quorum call:

ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i ask that the call of the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i now yield five minutes to the gentlelady from louisiana, senator landrieu, who has been -- who chairs the small business committee and really knows the impact, the economic issues related to the empowerment of women, has worked on a bipartisan basis and also i

think will -- hopefully will comment on how this bill will have no negative impact on small business. i yield the floor to the senator from louisiana. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. ms. landrieu: thank you, mr. president. let me begin by acknowledging the leadership of the senator from maryland and the other senators that have come to the floor this morning to speak on behalf of -- of a bill whose time has come, and some might say a bill whose time has passed. it's been almost 50 years since the original gender equity in the workplace bill was passed, and this has not been modernized in over five decades. so in large measure, this is really a bill whose time has come, and we hope to make that law happen in the next few weeks. with support from both democrats

and republicans, with putting common sense and heart and compassion and good business sense, might i say, before political talking points, this in fact could be done. the reason that this bill is so important is because 50 years ago, women were not major breadwinners in families, mr. president. as you know, there was a tremendous hiring discrimination against women and minorities. happily, that seems to be passing and fading. there are women now at the highest ranks of corporate america. we have had women serving in the highest positions here in washington, d.c., and around our country, while there still is a gap that can be recognized both in the private and the public sector, the ability for women with the right credentials and the right background to get hired is -- is easier today and

is happening more than ever before. the problem is that when you look at the wage gap, unfortunately it still persists, and with women now in many instances being the major breadwinners and their families, this is really a family issue. it's paying some families much less than others based on the fact that there is a woman as the breadwinner instead of the man. and that is hurting families throughout america, and it is not fair and it should not be tolerated, and that's why this bill introduced by senator mikulski and cosponsored by many of us is important. now, wage discrimination is against the law. it has been for 50 years, but the consequences and the actions that individuals can take if they feel like they are being

discriminated against are ineffective and not where they need to be, so this law updates the equal pay act that was passed in 1963 to basically put the final nail in the coffin of wage discrimination. now, in 1967, women only earned 58 cents to every dollar that a man earned in an equal and an act position. that was grossly unfair, but it is still, mr. president, unfair today that women in the same job are still making only 77 cents for every dollar. it is not right and it must be corrected. we can correct it by passing this law which gives people who believe that they are being discriminated against better access to the court. and might i say, it also gives

businesses that are potentially the ones being sued, even small companies or large companies, gives them more protections in this bill than other businesses have in similar discrimination cases. in other words, affirmative lust lawsuits will not be allowed, and if your case is not strong, there is a screen that is tighter in this bill than in other pieces of legislation. so i realize there is some opposition from the business community that contends that this bill will simply usher in more controversy or more courtroom time. but the fact of the matter is, mr. president, that is exactly the way our system is created. congress passes laws and enforces equal pay for equal work. if people feel like they are not being treated fairly under the law, they are supposed to try to

modify that behavior out of court, and if they can't, then we ask them, we, in fact, want them to go to court to try to get it settled. that is the american system. now, we don't want people to overuse courts or to abuse courts, but we most certainly want people that feel like they are not being treated fairly underunder the law to have access to a court system. might i say, despite the fact that our court system is regularly criticized, i would much prefer it to show up in a court here than in iraq or in egypt or in afghanistan or even in some places in europe or most certainly some countries in africa. america has a very transparent, fairly sophisticated and modern judiciary system, and it really is a model for the world. now, sometimes i do think we overlitigate in some areas, but where are these women supposed to go, mr. president? what are they supposed to do?

have an appointment with their congressman? show the congressman their paychecks? no, congressmen don't do that. judges do. and when they get their day in court, they can show their pay stubs, they can then demonstrate that they have been doing the same job as the man next door, but they have been paying -- getting paid 77 cents on the dollar. that's why this bill is important. i don't know for the life of me why the chamber of commerce is opposed. i think that there are a lot of women in the chamber of commerce, as business owners and as women who used to work for other businesses before they owned their own. i hope that they could stand up and speak for women everywhere, that when a woman shows up for work early in the morning and works until late at night, they deserve to be paid the same as a man doing that exact job. according to the moron bar association, the -- scorin-- --according to the american bar

association, it wage discrimination remains persistent. widespread and pernicious. the presiding officer: the senator has used -- ms. landrieu: i'd like 30 more seconds if i can. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. landrieu: wage discrimination based on gender is particularly problematic in my state, according to the joint economic committee report. women in louisiana don't earn 7 cents. they earn 69 cents for every dollar paid to men, which is significantly less than the national average. at the same time, women make up almost half, 48% of louisiana's workforce, and 24% of married employed mothers in louisiana rough their families' primary wage earners. this bill is the next step. it is the right step. it is the commonsense step to fight against wage discrimination, and i am proud to join my colleague from baltimore, from the state of

maryland in championing this particular bill. so again i thank the gentlelady from maryland and i look forward to working with her and my colleagues to try to get this bill to the president's desk in the next few weeks. this is an economic development issue, as the senator from maryland knows, and i yield the floor. ms. mikulski: before the gentlelady leaves, first of all, we thank her for her statement, and i wonder if she would yield for a question. the gentlelady chairs the committee on small businesses and has been steadfast and worked with the ranking member, senator olympia snowe. much has been said on cable tv about how this is going to smash and decimate small business. would -- is that true? you know, i come from a small business family. my father earn ad own add smally story. but cashiers are cashiers, male

or female. ms. landrieu: absolutely. that is why i stressed, madam president -- the senator from maryland, in this bill, which you have so ably sponsored and written be, the screen to get into court is tighter than in other wage discrimination laws on the books, and that is for the protection of all businesses, small and large, so that they're not clobbered with frivolous lawsuits. but, madam president, as you know -- mada mr. president, as u know, many, many women are employed in small businesses. i mean, between zero and five imloas or between zero and ten. they need to be protected in the workplace and hopefully we've create add balance between the owners of the business and their employees, whether they're union or not. ms. mikulski: i thank the gentlelady for her comments and

clchtion. -- and clarification. i now yield three minutes to the senator from connecticut, senator bloomen thalg, a newcomer, but certainly been -- whose experience both in connecticut as an attorney general, brings excellent insight to this a understand we welcome his remarks. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. first let me join so many of my colleagues in thank the senator from maryland for being such a steadfast and strong champion and a model for me as a newcomer of leadership in the united states senate and to all the women who have spoken today, the women of the senate who are on this issue and so o on other issues our conscience in this body. they are cutting through the unfounded, indeed counterfactual

arguments made against this measure, which is simply a commonsense fulfillment of the american precept that people who work equally hard and equally well should be paid equally. the question before this body is, are women worth less than men? and the answer today and every day should be "no." they are worth every bit as much as men when they work as hard and well, and they should be entitled to equal pay for equal work. and yet in too many jobs in connecticut and around the country, women continue to earn substantially less than men. in connecticut, the number is 78 cents on the dollar, and that fact is unacceptable. this issue goes beyond the women who are affected individually. it is about their families.

because, on average, mothers in connecticut contribute 40% of their family's earnings. closing the pay gap for women would strengthen the finances of families around connecticut and across the country. this issue is about more than just women and families. it is about children. the burden of wage discrimination weighs heavily on the 549,000 connecticut children in households dependent on the money earned by their moms. the victims of this gender pay gap are the children of families whose mothers are discriminated against. and this issue is about the economy. those women who are denied equal pay have less to spend. this issue means 109 more weeks of food for the average

connecticut family, seven more months of mortgage payments, 3,000 additional gallons of gasoline bought by families that are victims of this discrimination. i urge my colleagues to be on the right side of history. as martin luther king jr. said, the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. let us do justice today in this measure and pass this paycheck fairness be act on this day. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, i now yield the floor to senator harkin, the chairman of the health, education committee which is where this bill originated and we thank him again for all of his hard work on this issue and others related to ending wage discrimination and standing up for women.

i yield the floor the chairman of the committee such time as he requires. the presiding officer: the senator from i would with a. -- the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: thank you, mr. president, and i want to thank the chairman of the committee for so much. she sha' has focused laser-like attention on this issue for so long smed i would hope that we could get to the bill and debate the bill and have amendments on the bill, but i am afraid that our republican colleagues are not going to let us do that. i ask unanimous consent that sean robinson and shannon smith of my staff be granted floor privileges. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i want to applaud the senior nor from maryland for introducing and fighting so hard for so long for the paycheck fairness act. again just to repeat what has been said here before, but i think needs to be repeated time and time again, in 1963 congress

responded to wage disparities between men and women passing the equal pay act. at that time, 29 million female workers earned just 60% of the average pay for men. so now nearly half a century after the passage of that landmark law, we have made some progress towards eliminating this gross inequality. but it's not enough. there should be no gap. but today a wage gap continues to exist within every segment of our economy, at all education levels and in all occupations. so for every dollar that a man earns now, a woman earns just 77 cents. well, that's better than 60 cents, as it was in 1963. but you'd think a half a century later we'd at least be equivalent. but now it's still just 77 cents. women's lower wages add up

tremendously over a career. over the course of a 40-year career, women on average earn nearly $400,000 less than men. and women are with a college degree or more face a career wage gap of more than $700,000 over a lifetime of work when compared with men with the same education. the congresses of the gender -- the consequences of the gender pay gap are enor murks impacting not just women but families as well. in today's economy, women represent half of all workers and earn an increasing share of family income. two-thirds of mothers are major contributors to family income. in today's economy, when a mother earns less than her male colleagues, it is her family, her family, that often must sacrifice even the basic necessities, such as purchasing needed pharmaceuticals, putting healthy food on the table. in many cases women have to work

more hours attorney the same paycheck as men, reducing time spent this their families. while many factors influence a workers' earnings including occupation and education, work experience, there is overwhelming evidence that actual gender discrimination accounts for much of the disparity between men and women's pay. but unfortunately our laws have not done enough to prevent this discrimination. so while i am pleased that the first piece of legislation president obama signed into law was the lilly ledbetter fair pay act, again, that was only a first step. we need to do much more. too many women are still not getting paid equally for doing the exact same job as men. now, this is illegal, but it happens every day. there are just too many loopholes in our existing laws and too many barriers to effective enforcement.

that's why we need to pass the paycheck fairness act. i thank senator mikulski for her leadership in advancing this bill. in 2010, we had a hearing on this in our committee, and i was hopeful that it would pass in the last congress, but, as has happened too often in recent years, senate republicans filibustered the bill. so, understand this, 58 united states senators -- 58 -- now, that's more than just a small majority, that's a big majority -- voted to support this legislation, but because of republican obstructionism and filibusters, we couldn't even proceed to debate the bill. because we had to have 60. but we had 58 senators supporting the bill. well, that was two years ago.

two years later republican obstructionism continues. i want the american people to understand this. republicans, the minority party, are preventing this united states senate from even considering the issue of unequal wages and gender discrimination. let me repeat ... republicans are not just preventing this important legislation from receiving an up-or-down vote, they are preventing the united states senate -- supposedly the world's greatest deliberative body -- from even debating and considering the bill. millions of women and their families are concerned about the fact that they get paid less than their male colleagues. nevertheless, republicans will not even allow a debate on the issue in this body, debate and amendment on the bill. as an aside, i might say, mr. president, another reason of why we need filibuster reform. this country cannot go on like

this. this country cannot go on with gradgridlock, as we have had itn the united states senate. we need to reform rand do away with -- we need to reform and do away with the filibuster as it now being used. we need to do away with it when the senate reconvenes after the election next january. strengthening our existing laws by passing the paycheck fairness act is the next step towards wage equality but can't be the last one. we must also tackle the more subtle discrimination that occurs when we systematically undervalue the work traditionally done by women. i repeat, when we undervalue the work traditionally done by women. the fact is, millions of female-dominated jobs, jobs that are equivalent in skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions, to similar jobs dominated by men, pay

significantly less than the male-dominated jobs. this is hard to fathom and impossible to justify. let me point out a couple of things. why is a housekeeper worth less than a janitor? 89% of maids are female. 67% of janitors are male. while the jobs are equivalent, the median weekly earnings for a maid is $380, for a janitor it is $463. truck drivers, a job has 95% male, has a median weekly earnings of $686. in contrast, a child-care worker, a job that is 95% fema female -- okay, we got that? truck drivers are 95% male. they get $686 a week, median. child-care worker, 95% female,

has a median weekly earnings of $400. why do we value someone who moves products more than we value swun someone who looks afr the safety and well-being of our children? i am not saying that truck drivers are overpaid. it is jobs that we consider women's work -- "women's work" is yon paid. when you connect these things up, traditional jobs that we think of traditionally as being women's jobs are totally undervalued in our society. that's why in every session of congress since 1996, i have introduced the fair pay act along with congresswoman eleanor holmes norton which would require employers to pay equal pie for equivalent gorks equal pay

-- equivalent jobs. equal pay for equivalent jobs. this bill will require equal pay for jobs that are the same in skill and work conditions. now, you might say, well, that sounds way out. how can we do that? well, in 1982, the state of minnesota implemented a pay equity plan for its state employees. they found that women were segregated into historically female-dominated jobs, that thee jobs paid 20% less than mail-dominated jobs. so the state of minnesota instituted this law, pay equity wage adjustments were phased in over four years, leading to an average pay increase of $200 per month for women in female-dominated jobs. the wage gap closed by approximately 9%. now, again, my own state of io iowa, in 1984, republican governor, republican legislature passed similar legislation in te state of iowa.

pay equity for equivalent jobs. equivalent jobs. so this is not unheard of in ths country. it's unheard of for us to do it at the federal level, covering everybody. but some states have already taken the lead. as i said, minnesota in 1982 and iowa in 1984. this bill would require employes to publicly disclose their job categories and pay scales, not individual employee pay, but wht are their categories and what ae the pay scales. that way a woman would know whether or not she needed to negotiate a better deal. right now, women who believe tht they're the victim of pay discrimination must file a lawsuit and endure a drawn-out legal discovery process to find out whether they make less than the man working beside them. well, with pay statistics readiy available for categories and pay scales, this whole process could

be avoided. i asked lilly ledbetter at a hearing once, i said, if the far pay act -- the one i'm just talking about now -- had been law, would it had obviated her wage discrimination case. she said that with the information about pay scales tht this bill provides, she would have known that she was a victim of discrimination and could have addressed the problem much soonr , before it caused a lifelong drop in her earnings and before she had to go all the way to the supreme court to try to make things right. so, mr. president, if republicas allowed us to proceed to the bill, i would offer the fair pay act as an amendment, yet i emphasize agai again, because of the republican obstructionism, e can't even debate or amend the bill. can't even bring it up and amend the bill here. finally, mr. president, i want o

commend on the raise act my republican colleagues would have us believe that we can solve the pay gap by allowing employers to give merit-based pay increases above levels negotiated in a collective bargaining agreement this is nonsense. the raise act has nothing to do with women's pay. rather than seriously discussing jnders discrimination, republicans have -- gender discrimination, republicans have tried to change the subject by resorting yet again another organized attack n labor unions. in fact, not only does the raise ack do nothing to address -- raise act do nothing to address the discrimination on women in this country, the raise act woud both exacerbate the wage gap and lower pay for all workers. collective bargaining agreements raise wages for all workers. the raise act would undermine collective bargaining by requiring that all union contracts -- contracts include a provision allowing republicans o unilaterally grant wage increass to select employees.

the primary effect would be to weaken the union's ability to bargain for higher wages for all workers. it would also give employers unfettered discretion to dole ot pay increases to preferred employees. that's a recipe for more discrimination, not less. so, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to stand with senator mikulski in support of the paycheck fairness act today. it's a simple, commonsense piece of legislation. there's no reason why we shouldn't take it up and pass it right away. and once we have closed the loopholes and ensured effective enforcement of the equal pay a act, we must turn our attention to the millions of women, especially low-wage workers whoe work is undervalued. think of child care workers, think of the women who are now taking care of our elderly, who are living longer but need

supportive care in their later years. mostly women. why is that work being undervalued? we must ensure they receive the recognition and fair treatment and fair pay they deserve by passing the fair pay act also. so in closing, mr. president, te fight for economic equality is far from over and it shouldn't e over until every working woman n america receives a fair day's py for a fair day's work. as the chair of the help committee, i plan to keep advocating for fair pay and focusing on equal wages until we've achieved real equality for women across the country. but first things first. it's time for our republican colleagues to end the filibust filibuster, allow the paycheck fairness act to come to the flor this afternoon for debate, amendments, and a final vote. mr. president, with that, i yied the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stans in recess until 2:15 p.m.

the bill doesn't get the 60 votes needed lawmakers are then expected to take up a bill dealing with farm subsidies, nutrition and conservation programs. we get more on the pay discrimination bill now from a capitol hill reporter. >> let's go to pete. he is staff writer with "the hill". thanks for talking to us. >> good morning. >> tell us what we're going to see on the senate floor today? >> what you will see is procedural vote on a bill that democrats raised in an effort to expand on current law that prohibits pay

discrimination on gender. the bill would make a few changes to that, some laws that are a few decades old. in one example, if you're a woman and you think you're being underpaid and you ask around about how much other people earn, you might get in trouble. there is no explicit protection now. this bill would change that. you couldn't be fired for making those inquiries. but it also makes some changes that has companies nervous. it would set up a process of requiring the companies to share information about what they pay people to the government. that has companies nervous. so today what you will see democrats wanting to push a law, a new law like this to protect women in the workforce as republicans are cite siding with companies who are nervous how it will be implemented. >> host: we heard majority leader reid on senate floor yesterday, other democratic senators were holding press conferences. the white house placed a call and president obama got on the line himself, which isn't usually done. they're out front and center about this we haven't heard

much from republicans. >> guest: this is funny issue. if the bill were really important, not to say that democrats don't want these changes when things are really important and need to get done there is more cooperation race and a lot more cooperation. this bill seems to come up in a different ways. democrats seem to know already it will fail today in procedural vote because republicans will vote against it. they will throw ideas back and forth. this seems to be a messaging votes that democrats will use to say, look republicans don't care about women and probably republicans women come out at the end and say, democrats don't care about what they do to companies and how hard they make it for companies to comply with the law. but, it is true that generally that republicans have probably tougher time talking about it, it is one of these bill titles, let's have fairness in paychecks. that is hard thing to argue against if you admit it on

the floor. you will see fewer republicans out than democrats. >> host: look how laws on the book. we saw the lilly led better act signed into law when he came into office. where does that law leave off and this makes this law pick up. >> guest: that law passed in 2009 made briefly a change to easier for them to raise complaints about pay. you can do it at end of every paycheck, the statute of limitations doesn't run out until 180 days after your last discriminatory paycheck as opposed to when you first get a job offer with a salary. the funny thing is then democrats were saying we solved that problem. that's why republicans think the dems are being disingenuous. they're saying, in 2009 and 10 and even last year they're saying we did this. we did this here we are solving this problem again. again, the democrat bill would make some changes. it would strengthen the law for women but i think the republicans see it as too

perfectly timed for november election. i think the way it is playing out is mostly political. >> host: pete, we saw the senate take this up before. there were a couple of key members, we were watching their votes. members like susan collins of maine, lisa murkowski of alaska, olympia snowe of maine. is anybody potential crossover vote? last time it was party-line vote? >> guest: it could happen. i'm not hearing anyone say there is 100% there won't be one or two crossovers. there can't be that many, 40, 43ish republicans or something. more than that but you can't lose too many. so you know you may see one or two but you're not going to see 10. you may see it to be a pure party-line vote today. >> host: pete kasperowi kreechlt z, "the hill" staff writer tracking the vote. we'll see the senate weigh? on pay fairness act. thank you for talking with

us this morning. >> guest: thank you. >> live coverage of the senate debate on that bill here on c-span2 when they return at 2:15 eastern. on the other side of the capitol the house will start legislative work at 2:00 working on a bill providing 32 bal billion to fund the energy department and federal water projects for fiscal year 2013. they will take up 10 bills under suspension of the rules dealing with land conveyance in a nu+++%@x$

of house and. >> finally on a personal note, michelle and i are greatful to the entire bush family for their guidance and their example during our own transition. george, i will always remember the gathering you hosted for all the living former presidents before i

took office. your kind words of enqourgement. plus you also left me a really good tv sports package. [laughter] that was, i use it. [laughter] >> last week portraits of former president george w. bush and first lady laura bush were unveiled at the white house. it was their first visit since leaving office. >> as fred mentioned, in 1814, dolly madison famously saved this portrait of the first george w.. [laughter] now, michelle, if anything happens, there's your man. [laughter] >> watch the entire event online at the c-span video library. back to politics, a big day in wisconsin today where

republican governor scott walker and milwaukee democratic mayor tom barrett are facing off in that state's recall election. it's only the third such election in u.s. history. governor walker became the target of recall efforts just over a year ago when he signed a bill ending collective bargaining rights for public union workers. polls in wisconsin close at 9:00 tonight. here on c-span2 we'll be simulcasting live coverage of the results as well as speeches from the candidates. all that starting at 10:00 p.m. eastern. a senate governmental affairs subcommittee held a hearing earlier today to examine the progress being made by government contractors in the hiring of military veterans. under federal law contractors are required to take steps to promote opportunities for qualified veterans and those receiving at least $100,000 in contracts must submit this information to the labor department. we'll show you about a 40 minute portion of this hearing starting with questioning from the chairwoman of the subcommittee, senator claire mccaskill of missouri. >> thank you all very much.

it was interesting, i tried to visit small businesses in my state from time to time and i actually had a visit with a plumbing supply house in st. louis. this is, not a large employer. less than 50 employees. the people that worked there, most of them have worked there, many, many years. so they want to be careful when they hire someone because they assume when they hire someone they will be with them for years. i didn't go there to talk about hiring veterans. but they brought it up with me and the man that owns the company said it was incredibly difficult for them to find veterans. and he mentioned a couple of things. i would love your take on this, mr. dawalt. first he said that the website that in their experience as they looked at the various listings on the websites they were taken aback how many people had put information on the

website that were not veterans. that people had been able to access various web sites and put their employment, you know, they were anxious to get employed and when they actually did the due diligence, they found out that people were signing up on these web sites that weren't veterans at all. so they found that overwhelming because this is a small operation. they didn't really have, they ended up working at this for a while. i mean they spent a lot of time and energy. they finally found two applicants that they are in the final process of interviewing. the other thing he mentioned to me, and i'd like your take on both of these issues, is matching. he said at the veterans job fairs and places they were going to access there would be employers there like banks, and enterprise rental car, anheuser-busch, and they needed people for their warehouse. they couldn't, they were not able to hire someone who is disabled because they needed

someone who was going to help them load plumbing supplies into the warehouse and out of the warehouse and deliver these plumbing is up price. he -- supplies. it was clear to him how inefficient this was because you had all these employers that want ad much different employee than he was looking for and he said that once again took hours and hours of their time and effort to try to match up the right veteran with the right job opportunity. so if you could, if you would address those two issues that, this particular employer in st. louis was struggling with. >> yes, madam chairman. excuse me. i'm suffering from allergis. your comment about, not being vets doesn't surprise me. there are a number of sites out there that don't validate who the person is that is putting up the resume'. you have got over 300,000 internet job boards out there. you have about 30 left in the military space.

the leaders are vet jobs, military hire, and corporate gray. the three of us actually do validate each person as puttings up their resume'. some of the others will let anybody put up a resume'. in reality most veterans do not put their resume's up on the internet. we're getting over 200,000 visitors a month but only have 140,000 active resume's. it has been hammered into us that our friend over at sandbox using sites like vex assess or other free sites to track down veterans to go attack them here in this country. wish the press would cover that more. but, that, i hear that from a lot of employers because until they need to make a hire they aren't always aware who the players in a given space are. so like i don't know any heart doctors but if all of a sudden i needed to have a heart operation i will do a

lot of research to find out who will be a good one. so it is not a common thing everybody uses on a daily basis. regarding the matching, the more advanced sites, ours being one of one, military hire another good example, have matching mechanisms and career assessment tests, these are cri tests out of fort worth where we can identify a veteran that match best with the employer and, way you do it at vet jobs we have customer service reps. when customer puts up a job, and we have about 52,000 jobs up today, when there are key jobs, we will go in to the database and identify people and refer them to a customer. so we've had a pretty good success rate but a lot of complaints he or she was voicing really comes from just not understanding how the system works and it is because it is not a system that you use day in and day out. >> what would you suggest,

if anything, maybe that we, i mean, part of the problem in this area is all of us want to help. >> right. >> and sometimes you know, all best intentions have ugly endings in government. and frankly, i'm beginning to believe that this reporting requirement to the department of labor is a good example of that where all best intentions, where we were going to try to keep track of contractors hiring veterans and but no one is doing the due diligence to make that effort really meaningful in any way and, you know, what could we do that would help this, an employer like crescent plumbing supply in st. louis find veterans in a way that is more efficient for them? now these are great folks and they just kept working at it until they found two because they wanted to do this because they love their country and they want to hire veterans but i'm not sure very many businesses as small as this business is would have spent the tile and effort they spent at it.

what should we be doing to make this easier? i'm surprised that your website wouldn't pop up as one of the first, if you went on to search hiring veterans? >> we pop up in the top three or four. >> and is it very clear on your website all the veterans on there have been certified as veterans? >> well, yes. >> okay. >> we've got people who put resume's up that weren't veterans. we take them out. but, your, some suggestions to help improve the system, one would be to have your veterans representatives at workforce centers, what they call dbop. i assume what you. local veteran employment rep and disabled employment veteran. >> i speak that language. i can do the acronym dance with you. >> we have the acronyms but the, having more of them

familiar with what goes on, i'm a little outspoken. i'm not politically correct but, madam, you have a lot of people in the dol who are the classic bureaucrats. they have a wonderful job if it weren't for all these damn people coming in wanting help. they take the initiative. i will give you a real good example. we had a veteran down there in georgia who needed a job. he was in his 50s. he had been sittings over at the dol office for three days trying to get help to get a job and each day he would in, say, we have you in the system now. welcome back. you're in our system now. you're in the system now. he didn't give a damn about being in the system. he wanted a job. so someone had him give us a call. we found out where he was living. he didn't have a car. did a google search of his apartment and found a pick licks supermarket, a target, wal-mart, all within walking distance of his apartment complex. we called the managers of those three stores and all

three of them said send him over. interviewed him. two of them made him a job offer. he took one of them. went with target because they paid more than the others. but we did all that inside of 20 minutes. why can't you have this $50,000 a year bureaucrat sitting on their butt in a nice air-conditioned office doing the same thing? there is no penalty and no incentive to go out and do it. and, i know that is not politically correct but that is the root reality and we deal with that day in and day out down in our office. but having them better educated as to what the real resources are and, for their local area because all employment is on a local level. >> right. >> and be able to direct somebody what are the good sites, what are -- we put out a listing of all what we considered to be all the legitimate job boards on the internet because there are so many rippoff sites, especially targeting

veterans and their spouses. that would be a big move forward if they would do that. >> well, i think we've got to figure out a way to try to remove as much of this as possible from the federal government and put it in the state and local offices where, i guess frankly they're going to be the ones that are going to have the best ears to the ground. >> yes, ma'am. >> let me ask about both booz allen and mantek you all have great records. both your companies told us that the reporting requirements were not burdensome on your companies. i'm not sure that they're providing much value but that you did say they weren't burdensome. let me ask you this about the national guard problem. are the majority of the people you're hiring actually those that are leaving active service as opposed to national guard? [inaudible]

>> i know that we capture those. i can probably look through my files here and see what those numbers are. but we, i was thinking about congressional mandate programs and one of the congressionally mandated programs we absolutely love and we know it has high impact and it does make a difference and has to do with those who are in the process of separating from the military and the tap program? >> right. transition program? >> they call it acatly call it a little bit different. this is where you can really work with them and help them think through how to write a resume'.. >> right. >> how to -- i'll look through our numbers and may not be able to comment here but i don't think that the majority of them are national guard or reserves. they're typically ones who are separating from the military. >> right, right. if you would get those numbers for us that would be helpful, must sullivan. how about you, miss hardy? i assume the same thing is probably true for

booz allen? majority of those are separating from active service? >> correct. and about 11% of our 30% of our hires self-identify as having recently separated, representing one, the highest overall diversity constituency group within the firm but also indicating that these individuals are coming directly from the military, from active duty, to booz allen as a first stop. i do not have the numbers for the reservists but we do capture them and certainly can provide that to the subcommittee. >> i think it would be important to get those numbers. let me ask you, i think this national guard situation is a crisis. i think it is something that we are kind of sweeping under the rug and not paying close attention to. when i was the elect prosecutor in kansas city i remember looking at resume's and thinking the national guard was a really good

thing. now that was before it became an operational reserve. and i think the testimony that was given here today demonstrates the problem. you know, these companies aren't hiring people just because they want to hire a veteran. they're hiring them because they need them for their ongoing business operations and it, you can't blame them for not wanting to hire someone and train them thinking they're going to be gone four or five times over a six or seven year period or four or five times over a seven or eight-year period or even four or five times over a ten-year period. now, you know, i know we are drawing down in afghanistan and obviously we have drawn down in iraq but i think that we have permanently injured the ability of national guard, the national guard to get employment in our country. by the way we have made these changes and i don't

think they were well-thought out. i get it. we didn't have enough boots. i get it because our ground force wasn't big enough. i don't think they anticipated there was going to be this problem and i think it's one of the reasons we've had some of the problems with suicide and some other issues we're seeing in our military. what would you recommend that we could do, short of convincing our military leadership that they need to go back to the old way in terms of utilizing the guard and the reserve? what could we do that could help this problem? >> well, ma'am, i mean you really hit on the big crux of the matter. that the national guard and reserves have been used in an unprecedented fashion in the conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. . . the conflicts in iran and afghanistan. they have been used as an operational -- conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. they have been used as an operational reserve.

they envision active guard and reserve units activating at least once every five years. you can not expect to be deployed at least once every five years. more often if you are switching units and happen to catch the unit at the right or wrong time in the cycle. that will be continued as an issue, particularly with smaller employers who can stand to absorb that lost less well. -- that loss less well. we've heard from our membership anecdotally that they are not getting hired because they are in the guard or reserve. employers -- is one of the questions they are often asked -- are you in the guard or reserve?

are you anticipating deploying any time soon? there are bills in the house and the senate designed to strengthen protections. it will make that law a little bit tougher. >> those protections are the protections put into the law that prohibits discrimination against members of the guard and reserve in connection with their military service. >> yes, ma'am. having employment rights be a little stronger is always a good thing. but we think that giving incentives to employers -- is better to dangle the carrot and break out the stake. -- it is better to dangle the carrot and break out of the stick. it is really a tough question. we have been trying to work with employers to are smart job fairs to show the value of a bar

or reservists. of a five-year period. their skills are going to be sharper. i deployed with a unit in iraq. we had heavily mechanical -- and we had a lot of mechanics in the civilian world who i would say that after the nine months we were deployed, tearing engines out and rebuilding them in a foot and a half of moon dust sand in the desert without any electricity, water, without any lift, basically improvising this. these are engines that run the trucks that they were pared back in their civilian lives that make that much better and more efficient when they returned home. that is a job of selling that to

potential employers, because the army and marine corps, which i understand is going to operation -- operate on a same model, with respect to reserves, will not change that because of commitments. >> let me turn to the senator for questions, and i have additional questions when he is completed. >> i appreciate you being here and getting us insight on what we need to do about employment for veterans. my state has about 12% of the population are veterans, so we have a lot of need and issues that come up. when i was mayor, esgr, we always signed up on it because we wanted to make sure that people were taken care of.

i have a couple questions, and it anyone wants to answer that is ok. to create an incentive for the businesses -- they know they are going to be gone for a period of time, the question is how long can you keep those jobs open. is there an opportunity to create incentives, incentivize them, not only to hire them, but that over -- open? >> i have testified about this several times in the past. tax incentives, while nice from a political viewpoint, is not a driver to hire. employers love getting people off of active duty, and would be willing to support people from the national guard or reserve will if they were compensated

when their employees were taken away. mr. sulayman works for me, it's called up, i want a cash stipend. that is the cost of doing business. i cannot spend the tax credit. one of the problems with a lot tax credits is that once the department of labor laze on all their tracking requirements, and it may cost me $11,000 for all the reporting -- >> to keep track of that -- >> i will not be making that up. >> if there is an opportunity to make a cash differentials, you can at least keep the workflow moving -- >> you have a bigger systemic problem. it was written for when people are caught on the weekend or two

weeks. it was not designed for people being gone away for 24 months. it is an anachronism. what is happening now, and we documented this when the iowa brigade was called up, they had 750 people who were unemployed. they did not lose their jobs when they were in afghanistan. they lost their jobs before the left, because it was announced, day 160 from mobilization, and most of them lost their jobs because the employer realized if i lay you off during a recession, i am not subject to this because you have your orders in hand. if you say that we are cut to make it effective the moment you announce, nobody will ever hire a member of the national guard. you have a systemic problem.

until you fix that problem, everything else is going to be abandoned. >> sir, i agree in large part with what mr. daywalt said. one of the things that has to be considered is that less than 1% of the population has served in these conflicts. this is not a situation where like world war ii where you at 11% is the figure, and everybody had a brother, cousin, husband, wife, sister -- there was a relative or neighbor of somebody who was close to you. everybody at sacrifice. there was rationing of sugar and gas stance. my grandmother, my grandfather went away, at all his brothers, and is interesting to hear my grandmother talked about silk stockings and not have stockings' during the war. it is just weird.

it is something that is -- i have been in the marines for 14 years, and that does not enter my mind. employers have to understand there is a sacrifice associated with the wars that have been fought and that while tax incentives or direct stipends -- those are the carrots that we come to understand are the best solutions and we can afford to do. that would be great, but it is also a matter of the country's shared obligation. it is more obligation. the reservists i took over, a lot of them lost their jobs before we left. hard economic times, your job is gone. under ucera at the top disappears, you do not have to

find another position. employers understand this is part of a shared sacrifice, and hopefully as afghanistan winds down, this becomes less of a problem, but as senator mccaskill pointed out, the unprecedented use and the army generation force model that i was talking about, it remains to be seen exactly what effect that is what to have in the future, continuing an operational reserve. we feel it is a moral obligation, a small percentage of the population that has been doing the fighting in the possible deployment -- >> let me hold you there. i have one quick question. o -- iuary, 2007, g zeroao ga am coming more to the feeling

that maybe we consolidate these in the department of veterans, focused in that arena, give me a couple of quick thoughts. i think there are so many department of labor tries, but veterans understand veterans, at all, streamlined it, and focus on what we should be doing, and that is employing, retraining veterans cannot in concert with their benefits. >> yes, sir. >> take your time. >> there is legislation in that house that is currently working its way through hr 4072, which iva supports and is designed to take the programs and transfer its wholesale to the v.a. will subscribe to the thinking

that veterans affairs is what the veteran thinks of -- where do i go for help? i am going to the v.a. the fact that the legislation is written to make an address change is a good thing, because it is not diminishing any of the functions of the vets program. >> it seems if you are a bit, you are coming in, you are trying to figure out do i need more education, if i want to be in this job, and do i need any medical assistance for the issues that i might have or might not have, but go to one place? >> yes, sir, and there is employment out reached. adding dol vets become v.a. vets makes sense because it permits that duplication, at its

centralizes it. i talked about the numbers and the out reached for veterans small business, we feel v.a. should be a conduit come up that dol should be a conduit. veterans come v.a. -- that is the same thing with dol moving to the v.a. >> i appreciate it. you answered my second question, which is small business. i think the same thing, we want to make sure it is as streamlined as possible. there is some good effort been done to move entrepreneurship. tap has a lot of work to be done. the mind of a soldier going into at having to take that program and figure out -- they are not

focused on that. their focus on thank god i am , y, z.. i just met in alaska some small companies that was all veterans, incredible work they are doing, worldwide operations, small manufacturing business, but they took their skill, turned it into a business that's trouble getting their business together, but because of enough of them banded together, they had some capital. it seems like that is an incredible track for veterans from someone who comes from the small business world. this is a huge opportunity for innovation. >> i would like to add to what he does that, senator. i'm on the small-business council of the u.s. chamber, and i've had 11 different ideas on how to help the national guard and reserve, one of which is for the government to put up a pool of money -- and this would only help 40% of people in the

national guard -- a pool of money where they can draw no interest so they can buy a franchise. veterans tend to hire other veterans. everybody in that jobs, -- i everybody in vet jobs, they do not discriminate. while they are gone, their family can be running that while they are deployed, and when they come back, there is no employment problem, no loss of income, but it would only help 10% to 40% of that. entrepreneurship -- veterans -- there has been a great study that shows some of your best entrepreneurs are prior military because they have that all- important quality called leadership and they can

understand risk. if i made a mistake out there, it might cost some of my troops their lives. you make a decision very quickly. entrepreneurship would be a big part. there is no silver bullet. i'm fascinated when i come up here because everybody is looking for the silver bullet that will solve all the problems. your problem is what of hassett. you have to do 13 things -- and none of them are cheap. >> thank you for what you are doing, but you are right on the franchise peace. i have seen reports on franchisers, the veteran component, they are looking for, because it is like a mission, and they are on it. they figure out how to move it through it, but there issue is capital. if you do a franchise, there is

no $5,000 issue. it is $250,000 or more. >> the international franchise association sponsors a program and we are part of that. we think that is a good solution. it is a peas. -- it is a piece of the puzzle. >> beebe could put it in a fund for low-interest loans. more than just the department of labour. there's something touching veterans and almost every agency of government, all for the right reason because people want to help better the. what this hearing today as shown is one piece of that that we have exposed is this report that everybody is supposed to file. you guys are doing a great jobs

and we do not have your data. the committee got data from the department of labor that showed one company hired 400% better and more than they employed. clearly -- that that is like a joke. it is like a joke, a bad joke. let me ask about certification -- this is something that was scandalous, that the sba had to deal with, where somebody was claiming to be a veteran, was getting the advantages, and was not a better. even worse, an example they were claiming a service disabled veteran and they were not even a better. how can we certified veterans for advantages that we tried to put into a law for them that does not hinder it the entrepreneurship of them as they moved into the business world,

and second, when about -- how many veterans are being hired different for companies to get the benefits that are associated with a battered-owned business? -- with a veteran-owned business? do you think the government dints the surface of getting that front? >> i can tell you that i have heard of fronting. we have not heard anything anecdotally. i talked to folks at sba and dol and sba on those issues a couple times. the process that the v.a. goes through to survive it veterans businesses is mandated, and i understand the intent was to eliminate some of those issues and abuses. but it is also making it difficult for veteran-owned

companies, to get into the system. you were talking about some of the bureaucracy. if you look at vetbiz.gov, and others which are general sites. there are multiple touch points, which makes it difficult for veterans to know what to do. anecdotally on that point, i have heard several veterans who have gone through the credential in process and think now i can do business with the federal government only to figure out they did not have to go to that process to do business with other arms of the federal government. we certainly have heard not necessarily from our membership, but through the media and news about instances like sba and

veterans either fronting or companies claiming to be sdbo's that are not. and talking to the veterans out rich folks at sba, a set historically the rate is very low. -- they said historically that rate is very low. the self-certification used by sba is probably the way to go, but at some small barriers. you got to produce a certificate of incorporation that showed a veteran and the better an's form, something that is more than self-certifying. what exactly that would be and how best bet would be done i could not say off the top of my head, adding some small hurdles while still allowing that small business to have a low barrier to entry into business with the federal government is probably the to go, and you would weed out most of that. fronting i think at that point

-- just taking somebody to the woodshed judicially speaking is probably the way to end that. >> i wonder if we are doing the oversight necessary to find the front thing. what this hearing has talked -- taught me is we are not paying attention. we are passing laws and then we are not paying attention. that is why we are going to try to stay on this from a contract standpoint and try to continue to pay attention to see if we can under the donna know what is gone on out there, but it has not been uncovered in any way. that me ask you, mr. captain, -- mr. kympton, i am fascinated by your organization which is a win, win, win, and i assume this

is being done with charitable corporate fun -- which charitable funds. >> there is no government money at this time. >> how many can you do a year and how big is your organization's budget, because as a great example of where the private sector -- but not for profit sector does a better job and government in trying to assist not only veterans, but the community at large as it relates to the various organizations that you get the lush it in. how does this work? do you provide the money for the stipends? >> our planning figure for a budget is $10,000. and that is six months of living stipends so he or she can work

in a volunteer capacity within in the organization. all that money comes currently from private dollars, either corporate or individuals who have seen the dog up pleasing patterns within these not-for- profit community organizations. the living stipend we pay them so they can serve in a volunteer capacity represents roughly 7000 of that $10,000, and it is pegged to the americorps living cited. it varies by location and by the cost of living in that location. the intent is that they cancer in a volunteer capacity cannot reconnect into a mission while they are working for a longer term outcome for the better, and whether that is full time or employment with an organization

with which they are serving or one they have targeted, or segway into continuing education, replacing them into the ongoing role of committee service. >> argued a united way organization -- are you a united way organization? >> no, we are not. most recently we organized these bellows into classes, a military cuts up, so we brought $114 in san diego and started them as a class, and after their orientation, a kind of military- flavored orientation -- >> out the you find these veterans? >> -- how do you find these veterans? >> for work fellows or volunteers who have served with us in communities and have seen what these fellows are capable

of. >> had you done national guard folks? >> we have. >> you are talking about a six- month dollar, someone who has been deployed and has come back, and serve it in the national guard, they beat this model to submit to try to promote, not through government, but in the private sector to focus on the national guard population. it seems to me that the flexibility that a not-for- profit represents in terms of not being as worried about future deployment upsetting the business model, makes a lot more sense than maybe some but of the other kinds of work that a guard or reservist could look for. >> i can tell you both and a deadly and it did at that organizations in which our fellows cirque deeply respect what they have brought to those organizations.

in terms of the skill sets and unique experiences, and they are getting a volunteer who are bringing this experiences to the table. they keep coming back to us. we have placed more than one at habitat for humanity, and that is due to the impact those veterans are having. >> i bet they get those organizations a shot >> voters are heading to the polls in five of the remaining six presidential primaries including california, montana, new jersey, new mexico, south dakota. a number of house and senate seats are still up for grabs. utah holds the final republican primary set for june 26th. a big day in wisconsin as well where republican governor scott walker and milwaukee democratic mayor tom barrett are facing off in that state's recall election. it's only the third such election in u.s. history.

governor walker became the target of recall efforts just over a year ago when he signed a bill ending collective bargaining rights for public union workers. here on c-span2 we'll be simulcasting live coverage of the results as well as speeches from the candidates. all that starting at 10 p.m. eastern. >> the u.s. senate is in recess right now for their weekly party lunches. they'll be back at 2:15 eastern for a procedural vote at 2:30 on whether to continue work on the paycheck fairness act they've been debating today. it enhances the remedies for victims of gender-based pay discrimination and makes it illegal for employers to retaliate against employees for sharing salary information. lawmakers are expected to then take up a bill dealing with farm subsidies, nutrition and conservation programs. live coverage of the senate here on c-span2 when they return at 2:15 eastern. and while we wait for the senate to resume a look now at a

discussion on the paycheck fairness bill from today's "washington journal." >> host: with us to weigh in on the paycheck fairness act and what it means. judy electricman is senior adviser at the national partnership for women and families, thank you for being here, and sabrina schafer, executive director of the independent women's forum. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> host: judy, you support the law, sabrina, you are against the law. let's talk about women earn 70 cents for every dollar a man makes. cents for every dollar that a man earns. guest: if we hold constant all kinds of choices like education and occupation, it still remains a very significant wage gap. that wage gap sadly in this day and age in the beginning of the

second decade of the 21st century is a direct result of sex discrimination and there is no getting around it. you cannot wish it away. the wage gap is a present-day manifestation of sex discrimination. it is sad that we're arguing about whether it is a political fight. it should be a bipartisan leadership effort by everybody to address the vestiges of a very significant wage discrimination against women. host: these are the numbers according to the white house. sabrina schaeffer, why do you think there is a difference? guest: i think those numbers are

highly exaggerated. many women -- there was a great study out of harvard. women are looking more at job satisfaction after school. those things do have impact on your salary and earnings potential. the wage gap shrinks to almost nothing. we need to be careful not to assume that the workplace is so hostile towards women. women have a lot of control of the choices they are making in their lives. host: if you would like to join the conversation, here are the phone calls to call. if you're a woman in the workplace, 202-628-0184. republican, 202-737-0001. democrat, 202-737-0002.

independent, 202-628-0205. the line for working women, 202- 628-0184. what is the most important part of the paycheck fairness act? guest: unlike today, it will allow women who fear that they are being discriminated against to reveal their own pay by to ask questions of their employers free of retaliation. host: what is the climate in the workplace now? guest: we know from the example of ledbetter that she had no idea that she was being discriminated against in wages. she was being paid then her

peers and being paid less than the man that she trained. asking questions about pay was forbidden. she found out about it after being discriminated for decades after somebody put a note informer her. locker and the economic consequences to her and her family and to millions of women just like her are not inconsequential and are not about choices. we have a strong disagreement about what the facts are. if you look at totally neutral u.s. census reports, controlling for education, occupational choices, family choices, you still get less than eight significant wage gap and

not talk it away by any other measure than sex discrimination. guest: it makes it easier for people to file class-action lawsuits. that will be a tremendous cost on businesses. it will make it much more expensive to hire women and have a dramatic effect on men's salaries to get bonuses. that shouldn't be that we're pitting one sacks against the other -- that should be that sex againsttting one the other. guest: it says that you cannot equalize women's wages by hurting man's wages. you have to top up.

in no way would man's wages be heurt. in no way is saying the sky is falling is useful. i hope employers do the right thing by their women employee s. work, everybodythe wor had a button that said 59 cents with the international no sign. almost 40 years later, and 18- cent closure of that gap. senators will decide whether to support the women in their states should not be wearing buttons that say 77 cents. that's what this bill does.

there is a wage gap dude to sex discrimination. host: do you think there is enough conversation about what you earn and what your male colleagues earn? guest: every business is going to be different. things are going to be much more standardized. it will be more difficult to tie compensation to work product. people may be willing to take a lower salary if it means they get to leave early or work from home. these are things that will be harder to have with a law like this. host: let's look at the details of the paycheck fairness act.

host: let's get to the phones and hear from claudia, a worker herself in falls church, virginia. caller: i did not think the government has any business in getting into what companies are going to pay people. i think it is a decision that companies need to make for themselves. discrimination is illegal. some women may be underpaid. there may be some conscious by ed that happen sometimes in the

workplace there may be some conscience by it. host: do you know how your salary compares to that of your male colleagues? caller: at my level i think it is commensurate. i work in a company where it is kind of set depending on your local. i don't think it is a problem. host: would you be willing to discuss your wages with your colleagues? caller: yes. in my company they are public. guest: the whole premise of it is based on the idea that women are continually victimized and need a special protection from government rather than recognizing all the way in which women are so important for

the workforce. women earn more master's degree and ph.d.'s than men. if women are so cheap to employ, you would think we would not have men in the workforce. women are extremely valuable to businesses. we need to be careful to not talk about women as victims. host: judith lichtman. guest: i'm fascinated that sabrina speaking on behalf of independent women's forum is advocating flexibility. forum neverwomen's supported the healthy families act. none of the public policies we need in place that will allow women to be the caregivers they

need to be within families and the responsible workers that they are to be put in place are never public policies that either you or the independent women's forum have supported. i welcome your support. i urge you to come and support some of the policies we support today. i don't think this is about victimization. that is silly. we're talking about the economic consequences to families. if you're having trouble making rent payments are putting food on the table, you're not worried about being a victim. you're worried about the real world economic consequences to you and this nation. for every dollar that women are

paid less than men, our economy suffers. that is what this bill is intended to address. guest: we have 8.2% unemployment right now. we need more economic growth and more job growth. this would be a boon for trial lawyers. it will be much costlier for women. it adds layers of regulations on to businesses. it makes it much more expensive to hire women. i think this backfires and will hurt the women that it is intended to protect. host: let's get to the calls.

joyce is a republican from missouri. good morning. caller: good morning. sabrina, you made some excellent points. judith, you're painting with a broad brush. my daughter just turned down a job. with children, she did not have flexibility. also, i heard nancy pelosi on television decrying the fact that women make so much less than men when apparently most of the staffers who work for the senate and the republicans and democrats in congress make an

average of 35% to 46% less compared to their male counterparts. nancy pelosi pays her female staffers almost 46% less than male staffers. yet they get on television and spout all of this stuff. when they are not following its themselves. there are many situations with women who need flexibility and understand that their paycheck is important but their families also are a top ppriority. guest: where to begin? i have not seen all the surveys from members of congress, all

435 of them. are anlaries they poay important element of the paycheck fairness act. i would invite sabrina and independent women's forum, let's do a study of everybody in the senate and house, and the supporters. let's see where the wage gaps resolve. i would be interested in seeing the results. this modest bill is the next step after the lilly ledbetter bill which nearly restored the law to the way it was before and

allow women access to the court should they be able to prove that they are discriminated against. what this bill does is take it modestly a step further to enable women to take a real look at the wage discrimination that they are experiencing and the economic consequences to them and their family. from foxe's a story news reported yesterday. she may have ducked the question. she pays woman on a staff $26,000 less per year on average. go look aty let's everybody. host: do you think they have a problem? guest: of course the law should

apply to them. caller: good morning. i had a comment about women and choices. there are a lot of women who work at low-wage jobs that have no bargaining power at all. this bill offers critical protection. if businesses are not discriminating, there be no extra cost to them. this is a way to offer the same protection for the low-wage women. i would love to hear the response from sabrina schaeffer. guest: woman at the lower end of the pay scale are most affected in a negative way. a workplace that is open and allows employees to enter

contracts freely with one another so they can best serve each other's needs. this makes it much more restrictive. that young woman is working really hard. we would like to give her a boost in salary. but everything will have to be public. it makes it much harder to justify things. that is one of our major concerns. for women at the top of the economic ladder, they have more experience and more education. the same is not true for the lower levels. host: could workplaces get hamstrung by some money legislation? guest: my reaction is that from

president reagan -- "here you go again." rd.t is plain upsurg we have not stifled of entrepreneurship in this country by requiring equal pay. the bill is outdated. this modest piece of legislation updates the 1963 act. we have not stifled small businesses. we're not put some money regulations in place that people are not willing to start and run profitable large and small businesses. to keep saying the sky is falling is scaring people is not helpful and it is not in the interest of those low-wage

workers who you say you care about and i believe you do. they need to worry about putting food on the table and taking care of the rent. the terrible statistics of what is happening to efforts with american workers who earn 62 cents on every dollar that a man makes. or hispanic women that make 56 cents. i thought it was 52 cents for every dollar you man makes. those people did not have a choice. we have the hardest of economic decisions, caring about their kids come up for their rent and for their mortgage payment. that is the heart and the soul of this bill.

guest: we found that there are bad employers that are out there. 74% of all respondents believe there is some discrimination in the workplace. everybody would have some kind of personal story. one week expose the response to what the effects of the legislation would be, support for the bill dropped dramatically. people recognize we need to open up opportunity right now, to make it easier for job creation. there is a role for government in certain things and a recent we do not want government intervention. one area where often overlooking are just those things. what can women do to help advance themselves?

you have to take a seat at the table. you have to learn how to negotiate. that doesn't mean we cannot overcome those changes and advocate better on our own without washington's help. host: john from new york o. caller: there used to be a saying called the good ole boys. they use the tools available to them to stay in power. i believe that that extends to women getting a protected status as a minority, which they are not, andusi using that too. women tennis players play two out of three sets and the men

play three out of five. they threaten to get equal pay. what happened to equal pay for equal way? they wanted it both ways. women get laws passed to choose to take time off or choose to have children. you could have 10 years with a company and the women may have been there eight years and taken two years off. guest: i am afraid the caller has his facts incorrect. the law signed provides -- of

times that family and medical leave have been used, 47% of those users are i think what i am fascinated by his bed sabrina supports a key element. she strongly supports an element of the paycheck effect betts says the government should put into place training programs to help people negotiate. there is an element of negotiation i agree with. host: chief thinks women should be more empowered to negotiate. should the government get involved with that?

guest: i think women should advocate on are on behalf better but i don't think government should facilitate that. the woman who did not have the opportunity to go to college or did not come from a family that had a role model, how does she game those skills? i would encourage cheryl sandberg's talks on this subject but i think she has some very good messages for young women working and don't realize they're not putting themselves out there. and i suspect a lot of man could learn from her lessons. we are talking about this legislation and we are thinking about that employers. we're not thinking about the need for good employers. there are many employers who want to recognize that women are such a valuable part of the work force in to make sure that we are not so focused on the l

lyres that are discriminating that we don't think of the ramifications on good businesses. guest: there is nothing on this bill that prevents good employers from continuing to be or become good employers. they can pay fair wages to men and women based on their efforts, skill, and responsibility just like the equal pay act said back in 1963. host: how'd you feel they would be penalized, good employers? guest: if you are a small hardware shop, you're in a position where you have to be able to prove why your wages are fair. you don't have the human resource capability that is the same as your box store competitor down the road. the kind of effect this could have on small business where maybe they want to give the man and the shot they raise but they are concerned that if they do that, they will be charged with discrimination, this is terrible

for small business. guest: they can give that raised to a man or a woman based on their business to necessity and productivity and merit. there is nothing in this law that prevents good business decisions from making distinctions. this bill says that you cannot discriminate based on gender. if employers want to do that, there are no longer the good employer that sabrina posits. host: let's hear from anna from alexandria, va., on our line for working women. caller: good morning. i don't know the names of the ladies because i am participating from radio. i stopped my car because i was driving.

i got so worked up. by what she was saying that i just stopped my car. i have worked for 25 years in human resources. i was consulting and doing payroll for different organizations. these organizations do discriminate. the worst offenders are women. there was a job that i had that the starting salary for women was $34,000 and the starting salary for men was $37,000. female hiring managers did it. why is it happening? they think men are head of household. that is crazy because there are

lots of single parent women as heads of households. in listening to you and you have a voice and you are talking about women, there is discrimination. is it intended? no. but it is part of society. host: how would you combat that given your experience? caller: i have never called into this kind of show. the program you are doing is fantastic. payroll people and human resource people should call and tell you and we will tell you it is true. it may be unintended but

everybody discriminate whether you are a woman hiring manager or email hiring manager, we should get paid more. host: thank you for sharing your story. sabrina schaeffer, she says this is a problem. what should be done? guest: i don't know what numbers she is looking at. i came to the defense of nancy pelosi the other day. i thought was funny this was happening. on the other hand, i know nothing about these employees. the same with the caller who i appreciate calling in but i don't know anything about who these people are and what they bring to the position and what kind of requests they have their employers. these numbers are just wrong numbers that don't tell us a whole lot. that is important when we talk about this. host: you mentioned that women

make choices to take jobs and one caller talked about a woman taking a job for less pay because of better quality and more family time. do you see a problem of employers, men and women, saying he is the head of household and he should get more money? guest: that may be a problem and i don't want to dismiss that idea that discrimination does occur. i think it will be increasingly become less of a problem as women make up more and more of the workplace and are becoming the number 1 consumers of everything from groceries to cars. businesses will realize that women are no longer residing simply in the home. host: duty lichtman? >> we know from the census status that nearly 15 million households in this country are headed by women.

roughly 30% of those families are living in poverty. for those families, this is not some little french problem for some economically privileged people. these are people who are struggling and the wage discrimination these women heads of household experience can be very real. it is not a problem that will go away and a little while because we know for four years, all we did was get 18 cents. why should we have to live 40 more years? my 8-year-old will have retired by them. before receive a wag gap clothing. e gap closing. 74% of the people you surveyed saw this problem and we differ about how to solve the problem. host: that was the independence of women survey? guest: right, if we went

downstairs and asked people whether or not there was 10 man, 10 women, if we went anyplace in this country and as people live there was wage discrimination, sabrina would agree that there is. i think we significantly differ about whether or not there is something we should do about it as a nation or whether the centaur's who will vote today should be standing with the women from the state they represent to address it to day. not to minimize it or say it is o k and it will get better. i happen to know it has been for years and 18 cents. i don't want to wait 40 more years. that is our difference. i think the pay checks standards act is a modest piece of legislation to texas to the next step after the equal pay act of

1963 to address the ongoing terrible economic insecurity that families face and that sabrina, you recognize is a problem. guest: i am concerned there is so much emphasis on playing gender politics. the unemployment rate is 8.2%. these are numbers that we might throw around but when you are outside of the beltway and you look up at $4 per gallon gas, these are serious times. we have nancy pelosi and a president and a senate that is playing gender politics. aeronaut tackling our problems head on. americans think we are moving in the wrong problem. yet, this is what is on tap this week in the senate. i think the american people see through this. they realize that gender politics is not only bad policy but it is bad politics and bad for the future of host: the country the paycheck fairness

act will come before the senate this afternoon. you can watch coverage on c-span 2. let's go to a question on twitter - guest: certainly, it would, but it would allow -- it would prevent an employer from retaliating against that same employee if he so chose to give that. it does not require a co-worker to do so but it does allow the employee who thinks they are being discriminated against to go to their employer and ask for wage data. guest: can i answer the point about this is being just politics? i invite every single senator

whatever their political party and certainly the president of the united states has spoken yesterday, as you indicated, in support of pay checks status. we are not looking for a political fight. we are looking to pass a modest piece of legislation that addresses the real world economic problems that women experience every single day. are thethink we proponents of this legislation are creating political maelstrom. i think the opponents are and we should be clear about that. we invite their support host: we will get a set -- a response from sabrina schaeffer. guest: this is coming up in a political season in which the war on women narrative is tromping all. it is hard to say a papain is fairness act is the most

important -- the paycheck fairness act is the most important piece of legislation anyone who questions government over which is in some way attacking women? we need to be very clear this is not a modest bill and this is a very pointed political theater and we should be clear about what we're talking about. this is in no way quite as subtle as you think it is. host: from our working women line, madison, wisconsin. caller: i would like to have some background information as far as sqabrisabrina. it just floors me that someone who is a woman, who is evidently out in the work force, hills that it is ok to basically go and talk to your employer and tried to negotiate when that

sometimes is not an option for some people. i would like to know a little background, if she is a single working woman, it is she supported a households? that makes quite a bit of difference. i may single-parent. i have supported my family and have not relied on government funding in any way, shape, or form. i struggle for each paycheck to make it pay check by a paycheck. there are people that i work with, man who sit next to me doing the same job and they are getting more money per hour than i am. they are single dads, sure, they may be supporting their families as well but we are both in an equal situation. we are both trying to support our families. host: are you planning to vote today? caller: you bet i am. i would not miss it. if i could vote 10 times i would

host: who will you be looking for? caller: take a guess. i'll not be voting for scott walker. host: let's leave it there and get a response from sabrina schaeffer. you don't have to share your personal experience that i will share some of your background in the work field. you have been the director of media relations at the republican and joyce coalition and a director of the white house writers group. also a system to the former un ambassador at the american enterprise institute. guest: thank-you, i am sorry to hear that the caller is facing was she seems to think is perhaps discrimination in her work place. i don't know anything about her or her melt counterpart. it is hard for me to comment on specifics.

i don't disagree that there are bad employers out there. i think we just have to be careful that when we pass legislation like this that we don't ignore the good employers. for women like herself, you will benefit if you have the flexibility to go to your employer and ask if they realize you are a single mom and i need more money and flexibility. how can we worked things out of that would fit our needs? laws like this come between that and make it hard for women like herself to negotiate something that fit your lifestyle more appropriately. host:sabrina schaeeferr and we have also been hearing with judy lichtman. she is the first paid staff person that they women's legal defense fund. she was a legal adviser to the

commonwealth of puerto rico. let's hear from becky on our democrats line from louisville, ky. caller: bear with me, i have a couple of comments. i am not working right now. i retired but i've worked with one job for the government's and there were six employees in our section and two of them were guys and the rest of them were women. i had a college education and there was one guy that just had a high-school education. he was two grades above us and we did double the work. that he did. it was like he was never at his desk. when it came to bonuses or anything like that, it seemed like the women never received.

we got a cert telling us how great we were, you know. but when it came to a bonus or anything like that, we never received anything. if we did, it would be $25 or something like that where the other employees would receive $500-$1,000 in a bonus. another employer, it was the san widen same way. the man got paid more. host: did you feel you could change that by talking to your boss? caller: no, because working with the government -- it was the veterans administration. it was not here in louisville but it was in another state, cincinnati, ohio. that was one thing that you could not bring.

host: thank you for sharing your story. guest:sabrina talked about this being nothing more than political theater. i thought i would bring this back to a little bit of reality. it is the wage gap -- if the wage gap or eliminated and women were working full time year round, they would have enough money for 92 more weeks of food, 1.8 years worth. seven more months of mortgage and utility payments. 13 more months of rent. 35 more months of family health insurance premiums. 2007 after 51 additional gallons of gas. this is not political theater. the paycheck fairness is a

really quite sensible piece of legislation which is the next step from the equal path back in 1963 that already has government saying to employers that you cannot discriminate ined on a woman's gender setting of wages. that old lummis to be updated. that is what the paycheck fairness act does. guest: if women are really being discriminated against and as aggressively, why is it that women don't make up 100% of the work force? this is confusing to me. if they can pay women some much less than men, i don't understand why we have men in the work place anymore at all. host: with all due respect, that is very silly. --on't know a weather

another way to respond. we're not probably headed anytime soon to an all-female work force and if we did, the wages would go down i would suggest that in advocating on behalf of paycheck fairness, what this bill really does is it says it should allow women to ask questions about wages without being retaliated against, without getting fired. it makes remedies more equal to those who have suffered race and national origin and wage discrimination who have different remedies. the 1963 law was passed before more recent modern pieces of legislation that provide remedies. it provides some modest amount of money to encourage the kin the. >> we will leave this at this point to go live to capitol hill where senate lawmakers are discussing their agenda and the

pay fairness bill they're debating today. [inaudible conversations] >> in nevada and across this country, women make 77 cents compared to every dollar that man makes doing the exact same work. it's even starker if you look at people of color, women of color. an african-american woman makes 62 cents for every dollar that a man makes. hispanic, 54 cents for every dollar that a man makes. isn't it time we did something about that?

a base on the words and actions of the republicans, they have a three-part strategy for the pay gap between men and women. number one, just don't talk about the problem. number two, downplay the problem as if it doesn't exist. and most of all, without any reservation or hesitation block any attempts to try to change the inequities that are out there for everyone to see. they want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the reality that american women experience every day. i'm standing with senator mccull sky, with a woman who is -- mikulski, with a woman who is the icon of people who understand that you have to stand up for what's wrong. here's a woman that worked for

more than two decades doing her job. in fact, she was awarded model employee award, and she learns shortly before she's going to retire that people who are men who have been doing the exact same work that she's been doing are making a lot more money than she is. about $8,000 a year, as a matter of fact. now, remember, she found out after more than 20 years that she wasn't being paid the same for the same work. that men did. but she didn't sit back and whine about it. she went out and did something about it. she went through the court process. in fact, to the united states supreme court where they said listen to this one, you should have filed your lawsuit within three years of when you started

work. remember, she doesn't know she was being cheated at that time. so we had to make up for the unfairness the supreme court set as a standard in this country. and the first bill that president obama signed as president of the united states was the lily ledbetter legislation that took away that unfair statute of limitations. so we stand here today with a woman on my left and a woman on my right who stand and have always stood for fairness for everyone. but today we want to talk about fairness to women. i so admire and appreciate the work of senator mikulski, and lily ledbetter, that name is so great. across america when you mention the name lily ledbetter, every woman in america stands at

attention. because what she has brought to the attention of the american people once again is how unfair the workplace is for women. the legislation we're trying to pass would build upon the lily ledbetter legislation. it would allow us to stop retaliation from employers and insure they can discuss wage issues freely with their colleagues. you know, this is america, and you should be able to talk to one of your co-workers, how much money do you make? how much money does she make? without being fired. this is a common sense approach. it's so easy. nine out of every ten americans support this. 90% of americans support our legislation. 81% of men and 77% of

republicans support this legislation. once again, republicans across america can recognize what's fair. republicans every place except those elected to congress. republicans in congress disagree. so once again, only republicans are against this common sense approach. the republicans, i repeat, who oppose it are the ones based here in washington as members of congress. the republican nominee, governor romney, hasn't taken a stand on this issue. he should show some leadership and tell his fellow republicans that opposing fair pay for all americans is shameful. but, as usual, no one knows today where he stands on this issue. tomorrow he may be standing

someplace else. but it's clear where democrats stand. we stand for equal pay for equal work, and it's time for republicans to stop denying the reality that millions of women face every day and work with us to give women the pay equality they deserve. senator mikulski. >> thank you, senator reid. not only for your words, but for your deeds. to give us the opportunity to try to bring up the paycheck fairness act. we are only five days from the 49th anniversary of the passage of the equal pay act. in a very -- on a very hot day in 1963, the united states congress passed the equal pay for equal work act.

women felt they were taking a giant leap forward to end discrimination in the workplace and end discrimination in their paycheck. but, oh, it was not meant to be. not only did they fight the legislation, but after it was over they exploited loophole after loophole after loophole. and now 49 years later as we get ready to commemorate the passage of that act, we find in 49 years we've only advanced ourselves 18 cents on the dollar. in 1963 women made 59 cents for every dollar that men made, and in the 19 -- and in 2012 we make 77 cents. that's 19 cents over 49 years. so it says essentially to american women every five years you'll make another penny be. well, let me tell ya, as i

travel around my own state, my own country and my other colleagues, we know that women are mad as hell, and they don'tn want to take it anymore.he if they work hard f they do thes job -- ifo they do the job, qualify for the job -- >> we are coming to a very critical vote. te. today we have the opportunity to address an issue that affects the bottom line of nearly every american family. the paycheck that american women take home at the end of each week or each month is as tied to our economic health as just about anything else. it's what helps sustain local businesses. it's what pays our grocery bills at the end of the month. it makes our mortgage payments, and ultimately the pay that women receive as we continue to make up a larger and larger part of our workforce is going to be critical to our -- the growth of this nation. yet over the course of the past week, as we have debated this bill, both here in the senate and across the country, we have

been met by either silence or resistance from those on the other side of the aisle. time and again, we have heard the same excuses on why we can't join together today to provide the guaranteed fairness that women deserve. first we heard that this was -- quote, unquote -- "a manufactured issue." but, mr. president, if you talk to the american women all over our country, you will quickly learn what some of my colleagues have called "manufactured" is an all-too-real part of everyday american women's lives. women will tell you that a a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, equal pay for equal work shouldn't be a pipe dream. it should be law. they'll tell you that nearly 50 years after the equal pay act was signed, the gap between what men and women earns is just as real today as it was back then.

they'll tell you that women still earn 77 cents on every dollar earned by men. thethey'll tell you this gap undermines their retirement security because they receive reduced social security benefits. and then, most importantly, they will tale you that -- they'll tell you that women aren't worth less than men. and, mr. president, the other argument we have heard is that this critical vote is in some way a distraction from the economic issues that we face. as if somehow the pay of women who compromise nearly half of all american workers is not at its very core an economic issue. let me be very clear. when women are not paid what they deserve, middle-class families, communities, and our economic growth pay the price. let's just consider that in my home state of washington, women still earn 77 cents on the

dollar or a pay gap that averages over $11,000 in lost earnings every year. now, for the average family, that is an extra 90 weeks of groceries. it's seven months of mortgage payments. or 179 tanks of gasoline -- all a at a time when women are participating in the workforce at higher rates than ever before in our history. surely my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle realize this is not the time to be denying american families this extra income that they need to make ends meet. surely we should be guaranteeing american women and their families the fairness that they deserve. mr. president, this should not be a partisan issue. throughout the history of the senate, we have joined together to root out discriminatory practices and provide the protections that american workers deserve. today, as our american families

struggle, it's time to make sure that unfair practices are not contributing to those struggles. today we have an opportunity to close loopholes in the system that allows for pay discrimination. to create strong incentives for employers to obey the laws that are in place, and to strengthen federal outreach and enforcement efforts on behalf of women. today we all have an opportunity to say, the status quo is not good enough. we have the opportunity to tell our daughters that we're not going to let another generation face a pay gap because we are unwilling to stand up and fight. we have the chance to improve our economy right now. so to those of my colleagues who claim to be so concerned about the economy and the struggles of the middle class, now is your chance to prove to your

constituents you really mean what you say. now is the chance to provide nearly half of all americans with the economic fairness that they deserve. mr. president, now is the time to guarantee american women equal pay for equal work. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and i yield back the rest of our time. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on calendar number 410, is $3220, a bill to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938 and so for and for other purposes. signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 3220, a bill to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to

victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays have are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 47. 3/5 of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to reconsider the vote by which cloture was

not invoked. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. mr. reid: i now withdraw my motion to proceed to calendar number 410, s. 3220. the presiding officer: the motion is withdrawn. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 415, s. 3240. the presiding officer: the motion is pending and the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 415, s. 3240, a bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2017 and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, i have a cloture motion at the desk on the motion to proceed to this matter. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to s. 3240, a bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2017, and for other purposes, signed by 17

senators as follows -- reid of nevada, stabenow, levin, conrad, bingaman, kohl, leahy, bennet, coons, franken, baucus, mikulski, nelson of nebraska, klobuchar, brown of ohio, merkley and casey. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. ms. mikulski: mr. speaker, would you yield for a question? mr. reid: i yield to my friend. ms. mikulski: mr. leader, i noted on the last vote, you voted no. was that so that the bill could be reconsidered? mr. reid: i say to my friend through the chair there is no one in this body that has a reputation for a bigger and better fighter than barbara mikulski, the senator from maryland, senior senator from maryland, and i entered the motion to reconsider the vote

because i want the fight to continue. ms. mikulski: well, i would like to respond to the majority leader. we want to fight, too. we thank you for your vote and your voice. i just want you to know that although we lost the vote today, we're not going to give up on this vote. it is a very sad day here in the united states senate, but it's a sadder day every day when paycheck day comes and women continue to make less than men. we are sorry that this vote occurred districtly on party lines. under your effort to reconsider, we hope to bring this bill up again. we hope to forge a bipartisan vote. but i just want to say this. you know, we're coming up on the 49th anniversary of equal pay for equal work. we're not going to let this bill day in parliament entanglements.

the majority should rule in the united states senate. and i just want to say this in the words of abigail adams. while john adams and all the guys were sitting around philadelphia writing the constitution, she wrote him a letter and said don't forget the ladies. and they did it for 150 years. and then they forget, too, to get rid of the loopholes in the equal pay act now. well, abigail said if you forget us, we'll forment our own revolution, and we're going to forment our revolution. i say to the women out there in america, let's keep this fight going, put on your lipstick, square your shoulders, suit up, and let's fight for this new american revolution where women are paid for equal pay for equal work, and let's end wage discrimination in this century once and for all.

mr. reid: the senator from maryland will outline a way to proceed on this matter that will be dignified and strong. mr. president, i filed cloture on the motion to proceed to this very important bill relating to farm programs in america and nutrition programs in america, extremely important legislation. i feel confident -- and maybe that's the wrong thing to do in the temperament of the senate today, but i feel confident that we're going to be able to complete this bill. it's an important bill for america, and it would be a good thing for this congress to do this farm bill. the two managers of this bill, senator stabenow of michigan, senator roberts of kansas, have done a remarkably good job. this bill creates jobs and reduces subsidies by a significant amount. where else would you find a bill that reduces the debt of this

country by $24 billion? this is a fine piece of legislation, and i hope that we can work something out that we don't have to have a vote on this matter on thursday, that we can start legislating. we have had -- we have had good fortune shine upon us the last couple of big bills we brought through here. we had the managers work with floor staff to work on the relevant amendments and then have a way of finishing the bill. i hope we do that. i repeat, i have confidence in senator stabenow and senator roberts. they are very, very good legislators and we need to proceed on this bill. this bill is not a democratic bill or republican bill. it's a bill for america. a senator: would the senator yield for a question? mr. reid: i would be happy to. mrs. boxer: i agree with my friend's comments about senator stabenow and senator roberts. i consider both of them my friends and they are terrific legislators.

i do want to go back to the vote that just occurred. i wanted to vote that we had present in the chamber some of the house members, women of the house. i think they have gone by now. and it's to underscore the importance of this vote and what it means. so my question goes to this -- is my colleague aware that -- that women in their lifetime are so shortchanged that the average woman in the course of her career, by the end of her career, has made 400,000 less than her male counterpart? is my friend aware of that? mr. reid: yes, in the state of nevada -- i'm sure it may be more than that in california. in the state of nevada, women earned more than -- they earned less than $400,000 a year. a man in his lifetime makes x

number of dollars. a nevada woman makes $400,000 less than that. mrs. boxer: it's important for people to understand what just occurred. we had a straight party-line vote on an issue that impacts every single woman in this country. and i just think when people say if there's a difference between the parties and, you know, i -- i like working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. i have good relationships with them. but for goodness sakes, how can you have a party to a person here that votes against equal pay for equal work and i would close with this question to my friend: it is my understanding that 90% of the people support the idea of equal pay for equal work. is my leader aware of this, and when does he think he might bring this back before the body? mr. reid: i say to my friend through the chair that you are

absolutely right. 77% of republicans across america support this legislation. 91% of men across america support this legislation. mrs. boxer: thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. first before speaking about moving forward on the agricultural reform and food and jobs act i want to thank our leader, thank senator mikulski, so many who have been -- all of us together bringing forward the issue of equal pay for equal work, and we intend to continue to focus on that until we make this truly the law of the land. mr. president, i rise today to urge my colleagues to allow us to proceed to the agricultural reform food and jobs act, commonly known as the farm bill. and i want to first thank my friend and my colleague, my partner as we've moved through

the committee process, senator roberts. it really has been terrific working with my ranking member, senator roberts, and his staff. we've worked truly in a partnership, in a bipartisan way. i think that's reflected in the fact that this bill came out of committee with a strong bipartisan vote, 16 members, only five dissenting, and we are looking forward to working with all of our colleagues on the floor of the senate to have the same kind of strong bipartisan vote as we move through the process in the senate. 16 million people in this country have a job that relies on the strength of american agriculture. 16 million people. the farm bill is a jobs bill. over the last few years when our nation's economy has seen some very rough times, agriculture has been one of the few bright spots. in fact, in michigan during our toughest times in

manufacturing, agriculture was growing five times faster than any other part of our economy. agriculture is one of the only parts of the economy with a trade surplus. and i think it is in fact our number-one trade surplus, $42.5 billion in trade surplus, we're growing it here, we're processing it here, we're developing it here and then we are selling it overseas. but the jobs are here. and this farm bill is all about keeping it that way. last year our farmers exported $136 billion worth of goods, which is a 270% increase in the last ten years. 270% increase. this is about jobs, and we want to continue our leadership, not only in the country but internationally. in agriculture through this important bill. we also know that our country is

facing serious deficits. last august, the senate passed the budget control act by a vote of 74-26. that law created a deficit reduction committee which we've called the supercommittee. they set up a process to find significant savings, and i'm very proud of the fact that the agriculture committees came together in the house and the senate, the chairman and ranking member in the house with myself and our ranking member here in the senate, we did have he is -- did some very tough negotiating and made tough decisions and worked long hours and we came up with a detailed deficit reduction plan. and i wish that we'd had that same kind of opportunity with every committee because, unfortunately, in the end, we were the only committee, agriculture committee, that did that. but we did our part, and we believe that the work we did in the fall helped to not only

build relationships that are important to allow us to work together, but that we have now set up a foundation from which we have written what we call the farm bill, the agriculture reform food and jobs act. so we have built into this bill real deficit reduction of $23 billion. and let me emphasize the agriculture committee passed a bipartisan bill that strengthens the economy and cuts the federal deficit. now, in this $23 billion is roughly 2% of what the budget control act put in place in terms of sequestration next january of the $1.2 trillion, and we are roughly 2% of federal outlays. and those efforts, agriculture production, conservation, nutrition through the usda. usda is roughly 2% of federal

outlays. we are taking responsibility for 2% of the cuts, and this is more than actually required in the budget control act, and it's double what was recommended in bowles-simpson. so -- and the gang of six. so agriculture is really doing its fair share, and we're doing it in a responsible way that focuses on reform and strengthening those efforts to make sure we have a strong agriculture economy, strong conservation practices, and support for jobs through energy, jobs, and other important nutrition efforts. we end direct payments. that means no more paying farmers for crops they don't grow, no more paying farmers when they're already doing very well. the biggest savings in the bill, in fact, comes from eliminating direct payments and

consolidating three other commodity subsidy programs. america's farmers know that in order to lower the deficit we all need to do our fair share. agriculture has stepped up and is willing to do that. we also make sure that millionaires can no longer get payments from commodity programs. we tighten payment limits to half of what farmers currently are able to receive. we close what is known as the manager's loophole that lets people get farm payments when they rntsd farming. instead, we support a strong safety net based on crop insurance. based on risk. if have you a risk, if have you a loss, then it's critically important that we stand with american agriculture. we have the safest food supply, the most affordable food supply in the world, and it's critically important that we have tools available, risk management tools available for

our nation's farmers. we heard over and over again when senator roberts was in michigan and i'm grateful he joined me, i was pleased to join him in kansas, we heard the same thing as well as here in our hearings in d.c. and around the country, that crop insurance was the most important tool for our producers. and nobody wants to see a family farm, some passed down from generation to generation, go out of business because of a few days of bad weather or because of other changes in the markets beyond their control. i can't think of a more high-risk venture, frankly, than agriculture and i think in my state this year when it got very warm in february and march and the cherry blossoms and apple blossoms and the peaches and the grapevines all thought it was spring, and the blossoms came out and then the freeze and the snow came, and we literally

are wiped out on tart cherries this year and sweet cherries and apples, huge amount, peaches, grapes. across the board, devastation. i can't think of any other business that has to go through that kind of risk other than farmers. so we've put in place a strengthened program so that more specialty crops, more fruits and vegetable growers can get access to crop insurance, that we have new capacity to support expanded risk tools. and we supplement that with a market oriented risk-based approach that supports farmers in the bad times. not a government check in the good times, but in the bad times, we need to make sure that our farmers can survive and can thrive. this bill does not set a price, a government price. it focuses on the market, what's happening in the marketplace, the farmer

choosing what to plant from the market but we make sure that no farmer goes off the cliff when a price drops immediately. and that crop insurance is there for them as well. independent economists have said that this is a fair system, that it's equitable to all regions and all commodities. we have a scre very diverse country. we know -- we have a very diverse country. we have colleagues who have concerns and we're working with them to fine tune this bill but we also know that moving to a risk-based system treats all regions fairly. it's the kind of reform that people across the country, taxpayers, are asking us to do. and this bill is much, much more than just a bill related to production agriculture, as important as production agriculture is. i'm very proud of what we've been able to do in conservation. we've gone through every program, streamlined them,

increased flexibility. we have done what families and farmers across the country are doing, analyzing every dollar, stretching every dollar and frankly, we have a conservation title that does more with less. we've taken 23 programs, consolidated them into 13, and put them into four different areas with a lot of flexibility. and we are maintaining our conservation tools and strengthening key priorities. certain areas that did not have any funding after this farm bill ends september 30, we've been able to combine into a larger effort and continue and strengthen conservation. that's why we have heard from 643 conservation groups in all 50 states who support the approach we have taken in this bill. we continue the important work done in the farm bill around

nutrition, helping families who are most in need. i've heard from so many people in michigan in the last few years with the huge recession that we've gone through, that never imagined in their lives that they would need help putting food on the table. they pay taxes all their lives, never thought they would have to ask somebody to help them get through the month for their children. but they are now in that situation. and i'm committed to make sure every single dollar goes to people who -- goes to people who need it. we're cutting down on trafficking, we've had at least two situations in michigan where lottery winners somehow maintained food assistance. we -- obviously that's crazy. and so that will not happen anymore under this bill. students who live at home with their parents who have been able to go through the loopholes and

be able to get food help, not right, not where it's intended, we address that as well. and we make sure we tighten up any number of areas on accountability. and we know there are areas where we can make sure that there's accountability, there's transparency, and, in fact, families in need know that they can help feed their children during these tough economic times. we're also recognizing the diversity of agriculture in america by strengthening support for fruits and vegetables and other specialty crops. making sure we're getting those healthy foods into schools, supporting organic farmers, farmers markets, food hubs locally and that, by the way, also creates jobs. we're continuing our work on energy, helping farmers save money on their bills while getting america off of foreign

oil. we're opening up opportunities for new innovate companies involved in biomanufacturing. this is an exciting area for me as we look at how we make things and grow things in this country and bring those two things together. i think that's why we have a middle class in america because we make things and grow things, and biomanufacturing is the process of taking raw materials from agricultural products about it's soybean oil, corn by-products, wheat husks, whether it's biomass materials, and using them to create products and replacing chemicals and replacing petroleum in plastics, for example, with biodegradable, biobased products which is very important for our future in so many ways. that's what the agriculture reform food and job bill is all

about. as we go further in this debate, mr. president, i will have much more to say about all the specifics and the titles, but let me just end with this before turning to my friend to speak. the current farm bill, the agricultural reform food and jobs act, the current farm bill expires this september 30, right when farmers are getting ready for the harvest. if congress cannot come together in a bipartisan way like we did in the agriculture committee, like we did in the fall with the agricultural leaders, and pass this bill before then, it will create tremendous uncertainty and job losses in communities all across america. and it will have a serious impact on our economic recovery. i hope that our colleagues will work with us, will join with us to make sure that does not happen. we've received broad support for

this legislation from 125 farm groups, healthy food groups and other stakeholders. i'm very grateful that 45 of our colleagues on a bipartisan basis sent a letter to leadership urging that this bill be taken up. it's clear there's broad support in congress and across the country for the farm bill. so i would urge my colleagues to let us begin the debate on this important jobs bill that affects 16 million people across this country. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, i intend to give my full opening comments in regards to the farm bill tomorrow, but i want to quickly say thank you to the chairwoman for helping to bring us to this point. thank you for your leadership. it's been truly a bipartisan effort. it's been a team effort.

and i want to reiterate what the chairwoman has said. i want to tell our colleagues that this is a true reform bill. i can say that ten times over for emphasis, but it is a true reform bill. it also reduces and streamlines the department of agriculture programs. long overdue. we cut $23 billion in mandatory spending, and it was voluntarily, without any direction from the budget committee or anybody else. and it's real money. it's mandatory money. the super committee tried to work out a deal, and they weren't so super. they tried hard. i'm not trying to criticize. a tough deal. we're the only authorizing committee that i know of in the senate that has cole sraerl come forth -- come forth and said here real deficit reduction in mandatory spending, over $23

billion. it's rather remarkable that people who tend to be critical of agriculture would all of a sudden discover that it is the ag committee, in a bipartisan effort, has cut real money, real mandatory money. how many times have you heard folks back home say why don't you work together? why can't we all get along? why can't you reach across the aisle and accomplish something? we did that in the agriculture committee and achieved this true spending reduction. we eliminated four of the commodity programs. i just had a colleague come in to visit with me this morning. he said i looked at this farm bill, and i couldn't figure it out. it was so complex, i don't know how anybody could figure it out. that's pretty true in farm country too, trying to figure out all the complexities, if you go to the farm bureau and try to figure out which ones to pick. we eliminated four programs, made it much simpler.

we've eliminated $6 billion in conservation spending while streamlining 23 programs into 13 to eliminate duplication. when have you heard that? when are you going to start to streamline and reduce and duplicate? we've done that. we've cut $4 billion in nutrition programs. a painful cut for some; i understand that. but it's not going to affect anybody's payments so much as it is the $4 billion -- that's 82%, by the way, of the ag budget is in nutrition. we've eliminated a grand total of more than 100 programs. get this: we have eliminated a grand total of more than 100 programs. i don't know of any other committee that's done this. and authorizations totaling nearly $2 billion in reduced authorizations alone. not only mandatory spending but also $2 billion in authorizations. it is, as i have said, a reform

bill. we need to get this thing passed. we need to get the farm bill passed. the current law expires on september 30 of this year. failure to pass the bill means we revert to the permanent 1949 law that would provide absolute chaos in the countryside. we don't pass this bill by september 30, then we're back here voting on an extension. who wants to extend the current farm bill? it's yesterday's farm bill. this is tomorrow's farm bill. we can't go back to 1949, and i do not think we need to be in any business of trying to extend the current act when we have a true reform bill and one that is fiscally sound. we need to -- the big thing is we need to provide set guidance to our producers and lenders. our farmers, ranchers, bankers, up and down main street that depend on agriculture, every ruler community and for that matter, everybody who eats. every consumer.

we're talking about the hometown banker and the farm credit agency so they can know exactly what this farm bill looks like when as early as this august they will begin to discuss their operating loans for the coming year. now i know that we're debating the motion to proceed at this time. but the chairwoman and i and our staffs are available. we're available. if you've got heartburn, we're available. we've got the rolaids. don't worry about it. and our staffs are available. come to us. if you want to stkus -- discuss a possible amendment, come to us and talk to us. we're working together in a bipartisan effort. i urge members that intend to offer amendments, please come to us and allow us to begin working with you now. we stand ready and willing, and with your help, able. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. manchin: mr. president, i rise to recognize a very special event taking place tomorrow in our nation's capital. west virginia's free honor flight, a free trip for the service members to see the monuments built for their honor and sacrifice. i've always said west virginia is one of the most patriotic

states in the nation and we are proud of the members who have served our country with honor and distinction. the 31 veterans who are traveling to the capital tomorrow embody our state's history and contributions to the freedom of this nation. 12 of them served in world war ii, three in the korean war and 16 in vietnam. i'd like to tell you a little bit about this very special group. these heroes engaged in combat across the globe, fighting in the aleutian islands, luxembourg, japan and vietnam. some served at home. some served in historic events such as the battle of the bulge, the liberation of the philippines and front in japan. they took on different roles, serving as infantrymen, door gunners, combat fighters, tactical fighters and medics. one brave world world war ii sad honor of legion chivalry award.

these veterans come from all parts of our great state, from welch, beckley, blue field and lester and the places in between. i especially want to opponent out one special person. his name is gene cecil pennington, the youngest veteran of world war ii. that's because he lied about his age to join the navy in the 1940's and first saw combat -- think of this -- first saw combat at the age of 16. he's 83 now, and we are so proud that he'll be visiting with us. in addition to the veterans visiting us, a number of volunteers, escorts will also be accompanying them. several of these escorts will be representing their deceased fathers who served in various wars throughout the year. three of our world war ii veterans are accompanied by their sons who themselves are veterans of the vietnam war. service is truly a family

tradition in our state and in this nation. our veterans have a full day's journey ahead of them tomorrow. they will leave princeton, west virginia, at 2:15 in the morning traveling here by bus. they will return to west virginia at touring our beautiful capitol building, the world war ii monument, korean war memorial, and iwo jima memorial. these monuments to service and sacrifice have important meaning to 9/11 this country, but i know that our veterans will find special meaning tomorrow when they tour these sites. this is the first time for many of these veterans to see these monuments, which is why i'm very grateful for the hard work of the west virginians who made this trip possible by bringing the honor flight network to our state. the denver foundation and little buddy radio located in princeton, west virginia, these nonprofits were founded by bob denver, also known as gilligans

from gilligan's island and his wife. their love of west virginia and their dedication to service have truly been a gift to our great state. the honor flight network is an idea that started with earl morris, a physician assistant and retired air force captain who wanted to honor the veterans he had cared for over 27 years. earl found that many of his patients couldn't afford to see the monuments built to honor their service, so he took it upon himself to make that happen. earl was also a pilot and he offered a free flight to a world war ii veteran who was also his patient. one free trip led to another, and with the help of more volunteers, it grew into the honor flight network. the first flight took place in may of 2005, and by the end of that year, honor flight had taken 137 world war ii veterans

to visit their memorial. the honor flight network has expanded to cities and states around the country, and in 2011 the network transported 18,055 veterans to see their memorials at no cost to the veterans. in west virginia, we are lucky to have had operations manager at little buddy radio in princeton, west virginia, charlie thomas introduced the honor flight to our state. tomorrow charlie will be representing his deceased father, clifford richardson, who served in the navy during world war ii. i would like to take a moment to thank the vice president of the always free honor flight, dream addenda, which is the widow of gilligan, bob denver. she is representing her deceased father, glenn perry, who served in the army during the korean war. and i would like to thank pam coburn, who has been instrumental in planning west virginia's first honor flight. she is representing her father, francis fluhard, an air force aerial photographer on a b-24

liberator during world world wa. mr. president, thanks to charlie, dreema, bob denver, pam and the help of others, 31 veterans will be traveling to washington tomorrow on this very special journey. i commend them for their dedication and for giving west virginia just one more way to say thank you. thank you to our veterans for their service and sacrifice. i've always said that we owe our men and women who have served more than a debt of gratitude. showing our appreciation is something we should do each and every day. but tomorrow is a special day where we can pay tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our great nation. i'm so pleased that i'm able to greet some of our most courageous west virginia veterans who are all heroes. i ask the senate to join me in honoring these 31 veterans and welcome them and their close friends and family to washington, d.c. tomorrow. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor and i notice the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: quorum

call: quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mccain: mr. president, i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended and i be recognized. the presiding officer: the snoer from arizona, without objection. mr. mccain: thank you, madam president. over the past few months, there's been a disturbing stream of articles in the media. in common among them is that they cite leaked classified or highly sensitive information in what appears to be a broader administration effort to paint a portrait of the president of the united states as a strong leader on national security issues. information for which there is no legitimate reason whatsoever to believe should be in the public domain. indeed, the release of this information in these articles

harms our national security and puts in danger the lives of the men and women who are sworn to protect it. what price is paid by the administration to proliferate such a highly presidential persona, highly valued in an election year? access ash access to -- access to senior administration officials who appear to have served as "anonymous sources" divulging extremely sensitive military and intelligence information and operations. the leaks thew thes that these articles were based on, our enemies now know much more than they did before the day they came out about important aspengtz of our nation's unconventional offensive dpabilities and how we use them. such disclosures can only

undermine similar ongoing or future operations and in this sense this compromises our national security. for this reason, regardless of how politically useful these leaks may have been to the president, they have to stop. these leaks have to stop. the fact that this administration would aggressively pursue leaks perpetrated by a 22-year-old army private in the wikileaks matter, former c.i.a. employees in other leaks cases, but apparently sanction leaks made by senior administration officials for political purposes is simply unacceptable. it also calls for the need for a special counsel to investigate what happened. i'm also pleased to report that chairman carl levin has agreed,

at my request, to hold a hearing on these leaks in the senate armed services committee. the senate armed services committee has -- has a responsibility here, and i'm grateful that chairman levin has agreed to hold a hearing. in the latest of the recently published articles published on june 1, 2012, just a few days ago, "the new york times" documented in rich detail the president's secret decision to accelerate cyber attacks on iran's nuclear enrichment facilities with a computer virus that came to be known as stuxnet. the author of the article clearly states that former and current american officials spoke to him but refused to do so on the record because the program is both highly classified and parts of it are ongoing. i repeat, administration officials discussed a most

highly classified operation that is both highly classified and still ongoing, an operation that was clearly one of the most tightly held national security secrets in our history, unless now -- and might point tout my colleagues, that this is all about the iranian effort to acquire nuclear weapons. one of the most difficult national security challenges that this nation faces. other recent articles divulge critical and classified information regarding u.s. plans to expand the secret drone campaign against terrorists in yemen and the horn of africa. one of these pieces was sorry excuse for journalism that "the new york times" published on may 29, 2012, which charles krauthammer rightly observes should have been entitled "barack obama drone warrior."

finally, there was a recent article about the so-called kill list, the higherly classified or sensitive list of counterterrorism targets against whom the president has authorized lethal action. in other words, to kill. it was even reported in that article, may 29, 2012, in "the new york times" that david axelrod, the president's chief political advisor, who's running his reelection campaign as we speak, began attending the meetings in which this list was discussed. i repeat, the president's campaign manager was present and attending the meetings where lists of possible people to be eliminated through drone strikes was discussed and decisions were made. the only conceivable motive for such damaging and compromising leaks of