technology. which is proliferating. we see that the knowledge is the same and countries want to acquire this knowledge o. so how you see the question of getting rid of the prestige aspect, the iranians need at least one centrifuge to remain sort of on the nuclear technology program. ..

except all measures, all commitments to ensure the international community that iran would remain for ever a non-nuclear weapons states. this is not an issue for iran. on transparency measures, often if there's cooperation, to the end, 100%. if the rights are respected. ultimately, the sanctions should also be lifted. and remember friends law in 2003-2004, the european -- asking objective guarantees. for a year we are asking them okay, define for us what is objectivity. they were not able to define what do they want.

and then we had a meeting with president chirac in early 2005. we agreed with him that they would lead to the iaea to define objectivity for non-diversion. we left paris. when we arrived in germany, we were told they discussed with washington and washington has rejected them. even they were not ready to lead to the iaea to define the objective guarantees for non-development. and in 2005, i have explained in detail in my book, when i met privately with 30 interlocutors, i told them let's agree it was before presidential election. i told them let's agree for ivan to have the pilots. -- iran to have the pilots. and then we would negotiate for

a longer period order to reach some kind of compromise to give more time do you europeans to define objective guarantees. and this, even if this proposal when we were ready to have one pilot, this was rejected again by the e.u. iran was not really very much eager to accelerate the program. this proposal was confirmed by the leader, but european leader not ready to cooperate with iran. spent next brief question. daryl. >> thank you, greg. thank you, panelists. i have a question for ambassador pickering. news reports out this morning say that there'll be yet another

round of discussion between the iaea and iran we guarding the framework concepts for dealing with the possible military activities that iran is suspected of being involved in, in the past. so my question is, what do you see a possible, in these discussions which come just we before the iaea board of governors meeting, what needs to be done in order to move forward to resolve these questions? and if that could be achieved, how might that affect the dynamics of the p5+1 and iran discussions in moscow? >> maybe, daryl, i could take a shot. i think it's an important issue. for me, the possibility military dimensions issue lodged before mainly 2003, there's some continued disputes, but the intelligence community is basically continuing to reassure

us between -- remains. that, therefore, the question in my view it is the most salient importance, to in effect provide the iaea with the fullest possible information to guard against problems in the future. i would be willing to adopt what i would call the south african model. you tell the truth, and the whole truth, there are no consequences. if you don't tell the truth, there are all conceivable consequences. in part, it's a test of good faith. in part, it's a way to determine the answer. and in part, it's to take the burden of guilt trip off the back of iran. which in my view is not necessary if, in fact, we are proceeding in a reasonable basis to the future. this may be totally naïve and

starry eyed, but my sense, the notion that we're going to spend all our time worrying about the past, when the big bang problem is in the future, is not a very useful enterprise. and i think what the south africans did with respect to their own terrible record and apartheid and how they handled that awful device, the difficult problem for the future, not in any with her for, but those who didn't tell the truth suffered the consequences. those who told the truth emerged and had a record and, indeed, there was closure. and my sense we need some closure, but we need more important of the iaea, as widely informed as it can to design for the future. and i just heard hossein say, hossein and i don't represent any don't represent any government. we probably can't do more. but the problem is that governments arthur andy schleck the middle east peace, as greg said. but if that were the case, then i think there could be an answer. so i think clearing up possible

military developments these important. but do i think they should stand in a way of future progress? probably not. i think the uncertainties with respect to possible military developments are not all that city and, in the end result is going to be banned or skewed it to remain in semi-obscurity. what is bent or skewed in this is iranian good-faith. and i think iran is an opportunity under conditions that are not connected to demonstrate that is prepared to approach the negotiations good-faith. i think that there are other of good faith on the other side, and i don't exclude them. but now is not the time to explore them. >> iaea's question, they have to technical questions. one, relates to after 2003, which i think 80-90% of technical ambiguities are really

removed, and 50% are left. this has been already discussed in the previous visits and tehran agreed to require access to the iaea to cooperate in order to remove this remaining issues. as tom said, relates to 1980, early 1990s, to the current program, which needs iran to have additional protocol and even to give access to iaea beyond additional protocol. again, this has been already agreed. i mean for in the previous visit, 90%, 95% of the issues how to cooperate, getting access, inspections, was

resolve. we agreed. 5%, 10% are left. i'm sure iran would agree this is not an issue. let's say if iran agrees to give all access, inspections, cooperation, with the iaea, then p5+1 in moscow they would be ready to respect rights of iran or not? spent just a few minutes. let's take you questions and give our speakers a chance to respond. barbara? >> barbara slavin from the atlantic council. with all due respect, i mean, we understand that iran is cleansing and has been working assiduously to clean its size. when we talk about establishing trust, ambassador mousavian, this is not something that engenders must trust among the community of p5+1. it seems what you're saying is

iran is going to trade an agreement with the iaea for something at moscow, but obviously we had a disconnect because what the p5+1 is saying is that they want action on 20%. in return were some action at moscow. so if you could address this disconnect, do you see that there's any possibility that perhaps your proposal or something like it could be agreed to on the 20%? or are they just going to go round and round in circles on the right to enrich? >> in the middle. [inaudible] >> i want to follow up and asked the question in a slightly different way. the meeting of tehran before the baghdad e.u. plus one, don't materialize. the upcoming meeting is again going to raise great expectations, the moscow

meeting, which didn't really materialize. isn't it possible there are two extremes of the iaea extreme, wanting answers to questions while possible military dimensions, and a diplomatic extreme are really interfering with each other and that we should really concentrate on one or the other, or the other perhaps the diplomatic extreme? and put aside the other in time? >> it has been visited already two times. after our time. this has been already visited two times. and, you know, the iaea, they have enough technology instruments, even if some buildings are destroyed. in case there has been some enrichment activities they can

find it even 10, 15 years after. [inaudible] >> it was not because there was nothing. it doesn't mean that the iaea couldn't find it, because there was nothing. but remember in summer 2011, when even the iaea did not raise the issue, remember? the russians, they put a step-by-step proposal on the table. this proposal included implementation of additional rotor call, implementation of subsidy arrangement, and possibility i mentioned giving access to iaea beyond limiting their new installment of centrifuges. stopping at 5%, remember. everything, even suspension for a short period. iran responded positively, and

the foreign minister publicly said we are ready to discuss the details, but the p5+1 rejected. therefore, the russian proposal which had the measures for 1% of transparency, iran -- summer 2011, even before the parchin issue was raised. >> just a very brief word from speech a very brief word. i won't discussed parchin further except the notion that parchin has to involve the presence of nuclear material, and, therefore, is a violation loses sight of the fact that the interesting parchin has been -- so there's a difference there. but there is a persisted in nuclear explosive material, but my own view is that's much less important than the other aspect of this with the iaea, which is designed inspection system for the future. and hossein is talked about that and that's a problem. as long as we confuse these two, and what else of the other,

without a proper i'll go to the second question. you're in a horse for a rather situation. you what all the transparency but you don't want to get on the other thing, the iranians will give a and that's ever difficult problem for us. do we, in fact, address the question of how much level of enrichment is going to be permitted, either temporarily or permanently in some arrangement with iran. as i've said before, i am prepared to accept a level of civil enrichment if, in fact, the iaea has a situation in which it is satisfied it is doing the best of all possible jobs in inspection, and can, in fact, improved that as technology improves and as things can go ahead. it appears as if that's on the table. my feeling is that that's too big for the present time for the u.s. to accept in the context of an election. and i'm sorry to say that, but maybe it will be reversed. maybe it will be seen as a real victory. i would hope so, but at the moment we seem tehran scared on

this issue. there is an israeli position of deep distrust on this that basically says for them, the only acceptable thing is zero enrichment. although nobody has sat down and explain quite why serial enrichment with weak inspection is so much better than some enrichment with the strongest possible inspection, which i think is the shape of a deal you could get. and even then the president, in my view, would have to face up to the question in the middle of an election campaign, does he want to present another issue in which he can be widely attacked, even if distinctly unfairly? and that's a very difficult question, and i don't have the answer to that down at 1600 pennsylvania. >> dr. cronberg? >> just on the question of verification, i think it's very interesting that the concrete proposals that have been put forth on the verification processes and how it could be carried out are put forth by former directors of the international adam -- international atomic energy

agency. they've also come up with a reason proposal of verification which is very explicit on how you can take the steps and actually verify the question of military and civilian uses. so there are technical problems as i think this is a political problem. >> thank you very much. please join in thanking the speakers. [applause] >> finally on a personal know, michelle and i are grateful to the entire bush family for their guidance, their example during our own transition. george, i will always room at the gathering you posted all the living former presidents before i took office. your kind words of encouragement, plus you also left me a really good tv sports package. [laughter]

>> i use it. [laughter] spent last week, portrait of former president george w. bush and first lady laura bush were unveiled at the white house but it was the first visit since leaving office. >> as fred mention, in 1814, dolly madison famously saved this portrait of the first george w. [laughter] now michelle -- [laughter] -- if anything happens. [laughter] >> there's your man. [laughter] >> watch the entire event online at the c-span video library. >> in a few moments, msnbc's chris matthews on the presidential campaign. and the senate is in session at 10 a.m. eastern the today's agenda includes a procedural vote on a bill regarding gender-based pay discrimination. >> we have several live events

to tell you about this one. a senate government affairs subcommittee holds a hearing on the hiring of veterans by government contractors. that's on c-span at 10 a.m. eastern. also at 10 on c-span3, the senate finance committee looks at government programs to assist poor families. the primary programs provides assistance to families with dependent children expires later this year. >> msnbc's chris matthews was the keynote speaker at this year's gerald ford of journalism awards at the national press club. he talked about his time in congress and commented on the presidential campaign. this is 40 minutes. >> president ford once said, that i've had a lot of adversaries in my political life, but no enemies that i can remember. one of ford's political adversaries was thomas p., tip, a new. a democrat with any server many years in house of

representatives. despite their political differences, o'neill and ford were friends. the gerald r. ford presidential foundation will be honoring that friendship with an award at its annual dinner tonight. o'neill was speak of the house in 1977-until his retirement in 1987. towards the end of his career, he hired our luncheon speaker to be his press secretary. chris matthews was born in philadelphia and graduated from the college of holy cross in worcester massachusetts. he served in the peace corps in africa from 19 cc-1970. after coming to washington, matthews what does he is capitol policemen before working for for democrat members of congress and then as a speechwriter for president jimmy carter. he worked for all new for six years with president ronald reagan. matthews worked in washington from 1987-2000. he started his talk show, hardball with chris matthew's in 1997. and in 2002, he started the

syndicated weekly political talk show, the chris matthews show. he is the author of six books including hardball, how politics is played. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming chris matthews to the national press club. [applause] >> thank you. it's great to be here for tip, and for jerry, and for the friendship. and i want to talk about that today. and by the way, congratulations. i couldn't believe you are a little nervous picking your and i can't think him i never get nervous speaking. but going to afghanistan is what really gets to me. [laughter] and scott, you're great. you are great. i really come every time i got on the bus coming campaigns, and i watched the people with a newspaper and they've would sit around and i've watched about a few things and check a few things. and i pick up the paper,

beautifully turned a factual piece. i was always blown away by the straight reporters, commentary is easy. it's very easy to say what you think. but reporting is work. you guys are good. i want to talk about what's going on today and the way is to be. i always tell kids what to write about like i did on jack kennedy, elusive hero, was not mentioned but that's a good book -- [laughter] it's still available for father's day. by the way, on father's day they sell one-fifth as many as christmas day. i always tell young people in their 20s, it's all true. because times have changed and had to tell them about the past in a way that your parents and i'm in a grander i must say that i feel responsible -- my parents always did that. they made me see much in older than my age because they always told us about the war, world war ii. remember that phrase, the war, before the war, after the war. housing was never as good after the war.

although people like the catholics got in the door after the war. so good things happen. and jewish people. so a lot of things were different. you know, politics is different today and i don't think it's better. my secular religion after being to 41 years in this city, this city without smokestacks, without doctors, it only makes one thing here. the only thing we do here, if you look at, look around them is make deals, good deals, compromised. it's the legislation, called government. we come here from different points of view. we keep our points of view but we find a way to govern in this country. that's what we do but that's what we're here. that's why we cover it because it's important how we run this great country. and i think sometimes people come in with another point of view. i think your point is try to make the government work. i think about all the different directions we do come with, the speaker at one point of view injury for that another. but, you know, i think it takes a couple things for the city to work. one, you have to listen to the other side even if they're lame brained. you've got to listen to tea

party, believe it or not. they might have something, maybe. you have to listen. you have to listen. you just have to listen. it's like being married. [laughter] you know? the guys get all the good girls, listen. and to come yet to be willing to negotiate. because you don't negotiate you'll never make a deal, you're never agreed upon any arrived upon direction. we just have chaos. right now. something like that. so i want to talk about jerry ford and tip o'neill. tip o'neill was one tough guy. i can tell you he was one tough boss. people say did you like ketchup? all i can tell you it's the toughest job i ever heard. as chief counsel to we have about 1000 around here. so i knew how tough it was. it was always tough. but tip o'neill had one great quality that made him a man of the house. he loved that place. that's like sampras is good but if you go out there and lots

efforts of the, they will love you. the one key ingredient, we go to sam's disco, i love the city and to be incredibly welcomed. because loving the city is what unites everybody. what makes you a man or woman of the house is your love house. i remember once chilling jerry brown, jerry brown so why would anybody run for the house? i said the, roddy. he said what i said no idea what that meant. hang out with the guys was not his idea of having -- to hang out with men and women of the house is what it's about. it's about sharing. tip o'neill, like jerry ford, loved the floor. they were both florida's. they liked being on the floor. they liked being would actually. they love the poker. the democrats after -- this guy, all he did was boiled hot dogs and tunafish but everyone would go there for lunch. they loved him. it's the best thing in the congress, the junket because it's a time for the husband and wife to get together with each

other and it creates a wonderful friction remover where you're able to come when you get really mad at the other guide rifle say what you like that guy. i know you like the guy. it's amazing thing how cools things down on both sides. junkets would be their expensive but after two weeks together you are probably going to be friends but i found out every time i get when. i love of tipper like the food in houston. he might've been you want, but he loved it. he loved the gym. is i get going to the gym was grabbing a handful of cigars and saying to his secretary, i'm going over for a rob. you had to be there. they love the other members of congress on both sides of the optic get a few people who bother him greatly. used to call a group the three stooges. they're all troublemakers, gingrich was one of the three

stooges but he had a permanent membership in the three stooges. the other was bob walker from pennsylvania. make sure you never got a pay raise. one time, tell you, there's a focal like high school, there's a phone call for a, mr. walker. he runs up to take the focal and they pass by unanimous consent a pay raise. that's how it worked. in fact, jacketed. we got at this time, typically got it this time. his friends weren't all democrats. i tell you hit some real close friends. george bush senior was a close friend. i think is because they both love the house because the house is something that george bush, if you think about, he won completely on his own. he didn't get in there because of the coattails of that president reagan or any of the stuff. he got elected to the house on his own. that always means a lot. to have it all on your own. nixon wanted to get elected on his own. you always wanted on your own.

i think that's why gore tried to do it on his own. didn't quite make it. there's a lot of pride. being truly elected by the people. he liked george bush senior. you can buy thought of what he liked of the caucus but he really loved bush. bob michael, they were funny. but the guy he really loved was jerry ford. he talked about them all the time. jerry ford is living the good life out in palm springs. dresses for dinner now. we don't fit in. it was great but it was always about status. and i could tell when his real friends were around because his face would crinkle into a real nonpolitical smile. like crinkling santa claus face of his, which he would get one of israel buddies were a round, like murtha. martha would ask about.

he was in his sitting on your lap. it's like a little boy's club. like a tree house over there sometimes. the people's house. how proud they were of that. compared to the ascent which tip once said was filled with the idiot sons of the rich. that's when he got really irish. and a look and we talk like a. talk more like that. the real irish attitude towards the elite, which is great when it came out. because he used to cut the lawn at harvard. he didn't go to harvard. used to cut the lawn with shooters back in the '30s. there was no meritocracy back and. he would be cutting the lawn with shooters. up option -- you're watching all these guys during prohibition. very interesting stuff. people love this stuff. you know, i think that you would

sit around and even members of congress like tip would save seats. you only had tehran against the time is once. get elected 50 in a row, primaries and general elections but they were all close. the great thing about the house compared to the senate is you have to stay in touch. even if you're in a safe district for zambia to worry about the unopposed. tip would be in the backroom reading the globe. he loved the glow. all politics is local. somebody said that once. you've got to keep track of what's going on at home. i have great respect for people to leave when you're politically incorrect. when it's not you that anybody likes. ronald reagan i think will be removed for is consistency and

his career that preceded well before his popularity. just like churchill. you respect him for being right long before it was pocket. that's a people keep track of the. they don't want people adjusting every year like a mood ring of what's working. they love people who are pretty consistent and they say he's been on that for a while, i trust them on the. that's what he's been for longtime. and tip o'neill when i was within the six years were brutal. the nuns were coming at them. be nice to president reagan. that was tough. at me, it was really tough. he was a pocket. liberalism wasn't in fashion for a number of years although we did pick up 26 seats in 82. but it was tough to be unpopular it was tough to be on airplanes with advocating your. reagan put up with that for years. it was tough and respect people like that. jerry ford did something as president, that nobody, i did like when he did it.

he pardoned nixon. but when you think about what he did was very unpopular, probably cost him the presidency. have the courage to do was right because if we let richard nixon's problems room in our province for 23 as we would never have got out of it. it would've been two or three more years at least a fighting over nixon. instead he said why don't we heal the country and start over again and get the country moving again. and i think that was an example of well, country first is not a bad model. country first. not you. so i was warned when i went out to massachusetts about 15 years ago and i went up and looked up the first few at st. john's where tip was christened, where he was married and where he was buried, icg report in the first few. it's nice to see that. it has they stuck together. and i think most assuredly tip would of been there for jerry. friends. and that's the way it was in

politics when i worked in a. i got to love this cycle of the week. i loved working in the house. monday was ask him that day. tuesday was the general debates. wednesday was the republican vote to recommit from a minor. thursday was always final passage. and you shall in all the meds would coming it was great because just like in mr. smith, they would all come in and sit there and watch closing debate, people like jerry ford and tip o'neill when they would give it their best and everybody would be there. great drama. and i do remember one thursday night, and they don't know who these members were but i've always remember this, they had a really hot debate, really hot. typical thursday night debate. some state thursday white wine at dinner. made it more interesting to want to had been yelling red-faced at the other guy. i had been watching the. as the room begin to india and

we went to catch the plane, thursday night, a ritual, like an accordion close but everybody is leading. this guy walked across the aisle and said to the democratic member, what are you doing this weekend? the guy he'd been yelling at. after they chitchat, he said say hello to your wife for me. now that is what it was like. and that's what it was like the way jefferson wanted it, the way medicine wanted it, and that's the way it was with jerry and tip, the old days. i want to thank you for letting me became a conversation with you about current events which are not as pleasant, but i want young people here, there are some here today, where are you? there you are. younger than me. i'm a grandpa. it's all true. it really was like that. thank you very much. [applause]

>> now for the fun stuff. the questions. do you view that hardball political talk shows like yours is partly responsible for the growing lack of civility in our political discourse? >> not at all. i think it gets it off your chest. and i think you can. i think there's some tendency applicable to watch their own show is a mistake. i think you want to look around. i would say take a look at foxwoods and well. if you don't like it, take a look at it. i think you're crazy to go by, the days of walter cronkite over. that's the way this is not going to work again. it's to call to get it, too many points. i just finished the cronkite book which is an excellent book by doug pringle. he had a point of your and we all knew this point if you. he was a little the whole time he was in television. everybody else knew it. the idea, he's a great reporter, an honest reporter but yet he pointed you. today those points if you are more transparent, more acknowledged.

i always say to people if you can't tell the difference between fact and opinion, you are rare because almost everybody can. i think al sharpton is known for his point of view. i think people know what they're getting when they watch and. they know where i'm standing. i think people are smarter than people who look out, acknowledge. people are smart. they know any. they know factor and i think they watch my show, they want that, the news, they want to around 5:00 because we are on pretty early. they white house. they want the -- to watch my show to know what i think it also projected tax base. we fight over fact the i say every fact must come from a quality newspaper like the post or the times or the journal. may come from ap but i do want here it came from anywhere else. i'm really tough on the. i want facts. and secondly we do analysis and want to be smart first and then later with the opinion. i tried to do all three. that's my job.

and sometimes, and they defined people will tend to vote after they watch me. i can't imagine being able to follow up on my sure that reading a good newspaper. and second i can't imagine watching a show at mine and not be committed to the. so i think in terms of forcing people to read the paper getting people to watch a more. but i was a watch something else but if you like it, watch george stephanopoulos. i watched yesterday. each the press is good. i don't know anybody who gets more angry after watching television. a lot of people get confirmed in their views. i do think there is some ditto in thinking because on this country people, listen to limbaugh and that's all they listen to. i don't think they are growing, you know? [applause] >> how would you rate your show, very left, left, down the middle, right, very right to? >> with a communist one, centerleft. i would say we are 40-yard line.

i think most would say 40-yard line. my voting record is certainly not -- i'm pretty much advertised on left. i think my views on a lot of things, i thought the iraq war was a disaster. that was clear from 2001. i was right on that. fiscal policy, i want to see a long-term -- i'd like to see my daughter work for the commission. i think the president should stake a position day one in support of the. they got 11 votes. it's good enough for me, i'm going with. i think of it than he should've gone with the keystone pipeline. i don't you oppose jobs at this point. i can't think of environmental reason because nobody has told me what it is. i think he should have sold more health care, explain why it's important to the middle class, not just -- we have a program

for poor people. it's called medicare. it's republican plan hatched at the heritage foundation. he never sold it that way because he has to keep the left happy. it was a very conservative profit he never sold probably. so i think we're pretty critic critical. but i think, i think i put it together, and i've been doing this longer than anybody. i've been on live tv since 94, every night. and i must six times a week. people have figured me out. i think people are smart. they figured me out, like you, you get to know the people after a while. i think. >> what do you make of the changes taking place in the media? the decline of traditional newspapers and tv networks and the role of social media. >> i worry about social media because i love newspapers. i love editors because without an editor i don't know where i

would have been would examine and the chronicle. i love editors. there's nothing, nothing like turning friday after getting the call back, i could choose the questions. gale used to be my desk person. two or three questions, and where did you get this? and the other was a way to get that? is this official? how high are the? and it's great. then you get a call back, you're free. you're off for the weekend. and i love to be edited. and i tried to edit the people, and, who wrote this? who wrote this? there's an expletive there. and i want to know where did that come from? where did you check that? i do think i'm insane for maybe what's wrong. you can catch anything. social media, i want to know who the editors are. you know? everybody reads huffington and all that but i'm waiting to see, editing is a big part of. you just scanf opinion pieces

from. there's always a danger because they don't get edited. but i think fact-checking is, i worry about it. i just worry about fact checking. i always worry about weekend west was even because you younger desk people that don't know the history and they will say things that just aren't, let things get by them and it drives me crazy. like the controversy over -- there's no controversy. a red spot. move on. no controversy. just too lazy to look it up. i like to see a adult editors. but in social media i do worry about because people come up with something this on a blog so as a where did that come from? i read it -- why don't you not pay attention to blogs but how about you don't read any of those? that would be my view. it easy that way. i didn't can't you pick you're a real journalist and a real newspaper, quality newspaper. that's different than some in

the basement asking for pancakes after they brought down the government. mom, here's what i just did. first of all, get a job. [laughter] so i don't have much patience for this. i'm making enemies now, which is part of my life. but i do like journalists. i love straight reporters. i'm fascinated by the ability every day of the anyone reporters that right for the first page. they are astoundingly good pick their editing is incredibly good. what good is -- what goes in in the news section is just spectacular. and the quality of the op-ed pages of the times and the journal, well, the times in the post, i really good. i mean, the screening, the filter, the best pieces. we have great journalists. i get up anymore and read the "washington examiner" justified what the world passionate the other were missing. a lot of little items. steve smith edits the.

it's got some right wing people that are good, smart, conservative. i really pay attention. and every the "washington post" but every to all different ways. the phillies score, the stupidest scuttle bus on the second biggest of which i always check. i always have to check it. i always read the op-ed page. all the way through it up to the great diplomatic stuff, and the stuff, what's his name on the page right before it? and then i read the times. you have to get your speed up, be able to read the times began to work. yet to read a new post which had get ready for the times but then if i'm really ambitious i go to the journal. my wife reads that. but i think he put all that together you know about. i don't know any country in the world as lucky as us. if you want to know more, just turn on your sirius/xm radio and

listen all day to one of the three news networks. and i flip around i flip around and i see -- i've run from cnn and a checkbox because some of them are okay. some of the people are okay. i'm not big on sean, but o'reilly is kind of a mixed bag. is not a simpleton right wing but he's an angry irish guy. who didn't get in the club. but there's something to him i do find unnerving glee sometimes but i do like his attitude. so it's fun. people have to put their own -- i give a speech everybody. that's not going to be something like uncle walter who the exact what happened because, you know, they had a point a few. establishment liberal. the big networks for years had establishment liberalism as the basis. that's what they were, cronkite and edward r. murrow, established liberal. everything was liberal basically, but it was a point of

view. they laughed at goldwater. cronkite mocked him with the way he pronounces think it is all true. go back and look at the tens. barry goldwater said today. you know where he stood. so the idea there was some objective reality that we are missing i think is a mistake. >> obama promised the public and journalists that he would have the most open administration in history. has he delivered? >> i guess. i don't know what the question is really. i don't know what the relative scorecard is. is the scorecard something we can find? do you have a point of you on this? [laughter] >> i'm the moderator. i also don't have a point of view. but when he came to office he said that he was going to be the most open, he would be telling, having press conferences and being open. >> i don't count them.

i think daily press conference, carney is a journalist. i think gibbs is more. he beat me at jeopardy a few weeks ago. i think, yes, that prescott is and has a lot of them. i don't have -- i don't think we have time for any more primetime press conferences. i think that romney did a business press, they'll engage in when they want to win. i think he will have to deal with it differently as time goes on. i don't think he spent a lot of time answering questions at the rope lines. but it's not a big issue with me because i'm in a commentary and analysis business because i do have to a lot of these things. reporters have to deal with a lot of these. i don't have the ability to judge that. what you might ask chuck or somebody.

>> in your opinion why has compromise come so unacceptable in congress? >> because of the way the voters are behaving. i grew up in a ticket splitting state in pennsylvania anybody from pennsylvania knows what it was like. you vote for the state rep our state senator because you want your kid to get a state scholarship. one of these gimmicks. you vote to the congressman because you would hope your give a good one of the service academies. that was the way they look at things. you might have an edge. and also was a state of basically a purple state we have almost every election except to in the 20 century were split. there was a governor and senator running that way, it always went both ways. it always did. it was like this all the time. bill could be very hyper, jack kennedy could win this debate. it was always -- there aren't many tickets splitting states left. and i'm told by experts on the

numbers of this years will see less ticket splitting than ever. people will vote straight the massachusetts may be the exception. scott brown is running. he may be that there. so generally people go vote, if they vote for claire mccaskill to probably vote for the present it if they don't devote any to get. i look at the trickiness over in, how do you vote for george allen and barack obama? how does that work? that's a tricky one. that's a tricky one. i think, people -- the other thing is the way we do or dishes are broken up by neighborhood was re-segregated ivc in this country, racially segregated neighborhoods. so if you're a black member, member of the black caucus you are only concerned with the younger person to love. so you never go to left of your member of the black caucus, or go to the right if you're from

one of the mountain states, or conservative states. so the tendencies always to hedge towards the state into your party spectrum. so if you're liberal you're probably 1% -- why let someone get your left? i know in politics it's a savory to be with your base. and, therefore, these guys and women tend to vote with their base. it's the safest move. he figure you will fight it out with the independence. i've talked a number of congress. pat murphy, only 40 house seats really up for election every year. the rest are all taken. you can't lose a general election. california this year ill be weird because they have a new kind of system where the top two vote getters get tehran in november. that will probably be to democrats. not a big surprise. so the voters are basically because the way we proportion and gerrymander, you don't have many seats -- they do have them in places like bucks county. you see these seats are swing seat and a tough.

back and forth all the time. these seats, but how many seats are like that? dingle, still here. and, all these guys are here for a long time. massachusetts doesn't change. and it taxes became more than one party state. you have this kind of voting we don't want to risk going to the center but a summit to come along and say he sold us out. he's not a real tea partiers. lugar just got bumped. then it got bumped. these guys are getting bumped and out of, i don't think parties in from the cold yet. he could get bumped from utah. it is said, i think that you can't put it together yourself the way reasonable people do, which is they have, they don't buy the blue plate special. very few voters are coming in, they love unions.

they are pro-choice. they get down the list on every single thing. they are against free trade. are the people like this? there are some but i think about 30% on the other side. so we are just down the line left to right. and i like when people stand up to say on this issue i'm not with the board. i disagree. but you hardly ever hear that. and then you are marked as some kind of a pro-life not because that's the one issue -- but, you know, if our voters become independent will have more independent politicians. i think. >> what do you think the biggest mistakes the obama campaign and the romney campaign has made so far? >> well, romney hasn't made many mistakes. he has a strategy of being the last man standing. he doesn't try to sell his personality. he -- [laughter] know, i me.

it's like a rotary. just the other guys off the corporate a lot of super pac money, they were like -- you couldn't hide. should watch an attempt to all right. you can't hide from incoming. it was the relentless negative advertising and it was done by these super pacs. like restore our future. so he found himself from the base of the very process of elimination of brilliant campaign. he had a very strong team. i haven't seen mistakes a lot from him because he has won every contest to any since he blew them all away. now they're all endorsing them to various degrees. the women are coming back. republican party historically falls in line. they don't fall in love, they fall in line. democrats have to like you. i mean, republicans are busily an organized political party. which is unusual. i'm are growing up as a kid in the early '50s, i watched the

conventions and there's always a woman at the front, at the end of the convention. the democratic convention. inodes the republican convention, when they clear the aisles they did. this is an extraordinary political party. they are obedient. and democrats just see who is the hotbed. u.s. the hot in? all of this guy, barack. in a million years, the democratic party would not run a guide named barack hussein obama. in a million years. bush, 80, 84, 88, 82, 2000, 2004. oh, let's go for a real wild guy. bob dole. 76, 96. the republican party insists and you been around for a long time, beaten up a number of times, collins did a terrific? when you are almost through, they run you. they finally ran mccain that way. they ran this guy, romney, good

family, been around. that's perfect republican. you look in the club without. these other guys came out of nowhere? jimmy who? bill clinton? one club would that be? by the way, when you lose as a republican, they run you next time. the democrats, you lose, they shoot you. [laughter] and so that's what people like al gore had to go grow a beard and go into the cave somewhere flashback nobody knows where michael dukakis is right now because no one has ever asked where he is. [laughter] uses, jimmy carter, and live but if you lose the democratic party, you are finished. if you did in the republican party, come on back. jack kemp, he's available. let's put them on the ticket. let's bring bob dole back. who wanted that? it's a totally different culture, the way the political parties and the democrats are hot and political party. defense of being a republican is

you're always forgiven for being beaten because they beat you. they want to be job and you come back. the republicans had ran mccain the first time it would've been interesting. i always say if nixon had won in 60, all that happened later, it might've been different. they get so bitter by the time they get in there, the rules are you have two completely -- this guy romney, i don't think he is driven by hard principle. basically whatever the guys at liberty university wanted in his speech i'm sure he's going to give. i'm sure he will tell the neocons everything they want you because that's why he is there, to tell them what to say. the same thing with grover norquist. always put id into by the by the way. nordquist. and then the neocons, they are also right, donald trump, proof in the pudding. it's unbelievable. he worships him like the golden

mile. why? because he wants to keep the party together. he wants all of its of party because he said the other day, i want 50.1%. you want transparency, you get from them. he openly tells you how you will win the presidency, by getting every element of the movement for him and he will accept that what they want. then he will become independent of them. that's the tricky part. because he is a moderate. how many deals will have to construct, that's the question. and obama, his mistakes have been pretty obvious. i think he should've explained the health care bill as a model republican plan, not a left wing plan but it's not socialized medicine. he did that to keep the left of the. i think he should've never used the words dinners. the worst word i've ever heard in politics. it's just paying it out the window. wasting your money. stimulus to what this team is mean? it means nothing.

jobs program. roadbuilding, stuff that mean something to the people. not just paying off the states and localities. why don't you build something. eisenhower built the interstate highway system. he called the national defense i would suspect all obama has to do is say i build the automobile, now i'm going to rebuild the infrastructure. this is what to do in europe because europe has a shadow -- you don't even know you're moving. the bullet trains are all over asia. we're sitting around with amtrak which is like a buck more. that's all we've got. it's about time we caught up with a world our public sector because the jobs that disappeared over the last four years have been in the public sector. if sony would just look it up, the private sector job growth has been there but it's been offset by pullbacks and layoffs in the states and localities across the country. it so ironic that no one knows that. why don't they do something about it? interest rates or zoo. people are sending them into

german and paying them to do. it's a good time to invest in infrastructure and put people to work. a lot of people are out of work. i think he i to do it and tell the republicans know. they are saying no to every little thing he puts up there. he doesn't think big enough. just like truman did in philadelphia, 1:00 in the morning 1940. called the house back into session. and post the problem. we have asked many people unemployed. let's put them to work. let's do it. and at least then the public would know what the election is about. so that would be by advice how he can fix it. [applause] >> we are almost out of time. a couple housekeeping items to take care. i have one more for you. but if you want to remind you on june 9, the press club is having its 15th annual beat the deadline five k. race. sign that. there will be pancakes.

you can be p90x founder tony horton -- spent how many miles be? 3.1. you don't even have tehran. and i will eat your pancakes. on august 28 we have general chains a mess, commandant of the united states wrinkle. second at present you with our traditional coffee mug because this will make your coffee taste better when your fact checking. and my last question for you is, what do you think about how you are portrayed on "saturday night live"? >> well great. darrell hammond is a change. general hammond does clinton like he is clinton's sole. unbelievable. he's unbelievable. he gets to us all. he asked me, i washed watch -- i once watched saturday night. called laramie and ask cheney. before they start at 1130, they are life.

said no, i. darrell hammond would be prowling around cheney in the oval office. it's like he's already in character but it's a great. he does the best cheney but anyway, i like him doing me. thank you. [applause] >> thank you all for coming today. also, thanks to national press club stuff including the journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing today's event, and a reminder you can find more information about the national press club on their website at press.org. thank you. we are agenda. -- we are adjourned. >> now to capitol hill this morning where the senate is about to gavel in for the day. lawmakers will continue working on the paycheck fairness bill enhancing remedies for victims of gender-based pay discrimination as was making it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for sharing salary information. lawmakers will take a break from

12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. for the party lunches. they will hold a cloture vote on whether to continue work on the bill. if it fails, senators will likely move onto a bill dealing with farm subsidies, nutrition and conservation programs. and live coverage now of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. cere senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, as our lawmakers seek to meet their responsibilities, give them the awareness to look not only to the immediate needs and the concerns of the moment, but to be enlightened by the majesty of your creation and your eternal spirit. strengthened by your spirit, give them the wisdom to refuse to do anything

which would bring them regret, remorse, or shame. may they never do anything they would have to hide, and about which they should be ashamed that others should know. are lord, today we confess our human inadequacies and our need for you to infuse us with the strength, understanding, may this be a day we sense your presence and receive your power. we pray in your sacred 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 presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., june 5, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i 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 now move to proceed to calendar number 410, s. 3 220. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar 410, s. 3220, a bill to amend the fair labor

standards act of 1938 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: we're on the motion to proceed to paycheck fairness act. following my remarks and those of the republican leader the time until 12:30 will be a equally divided, the majority will control the first 30 minutes and the republicans will control the second 30 minutes. the senate will recess from 12:30 and i ask, mr. president, unanimous consent that the clerk, on the motion to proceed to s. 3220 at 2:30, rather than 2:15 with the time from 2:15 until 2:30 to be equally divided between the two leaders with the majority controlling the final half. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, we're on as i indicated, the paycheck fairness act. and we'll have that cloture vote at 2:30 today. most americans believe they get an education, they work hard and play by the rules, they'll

have a fair shot at success. but for millions of american women, no amount of talent or dedication will bring pay equality with male coworkers. in tindz the minds of many employers they simply aren't equal. women take home 77 cents for every dollar their male colleagues earn nor doing exactly is same work. that holds true regardless whether a woman has a college degree, how many hours she spends at the office each week or on some manufacturing floor. regardless of what job she holds, 77 cents applies. but, mr. president, listen to this, if she is an african-american woman, or a hispanic woman, the disparity is even starker. african-american women make 62 cents on the dollar and hispanic women 54 cents on the dollar compared to white men working the same hours and doing the

same jobs. not different jobs. the exact same jobs. if you're hispanic and you're a woman, you get about half as much as the man doing the same job. if you're african-american, you get about 60 cents compared to every dollar that that man makes. and while landmark pieces of legislation like the equal pay act and the lilly ledbetter fair pay act haven't closed the gap, that is obvious by the numbers i announced that the stot. so congress must do more. this act would give workers stronger tools to combat wage discrimination. now, mr. president, one of the tools of retaliation that employers have is they fire workers if they discuss how much they make with another worker. our legislation would bar retaliation against workers for discussing salary information.

why do we have this in the bill? the landmark legislation we passed, that we had to pass it because the supreme court ruled against lilly ledbetter. lilly ledbetter is a woman who worked in alabama for many, many years, and she didn't know that she was being paid far less than her male counterparts who did the same work. and so when she learned this, she filed a lawsuit in the supreme court -- and the supreme court said sorry, lilly, you didn't file it in time. the statute of limitations has run meaning that you had to file within a certain period of time. well, we have all -- we have many different places in the law where you do not start tolling the statute until you learn something is wrong. for example, we had to go back in medical malpractice cases where people were treated negligently by physicians but the poor patient didn't realize this till long after, usually

for example in the state of nevada it's a two-year statute had run so we changed that. most every place in the country. and we need to make sure that people understand and this instance now that we passed the lilly ledbetter legislation the time doesn't start running until you learn you're being cheated. so our legislation would bar retaliation against workers for discussing salary information. and it would help secure adequate compensation for victims of gender-based pay discrimination. take the state of nevada. over their lifetimes, nevada women will earn about $475,000 less than their male counterparts. about half a million dollars. but this isn't just an issue for women. it's a family issue. why? because every year millions of american families are cheated out of money they could spend on groceries, rent, and combas gast. every year wage discrimination puts almost 400,000 nevada children at risk. for many families in nevada and

across the country a woman, a woman is the only income generator in that family. for many more women, that person is the primary breadwinner. yet republicans have vowed to block this legislation. all the news today. every headline news talks about this bill coming up today. and the republicans saying they're going to vote against it because it creates too much bookwork. they vow to block legislation that would even the playing field and help women provide for their families even theory americans overwhelmingly support this legislation. nine out of ten americans including 81% of men, 70% of republicans support pay ek which legislation. once again the only republicans who are against our commonsense measure are the ones which are in congress in washington. even mitt romney has refused to publicly oppose this legislation. he may oppose it but he's afraid to saying anything about it.

why? because it's obvious why. he should show some leadership, in my opinion, governor romney, and tell his fellow republicans that opposing fair pay for all americans is shameful. instead, no one knows where he stands but we know where democrats stand, everyone knows. we stand firmly on the side of equality for every working woman. democrats stand with middle-class women working to keep their families afloat, stand with young women pursuing a college education hoping to get a good-paying job when they graduate, stand with little girls whose mothers have taught them there is no limit to their dreams and this evening americans will see where republicans stand on this issue. it's unfortunate that once again they're obstruction over equality.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. molinari: mr. president, i'd like to continue to discuss the student loan issue this morning. because the administration's approach to this problem, it's really nothing short of surreal. i have in my hand a letter,

it's been signed by the top four republicans in congress, speaker boehner, leader cantor, minority whip john call and myself. it lists no fewer than four good-faith bipartisan proposals to resolve the issue. all of which are based on offsets the president has proposed himself in the past. let me say that again. we have recommended to the president four offsets that he himself has proposed in the past to achieve what we all want to achieve which is a one-year extension of the current student loan interest rates. we sent this letter to the president five days ago. yet we now learn in spite of the fact they have a proposal

recommending that we on a bipartisan basis accept offsets that they have previously recommended, we now learn the vice president plans to have a group of college presidents over to the white house today to, -- quote -- "reassert the call for congress to stop the student loans from doubling." congress is acting. we've given the administration four offsets they previously have proposed, we're waiting for a response, so we can solve this problem. why doesn't the vice president simply pick up the phone and choose one of the proposals we played out in our letter and then announce that the meeting that the problem's been resolved that way, he'll give these folks some good news to bring back to their campuses instead of just asking them to be props, props in this elaborate

farce the white house political team cooked up on this issue. an elaborate farce. this can be solved very easily with offsets that the administration itself has recommended. so the only people dragging their feet on this issue are over at the white house itself. republicans in congress have been crystal clear for weeks, we're ready to resolve the issue, to give students the certainty they need about their loan payments. the president may find it politically useful to keep these young people off balance, but we don't think they should have to wait another day on this. and it's inexcusable for the president to allow this impasse to persist. that's why we bent over backwards to find a solution and it's disingenuous for the president to claim otherwise. which brings me to a larger

point. we all realize the president is concerned about his reelection, i understand his placing a higher prior to on -- pry oirt on fundraising and making republicans looking bad. i get his rationale for running a negative campaign. if i were him, i wouldn't want to brag about my record, either. i get it. but i would remind him he is still president, even though the campaign is going on, americans are looking for leadership and that the economic problems we face will only get worse if he avoids them for six more months. so whether it's the student loan issue or the prospect of a massive tax hike at the end of the year, republicans are ready to work with the president to provide the kind of certainty that the american people need right now. but it's a two-way street. and we'll never solve these problems if the president continues to mislead the american people about what

republicans in congress are willing and eager to do to help. now, mr. president, on another matter, hearings on the environmental protection agency's regulatory agenda will be held in kentucky this week. one hearing will be held today in frankfurt and another later this week. since congress is in session this week i won't be able to attend these important hearings in person, but i will have a representative on hand at each hearing and i want to express my thoughts on the matter today on the senate floor. like most of the country, kentucky is suffering from very, very difficult economic times. far too many kentuckians are unemployed and the future remains daunting. that is why it is irritating this administration blindly

followed ideological policies that eliminated jobs in our communities. the people in kentucky are amongst the hardest-working people on the planet, but how can we be expected to compete if our own government is actually working against us? simply put, my constituents are under siege from the obama administration's regulatory agenda and the e.p.a. is the worst offender, the very worst. perhaps the clearest example of this administration's regulatory assault is its war on coal. since being sworn in, president obama's e.p.a. has set out to circumvent the will of congress and the american people by turning the already cumbersome mine permitting process into a backdoor means of shutting down coal mines. 18,000 kentuckians work in coal mining, and nearly 200,000 more, including farmers, realtors, and transportation workers rely on the coal industry for their

jobs. coal brings in more than $3.5 billion from out of state and pays more than $1 billion in direct wages every year. attacking an industry so important to kentucky will only succeed in putting people out of work, impeding future job growth and increasing energy prices. a a former senior e.p.a. official under the obama administration summed up the logic of the agency by saying it wants to -- quote -- "crucify them." let me say that again. this was a regulator with respect to those working in the coal business saying it wants to quote crucify them, end quote. it is no wonder the administration has failed to answer the american people's call for greater domestic energy production. the real-world impact of their

fantasy-world energy policy is that people are losing their jobs and energy prices will rise even further. it is high time the obama administration stopped treating the kentucky coal industry as the problem and start recognizing that it has been and will continue to be part of the solution. mr. president, before i yield the floor, i'd like to ask consent that the letter that i referred to in my first statement be included at the end of that statement for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the time until 12:30 p.m. will be equally divided and controlled by the two leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the second 30 minutes.

ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to affirmatively and unabashedly vote for cloture on the paycheck fairness act that we wish to bring before the united states senate. mr. president, this is part of a very long march that the women of the united states of america have been walking for a very long time. in 1963, president lyndon johnson wanted to create a great society, and he envisioned three civil rights act to right the wrongs of the past. one was equal pay -- the equal pay act, which would ensure that women would get equal pay for equal work. the second was the benchmark civil rights act. and the third was the voting

rights act. lyndon johnson picked the equal pay act as his first action because he felt it would be one of the easier ones to pass and to implement. little demo that the corporate -- little did he know that the corporate wrath that was going to be against women in the past would come to that legislation. but a democratically controlled senate moved that bill and began the long march for civil rights. but guess what happened in the ensuing 49 years? on june 10, president johnson signed that bill in 1963. 49 years later women still make less than men. women in the united states of america make only 77 cents for what men doing the same job make. this is unfair and it's un-american.

remember where we have come. everybody likes to say to us, oh, you've come a long way, but wye don't -- we don't think we've come a long way. we've only gained 18 cents in 49 years. in 1963 we made 59 cents for every dollar that men make. now it's 77 cents. so what does that mean? it means every five years we make an advancement of one penny. oh, no. no more. we're just not going to take it any more. when i go out and talk to my constituents, they say to me they're mad as hell. they don't want to take it any more. if they go to school, they get the job, they do the job, they want to be paid for the job. and we agree with them. we don't only twaopbt do -- want to do it with words. we want to do it with deeds and we want to pass the paycheck fairness act that would ensure to do this.

women fight every day for equal pay. when they do, they're sidelined, redlined or even pink slipped. right now in the marketplace it is legal to fire a woman if she asks about her pay, whether she goes to the personnel director or she asks the person next to her at the water cooler. often women are harassed or intimidated for just being asked to say what do you make for the work you do. so we're ready to fight for women to get equal pay, and the best way to do it is to do it right here on the senate floor. people say to me, well, hey, senator barb, you led the fight on lilly ledbetter. didn't that solve all the problems? it solved a big problem. we made a down payment to keep the courthouse door open for women who are discriminated against, but it did not close the loopholes that were in the original civil rights act.

what lilly ledbetter did was change the statute of limitations to file a lawsuit from the date of each discriminatory paycheck. now we need to pass paycheck fairness to close the loopholes that allow discrimination to happen in the very first place. what does this bill do? it's actually very simple. if you listen to the right-wing pundits, you would think that this was complicated, that it was going to rend asunder the american economy and so on. this is fundamental fairness. first of all, what does it do? number one, no longer will employers be able to retaliate against workers for sharing information about wages. remember what i said earlier. if you ask someone what you get paid, you can get fired. for years, lilly ledbetter and those she represents were humiliated and harassed for just asking questions. no longer will women be able to seek only back pay when they are

discriminated against. they will also be able to seek punitive damages. no longer will employers be able to use almost any reason to justify paying a woman less. the guys do harder jobs. the guys do dangerous jobs. oh, they have a better education. we're talking about equal pay for equal work that requires the same education. no longer will women be on their own because we're going to be able to include various education and training. as i said, in 1963 we made 59 cents. women now make 77 cents. that's not progress. the consequences to this are severe. what does this mean? well, let's take the college graduate, the woman who's had the benefit and privilege of an education. it starts the minute she tosses her hat in the air, when she

goes for that job, say in information technology or even in some of the innovation economy fields. she will be making less. at the rate they're going, by the time she retires, there will be a $435,000 income pay gap. now, this is serious because it not only affects your income as you go through your life, but it affects your social security. it affects your pension. it affects absolutely, absolutely everything. the negative impact multiplies. it's like compound interest in reverse. it's compound disinterest. it's compounded unfairness. so these are real grievances. that's why the paycheck fairness would be able to do this. now, when we look at the life of being a woman, we women know that it often -- being a woman

often means that we pay more. we certainly pay more for health insurance than men with the same coverage for the exact same age or health status. what does that mean? it intervenes we estimate that women pay thousands -- it means that we estimate that women pay thousands of dollars more in medical insurance over their lifetime. we're often on the hook for child care. there are a variety of things that we could elaborate on. i believe that people should be judged in the workplace for skills and kpep tense. and -- competence. and once you get the job and you show you can do the job, be paid to do that job. for my colleagues who argue the 20 cents per hour doesn't matter, let me give you some numbers. that means $4,000 less per year for a working family. $434,000 a year over a lifetime. this means we get paid 23% less than a man making -- doing the same work who has the same

education. you know what, mr. president? you're a smart guy. you know when we go to get a mortgage, we don't get a 23% discount. when we go to buy food, we don't get a 23% discount. when we go to pay our utility bills, they don't say you're paid less; we're going to give you a discount. no. we get charged the same and often more for what we do, but we're paid less. well, we're not going to accept being paid less. we're paying attention to this problem, and we've listened to the voices of the people. this isn't just senator barb sounding off on her women's agenda. my women's rights agenda is about the economic power of women, if they have a chance in this great country to be able to move ahead. when i listen to a constituent in silver spring with years of teaching experience, even in

public employment she was paid less. we listened to a trauma certain who e-mailed me from florida; highly educated. she filed suit because she found out her male surgeon doing the exact same surgery was paid $25,000 more than she was. another woman e-mailed me from virginia. she claimed she was told by her supervisor that hiring a woman would be simply a liability you're going to get pregnant. you're going to miss work. we don't know if we want you here. then she said to you, we don't need to pay you that. you don't head up a household. why should you get the money for some guy who does head up a household? we face old prejudices but we're in a new economy and a new world. more and more women are in the workplace. and when we come, we want to be treated with with respect and wt

to have equal pay for equal work. mr. president, i note my colleague is here, from washington. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: i want to give a heartfelt thank you to senator mikulski. there is no denying shaos a strong and -- denying she is a strong and steadfast leader on this issue. i come to the floor with her and many others to strongly support the paycheck fairness act and ask republicans to join with us to pass this critical bill. over the past few months many of us have stood together to fight back against partisan attacks on policies that impact women across america. mr. president, we have not started these fights, but we were not going to stand by and watch as others tried to roll back the clock. but every time we stood up to defend women, our friends on the other side of the aisle would jump right up and say we were

creating -- quote -- "distractions or manufactured issues." they said we should be focused on the economy, as if we were the ones changing the subject and making the partisan attacks. well, mr. president, we are not going to stop standing up for women and families. and to those of our colleagues who claim to be so concerned about the economy and the middle class, now is your chance to prove to your constituents that you really mean what you say. because the paycheck fairness act is not just about women. and it is not just about fairness. it is about the economy. when women are not paid what they deserve, middle-class families and our communities pay the price. in 1963 the equal pay act marked one of the first steps towards narrowing the gap between men and women. and in 2009, the senate took another step by passing the lilly ledbetter fair pay act to reverse the supreme court's ledbetter vs. goodyear case

which had made it almost impossible for our workers who suffered from discrimination to seek justice. and love we have made progress since we passed the equal pay act almost 50 years ago, pay skreuplgts has not gone -- skreuplgts has not gone away. women in washington still earn 70 cents on the dollar, a pay gap that averages 11,834 in lost earnings each year. that is 179 tanks of of gasoline. to most women cross america that is not a manufactured issue. it is very real. and, mr. president, this comes at a time when more and more families rely on women's wages to put food on the table or stay in their homes or build a nest egg for their retirement or pay for their children's education. the importance of women in the workplace has never been as critical as today and this has

become even more evident in this tough economy. mr. president, the fact is that women are now participating in the work force at higher rates than ever before in history, according to the bureau of labor statistics. so it would seem most appropriate for this senate to move our country once again towards eliminating pay discrimination and unfairness in the workplace. the paycheck fairness act that we are going to have a vote on today tackles pay discrimination head on, and it shouldn't be a partisan issue or only a women's issue. it's good for women, it's good for families, and it levels the playing field for businesses in america who are doing the right thing and paying their workers fairly. mr. president, the paycheck fairness act is good for business, too. it recognizes employers for excellence in their pay practices and it strengthens the federal outreach and assistance to all businesses to help them improve equal pay practices.

it is time to address this issue and finally close the wage gap for our working women and their families. you know, i was very proud to stand with senator mikulski and other members of congress and the president as he signed the lilly ledbetter fair pay act of 2009 to give women who are victims of pay discrimination the tools they need to seek justice. but our work is far from complete. we are still not yet at the point where our daughters can expect to earn the same amount over their lifetime as our sons. that has to change. and now we need to pass the paycheck fairness act as quickly as possible to keep our nation moving in the right direction. again, i want to thank senator mikulski for her tremendous leadership and steadfastness on this and her hard work to make this a reality for every working woman in this country. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor.

ms. mikulski: mr. president, there will be others, democratic senators speaking during this time and i want to thank senator murray because she has been a real champion on this. she's been a champion on making sure that women are treated with respect, and this workplace and in the united states military. she has been a particular champion for ensuring that women this the mill -- in the military and women in the v.a. system get treated with fairness. we have a long way to go. i mean this is 2012 and you'd think at times it was 1812. but, you know, in 1812 we in baltimore fought another revolution and we'll fight in 2012 so we thank her for her advocacy and look forward to having her vote this afternoon. mr. president, this isn't only a women's issue where the

women's rights groups are pounding the table. we have the support and endorsement of the american bar association. i have here a letter which i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record in which the a.b.a. absolutely endorses this legislation. the a.b.a., which we know is a prestigious, distinguished representation. american bar, says that when we pass the equal pay for equal work act, it was landmark, but quoting again from their letter, in the 50 years since its passage has become out of date and ineffective, wage discrimination remains a persistent, widespread and person initialous problem. in commenting on this bill, the a.b.a. says it would abate the key provisions of the equal pay act without altering the basic scheme of the historic statute or imposing successful novel

burdens on employers. remember this isn't senator mikulski again. this is a.b.a. saying it will not impose excessive or novel burdens on employers, and indeed, most of the proposed changes are borrowed from other civil rights statutes that proved more effective in eradicating workplace discrimination. this goes to what the a.b.a. says. now, mr. president, i'd like to yield six minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from new hampshire be, the governor, a senator, a real advocate who has had to not only be a leader in passing of legislation but in implementing it and we welcome her insights and her advocacy. the presiding officer: norm new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i'm pleased to join our colleague and leader on so many issues that affect women and families, senator mikulski. i am here today to join her and

our other colleagues who will be coming to the floor to talk about something that's a real matter of fundamental importance for our country. workers should have equal access to every opportunity that will help them put food on the table, extend their children to school, and save for retirement. unfortunately, here we are in 2012 and still millions of american women lose nearly a quarter of their potential earnings to pay discrimination. almost 50 years after the landmark equal pay act banned wage discrimination based on gender, women in our country continue to be paid just over over 3/4 of what their male counterparts receive for performing the exact same work. every day that this wage gap exists is a further injustice to current workers like my

daughters, and to future members of the work force like my granddaughters and so many other granddaughters of members of this body. pay discrimination doesn't just hurt employees. it endangers the families that depend on these women. one in three working moms is her family's only source of income. with the money that mother loses to pay discrimination every year, she could be paying housing and utility costs on her home, or she could be feeding her family with money to spare. you know, back in the early 1980's i chaired a task force for new hampshire's commission on the status of women. looking at women and employment. and what we found was discrimination in a whole range of areas, including, of course, pay discrimination. but the conclusion of that report was that that kind of discrimination against women doesn't just hurt women who are affected. it hurts their families, their children, their husbands, and has a ripple effect throughout

our economy. as governor, i signed a law to prohibit gender-based pay discrimination in new hampshire. and to require equal pay for equal work. and the year before that law was signed, women in new hampshire made 69% of their male colleagues' wages. today they make 78%. when president kennedy signed the equal pay act into law in 1963, women made less than 60 cents for each dollar earned by men. today, we make 77 cents. so we made some progress, but clearly we skill still have a long way to go and a lot of work to do. i recently heard from a woman named marie in new boston, new hampshire about her experience with pay discrimination. and she wrote i worked for many years in a male-dominated company where the fresh out of college boys were paid

substantially more than i was for the same position. she continued to recount that she actually trained these same men to do their jobs, and yet she still wasn't paid at the same rate. since the equal pay act was enacted in 1963, the gender gap impacting wages has only narrowed by an average of half a sent per year -- cent per year. so at this rate it's going to take another 45 years for that gap to close entirely. the paycheck fairness act would make commonsense updates to this law by requiring pay differences to be based on legitimate business reasons. it would also protect women whose employers tried to shirk their responsibilities by prohibiting employees from discussing their salaries. and finally, this important legislation would create a program to strengthen women and

girls' negotiation skills so they can seek the pay they deserve directly. it is long past time for us to pass the paycheck fairness act. i urge all of our colleagues to support this legislation. it is bipartisan, it is good for women and their families, and it is good for the country. thank you very much, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: i thank the gentlelady from new hampshire and now i lieu would like to yield the floor for seven minutes to our colleague from california, senator boxer, who -- she and i served in the house, we served in the senate and we've been fighting this for a long time. and i think you'll find her words welcome and insightful. her passion and her devotion to women is legendary. i yield seven minutes to senator boxer.

mrs. boxer: thank you so much, senator mikulski, not only for yielding to me but for your extraordinary leadership here in the united states senate on so many issues of fairness and justice, for women, for families, or children, for our seniors. it's really a legendary record that you have amassed and this is just one more example. i also want to thank president obama for his leadership in calling attention to this important legislation, the paycheck fairness act. if you were to stop someone on the street in the simplest terms say do you think it's right to pay people different for the same job, do you think that's right? they have the same experience, the same education, same qualifications, people would say no, that's not right. but yet that is what has been happening to america's women. even though we have since the

1960's a very important law in place that's supposed to guarantee fair pay to everyone, including women. but women earn 77 septs for every dollar earned by a man -- cents for every dollar end by a man and when you drill down to the numbers you find out in a vast number of cases they're doing the same work as a man making less and, of course, lilly ledbetter made a very important point about this and became quite famous with a supreme court case where she had been doing the same thing as her male counterparts working in a tire factory, being a manager, being skilled, being strong, and yet underpaid. and when she discovered it, trying to seek justice was unable to do so. and the senate stepped up to the plate and with democrats moving

forward we passed the lilly ledbetter law which does take care of the statute of limitations that allows you to take as long as you have to to get to court to make your case. with lilly it was too late and she never was able to recover what she deserved. so now what senator mikulski has done, the paycheck fairness act, is to say we're going to go the next step. we're going to make sure, we're going to make sure that women have justice in the workplace, that women have rights and why is this important to families? not just to women, but to families. it is because over a lifetime of discrimination that so many women face, it's not like here where you're a senator, you're a senator, you're a senator, women, man, out there, it's different.

and when you're discriminated against over a lifetime and are only getting 77 cents and some, by the way, only making 56 cents or 62 cents on the dollar, the average wage loss over a working lifetime is over $400,000. if you take a look at what our families could do with $400,000, educate a child, make sure that people get the best of medical care, make sure the family has enough so they can all take a break together and have a decent vacation or buy a better car. this is an issue, mr. president, that not only involves women, but our families and our economy. because guess what?

if that $400,000 during a lifetime was with the family rather than the corporate c.e.o. who's making millions, you would see the economy stimulated because middle-class families spend those dollars. they don't hoard those dollars. so, i'm going to close this by giving awe couple of real-life -- giving you a couple of real-life examples. how much time do i have remaining? the presiding officer: 2 1/2 minutes. mrs. boxer: a woman from california had an identical advanced degree as her husband, and they both landed exact jobs but in different parts of the company, different work sites. the husband was offered $5,000 more in starting salary, and they were shocked. the same resume, the same qualifications. then there was the health care worker in long island who

discovered she had been earning $10 an hour less than her male colleagues. when she brought it up to her superiors, she was reprimanded for even asking about the rationale behind the wage gap. senator mikulski's bill says you can't be reprimanded or punished because you're trying to find out if you're being paid fairly. that's why we have to pass this law. and anyone voting against it is taking a stand against women, is taking a stand against fairness, is taking a stand against justice, is taking a stand against our families. then there was a female employee for a major corporation in florida who was told when she was hired that to disclose your salary to other workers was grounds for dismissal. since then, she realized her male counterparts made more than she did, but she didn't have any written proof. another female employee at that

company was told because her husband picked her up from work in a nice car that she didn't need to get a salary increase. one woman retired after 15 years as an award-winning c.e.o. of a public agency. her male replacement who had little experience was hired at a higher salary. after having a child, a california wedlock was fired from her job at a nonprofit. her replacement, a man with less experience, was given 30% more in starting salary. mr. president, we have example after example after example. how the republican side of the aisle could filibuster this bill is beyond my imagination. i don't know what they're thinking. they'll give an excuse. they'll come up with some excuse. they'll say it will hurt jobs. it will hurt this and that. it's all made up. it's all made up. in this great nation, when we move toward equality, we all

prosper together. so i thank you for this time so much. i urge an aye vote. i thank senator mikulski for this moment to be able to support this important bill. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the time for the majority has expired. ms. mikulski: mr. president, might i ask the parliamentary situation. the presiding officer: there are now 30 minutes under the control of the republicans. ms. mikulski: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer:. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i withdraw my request. the presiding officer: the request is withdrawn. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: thank you, mr. president. given that it's election year, the american people are going to hear a lot of highly charged

political rhetoric over the next few months. they are likely already tired of what they have heard. the arkansans i talked with during the last week while traveling the state certainly have told me that much. they don't want to see the finger pointing. they want us to fix the problems that we face. they are tired of the back and forth. they are tired of us seeking credit and placing blame. they see an economy in shambles and nobody willing to take responsibility. to put it bluntly, they're frustrated. i think we all hear that message when we go home. i think we can all agree that more can and needs to be done. the jobs report that came out last friday certainly reinforces that. when the president pushed through his massive stimulus package in 2009, he claimed unemployment would be below 6% today, with a national employment rate of 8.2%, we're

not even close to 6%, much less below it. and to make matters worse, we're moving further away from the mark. this is the 40th straight month where the unemployment rate has remained above 8%. 12.7 million americans are unemployed. millions more are underemployed. the economic picture is especially troubling for young americans looking to enter the workforce. america has the lowest employment to population ratio for young adults since 1948. millions of americans who are looking for work can't find it. this is unprecedented. it's unacceptable. and it's unsustainable. the president met the report with a call for another round of stimulus spending. look, we've tried that. it didn't work. more of the same will not work either. more government spending will not solve this problem, and paying for that spending by raising taxes on small business,

the people that we're koupbgts on to turn -- we're counting on to turn our economy around is counterintuitive. when the people you're counting on to spur the economy tell you that the country is going in the wrong direction, then we should listen. in almost every poll, small business owners have responded that the uncertainty coming out of washington is what is preventing them from hiring. quite simply, they fear what the next wave of regulations is going to be and the proposed taxes, what that will do to their ability to grow their business. small business owners are afraid to invest any capital because they don't know what their taxes will be, afraid to hire another employee because they are nervous about what that does to their health care cost. and afraid to expand until they know how big their energy bill is going to be. washington has to change course. my colleagues and i have a better path to a healthy economy

that restores economic security and opportunity. our market-based reforms are focused on creating a healthier environment for businesses to hire and to expand. we want to cut through regulations instead of adding more. we want to fix the tax code to incentivize hiring instead of passing the tab for more wasteful spending on to small business. we want to reduce their costs by encouraging producing domestic sources of energy instead of driving costs up by continuing our reliance on other countries for our needs. three years of trying to tax and spend our way out of this problem has not worked. the american people are rightfully frustrated. all we are saying is we tried the president's way, and it hasn't worked. let's try our market-based approach. but here's where we run into the old election-year problem. ever since the numbers were released, all the media has been

talking about is what the report means in terms of the presidential election. this in turn has washington digging in deeper to its respective trenches. that angle of the story misses the most important part. this is about more than numbers, more than a report, more than a political talking point. it's real people, all of whom are looking to washington for help. this past time we -- it's past time we started fighting for them instead of for our political futures. with that, mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. i'm sorry. i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. mr. heller: i rise today in support of equal pay for equal work. the importance of women in the workplace is clear to every

american. we all have women in the family who are part of the workforce. for two decades my mother worked hard in the school taf -- cafeteria. my wife a substitute teacher. my oldest daughter was fortunate to get a job after graduating from college a few years ago. my oldest daughter got a summer job in a local feed lot. 60% of my senate staff are female. america is a land of opportunity and americans are equally united against discrimination in any form. if my mother, my wife or my daughters experienced workplace discrimination based on their gender, i would be the first to come to their defense and ensure any inequities were addressed. congress passed the equal pay act in 1963 to ensure every individual received equal pay for equal work regardless of

gender. it is a strict liability statute that requires evidence of intent to discriminate. if there is evidence of intentional discrimination, appropriate remedies, including punitive and compensatory damages, are available under the civil rights act. let me be clear. pay skreuplgts based upon -- pay discrimination based upon gender is unacceptable. despite the political rhetoric around here, everyone agrees on this fact. the question is: will the paycheck fairness act actually address workplace inequality? and the simple answer is no. unfortunately, the only winners under this legislation would be trial lawyers, giving them a windfall, exposing employers to unemployed punitive damages. this legislation opens the door to frivolous lawsuits which already cost our economy billions of dollars every year.

legitimate cases that could be addressed under the current system would be lost in a flood of lawsuits initiate bid lawyers hoping to win a few large judgments. these lawsuits, if successful, could transfer billions of dollars from employers to trial lawyers. in an economy already marked by uncertainty, this legislation would surely mean lost jobs, limitations on benefits, and pay cuts. these changes would mean much harder times ahead for nevada's unemployed and underemployed so many of whom are women. instead of holding votes designed for press releases, let's resolve our nation's problems. congress can strengthen the equal pay act without handing

trial lawyers a blank check. the "wall street journal" today referred to this legislation as a trial lawyer doosey just in time for the 2012 election acts, and goes on to say the bill ought to be called the trial lawyers paycheck act, since it's a recipe for class action boons. the law automatically lists women as plaintiffs in class actions when lawyers sue employers, thereby requiring female employees to opt out of litigation with which they don't agree. businesses would be treated as guilty until they're shown to be innocent. you cannot be projobs and antibusiness. this is just another example of democrats' war on free enterprise while americans suffer with joblessness and underemployment. in fact, under this president there are 766,000 more women unemployed today than when he

took office. i truly wish today's discussion was about leveling the playing field, ensuring pay equality and improving the economy. but years' old legislation mired in politics won't get us any closer to either ending gender discrimination in the workplace or ensuring that all women who want to have a job. this proposal couldn't pass when democrats controlled both chambers of congress, yet here we are today voting on the same measure again and again, and those who are actually victims of workplace discrimination are only getting lip service from washington. like many of my colleagues, i worry about this proposal that will only increase litigation and do little to actually address the problems of pay inequality. advancements in pay parity have been made, but more needs to be done.

congress would better serve the hardworking women of our nation if we focused on solutions that have actually worked. to this end, i have introduced the end pay discrimination through information act. this legislation would protect employees who are trying to determine whether or not they're experiencing pay discrimination. no one in this body should be so naive to say pay discrimination has been arad qait indicated. what we need to do is ensure employees can find the information they need to determine whether or not they have a legitimate claim against their employer. the end pay discrimination through information act provides anti-retaliation and whistle-blower protection both sides should be able to agree upon. my legislation is an a solution within the existing framework of our legal system that does not provide a handout to trial lawyers as the underlying bill would do. my bill also recognizes the role

of women in america's work force, and the fact that an increasing number of u.s. households depend on the income of working women. my legislation states -- quote -- "that equal pay for equal work is a principle and practice that should be observed by all employers"-- unquote. every day working women are going above and beyond, balancing their responsibilities at home and work. to provide for their families. the least we can do is ensure that employers that intentionally -- intentionally discriminate on the basis of sex be held bill is combil for their wrongdoing. i believe my bill is a reasonable, bipartisan step in the right direction. instead of bringing up legislation that has failed in the past and will in the future, this congress needs to give our nation the economic certainty needed to create good-paying jobs so hard-working women across this country will be able to provide for their

families and achieve the career successes that they deserve. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. moran: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from canada. mr. --. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: establish health care to become more efficient and lowered overall health care costs. may was national cancer research month and i wanted to take a few moments today to recognize the importance of medical research and the invaluable contributions made by scientists, doctors, and researchers across the united states who are working not only to overcome cancer but many other devastate being diseases. with decades of research, cancer mortality rates have

steadily declined since 1990 and today more than 1 million americans are cancer survivors. in fact, the number of survivors has quadrupled since the mid 1970's and the five-year survival rate for all cancers has improved to more than 65%. decades of research and technological advances have brought us into a new era of medical care for cancer. we can sequence the genes of a tumor and use that information to determine the biological causes of cancer. this greater understanding of the causes of cancer led to answerrance have as no in prevention, early detention and treatment that have saved countless lives. despite the research over the past through decades much works remains to be done. more than 1.5 million americans are expected to be diagnosed this year with cancer. it is estimated one out of every three women and one out of two men will develop cancer in their

lifetime. in america, cancer is still the leading cause of death. but history indicates we can change their statistics not only for cancer patients but for many other patients as well. congress' long-standing, bipartisan support of the national institutes of health has been an integral part of establishing the united states has a world leader in research and innovation. n.i.h. is the focussal point. our medical research and plays a critical role in the laying of groundwork for the private sector to develop new drugs and treatments for cancer and other diseases. i have firsthand -- seen firsthand how medical research at n.i.h. is translated into new treatments with a visit to the n.i.h. kiln cal center in bethesda, maryland, the largest hospital devoted entirely to clinical research. it is uniquely designed to allow researchers work with a wide range of specialists to difference dlifer the best

possible care to patients with the most advanced treatments available. this powerful arrangement has led to a long list of revolutionary medical discoveries including the development of chemotherapy for cancer, the first tests to detect aids h.i.v. and the first treatment of aids. medical research leading to successful discoveries often takes years, requiring the institutional knowledge and intellect of new mexico lus -- numerous researchers. given the vast amount of progress over the last century and the great potential current research holds, we must not waiver on america's commitment to advancing disease cures and treatments. if researchers cannot rely on consistent support from congress, we will squander current progress and stunt america's global competitiveness in addition we will lose a younger generation of doctors and scientists and to alternative career paths. our nation's researchers and scientists must know that congress supports their work and

will ensure that they have the resources needed to carry out their important work. the next century holds great promise for future discoveries by investing in medical research we are investing in our future. in my home state of kansas the bioscience industry has grown at a rate higher than the national secretary for since 2001. it hopes the doors for new advancements. kansas has become the leader in biomedical and bioscience research. one example is the university of kansas cancer center in kansas city which has formally applied to the cancer institute to become bk an n.c.i. designated center. it's a exoan of the n.i.h. and a the principal agency for cancer research and training. obtaining n.c.i. designation would enhance their ability to discover and deliver inowe nature vaitive treatments to patients in our state staitd and

improve their quality of life. currently there are no n.c.i. center designated in kansas and with that, k.u. cancer patients would have access to the latest clinical trials and the most advanced cancer 2r50e789s close to home. because n.c.i. is the highest recognition for an academic cancer center, k.u. cancer center would be in a better position to recruit the best and brightest researchers and scientists to develop cutting ej treatments -- edge treatments and cures. in addition to saving and improving lives, research creates thousands of jobs and drives economic growth across the country. n.i.h. directly supports 350,000 jobs nationwide and indirectly more than six million jobs roos 0 -- across our country. medical research lowers costs by advancing treatment to chronic, debilitating diseases and improving early detection and wellness promotion. during a subcommittee here last year i asked the n.i.h. director

francis collins to explain how research at n.i.h. could reduce health care speak. in response dr. collins pointed to the potential impact of medical research on alzheimer's. today, annual costs related to alzheimer's disease is roughly $180 billion and those numbers are expected to rise roughly a trillion dollars by 2050. however, medical research leading to treatment that delay the onset of alzheimer's disease could not only bring a better quality of life to thousands of families but also save billions of dollars. medical research has changed the lives of millions of americans and has the potential to impact millions more because the possibilities are endless. but in order to plan for the future, scientists and researchers increased certainty. today congress faces the difficult task of identifying our government's funding priorities while at the same time righting our nation's fiscal course.

i will continue to advocate for fiscal responsibilities and also prioritize programs that effectively serve the american people. our consistent, sustained support of medical research is essential to saving and improving lives, growing our economy, and maintaining america's role as a global leader in medical innovation. this commitment will benefit our children and our country for generations to come, and most importantly, it will give us what we all desire -- hope. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and, mr. president, i notice the lack of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i ask the call of the quorum be vacated for a unanimous consent request. the presiding officer: without objection.

ms. mikulski: mr. president, i ask three unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they the they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent these requests be agreed to and printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum and that the time be charged to the -- to the minority. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: parliamentary -- i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be vacated.

the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: how much time does the minority have left in their time? the presiding officer: 50 seconds. ms. mikulski: thank you. i yield the floor.

ms. mikulski: mr. president, i now yield five minutes to the gentleman from delaware, senator coons. we, the women of the senate, welcome those men who stand with us on this very, very important battle. senator coons has been an outstanding advocate on this and

other economic empowerment issues related to women and safety in the workplace and sexual harassment. the senator has 5 minutes. coons -- mr. coons:i rise in strong support of the paycheck fairness act, legislation to ensure women have equal pay for equal work. i'm grateful to senator mikulski and many of the cosponsors for her strong and able leadership of this important bill s. 3220 which we will take up later this afternoon. the principle for equal pay, equal work is a simple and power economic principle. in 2012 no one should earn less for doing the same job just because of their gender. this legislation is an important step forward. it would plug holes and make critical changes in the law that would ensure the promise of equal pay that was first enshrined in our law decades

ago. this legislation would deter wage discrimination by closing loopholes in the equal pay act and barring retaliation against workers who disclose their wages to colleagues. knowledge is power, mr. president, and women who don't know their male coworkers are earning more for doing the same job can't speak up and demand to be treated fairly. my wife, annie, and i are raising three wonderful children, awful whom are equally bright and driven and capable. and as any parent knows, one of the things you hear more than any other from your own children is "that's not fair." when you pick out one for more entertainment or more opportunity, for more travel or more close family time, the first thing you hear from their sibling, "but dad, that's just not fair." as annie and i raise our wonderful twin boys and our tremendous and talented daughter, we try as best we can to be fair. yet, i know that my daughter maggie, like other women and

girls all across our country, will earn less than her brothers even if she chooses the exact same career track. and, mr. president, that's just not fair. that is unacceptable. that violates our bedrock belief as a country in equality and opportunity. an american dream that if you work hard nothing will stand in the way of your success. i am hopeful that by the time my daughter maggie enters the workforce, we will have reduced or ended the gender pay gap in this country. i believe by then our nation's economy will be back to full strength. but the fact is thousands of families across my home state of delaware, your state of west virginia, my neighboring state of maryland can't afford to wait for things to get better in the economy and in our legal system. they're struggling right now to pay their bills every month, and unfair pay discrimination adds

to their burden. women in delaware on average earn 81 cents for every dollar paid to men. over their lifetime it means they'll earn nearly half a million dollars, $466,000 less than their male counterparts. women make up just less than half of delaware's workforce. when women are paid less than men for doing exactly the same job, it hurts whole families. over 135,000 children in delaware live in households that depend on their mother' earnings. i recently heard from one of those mothers. she wrote to my mother urging me to support the pay which can fairness act. she wrote -- quote -- "without my paycheck we could not have afforded to pay for college tuition for two of our children. if i had been paid equally for equal work experience in education, it is likely neither of them would have had to take out student loans in order to close the gap and make ends

meet." she urged me to support the paycheck fairness act. so, mr. president, paycheck fairness has wide-ranging consequences from covering the cost of higher education to mortgage payments to everyday bills and consumer spending, income earned by women is a key driver, a key contributor to our economy. some have attributed even on this floor the pay gap to differing priorities or to the idea that some women choose to work fewer hours in order to spend more time with their families in order to meet their family-care commitments. but the facts do not bear out this theory. women earn less starting the very moment they graduate from school, before they have made any choices about family or work life balances. that shows us that pay discrimination is real. study after study has shown it is pervasive. and in my view and that of many of my colleagues, it needs to finally be stopped. the gender pay gap persists across all occupations and educational levels, but it is

especially hard on minorities and female-headed households which are much more likely as a consequence to be low-income. the consequences of the gender pay gap remain even when a woman stops working. because after a lifetime of lower earnings, the average social security benefit for american women under 65 is about $12,000 compared to $16,000 for men of the same age. if i might say in conclusion, there is not a member of this body who would dispute women are just as educated, just as trained, just as capable as their male colleagues in so many ways across our whole society. there should be then no difference in the equality of the pay that they receive for that work. i support the paycheck fairness act because it will help women fight for the equal pay they've earned. and i urge my colleagues to do the same. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. thank you.

the presiding officer: who yields time? ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i will -- wish to yield time to the gentlelady from north carolina, senator hagan. i wish to yield her five minutes. senator hagan is a freshman senator, but she's certainly not new to this issue both in north carolina's legislative body and here in the senate, her work has always been for the economic empowerment of women, especially those women who stand up every day, do those jobs that require standing on your feet, and where at the end of the day they've earned less pay, will get less

pension. as she stands up for them -- as they stand up for work, she'll stand up for them on the senate floor. senator hagan, 5 minutes. mrs. hagan: thank you. mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mrs. hagan: i certainly want to congratulate senator mikulski for all the hard work she's done not only on this bill, but all the bills that she has worked so hard on behalf of women in our country. and i applaud her for her efforts. but i do join with my colleagues today to discuss an issue that affects women and families across america every day. it is the wage gap. almost 50 years have passed since the equal pay act was signed into law, and the wage gap between men and women remains wide today. it's time to bring the wages of women in line with those of their male counterparts. i'm proud to be an original cosponsor of the paycheck fairness act. yet, some question why we need this bill.

well, the numbers make it pretty clear. women in the united states earn 77 cents for every dollar that men earn. in north carolina, it's a little better but not equal. women earn 81 corresponds for every dollar -- earn 81 cents for every dollar earned by men doing the same work, the same job. over the course of one year, women in north carolina experienced nearly $8,000 lost in wages. that's $8,000 from what her male counterparts earned. for that $8,000, a woman could spend for her family an extra $110 a week for 73 weeks for groceries. she could buy another 2,200 gallons of gas at $3.60 a gallon. if women were paid the same as men for the same work, these are just a few of the expenses that they would be able to afford more easily. the wage gap is not isolated in

one industry either. it exists across virtually every sector of our economy. the wage gap exists regardless of education level, even in many cases the most educated women are paid less for the same work. and it exists regardless of a woman's personal choices, such as becoming a mother. working mothers should not pay a penalty for having children. moms rising in north carolina -- it is a group in north carolina -- told me that in the last few months they have heard from women across the state, from wilmington, from durham and raleigh -- that once these women got overlooked, they got overlooked for pay raises and projects that they wanted to work on. this collective group of women are afraid to speak out about their wage discrimination

because they are border about -y are worried about getting fired from the job they need. yesterday he met with women and small business owners in charlotte to discuss the act. my visit with those fantastic women reinforced for me the importance of this bill, the paycheck fairness act. one woman brought her young son with her to the event and they both wore t-shirts. the mom's shirt said 94. the son's shirt said 50. if earnings continue at the slow pace that they are going now, those numbers signify the ages that that mom and that son will be when pay equality is achieved in our country. sadly, at the rate we're going, moves us in the senate will not live to see that day. and this wage gap has real consequences, not just for women but for their children, too. in north carolina alone, women had over 5 -- women head over

500,000 households. women's economic security is put at risk when they are paid less than men for performing the same job. later today i will be voting to help bring the wages of women in line with those of their male counterparts, and i'm hopeful that the petty, partisan gamesmanship does not get in the waif a bipartisan issue that both democrats and republicans, men and women, overwhelmingly support. in a recent poll, 81% of men supported having a how to provide women more tools to get fair pay in the workplace. this poll also showed support for such a law from 77% of republicans and 87% of independents, and 91% of democrats. so with such widespread approval, we should be able to address this issue the right wra--the right way.

we need paycheck fairness to prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who discuss salary information with their coworkers. we need paycheck fairness to strengthen the legal remedies available for women to ensure that they can be compensated for pay discrimination. and we need paycheck fairness to provide businesses, especially small ones, assistance with equal pay practices. on the eve of the anniversary of the equal pay act, we need to close the loopholes that allow pay discrimination to happen. the paycheck fairness act would do just that by helping women successfully fight for equal pay. if i can have 30 seconds? ms. mikulski: i yield the gentlelady an additional two minutes. mrs. hagan: thank you. mr. president -- the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. hagan: equal pay for

equal work is just basic common sense. i hope that this body can come together to address this disparity that exists in north carolina and around our country. senator mikulski, thank you again for the work that you are doing on behalf of this very, very important bill that is truly going to make a difference in the lives of women throughout our country as well as their families. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, this is the time allocated for both republicans and democrats to speak, and we invite our republican colleagues to come and even within the republican party we know there are those who agree with us and those who don't. for those who agree, we'd love to hear their voices. and for those who don't, well, let's have a debate. let's take a look at what are some of the issues being raised

in -- as a criticism of the bill. we're ready to talk about it. i have heard some of the most outrageous things on cable tv about why we shouldn't pass this bill. one was accusing us that this will undermine small business, and what i would like to be able to say is that small business has protections under the equal pay act. under the existing law, which this would not change, the -- already -- the equal pay act already exempts small business that makes less than $500,000 n annual revenue per year. so it keeps the equal pay act exemption intact. we also have the support of the

women's business chamber of commerce. this is the chamber of commerce created where -- of small business owners, and they support this bill. so we don't believe that that's a valid argument. now, there's this other argument going around that for some reason that if we pass the equal pay -- if we pass the paycheck fairness act, that somehow or another we are going to lower the wages of what men make. mr. president, that is absolutely one of the most ridiculous rhetorical twist-and-turn arguments. it is not factual, and it's not legal. it is illegal now to remedy wage discrimination by reducing wages of other employees. it is -- i'll quote.

"it is illegal" under the other labor protection laws -- and i don't mean labor like in union; i mean labor like in workers. "it is illegal to remedy wage discrimination by reducing wages of other employees." now, the paycheck fairness act doesn't alter any other affirmative defense available to employers. employers may still pay different wages to male or female employees, if it's based on seniority or quantity of production -- you know, like if you make more hub caps if you are a guy on an assembly line than women, fine. but we find that's no longer true in the information age economy. equal pay, i just want to say, is not only a woman's issue, it is a family issue. and for men in the workplace, sometimes for we women, we find

out that we're discriminated against by great guys at the water cooler who tell us where it is. now, what we need to know -- or what the people need to know is that right now it is illegal to fire someone if they make an inquiry about how much the theye making and how much their male counterpart make. it is illegal or they can be subject to all kind of harassment or humiliation. you ought to hear some of the horror stories we hear from women just because they wanted to know, george, howmp how muce making. so we thank the good men who have supported us. they have often been office whistle-blowers where they've told us how much they were working. so we worked as hard to get the education to do the job, we worked as hard on the job, but we continue to have to work hard

to get equal pay for equal work. so i want to make clear once again that this legislation will not result in a pay cut for men. there's also, i think, a reallloy bonafide question -- a really bonafide question, which is why are we doing paycheck fairness? didn't we solve these issues in lilly ledbetter? well, paycheck fairness was a down payment, a down payment on this, because it kept the courthouse door open. paycheck fairness makes it harder to discriminate in the first place. right now, as i said, employers have the ability to retaliate against workers who share salary information. ledbetter did not address this issue. paycheck fairness does.

women can now, under paycheck fairness, would be able to sue for punitive damages. lilly ledbetter did not address this. this would deal with that. there are a variety of things that i can elaborate on be, but i note that one of the real champions for justice, civil rights, and the empowerment -- especially the economic empowerment -- of women is my colleague from michigan, senator stabenow. i now yield senator stabenow seven minutes and thank her for her long-standing advocacy and the way she's raised her voice for hos those who don't often ha voice in positions of high power. ms. stabenow: mr. president, first let me say thank you to the champion. we have just been hearing from the champion not only in the

united states senate but in the congress on so many issues that relate to empowerment for women and equality for all people to have a chance to succeed in our economy, and certainly whether it's preventive health for women or if it's paycheck fairness act, i want to thank senator mikulski for leading the way and being the person that we look to, and i'm proud to stand with senator mikulski today on the floor of the united states national. -- of the united states senate. you know, mr. president, since our founding, ow country has been a -- our country has been a destination for those who seek equal treatment. across the world, america is known as the land of opportunity. i'm very proud that we have that label. our hard work and ingenuity built the country brick by brick, city by city, and i my he state of michigan was right in the middle of it building the tools, the vehicles that built our country and that fangly

built the middle -- and that frankly built the middle class of our country. those loorkin looking for new opportunity, those withen entrepreneurial spirit have always been have always been welcome in america. we tell the world that everyone has equal opportunity, bu if you put in just as much work as your neighbor, you'll earn a decent living and be able to provide for your feas family. but that's only half-true. everyone can work hard and be successful but for some reason it is acceptable that women doongts need t-- thatwomen do ns much as men for the exact same work. that's unacceptable. nationally, women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes for the exact same job. and in michigan, the numbers are

even worse. women make 74 cents on every dollar for the exact same job. and i've received countless letters from constituents describing how this affects their lives and their families' lives. teresa from detroit is a single mom with two daughters. one daughter is in college. teresa tries to help her out as much as she can but she gets paid less than her male coworkers for doing the same work. pamela from romulus, michigan, supports her husband, a disabled vietnam veteran. she took history of a man's job -- she took over a man's job at her company but then the company changed the title so they could pay her less. then a man wrote me.

he lost his job in 2008 because of the recession. his wife had to support their entire family of four. the family had to go on food assistance, something they never thought in their wildest dreams they would have to do, because craig's wife has been working at the same company for 23 years but hasn't gotten a raise in the last four years and makes several dollars an hour less than her male counterparts. melissa from ann arbor is the sole breadwinner in her family of four. if she were paid the same as her male colleagues, she would took home an extra $1,000 a month after taxes. that would make their family more stable, it would let melissa and her children take he children on trips, give them the opportunity to be enrolled in supports and save for college.

sheryl from okemos had to make a second job -- had to take a second job to make as much as her male counterparts in her day job. she's got a second job just so sheik make as much as her colleagues that work one job. she's got two jobs. so now the trade-off for her is as a mom spending less time with her family. she's able to feed and clothe her children, she says, but she says she is missing out on watching them grow up, also a very important value we talk about all the time on the floor of the senate in terms of values for families. linda from south line wrote about her lifetime of being discriminated against because she is a woman. over her career she has consistently made less than men in the same industry with the same job description. one executive even told her he only hires women because they work harder and he can pay them less. they work harder but he should

not be able to pay them less. sandra from marshall has worked as an engineer at the same company for 28 years. she's been rated as one of the company's best performers. despite this, she has never risn to the level while she earns bonuses or better pension, a level in her company that is dominated by men. she has countless people she has hired and she has trained and se has watched them pass her by. these stories are real. jennifer from the west side of michigan was a university teachr and an athletic coach. she was the head coach of a varsity women's team and taught six classes. she saw men in the same position make more money while she taught fewer classes and saw them receive tenure with master's degrees while she was required o work towards a ph.d. to be eligible for the same tenure. she was denied tenure despite good performance evaluations, yt

a male assistant coach at the university was given tenure without a ph.d. because he had a family. these are real stories. this is about families, economic opportunities, security for families. mr. president, america is known as the land of opportunity and people still make the journey to our great country in search of a better life. everyone has an equal chance to work hard and everyone can be successful. but not everyone gets the same opportunity to be successful. women in michigan make 74 cents for every dollar a man earns for the exact same job. there are so many families in michigan struggling right now. things shouldn't be harder on them just because their primary breadwinners are women. it's just not right.

middle-class families need the economic security. that's why we need the paycheck fairness act. we've made strides moving forward, but right now this isn't, mr. president, complicated, it's not rocket science. it's very simple. equal pay for equal work. we talk the talk all the time. it's time to walk the walk and o pass this bill. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i yield to the gentleman from illinois five minutes and thank him for his just persistent advocacy on this issue. i know you were one of the peope a part of leadership who said we've got to control address ths as we approach the 49th anniversary of the -- of the equal pay act. we thank you for your work and e thank you for your voice today. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: thank you, mr. president. and let me just say to those who are following this debate, if yu go to the dictionary and look up

the word "persistent," you will find a picture of senator barbaa mikulski of maryland. she has been our leader on so many important issues. the very first bill signed by president barack obama -- and se remembers the day, as i do. we were standing there when he signed the lilly ledbetter law which protected the principle of equal pay for equal work by allowing workers to pursue pay discrimination cases beyond the arbitrary, unreasonable window that had been set up by the supreme court. and when president obama signed that first bill, his first bill as president of the united states, he handed the first pen of that signing to senator barbara mikulski. it was entirely appropriate. no one has dedicated more of her professional and public life to this cause of justice than senator mikulski. it's been nearly 50 years after the passage of the equal pay act and we have to ask ourselves, well, how are things going in

america when it comes to equal pay? it turns out that when it comes to the managerial positions, women and men, women make 81 cents for every dollar paid to a man when they're managers in a business. according to the u.s. census bureau, the gap grows even larger, 77 cents, for your daughter as opposed to a dollar for your son when you look at te entire working population. as a father of a daughter and a son, that is unfair. according to the joint economic committee, women in my state of illinois on average person 78 cents for every dollar paid to a man. what does that add to over a lifetime? over $480,000 in wages that are denied to women for doing exacty the same work as a man. money that can be used to pay te mortgage, to buy the groceries, to put kids through school and maybe even fill the gas tank, denied to women day after day, week after week, month after month because of basic discrimination in the workplace.

we can't ignore this gender wage gap. it's just too large and, unfortunately, shrinking too slowly. the paycheck fairness act, we'll have a vote -- we'll have a chance to vote on, would narrow that pay gap by clarifying that gender difference, the differene between a man or a woman, is not an adequate reason to differentiate pay. it also guarantees that women facing discrimination have acces to the same remedies. unde remedies -- same remedies under the law as men. and under the law, as are afforded to racial and ethnic groups facing discrimination. but i'm afraid to say -- and i hope i'm wrong -- that this afternoon about 2:30, when the roll call is taken, it will be a partisan roll call. there will be democrats in favor of ending this discrimination ad virtually all republicans. and i hope that i'm wrong about this, are going to vote against it. instead, the republicans want to bring a different bill to the floor. i'm not going to dwell on it other than to say that i like senator rubio, he's a friend of

mine from florida, but his bill is a very bad idea. it is called "the raise act," ad just simply stated, it innocenty says an employer who is party to a collective bargaining agreemet with a union would be allowed to give a unilateral pay raise to selected employees of that employer's choice. well, who's against a pay raise? until you take a closer look at it and what it allows the managers and employers to do is to pick and choose among employees for these pay raises and, sadly, without any basis other than their personal decision. i'm afraid i know where that leads. it leads, unfortunately, to the same kind of wage discrimination we see today between men and women. may lead to nepotism. it may lead to kind of favorable treatment for some employees for reasons that might have nothing to do with the workplace. this sounds so innocent but it's not. under current law, unions and employers can agree to link pay

increases and bonuses to performance and that's the way t should be. in fact, many collective bargaining agreements already provide for merit-based pay increases. the rubio approach is not good news for workers across america. it is no help when it comes to women across america facing wage discrimination. this isn't the first time or the only time that we've had these battles on gender equity on the floor of the senate, on a question of whether or not we're going to have basic funding for health care for women across america, title 10. for over 40 years, we've been committed to that and yet we fae the elimination of title 10 funding from the republican leadership. in the past, in fact, they threatened to shut down the government rather than provide this health care that women ne need. i also think that many can remember on the floor here when senator blunt of missouri just a few weeks back filed an amendmet to the transportation bill -- te transportation bil bill -- allowing any employer or insurance company to deny health

insurance for any essential or preventive health care service that the employer objected to because of his undefined religious or moral convictions. for any reason, to deny health coverage to an employee. well, we defeated that amendmen, the blunt amendment of missouri. it was another attempt to try to give to employers a way to discriminate against employees and, in many cases, against the women who work for them. we have tried our very best to push through bipartisan legislation which in the past hs passed overwhelmingly by a voice vote. the violence against women act. have you visited a domestic violence shelter? have you seen a woman who's been a victim of dises i can violence? i have, sitting across the table from me, there she was, with a baby on her lap and a big black eye. she had been punched in the eye by her husband and she came to the shelter looking for a helpig hands. you can't look into the face, te

teary-eyed face that have mothe, and think that this is not a god cause and a just cause. and it turned out to be a political battle here as to whether or not we were going to pass the violence against women act. we did and i'm glad we did. stalled over in the house of representatives because they republican to move that forward so we can provide this kind of protection. time and time again, the basic legislation to protect women, families and children used to be done on a bipartisan basis, used to be done unanimously, with supporters from both sides of te aisle, turned into partisan political bickering. let's hope that when it comes to this bill, this question of fairness in the paychecks of women and men across america, that maybe i'll just be flat-out wrong. maybe at 2:30, we're going to se a return to that thrilling era n the senate history when democras and republicans stood together for fairness and justice. we'll give our colleagues a chance at 2:30. i thank senator mikulski for bringing this important and historic matter to the floor.

mr. president, i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: