's why women are concerned about how they're being treated. it's simply not fair that i any woman working the same hours in the same job should make less money. often this inequity stretches over decades amend women don't even know they're victims. it took one woman, a las vegas woman, 15 years to find out that she made $20,000 per year less than her male colleagues although she did the same work. worked just as hard. that's $20,000 a year over 15 years. she was paid about 66 cents on the dollar compared to a male coworkers. despite being a top sales associate with a las vegas payroll company. over the decade and a half she worked there, her employees cheated her out of literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay.

why? because she is a woman. her story though has a happy ending. she got a lawyer, settled out of court, and now has gone on with her own successful business. but many victims don't have that happy ending. many victims of years or even decades of gender-based pay discrimination have no -- have nothing to be happy about. the average woman who works full time year round in nevada makes $7,300 less than a man doing the same job. i'm sure it's about the same in connecticut. although the wage gap has narrowed in the last half century since congress declared women entitled to equal pay for equal work, jeopardizedder discrimination. that's why democrats overcame republican obstructionist to pass the lilly ledbetter fair

pay act. the second thing we did in that congress. why did we do it? lilly led getter -- lilly ledbetter had worked for years and years, she finds out one day that they're being paid a lot more money than she is goring to the same thing and she went to court. the court said the statute of limitations has run. the presiding officer is one of our most gifted lawyers we have in the senate. longtime attorney general of the state of connecticut. understands the law very well. that case was so unfair, lilly bed letter -- lilly ledbetter, she didn't bring her case, she didn't know she was being cheated but they had a certain, she was out of luck. so that's what we did. we passed the lilly ledbetter

legislation. lilly he ledbetter fair pay act. i've 34e9 her on a number of occasions. she has a lot of spunk in her and rightfully so. most people would not have fought. she took it to the united states supreme court where she lost there and that's why we had to do something legislatively. this law, the lilly ledbetter legislation makes it possible for victims of gender discrimination to successfully challenge unequal pay even though it's been going on for years and years. despite that achievement in congress there is a lot of work to be done to ensure american women earn comparable pay for a day's work. it's crucial we pass the bill, the paycheck fairness act. it's really common sense. it would give workers stronger tools to combat wage discrimination, bar workers, and help ensure more adequate compensation for gender-based pay discrimination.

i have five children. my oldest is a girl, my daughter. wonderful, she was a good student, wonderful, wonderful daughter, no one can be a daughter than my barr lana. she had graduated from college, came to washington to spend time with her parents before she decided what to do permanently. she went around looking for a job on capitol hill. every person that she interviewed with first thing he should said was do you type? can you imagine? she could type but what kind -- how do you debate with that? they asked they are that because she's a woman. other can you type? women get an unfair shake in moarnd-day america. and we're -- modern-day america and we're trying to do something about it. we want workers to have stronger tools to combat wage discrimination, bar retaliation for discussing wage information. some people have been fired because he should found a man

working the same job, they're fired for another employee telling them what they made. we want this paycheck fairness bill to 35s because it would ensure more adequate comp sition -- compensation for victims of pay discrimination. women make up nearly half the work force and an increasing number of women are the pliem marry wage western earners. i went to a good school, george washington university. i can only recall one woman in our class, there could have been more but i remember the one, there may have been two, three, i don't think so. now over half the women in law schools in america are women. and there's no reason that a woman graduating from law school should get paid less than a man graduating from law school doing the same work. today women make up nearly half of the work force. i just indicated that.

increasing number of women are the primary wage earners for the families. more than half the women in college are women. so this problem affects women, children, families across the country and it really does. with the economy struggling and families stretching every dollar closing the pay gap is more important than ever. no woman working to support herself or her family should be paid less than a male counterpart. they're doing the same job. they should be paid the same. some employers, mr. president, have taken advantage of women, knowing they'll work for less. maybe a single parent, don't have to pay her what we pay him. with all this goinggoing on, with the examples i've given, the republicans are filibustering this bill. they won't even let us vote on it. but what's new?

they have filibustered even things they agree with. they don't agree with this. they don't want women to make the same amount of money so they're filibustering this. they're filibustering even letting us get on the bill. they're filibustering what is called a motion to proceed. a rule that i think needs to be changed in this body and it will someday. they're filibustering the paycheck fairness act, legislation that would help even -- even the playing field for women in the workplace. if it seems unbelievable, republicans would clock such a commonsense measure, consider their track record in this congress. republicans blocked legislation to hire more teachers, cops, firefighters, and first responders. they blocked that. they stalled important jobs measures like the aviation bill, the f.a.a. bill, mr. president, had 22 extensions. we finally got it done but it was so hard. closed down the f.a.a. on one occasion for a week.

the highway bill. has been stalled for months. it's in conference now. they opposed legislation to restore basic fairness to our tax code. what does that mean? mr. president, we agree with the american people. about 80% of the american people feel someone making more than a million dollars a year should pay more thanson somebody making $100 a year. but -- $100,000 a year. but not our republican friends. they opposed legislation to restore basic fairness to our tax code. they've device twice derailed efforts to derail interest rates on student loans from doubling. what i'm saying here is if we don't get something done by tend of this month, student loans, a large number of them, so-called stafford loans, will go from 3.5% -- 3.4% to 6.8%.

double it. they've stopped that twice. they've put women's life at risk by holding the violence against women act in limbo over a hypertechnical issue. when i say hypertechnical, i mean just that. we passed what we've done here, they don't let us go to conference on it because it has a tax measure in it. amounting to almost -- by washington standards, almost no money. a few million dollars. i know that's a lot but isn't -- is it a reason to stop this bill? of course not. they've launched a series of attacks on women, their access to health care, even contraception. they have amassed an impressive record of obstruction, of being on the wrong side of almost every issue.

unfortunately, it seems paycheck fairness may have two strikes against it. number one, it would be good for women, and good foe the economy. so republicans are going to oppose it. paycheck fairness is right for the country, but it appears republicans will wind up on the wrong side of this issue as well. sending the message to little girls across the country their work is less valuable because they happen to be born female. mr. president, little kids are so impressionistic. i hope that everybody in the country saw the pictures that appeared in major newspapers around the country last week. there was a man who had served as united states marine in the white house, it's an important

job. helping pro -- helping provide security at the white house. it's traditional. democratic presidents, republican presidents, when they finish their to you, they bring that person and the family into the oval office to say thanks and goodbye. the unanimous came in, as represented in these pictures, had two children, a wife and two children, had a little five-year-old boy, cute little kid all dressed in a tie. and the president asked the boys if they had a question. he had a big brother that was nine or ten years old. and the little boy had a question. the honesty of a 5-year-old. the president couldn't hear him the first time, he said, "what did you say?" he said, is your hair like mine? a little african-american boy. is your hair like mine? i'm sure this little boy -- i don't i don't know, but i'm sure that people had questioned his hair. and he wanted to know if the president of the united states had hair just like his. and the president said -- he

leaned over and said, "dude, feel it." and when he felt his hair, he said, "it's just like mine." mr. president, doesn't that speak volumes about the little children and that's what i'm talking about here? this little boy knew that even though his hair was different than most everybody's hair went to school with, he could be president just like the man that he was able to feel his hair. and what i said here today, mr. president, is that it appears republicans will wind up on the wrong side of this issue that we've talked about, paycheck fairness, sending the message to little girls across the country that their work is less valuable because they happened to be born female. i -- i just hope republicans will change. they're not going to. we all know that. but hope lies eternal. will the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved.

mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to start out this afternoon by calling attention to what appears to be a pretty serious disconnect over at the white house between the president's legislative advisors and his political team. for weeks, president obama's been running around ginning up college students and late-night television audience over an impending interest rate change on college loans, pointing the finger at republicans. but not only are republicans supportive of solving this problem, we're the only ones who've actually passed legislation to do so. house republicans passed a bill weeks ago that would have preserved current rates, and late last week, speaker boehner,

liter cantor, senator kyl and i sent a -- leader cantor, senator kyl and i sent a joint leader to the president proposing multiple solutions to the problem that was thoughtfully and carefully designed to gain the president's support. in fact, the solutions were based on the president's own proposals. let me say that again. we sent a letter to the president advocating continuing the current rate for another year and proposed pay-fors that he himself has endorsed. so you can imagine how surprised we were to see one of the president's political advisors say on one of the sunday shows yesterday that republicans in congress are sitting on our hands and an op-ed this morning by education secretary saying that congress isn't lifting a finger to resolve the problem. so let's be very clear about all this. republicans in congress are the only ones actual working to solve the student loan issue and

unless the president isn't having his male forwarded to him on -- his mail forwarded to him on the campaign trail, he knows it as well as i do. i couldn't help but notice the president's on a fund-raising blitz in manhattan today, and no doubt it's easier to walk into these events when you've got a good piece of fiction to sell about republican obstructionism. but the president's campaign rhetoric is increasingly at odds with the reality. on the student loan issue at least, it's republicans who've been working on a solution and the president who's been totally awol. all he has to do is pick up the phone and tell us which one of his own proposals he'll accept. it's that easy. but the truth is, the president doesn't really want to solve this problem. he seems to prefer the talking point, as again and -- as disingenuous as it is.

and speaking of talking points, it's been suggested by some on the president's political team that republicans are rooting for economic failure. that is absolutely preposterous. if republicans wanted failure, we would support this president's misguided policies. but the larger point is this -- we'll never solve any of these problems we face if the president continues to put his need for campaign rhetoric ahead of finding bipartisan solutions. and whether it's pretending that small ball, post-it-note quality proposals would have a major impact on the economy or pretending that republicans, who are the only ones actually working on bipartisan solutions, are somehow sitting on our hands , he's doing a major disservice to the american people. for the good of the country, it's time for the president to take "yes" for an answer. it's long, long past time for the president to lead.

mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: test test

test ll hr hr hr quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: are we in a quorum call at the moment? the presiding officer: we are. mr. kyl: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: i just wanted to address some of the recent press chatter that attempts to paint republicans as closet canessians because -- keynesians because we oppose the massive defense cuts that are contained in the budget control act, the automatic sequestration or across the board cuts that occur unless

congress acts to avoid that before the end of this year. the implication is that if we make economic arguments against these automatic cuts, mainly that they will result in massive job losses, that we undercut our arguments against the president's stimulus spending, which is ostensibly created in order to stimulate consumer demand and therefore increased spending which is supposed to get us out of the economic doldrums that we're in. i'd like to make two points in response to that. first, of course, eliminating more than a million defense-related jobs, which is what will happen if the automatic sequestration occurs, will obviously hurt the economy. it will obviously result in job losses and many, many people will suffer, and that's what a george mason university study said that this $492 billion in cuts will contribute to. in fact, the same point was made in a c.b.o. study that was released a couple of weeks ago.

so how could such massive job losses not do economic harm? a million jobs, jobs in both private and public sectors comprise a substantial part of our economy. in fact, just in my own state of arizona, there are about 33,200 private sector jobs at risk if these automatic defense cuts were to take place. but -- and this is my second point -- most federal spending, certainly including defense spending, is for purposes other than stimulating the economy. i support spending for national security because it's necessary for the nation, not because it also happens to provide jobs, and that's the way it is with a lot of federal spending. we support the programs because they -- they satisfy a need and certainly the number one need of those of us in the congress and the president is to provide for

the national defense. so we spend what we think is necessary each year to provide for the national defense. now, the fact that that also can create some jobs is a side benefit, if you will, in an economic sense but it's not the reason that we do the spending in the first place. if that spending is cut way back, however, there's no question that jobs will be lost, and i think that's worth pointing out in the context of a discussion about economic recovery. what i would not do is support unnecessary spending on defense or anything else. just to create more government government-supported jobs, just for the sake of stimulating the economy. the taxpayers don't have enough money to contribute to the federal government for that purpose. we should spend what's necessary and no more. so supporting existing defense jobs is very different from supporting redistributionist government stimulus spending for jobs there is no demand for and

on government payments for things like food stamps and other transfer payments that don't necessarily translate to new jobs but simply move money around. the difference really is how you spend the money. and i just reiterate that republicans support defense jobs because they produce something essential to our national security, and the things that they relate to, intelligence and making equipment and weapons and so on, the jobs that produces is incidental to the primary reason that we support those jobs. keynesians support redistributionist government stimulus spending because they think that government spending boosts jobs and economic growth by increasing consumer demand, as i said. but this zero sum thinking may result in the redistribution of resources from one group of americans to another but doesn't necessarily result in any net new production or economic growth. it is said, for example, that you could pay people to dig

holes and then fill them back up again, you would have created jobs but you wouldn't have created any productivity or growth for the economy per se. and unfortunately, very often the job -- or the group, rather, left paying the bill is the very group of people we rely upon to create the new jobs. in this case, the taxpayers, especially small business folks, who we call upon to create the jobs coming out of a recession. the real tradeoff is between government jobs and jobs created in the private sector, and leaving more money with the job creators in the private sector enables them to create those jobs, taking more of it away, sending it to washington for washington to redistribute takes away from job creation. as i have noted many times, the last three-plus years have shown that we can't spend our way to economic growth and prosperity. that is, we, the federal government, can't spend our way to growth and prosperity because the money that we spend either has to come from taxpayers or be

borrowed and eventually be paid back by taxpayers. the stimulus was supposed to keep unemployment below 8%, but we have just marked the 40th straight month of unemployment higher than 8%, above 8%. and such outcomes, i think, demonstrate why republicans oppose these keynesian spending policies. they simply don't work. if they did, we would be rolling in dough right now after four consecutive billion dollar spending sprees. so to set the record straight, republicans are not arguing that the department of defense is a jobs program. it's necessary for our national defense. that's why we spend the money. we're not saying we're going to fix the economy by undoing the defense cuts under the sequestration. we're not even saying defense-related jobs are the most important sequester-related issue. what we are saying is that the defense cuts are very dangerous for our national security and if they go through not only is our

safety jeopardized but we may have more than a million newly unemployed americans, and that's not a desirable income. that's worth talking about. that's something we must keep in mind as this debate goes forward. and so, mr. president, in conclusion, i renew my call to my democratic colleagues, to our house colleagues to get together, republicans and democrats, house and senate, to do something we all know is in the best interests of the country -- avoid the automatic sequestration, half of which applies to defense. we're all for strong national defense and half of which apply to all of the other discretionary spending programs. all of those things will suffer if we don't reprioritize our spending and our reductions in spending as opposed to allowing this to happen across the board. we do that by finding offsets that we can agree upon in a way that will, as i said, set the

priorities and enable the departments of government that have to plan for the future to do so in an intelligent way rather than simply knowing that at the end of the year, they are all going to have to have an across-the-board cut that isn't in anyone's best interests. it's not as if we're suggesting doing away with the savings that would result from sequestration. it's $109 billion for next year. believe me, there is $109 billion in the three-plus-trillion-dollar spending that we'll be doing here, there certainly is $109 billion in savings that we can achieve. there have been several proposals already as to how that can be done, and it can be done without losing federal jobs. it can be done without negatively impacting the economy, and it needs to be done under the law because congress promised that we would save that $109 billion next year. it's just a matter of whether we will do so intelligently, making

the decisions that we can make and our constituents expect us to make in an intelligent way, setting priorities or whether we will simply succumb to the notion that we can't make our decision so we'll let it happen across the board. just to give you an illustration, how would you like to be a navy admiral and say here is your 80% of a submarine, admiral? it doesn't work that way. if we need the submarine, we need to pay for 100% of the submarine and cut someplace else. we need to do that while the planning can be done for next year. otherwise, we're going to have a very inefficient and draconian cut coming up that's not going to benefit anyone. and again, i just urge my colleagues let's find a way to get together, find those savings, get that done before we get toward the end of the year when the departments can do the planning that we will be asking them to do. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask the quorum call in progress be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: let me, first of all, express my appreciation for the majority. i understand that i'm to be given some 40 minutes after the vote, after the conclusion of the remarks by senator brown from ohio. i have a subject that is very, very significant, and i just --

it's one of them you can't do while being interrupted, so i appreciate starting this period off after the recess, being able to express my concern over what i referred to as president obama's war on fossil fuels and specifically today on coal. so i look forward to that sometime around the 6:00 hour. with that, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cardin: madam president, i rise to support the paycheck fairness act that we're going to have a chance to vote on tomorrow. i hope my colleagues will support the effort of my colleague, senator mikulski, in allowing s. 3220 to move forward. i congratulate my colleague, senator mikulski, for her incredible leadership on behalf of women's issues. she has done that throughout her entire career. we knew that she would be in the forefront of this effort for paycheck fairness. i'm proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with her in this fight for basic justice in our nation to provide equality in pay to -- in this country based upon a person's work and not a person's

gender. it builds on the equal pay act of 1963 that was signed by president kennedy. yes, 1963 was the year that congress first spoke and said that we're going to have equal pay for equal work in america, that america would show leadership internationally to say let's end discrimination against women in the workplace. that legislation fought sex discrimination and employment wages, including the fact that such discrimination not only depressed wages and living standards for female employees but affected our entire labor source here in america, holding back the development of our country. title 7 of the civil rights act of 1964 prohibits employers from engaging in discrimination against their employees based on gender. today, women still face a pay gap.

in 1963, women made 59 cents for every dollar made by a man. they were the numbers in 1963. today women make just 77 cents for every dollar made by a man for equal work or comparable duties. now, that means a woman has to work four days to get three days' pay. that's not acceptable. i understand that we have made some progress since 1963, but you would think that within a 50-year span, we could have done better. the paycheck fairness act will allow us to reach our goal of equal pay for equal work. estimates indicate that the wage gap costs women on average $334,000 over their years. while i am pleased we are making progress, the progress is too slow and we need to move more aggressively to close this pay gap by the year 2012.

congress passed the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. the legislation allows plaintiffs to sue for wage discrimination based on each new discriminatory paycheck they receive. in this case, congress overturned a decision of the united states supreme court which held that women were only allowed to sue their employers within 180 days after the discrimination began, even if the women were not aware that the discrimination was occurring as a result of not knowing their co-workers' wages. now, quite frankly, madam president, i think the supreme court decision defies logic. how can you possibly bring a case within 180 days if you don't know about the discriminatory pay differential? congress did the right thing, but basically we held the line on allowing enforcement rather than advancing what we need to to make sure that we have an

effective remedy for discrimination against women in our workplace. that's exactly what the paycheck fairness act does. it provides for an effective enforcement so women, in fact, can hold their employers responsible if the disparity is based upon their gender, which should not be in america. the paycheck fairness act will require employers to show pay disparities that are truly related to business justifications and job performance and not gender. it prohibits employer retaliation for sharing salary information with co-workers. under current law, employers can sue and punish employees for sharing such information. in addition, this legislation strengthens remedies for pay discrimination by increasing compensation women can seek. the paycheck fairness act also would strengthen the department of labor's ability to help women achieve pay equity by requiring the department of labor 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. madam president, the purpose of this act is to avoid discriminatory pay, not to sue employers after the fact, and therefore this bill, the paycheck fairness act, is well balanced. in providing remedies, yes, if in fact an employer is discriminating on pay based on gender but to provide help to employers so that they can take the appropriate steps to make sure that, in fact, their work force is fairly paying their employees. the legislation makes clear that employers are liable only for wage differentials that are not bona fide factors. bona fide factors include items such as education, training or experience. employees will also be able to argue that employers should use

an alternative employment practice that would serve the same business purpose without producing the wage differential. the legislation is crafted to avoid any undo -- undue burden on small businesses. madam president, i think you and i both understand the importance of small businesses in the work we did on the small business committee. this act delays from taking effect for six months after its passage so that the labor secretary and e.o.c. can develop technical assistance material to assist small businesses in complying with the new law. the agencies are charged with engaging in research, education and outreach on the new law. the e.o.c. is charged with issuing regulations to provide for the collection of pay information from employers. the law specifically states that these regulations should, and i quote -- "consider factors including the imposition of burdens on the employers, the

frequency of required data reports and the most effective format for data collection." end quote. we have heard about the cumulative information, why can't we simplify it, why can't we combine it, why can't we be sensitive to small businesses? the paycheck fairness act in our language makes it clear that these regulations must be sensitive to the special needs of small businesses to make sure that, in fact, this bill provides an effective remedy without excessive burdens on the business community. in my own state of maryland, the gender pay gap is 14.6% according to the joint economic committee. in maryland, women's median weekly wage for full-time workers is $822 while men are at $962. that's just not right. in maryland, over one-third of married employed mothers are their family's primary wage earner. maryland women contribute on

average over 40% of family wages and salary income in their households. it's time for women who live in maryland and live in any state in our nation to get paid fair pay for the work that they do. i have the opportunity, as the chair knows, as the president knows, to chair the subcommittee on the senate foreign relations committee that deals with international development assistance, and i have worked very closely with secretary of state clinton to deal with gender issues international. and we discovered something -- t should be pretty obvious but it is something that is very telling. a way a nation treats its women will very much be a barometer as to how well that nation is doi doing, how well they're doing with economic growth, how stable their government is and -- and the united states has been a leader in working with countries around the world to treat women right, to do land reform so that women who have work the fields also own the property that they're working, to make sure

that they share fairly in the fruits of their labor. we've been a leader on that internally, and i'm proud of the progress we're making and i'm proud of what secretary clinton and president obama have done in showing the world that it's in your nation's interests to make sure that your women is properly dealt with, that they have propr education, that they're included in the system for education, for health care, for job training, for all those issues and are treated fairly when it comes to the economic rewards for the wok that they do. but it starts with us doing the right thing in america, and 50 years is too long for women to wait for equal pay after congres took action in 1963. as a father and grandfather of strong, intelligent women, pay equity is a personal issue for me. i want my two granddaughters to know that when they grow up, tht they will be paid fairly for the work and not 77 cents for every

dollar tha -- of their male counterpart. i'm proud to stand with senator mikulski in this fight to finaly ensure equal pay for equal work becomes a reality for all women and men. i am pleased that this legislation is endorsed by a large number of organizations that have been in the forefront of fighting for equal justice in america. it's time to act and pass the paycheck fairness act. with that, madam president, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: