>> i think it is important to note there is not enough money in the president's budget for what you propose. the shortfall. >> we're not talking about that but the republican

budget cuts civic under current law you have problems there is not enough money currently. >> we will offer amendments on the democratic side to stand up for students and parents. two-thirds of the college graduates have an average debt of over $29,000. the general consensus is we ought to do more to make college more affordable. >> i used to be able to see that far. [laughter] just a few years ago. you mentioned in school subsidies can you explain it? to make under current law if you borrow from the federal government for a student loan the government subsidizes the interest payment while you are still in school. the proposal from the fiscal

condition would require the student paid the interest cost. >> so as a student or the parents pay the interest while they are in school? >> yes. for the graduate student loans the policy was adopted recently maybe two years ago spinet that is an important point for students to be prepared now they have to pick up soloed payment. >> it was a bipartisan basis a couple years ago. >> i have a couple of questions about the clave the republican budget at the same time with the affordable care act. this is not a statement that came from the bow from the heritage foundation.

in this aspect it has not changed in says perhaps the biggest shortcoming is it keeps the tax increases associated with obamacare. he also keeps the savings from medicare from overpayments providers and to the affordable care act. my question to you is if we repeal the affordable care act, what would cdo's say with the revenue base line? >> we don't have the recent estimate last was done in 2012 est. to repeal the affordable care act it would be $1 trillion over 10 years

>> and that is reflected in the republican budget. is it not? >> it assumes the tax increases the of the affordable care act are repealed but it takes the current revenue line to assume it is performed we don't assume any taxes or reduction in holding it to assume tax reform is done in that way. >> win the teapartier finds out they will be shocked. shocked. if you get rid of the $1 trillion of the affordable care act revenue in order to be deficit neutral congress has to raise $1 trillion somewhere

else bin if there are tax expenditures $10 trillion over 10 years. >> the revenue of the baseline. >> is that correct? chemical attack from 2012. >> but if you say you don't get the revenue from the affordable care act you may get it from somewhere else? >> it keeps revenue at the line and proposes that the tax reform with the policy

statement with respect to lower rates with that baseline from the affordable care act to have to come up with another trillion dollars. >> that is the tax reform. but you have to come up with $1 trillion to substitute for the revenues of the affordable care act will get the overall proposals. >> it is very clear to anyone who follows that the baseline includes the revenue for the affordable care act with the tax reform proposal last year he said

through the tax reform process you will have that $1 trillion summer else. it doesn't come up with a different trillion dollars. but your budget would not come close. not to close because it includes the revenue from the affordable care act not the medicare savings. >> with respect to what we do with medicare our beijing has three aspects the affordable at care act can find the exchange subsidies they will make medicare more solvent the next thing we do >> stop right there. deficit reduction. >> it is the series of

proposals we have a couple of reserve funds to deal with the issues. we assume congress will develop those savings if anything done to the providers side with medicare advantage the actuaries have raised concerns to provide services that the reductions that occurred we have a budget resolution that provides for those. >> in order to do that yet to come up with the equivalent of the deficit neutral fashion but the reality is what happens to the budget where new takeout those provisions zero is balanced budget. you claim to be $5 billion ted years from now with that

dynamics' stock soaring it is dwarfed by this savings and revenue from the affordable care act and we see this on the floor today. getting rid of part of the affordable care act increases by $70 billion. it already violates the budget. >> but we have a reserve fund. >> nobody is calling for the shell game if you get rid of it is $2 trillion. , the chairman talked but when we reached a bipartisan agreement is not the sequester levels but distribution of funds between debt -- defense and

non-defense you take defense spending back up to the pre-sequester levels. >> we you were part of the heading back to defense and then back at the pre-sequester levels for defense. >> that president's budget has sequester levels with that defense spending this year. >> let me correct one thing. but he does have the proposal. >> i apologize. that's correct. >> the issue is your budget so you take that category of

spending. is that right? >> what shows our levels of discretionary spending we have non defense reductions but after coming down a couple years and it begins to grow again. >> but relative to the cbo baseline use significantly cut non-defense levels? >> we're below the sequester cap. >> by my calculation you cut $791 billion over a 10 year

period although sequester levels but just to go to the point with respect the ocean 600 includes it also includes other programs with the proponents of the cuts. and with the food and nutrition programs and then indicated other changes as well. what is a total cut total? >> when undo $35 million that includes the reforms without dependants with the loophole with the

eligibility to end the state flexibility in disabled hundred $25 million by effectively cutting that they put more into their retirement account without getting additional retirement? >> behalf to contribute half. >> the chairman knows this is heavily negotiated this congress made a decision not even the cola for current military retirees in the out years. this proposal would hit current civilian employees? >> all of the civilian employees to pay half. >> that is $125 billion. 125 billion, 135 billion, i am trying to figure out

where the 260 billion additional savings comes from. that is the big chunks. >> i can walk you through. the two largest proposals to the supplemental nutrition assistance program and said you have a variety of smaller changes including the sliding scale for additional children and to a reform to eliminate the employment and disability insurance that the president has proposed and also the home affordable modification program that was part of the response of the financial crisis. in total approximately 68 or

70 percent of the proposed reductions. >> the other 32 percent you have no idea where it comes from? direct that budget resolution has a variety of assumptions with policy we specify throughout the budget well over the policies. >> there is no policies to account for with that 30 percent that is the big chunk of money. >> let me ask you with the assumptions of the budget. you assume the continuation beyond the current law expiration date of 2017. >> that revenue line is a current rather space.

>> by taking your policy proposals is not extending to childless workers? >> every cited is to have the level achieved. >> are there any others? >> does your tax reform proposal had any impact on refundable credits. >> we propose a comprehensive tax reform there is no specific function. >> let me turn briefly to this section of the budget that talks about to deal with folks with pre-existing conditions in the suggestion has you repeal all the benefits because you do you

keep the revenue but you have some language suggesting he will help them. do you have any cost associated with that? is there any cost to helping those accounted for in the budget? >> provides for the repeal and replacement of the affordable care act. >> just so i understand people made a big point how they would have the alternative tranthree would not just go back to the status quo and you have any funds associated you assume you can address those problems. i just try to understand. >> exactly. with the the health care law nedda's portion six '03.

civics you have to raise taxes or cut somewhere else. >> it is interesting after three years of repeal and replace you still don't have anything for the replacement so the assumption is to return to status quo. >> i will give you the policy statement. >> that it is crazy. >> you have policies in other areas. right? you propose cuts so you say the budget assumes the savings and does that include 8 billion a savings already enacted? >> rebuilt from the

baseline. with the farm bill that was enacted over a court to before. we have concluded those savings in the bill what the budget calls for is what you just mentioned. >> transportation we know the september the trust fund as i've looked at this budget it will cut over 50 billion of budget authority fiscal year 2015 is that

>> we have tried to establish user finance to have the source of revenue that you mentioned with the assumptions to be given the flexibility to figure out how to address that. that is up to them it provides flexibility to resolve that. >> if they do with that issue your budget does not show the additional revenue? >> that is set to them. >> if we could just turn to the tax issue we have a real world example with the ways and means committee what you like or don't like what chairman camp put forward as

a good faith effort and the end result was a rate of 35% one of the things he tried to do is he tried not to shift the tax burden on to middle income and lower income individuals. he tried to maintain the current tax code is that one of the goals of the budget? you say it should be done deficit neutral. with the middle income people. >> but to be this simple and fair tax system as part of making that tax code to be maintained is what they would address spirit that is great news you have an

amendment later today to confirm the point. hopefully they will support it and will not shift the burden so they have a chance to clarify that definition of fairness. let me ask of the of medicare front, the proposal the chairman would acknowledge they have been shifting understandably. i am trying to get a handle on what it is now in the assumptions of the specifications of the premium support proposal. flesh that out a little bit. >> it begins 2024 exactly what last year's budget does the same policy with respect to the implementation. may have been working with the tools in the tool kit to

determine how this would work. they have made a lot of progress. we believe that premium support will bring competition to a the system to bring down the cost what the president would propose with medicare. >> let me make sure i industry and. as you know, the savings achieved on the policy specifications in been previous budgets we have seen that more clearly. last year that it would be tied to the second lowest. it is now less clear the you

had been vetted in your budget i assume you make assumptions? pass to be based on some policy. what is the policy on this issue? >> with the report the cbo issued last fall they looked at two systems but the report found. >> i am familiar with the estimate came below projected spending so even without a cap it had savings in the out years. >> my question was they don't have premium support so acustar this with the ted your window i am asking what assumptions are embedded in this budget? >> we move to the average model one of two systems it

does produce savings relative to baseline over the long term. >> with that cbo analysis right now 75% of seniors enter that analysis you would face fairly significant premium. >> that depends. >> if they choose to stay in fee-for-service. >> but with that model that it could be entirely uncertain. >> digest say blockade bad assumptions. even with the average with the fee-for-service. >> people will see different

out of pocket cost. but they did show on average they went up. >>. >> didn't they go up? >> in some instances. yes. >> this is called the of medicare exchange i believe? >> the idea is seniors get premium support torture something of a certain value is that right? >> it is based on a floating average. >> they take that into the exchange with the competition.

correct? and decide which one choo-choos. that sounds like the affordable care act. so right now you go into plant competition it and you get a tax credit. but if it is the same idea of a tax credit but my point is this. seniors have medicare. a lot of people propose we move to medicare but instead we end up with what we've got to use a whole lot better than the status quo would have been if we hit 7 million in the exchange's there is a lot of other benefits but that is great for people who did not have access but it is interesting to me with the affordable

care act you are proposing a model for medicare that is very much like obamacare i think interested would be interested to discover that because they already have guaranteed coverage where obamacare is designed for people who could not get it because of pre-existing conditions. it is worth thinking about that. >> would you yield? >> i would be happy. >> the program we envision the patient selects the coverage verses the government dictating. that is the difference if you had done that maybe that could have got support. the to have the mandate. >> under medicare real pay premiums. the pay that through your

taxes and people were opposed with the affordable care act because he was mandated but to except the idea of retirement security to. >> but medicare is going broke. >> the irony is much less of a government run program so now you take medicare away so you move that to the dreaded obamacare model. >> we are moving to more medicare choices for less. it goes from more competition into less spinnaker i am sure you will have amendments.

>> one of the reses the premiums go up you were not in a plan with more restricted access. duende colleagues have questions? chairman? you gave it to us last year but knbc how the savings are broken down? >> that is what we provided last year. >> we will get that to you. >> under committee ruled nine we will consider the functional categories and

other matters amendments could be offered cedras to the agreement of the minority after it has been approved with a final vote to report to the measure to the house. the staff was slower to that moment. [laughter] the committee will proceed with the consideration of other matters. >> the ranking member and i have agreed to limit time so there is time for all members to offer amendments and markup will be completed no later than midnight. they organized into tears. instead debate time will be limited 18 minutes and then 10 minutes it is evenly divided with the sponsor and

the proponents will have one minute reserve to close. eight minutes then nine minutes then one minute to close. the document is read open-ended any point. are there any amendments? >> we need to identify the business that the committee should deliberate. i would like to offer an amendment to with the number of my colleagues the staff will distribute copies. >> relating to the increase

of the discretionary spending and a decrease of day-to-day operations. >> you are recognized eight minutes. >> thank you. with this amendment would do is restore of a number of the deep cuts made to the investments of the past idle think anybody can challenge the fact the reason has become an economic powerhouse they have worked together we have invested in basic science and research like nih why we have a strong pharmaceutical industry because of the spinoff of those investments. it will be cut by over $50 billion over the next ted years and colleagues said we have to do increase. under the republican budget he will cut investment and

education by hundreds of billions in higher education as discussed with deep cuts to killed pratt grants that makes it owns more expensive. that does not open up more opportunities for americans you can afford the tuition that is great but everybody else we will make them harder brough so i will put up a chart. with that long term structural deficit issues to a huge joke of your savings

the way that most republicans are counterproductive. i heard the chairman said we have already cut in half of discretionary spending of that seed corn left to go for the longer-term retirements. but this budget has a dramatic cut with the love zero other investment united states historically through republican and democratic presidents. the reason why is because we want to compete and to stay there. with those investments people say are it important.

now we have a budget that cuts in non-defense discretionary $750 billion below where chairman rogers said was unsustainable. let's talk about those other issues. the long-term deficit? please read reforms than revenue there was something else that we should not cut basic investments to help the economy grows so this proposal says instead of food aid money into the slush fund we don't need all the money in the budget for overseas contingencies. week of big united states should create that slush fund.

let's take that non-defense discretionary spending. that is what you did the bipartisan budget agreement fiscal year 2016 was not make the cuts be used that savings with those investments i will yield the down. >>, one of the things it is so critical with research and innovation reid try to wring courage young people into science technology engineering and math. this nature instead of. we will cut the money that provides the jobs and opportunities. we will cut off the research pipeline is the more we

talked to the research cool that we have to cut the graduate participation in the research projects. this is a result of sequestration. now the will of ramp down in a draconian way with the critical research areas. as we interpret -- try to encourage to get the education to remain globally competitive. this seems very counter productive but then he said we will not fund science with a great education with nowhere to use it. i yield back. >> with the first of the 15

public-private partnership the same philosophy through is a recent teapartier approach we saw $440 million donated to a january software in corporations coming into youngstown at the old steel bill making investments because of the strategy with public investment in strategic public investment, national science foundation, a defense, energy, a carr rivers -- commerce. these are not included in this budget at all it is a good opportunity for us to recognize that. >> mr. chairman this is not day prosperity better share.

this is the austerity budget. i remember discussing with the countries in europe were doing. with a rebuttal systemically early and to a vote we will photon this amendment then recess. new jersey is recognized. >> they instead the question then the ranking member made it was the statement it cut its funding but there are no reforms.

but he could ask each member of the panel or the committee staff in he got the answer there is reform. talking about education education, food stamps, medicaid contrary to their ranking members opening statement that they will be educated from the committee staff there is reform. going to the first amendment where have i heard this before? that i have been here for 12 years it is the same old song on the other side of the eye of.

-- the ideal. how do we pay for it? with pretend to many the term they now use is taking money off of the slush fund from the future years. these are not real slush funds there is no real money but look at the first half but the way to solve it is to spend more taxpayer dollars. with the shovel ready project the infrastructure investment they failed miserably some like solyndra failed miserably for five years later trillions of dollars of taxpayer money alp the window was 6.6 trillion dollars the economy

is still not going where it should be. we have economists in the room who talks about this keynesian approach and that has failed. as an average american that with the stimulus economics is the answer to prosperity to live in the 10,000 square foot house you just have to borrow more then it you can borrow or spend your way to prosperity. but what we have heard with average americans all that is really doing is putting the burden on our children. these opinion are my opinions how badly this approach works with the administration over the last five years these are the

facts real gdp rose over the last four years has averaged just 2 percent that is well below the historical rate for this country. less than half the typical rate since world war ii. it has fallen to 63% 10 and a half million americans are currently an unemployed. translating that back dash home real people have real hardships because of the borough and spend approach i think i should keep the tab how many times to coax brothers will be brought up during venturing but i am

not so concerned as the other side of the ideal i am more concerned about the average citizen just being able to afford a coca-cola into have a job in the president's economy does not allow that to occur and realizing i have four minutes left i would like to yield to my colleague for his comments. >> i don't doubt the ranking members committed to investing in america of where there are fewer dollars to invest but more importantly we save $1 trillion in interest alone. the amendment asks if we could spend $80 billion this year to invest in america

because of what is going on with interest alone over 10 years is more than the sum total of austerity is here it is not. austerity comes the longer we wait the more choices we've run out of they will only get harder. with the president's budget, $5 trillion of interest alone over the next 10 years of freedom make these decisions today we only crowd out more of that investment. i share the are ranking members passion but i just

hope we make the correct choices before it is too late. >> if no objection to the plaintiff there really are slush funds out there the year answer is no. no funds have been authorized or appropriated for years after 2014. event with that i will give to mr. mclellan talks. >> the austerity budget that is true of those budgets that relied on the tax increases to solve a dramatic economic growth. i would simply like to remind them of that fact. >> you have one minute to close then we will float

then we will pick back up. >> it is always interesting to talk about the economists but then the non-partisan in economist of the cbo that help to prevent a total economic crash of the comments are on a different amendment because this is the pattern under ronald reagan and others talking about seriously degrading national investment and i yield the remainder of the time. >> thank you. my friends you peddle the same over leftover soup. you spend your way to say this is the mantra. spend your way out.

12 percent unemployment austerity budgets, if we cannot keep up. >> your time is expired. >> those in favor say aye? >> the note has it. >> roll-call is requested. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call] >> aye 40 node 19 d amendment is not agreed to. we will resume immediately after the last vote. [inaudible conversations]

mr. coats: mr. president, i come to the floor today to discuss the passage and the vote that's about to occur on the that's about to occur on the >> and i come to the florid to date to discuss a passage that is about to appear with the unemployment insurance extension bill. i have repeatedly said the senate should have slothful and open debate on this issue and that debate should include the opportunity for those of us is in the minority and a majority to offer him amendments or

changes that represent the people's view here in in congress that could strengthen the bill. perhaps the house could consider. for those truly in need the issue of extended unemployment for the boy my dashboard debate i have worked not only with my colleagues of the republican side but the democrat colleagues to secure a tuesday next to give me a better sense of where we are going to provide for better legislation that perhaps could work its way through the congress on to the president's desk.

those were legitimate be paid for now if we cannot offset new spending with those that have not proven their worth we will continue to draw down the precipitous road to a fiscal crisis with $17 trillion and counting of ever accumulating debt. but only when they make ends meet. having a legitimate pay for was the criteria trying to address and the president himself acknowledged publicly that the

unemployment insurance program needed reforms there were abuses not preaching for the people live was intended to reach and it has some flaws but once again old those attempts to provide that has been deemed as an unreasonable has been rejected not because we had a photo or a debate in did not achieve their requisite amount but because the majority of the jury used procedures once again to deny the majority any opportunity to stand on the floor to offer up the amendment have been voted on so the to a data i a mention

to i did not find much opposition that resulted in our waste of taxpayer money in violation of the law requires if you apply for unemployment benefits you must prove you are able to work and you have been seeking work immerse -- most importantly but social security disability insurance program requires that you were unable to work there for not eligible of less you can prove that through a medical process of the inability to work but yet the gao has found a

significant number of those received checks from both programs. you cannot have it both ways to say you're not able therefore received a disability payment at the same time receive the government check to prove you're willing to work. . . our fiscal plight today, it's the least we could do. but yet i have been denied, my colleagues who tried to offer the same amendment have been denied the opportunity to do just that. now, had we had that opportunity to come down here and offer that amendment, we could have had the debate, those who sought another way or didn't agree with what we were saying had every opportunity to vote no and turn down this

amendment. they would then be accountable for their no when they went back for their no when they went back do both now and turn down that amendment. they would be accountable for their noble and they went back home or accountable for their yes one way or another. there are people on both sides of the reform issues but that is how the senate is designed to work. the senate is not designed to simply shut off a debate to deny the minority the opportunity to offer amendments and we are not asking for passage. we are simply saying give us a chance to make our case and we will have to accept the outcome and every member of this body will be responsible for how they voted and they will go home and tell their folks this is why i did such and such and that is the way the system is designed to work. and yet we find ourselves here in a dysfunctional situation where there is no opportunity to have this debate, no opportunity to vote and let people know where we stand. maybe it's the designed that way. maybe we don't want people to

know where we stand. i don't think anyone in this body could go home and tell the people that they represent their constituents we are not going to tell you how we really feel about that. i didn't want to put my vote on record and therefore we are not going to have an opportunity to even do that. so it's a black marker on the senate. it's a dysfunctional situation. it's no wonder that the american public holds us in such low regard. this body which was created by our founding fathers enshrined in the constitution has been labeled as the greatest deliberating body in the world. it simply turned into something totally different and totally opposite from that. we are rubberstarubbersta mped senate depending on what the majority leader decides and what he wants and doesn't want. i think it's a great disservice to the american people. it's a great disservice to this institution. having had the opportunity to serve here in two different

occasions the contrast between my 210 years here in the united states senate couldn't be more stark. when i first came the rights of the minority were recognized by a variety of majority leaders who simply said this is the senate. you take tough votes. you have the debate and you allow the minority their rights. and as a consequence we function as the senate has functioned for nearly 200 years. suddenly we are now in a situation where that is not the case. we have turned this into a simply somewhat of a fiefdom where the majority leader has full power to deny the minority their rights. i think we will come to route the day when this practice was first initiated. for that day when it has been accepted because it denies those of us who have the great honor and privilege of representing

our states the opportunity to do just that. mr. president along with the suitability was simply gives states more flexibility in terms of providing suitable work for the unemployed which if it's provided to them they have to accept it or they don't receive the unemployment checks. those two amendments, two of the many suggested reforms here i think that would make sense but whether you agree with that or not shouldn't we have the opportunity to present to the american people an honest intellectual rational debate on legislation so that whether it fails or it passes we have a full understanding and they have a full understanding of how to measure us in terms of whether or not we were jirga representatives of those that sent us here. mr. president having said that i will you go floor and note the

absence of a quorum. >> mr. president i hope for and expect a strong bipartisan vote today for legislation to extend emergency unemployment benefits through the end of may and applies retroactively on the point that emergency benefits expire in december. this is an important victory that i wish had come much much sooner. sooner for the 80,000 michigonians who have gone without unemployment benefits and for the thousands more who stand to lose them if congress fails to act. these benefits keep food on the table and a roof overhead for families affected by job loss through no fault of their own. the idea that some of our colleagues have advanced that unemployment insurance gives workers an excuse not to find a job is as inaccurate as it is insulting. for all but a handful of recipients unemployment benefits are not a free pass from working.

but the economic lifeline that keeps them going while searching for the job they so desperately want and need. i want to commend senators on both sides of the aisle who have not given up on this issue and who have worked so hard to forge a compromise. led by senators jack reed and dean heller. republicans have joined with democrats on the procedural votes necessary to move this bill forward and i hope the bipartisan support for this measure in the senate will prompt speaker boehner to bring it to a vote in the house. there is a strong bipartisan majority for passage in the house. it is now up to speaker boehner to respond to the will of the american people who understand the people who are unemployed don't want to be unemployed. there may be a few exceptions and a a few stories and a few ethnic goes but that's about it. the unemployed in this bible --

body are suffering and it suffered for too long. job growth has come as a result of following the recession has been weakened the least -- least we can do is respond. as a bipartisan majority do that here. it will be strong. my hunch is it will be well over 60 perhaps two-thirds of the senate and there's no look skews for speaker boehner not to bring this bill to the floor of the house. i hope that he does so. in all conscience it's essential that he does so and i yield the floor.

's. >> i think what we need is something in the commission during the reagan administration at the brad commission realignment and closing commission during a think the clinton administration. an outside group with integrity former members of congress know current elected congress to come in and do a complete audit of government from top to bottom.

every agency of government has a piece of legislation or charger that created it. it has a purpose. if it's not fulfilling that purpose or not doing it within a reasonable budget issue be cut or eliminated. let's just take head start. this came in with the highest motivation. do you know and i didn't until i researched that there are now three had starts. there is early head start. there's an hands had started regular head start. why do we have the other two? because the first wasn't working. why did we have a third one? because the second one wasn't working.

>> the white house announced two executive orders aimed at addressing pay discrimination against women. betsey stevenson of the white house counsel of economic advisers spoke about pay discrimination at an event hosted by the center for american progress. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon and welcome. i'm the executive vice president for policy here at the center for american progress. we are very excited that you have decided to join us for our discussion on combating pay discrimination. as you know tomorrow is april 8 which is equal pay day and sadly we do need to take the time to

read it and i said we haven't done everything we need to do in terms of ensuring more equity between men and women in terms of their pay. women in our country are paid on average 77 cents for doing the same job as a man and when we look at that along racial and ethic -- ethnic lines it gets even worse. african medical and make 64 cents and hispanic women 54 cents for every dollar that white hispanic -- non-hispanic men make. families increasingly rely on women's wages to make ends meet. between 1967 and 2010 the percentagpercentag e of mothers who brought home at least a quarter of the families earnings rose from less than one third, 28% to nearly two-thirds. here today to help us frame our discussion we are honored to have betsey stevenson. dr. stevenson serves as a member of the council of economic

advisers at the white house and is a leading expert on labor market policy. she has focused much of her work on how different public policies can affect the labor market experiences of women in working families. we are very honored to be partnering with the white house and the department of labor on a summit later this year on working family issues so we are very grateful to have for today and really see her as a traffic harder in the work. that sees record of a cumbersome and is long and distinguished. she has taught at some of the nations leading institutions and she has published widely in leading economic journals. she served as chief economist of the u.s. department of labor and is currently on leave from the university of michigan's gerald r. ford school of public policy and economics department at michigan where she is an associate professor of public policy and economics. after we hear from her we will

be joined by distinguished panel moderated by jocelyn frye. to give you a little preview the panel will include eeoc chair jacqueline berrien dean at the mccord public policy school at georgetown victoria but seneca harvard school of government and equal pay advocate amanda mcmillan. i would like to ask you to join me in welcoming dr. stevenson to the stage. [applause] >> thank you. i want to thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's discussion. the issue of women's pay and participation in the workforce is vitally important for women and for our economy. it is moving and heartwrenching at a personal level effect you won't miss when you you hear manned a story today but it's also a matter of essential

importance for our nation in the 21st century. without making more of the amazing talent of women in labor force we cannot maintain our competitiveness. america has long been a nation where prosperity has flourished because of our uniquely talented workforce. workers are some of the most productive workers in the world. but we can do better. we must do better and succeeding with women is at the heart of doing better. women are now nearly half of our labor force although participation of women in the prime working years stalled at roughly 75% in the 1990s. women's participation over this period is continue to grow in other countries and researchers have wanted to a lack of family-friendly policies like paid parental and sick leave available high-quality daycare and the right to be able to work part-time as an explanation for why the u.s. has lost relative

to other developed countries. the fact the women's participation stalled in the 1990s doesn't mean that women's role in the labor force has stayed the same over these last few days eats. women have overtaken menace college graduates and graduate education and their dominance in education in the past few decades means of women are the majority of our young highly-skilled workers. women are receiving training and entering higher-paying fields that were once the exclusive dominion of men and these facts highlight how important women are for our labor force and our economy and for us to remain competitive. these facts also help explain why women's earnings have grown in importance for families. today about four in 10 families have a woman as the primary breadwinner and among employed married women their earnings now comprise roughly 44% of their

household earnings on average. women have continued to gain skills. they are going into higher earning for rations and are increasingly relied on to provide for their families. so why are we stuck at 77 cents on the dollar? the gender wage gap is seen persistently across the income distribution. we see within occupations and across occupations and we even see it when men and women are doing identical work side-by-side. let's take the challenges that computer science is facing as "the new york times" reported this weekend. the share of women in computing has declined from 37% in 1985 to 18% in 2012. a rare example of women losing ground in a trend that is in the opposite direction of the needs of our labor force. perhaps even more troubling is the fact the women drop out of computer science professions at rates double that of men as

women experience a culture that they too often findable coming. making sure computer science can better attract and retain women is crucial to meeting demand for workers over the coming decade. the urgency is there not just because women are fed up with dean paid less facing a coming work laces and outright discrimination but because our economic competitiveness relies on it. without women in tech we cannot succeed in ted. women are too often choosing occupations because they offer flexibility without penalty yet occupations such as abstractions abstractions -- obstetrics -- when women demand we rethink how an occupation is structure significant changes can and do happen and more occupations need to figure out how they can work better for women and families because we are too often failing to retain the talent they need to remain competitive. the gender wage gap grows through women's careers.

every year the difference between what women earn and what men similar stages of their career are gross. every instance of discrimination every slight edge given to them and every. because of the lack of workplace flexibility at that. young girl tees for liking math a college student who drops a class after the ta propositions or the woman who is passed up for promotion for her male colleagues, the man he gets a bigger raise to a man because he is feeding a family a of woman who is passed over for promotion for maternity leave and the woman who gets tired of being marginalized of being an outsider and changes careers. there's no end to the stories and each of these stories adds up time and time again to 77 cents on the dollar. the president knows this is a national problem. left unaddressed it will erode our economic position in the world. that is why he has asked us to look to see what we can do to increase opportunities for women to succeed.

between now and june 23 when the white house host a summit on working families with the department of labor president has asked his advisers to reach out to and work with business leaders educators researchers advocates congress members and state and local governments to explore key issues including workplace flexibility it will pay and paid leave among others. to make sure we are doing all that we can all that we must to make the best use of american talent to ensure u.s. competitiveness in the 21st century. he knows very things that congress can do right now. they can vote this week to pass the paycheck fairness act of bill that addresses the fundamental injustice that led to lily led that are being paid less for being a woman for 19 years. lewis companies pay secrecy the threat of retaliation against anyone who would share pay information as an important

policy to allow discrimination to persist. if you can find out how much others are earning you can't find out if you were being discriminated against. lily had to to wait 19 years until the brave colleague anonymously slipped her know. the first while the president signed in taking office was the lily led better they -- fair pay act by extending the time period in which an employee can file a claim and he knows that we can't stop there. while we hope that congress will do their part the president is committed to doing his part and that's why the president is taking two new executive actions tomorrow to combat this challenge and strengthen enforcement of equal pay laws. the first is that he will sign an executive order prohibiting federal contractors from retaliating against employees who choose to discuss their compensation because he knows pay decrease fosters cush domination we should not tolerate that. you he will also sign a presidential memorandum

instructing the secretary of labor to establish new regulations requiring federal contractors to submit to the department of labor summary data on compensation for their employees including by sex and race. the department of labor will use the data to encourage voluntary compliance to show companies this is how you are stacking up. this is what your pay gaps look like and to allow more targeted enforcement like focusing efforts for their discrepancies and reducing burdens on other employers. the president is leading by example using the time on this issue and will continue to urge congress to pass the paycheck fairness act to ensure all employers or health of the same high standard working women deserve. there's a lot more to be done and over the coming months we will work together to find ways of moving the ball even further forward because one thing is clear, when women succeed america succeeds. thank you.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon and welcome to the center for american progress. i am jasselyn a senior fellow at cap and it's great to have all of you here. i'm going to introduce our panel and we have a really terrific panel and i'm going to give a brief introduction and then we will get into the discussion. so first immediately to my right is the chair of the equal employment opportunity commission jacqueline berrien. welcome. she has a resume that is far to link the for me to recount.

what i will tell you is that she has a long history in public service as a litigator at the defense and educational fund. she also has been philanthropic at the ford foundation and worked on women's issues as wely the president as chair in july of 2009. so, welcome. seated next to her is amanda mcmillan from jackson mississippi rate i'm sure you will be able to tell that when she starts talking and it's great to have her here. we have called her an equal pay out the kid and she is a very personal story to tell about her efficacy around equal pay and her own personal experience challenging pay discrimination with women. thank you amanda for being here. seated next to her dean montgomery, the dean at the

public policy institute at georgetown. he too has a long distinguished record. he was an assistant secretary at the department of labor during the clinton administration. he also has done work around auto recovery for president obama and he is an economist. so i think we will be able to bring a unique perspective having worn many different hats and certainly last but not least victoria but sin is the founding executive director of the women and public policy program at the harvard kennedy school. she works on a range of public policy issues affecting women both domestically and internationally and has been a leader on these issues for many years. we are excited and pleased to have you join us as well. i'm going to start actually first with amanda because i am sure amanda you didn't necessarily think in your life

you were going to be out there as an advocate for equal pay but i think it would be interesting for folks just to hear a little bit about your experience. so you were working in mississippi. tell us a little bit about what the problem was. what is it that prompted you to think there was something going on that was wrong in the workplace? >> i never ever thought that i would be on any type of a stage talking about my experience but i'm so grateful and thankful to be here. i worked for a company for almost 10 years. they were a wholesale distributor, supplied goods. i was an office manager. i did whatever they needed me to do ,-com,-com ma process and voices, take orders from customers just whatever they needed me to do. over the years because they like

the way that i worked, they like to me as an employee babe promoted me to be their accounts payable and accounts receivable manager. that gave me an insight into their banking records and that gave me insight to what other people were making in the company. if that had not happened i would have never known what other people in this company were making. it was a very hostile work environment. just to be clear it was a hostile work environment. you certainly were not going to discuss what you made with other people inside or outside of this company. cause i had that inside information i knew what others were making i wanted to make that money too and when positions in sales became available when people would retire and go to another job i inquired to fill out enough of

of -- application to be considered for that position. time and time and time again when i asked to apply they told me know. it was always the same answer. it's because you are a woman. they told me people would want to do business with me because i'm a women. they told me the job is too dangerous for a woman to do. i would have to go into bad neighborhoods and i as a woman can't do that and they also told me i wouldn't be a very good mother if i was out on the road making sales calls and god forbid if my child fell off the monkey bars and i was three hours away and she needs me then that's not really a good mother. that was the answer that i was given time and time again. >> just describe a little bit of what was the job that you wanted to get? >> i wanted to be a salesman for this company. what you did was went and called

on customers and take their order. it's not brain surgery or anything. i was already doing it over the phone. you know but it was actually outside sales versus being inside the office. >> so the things you were doing already were very similar. >> very similar. >> how many times did you ask them about the? >> at least four or five formal occasions where i was able to document what had happened that i asked to apply. i asked if i took a self-defense class would they be happy with that and could i apply then? they said no. there were whole gambit of things that i tried to do to appease the problems with me being a woman to actually consider me for the job and nothing even asking if i got a sex change could i then fill out the application and they said no. [laughter]

>> what the to do instead? >> instead i researched. i did it on my own. i went to the computer which was a wealth of information for me. i started to read books about other people's experience in what i was experiencing. was this legal? was as illegal? i was trying to define it for myself and figure out just what the answer was. i researched it myself. >> ultimately what did you decide after you did the research? >> i decided what they were doing to me was wrong, morally ethically and more importantly legally and i could prove it so i filed a complaint with the eeoc. >> what happened with the complaint? >> it was taken. there was an investigation done. it took a long time. in four years it took a long time. it was hard to be patient. it was hard to understand the cogs of justice take a long time

and you have to go through all these different steps to make this happen. but i knew the truth and i knew that i could prove it and i didn't care how long it took. i didn't care. >> well thank you for that and you are seated next to the chair of the eeoc jacqueline berrien and i am sure this isn't the first time you've heard the story are many others like it. people consistently say ,-com,-com ma women in particular say that pay discrimination is a challenge, is an issue. can you talk a little bit about just what the eeoc is? i know you can't talk specifically about cases but what is your observation in terms of pay discrimination and experiences like amanda's? >> first of all thank you for inviting me to join you today and the story that amanda shared

his in some ways typical of what we see and in some ways it's a typical of what women experience a let me start with what is common or what we have seen in other circumstances and have been able to use the law particularly title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 in the equal pay act of 1963 to address the problem of pay discrimination. first of all one aspect of what amanda experience was to be paid less than men in the workplace who are doing similar work. she was doing sales. the difference with some people were outside doing sales and she was inside doing sales. the work is similar. the work is identical in some respects and yet she was earning less for doing the same job. the other thing that is similar is that one of the reasons there is a gap in pay between men and

women on average is that women are still excluded from better compensated jobs in workplaces and relegated and even segregated at times into the poorly compensated jobs in for example the food service industry. it's not unusual for women to dominate the serving positions where tips are a substantial part so they are not even making minimum wage and they don't earn or they are not eligible for some of the higher tips. if i go to different kinds of staff. in your case, he found that it was fine as long as you work as a office manager and he stayed in the office but when he started to inquire about jobs that would pay you more that is when you got pushed back about it wouldn't be appropriate and it would be too dangerous. even though you were willing and able to do it. we have represented in a number

of cases discrimination to her administrative process under similar circumstances where women have been shut out of jobs if they were qualified for that they wanted to take. sometimes in male-dominated areas like mining or construction or transportation, especially long-haul trucking or warehouse jobs and other sorts of jobs where the representation of women is relatively small. we are challenging that exclusion but we are also challenging when men and women are in the workplace and doing essentially the same jobs but not pay the same ways. for instance in another case we resolved recently a woman was working for a fast food restaurant and she came in as a cashier and as a sandwich maker. she worked her way out. she eventually became a shift

manager but literally at every stage along the process she found the men were working beside her and earning more. sometimes it was simply that they were paid more and other times it was that the restaurant was systematically make in decisions when business was slow women would be sent home and men would be allowed to continue their shift. that was happening systematically. we were able to find systematically was happening across the country and we were able to address it systematically. but the thing that makes their story somewhat unique and makes our enforcement of these laws so challenging visits for often the case that people are she said have no idea they are making less. the lack of transparency around pay and compensation what people earn is one of the very real impediments to trying as a government agency or the private enforcement act year's like

lawyers in private practice to do as much as we would hope to address the issue of pay discrimination. >> that is one of the issues that i believe is part of one the president's executive actions that deal with transparency. that is what is going to ask you about in terms of the invisibility of pay discrimination. is that the biggest challenge in terms of eeoc's ability to uncover pay discrimination? is at the transparency issue? >> the transparency issue is certainly a major problem. it's one form of discrimination that a person can be victimized by and not know that it's happening. you have to have access to financial records. many of you made know the story of lily ledbetter. she had worked for years for goodyear. she had no idea she was being paid less and an anonymous tipster left her no thread now. one of the other cases were resolved recently a woman who is

working as a human resources manager learned that two men who held the same position and actually had smaller caseloads earned more and partly i suspect because of her role in the corporation as a human resources person she was able as you were to piece together some information through the records. she had access on a regular basis and the particular challenge is when a work place actually prohibits people from talking about pay. it subjects them to discipline if they discussed their pay which makes it virtually impossible for a woman employee to know whether they're being paid the same as others in the work place. >> thank you. i want to move to ed montgomery because you have worn different hats. you have been in an

administration that had enforcement responsibility but also in academia and you have the perspective of an economist as well. i wanted to start with the issue of fair pay. there's only so much disagreement in dispute about it. tell us a little bit about why fair pay matters from an economic perspective. >> you can start with the economic perspective as the story is told. individuals who go to the marketplace not making the earnings they deserve as an impact on the quality of life that they can enjoy. as a significant impact on the quality of life their families can enjoy not just today but perhaps over there entire lifetime. so it sticks with you and sticks with your family. it changes the opportunities your family can enjoy. we as a society add that up over millions of women you come to a very big number in terms of the economic impact.

we as an economy are not growing as rapidly as we should be enjoying the quality of life that we should need. the two big problems we face today is relatively low growth and declining family incomes. doing something about the gender pay gap is part of that solution for how do we get american families the income they deserve these things accumulate and they affect communities ability to grow and actually affect businesses ability to grow. that company is hurting themselves. they are hurting themselves and hurting our competitiveness and their ability as a country to grow. these things accumulate from individual stories to aggregate macroeconomy. >> betsey stevenson talked a little bit about this and about the role of women in families and increasingly being the breadwinner's and the importance of addressing talent.

how does that play out? historically people say it's nice that women earned money but none really have the resources. his stats till true or are the demographdemograph ics changing? >> it hasn't been true for 35 years. most of the family income growth we are seeing since the 1970s has been because of increased labor force participation. if there was a day when it was icing on the top of the cake it is the cake now and you can't escape that reality. the more women are more essential to the earnings of the household so it's not a peripheral issue. it's a central everyday issue. the vast majority of households. 40% of the households were land women's earnings and there's 20 or 30% that rely on them as a partial right-winger so in

aggregate women's earnings account for significant contribution 80% of households in the united states. that is a big issue. >> everything that i wanted you to address is when you are at the department as an enforcement official, you know one of the issues out there is being able to identify when pay discrimination is happening and having access to the information that's necessary. can you talk a little bit about the challenges that agencies face and actually being able to identify age discrimination? >> economies will say how can you measure something you cannot see and yet we have laws prohibiting pay discrimination and we have no pay data. how do we know if there is data discrimination without pay data so it seems secretary herman was strong about wanting the department of labor and the administration to go for collecting basic to information

so you'd have some way of figuring out which employers have issues and which employers do not have issues. the equal pay survey came into place during that period and we rescinded during the bush of administration but it was the first time we started payable to get regular kinds of pay. without the transparency as the commissioner just talked about how do you know where the problems are and who do you know and it's not how much it helps enforcers. it gives individuals the power to address the problems themselves. it allows employers to get away with it it empowers women to negotiate. empowers women to demand. it'd empowers and porsches to command so it has all those benefits if you make the data available. >> you alluded to the fact that betsey stevenson talked about the other executive action the president's going to do is around the collection of pay data. is there a way to collect it and

still protect confidentiality to make sure to give comfort to employers and their information out on the street? >> you know many of these same employers collect data off the web and have no problem saying it's going to be completely confidential. there are lots of tools and tech geeks to modernize data and make sure it doesn't come out with identifiers. that is a smalltime technological problem to be able to do that. >> that is really very helpful. victoria i want to move to you because you have been part of it and initiative in boston that is address the wage gap in a completely different way of what i liked about it is it was a demonstration that everybody can do something. everybody has a role to play. amanda played her role. the chair placed the official role. we have the academic respective empire experience but you have been involved in a voluntary

effort. can you talk about that? >> as we have heard today there are issues which we face as a society. there are issues where the government can step in but in addition there are issues for the employer. what we have done in boston and it's called the 100% talent the boston women's compact, if one starts with a premise which i think is a fine premise to begin good well-meaning people still have a hard time closing the pay gap and many employers are aware that they have the pay gap and may wish to solve it but they don't know what to do with it. creating systems and structures that are going to systematically produce an effective closing of the gap can be challenging so it may not be that they don't want to do it. is that they don't know how to do it in a way that can permeate the companies. mayor bonino when he was mayor of austin decided he wanted to

engage in making boston the best place for working women in the united states. austin has significant attributes in that area. as betsey talked about and reiterated by mike co-panelists women at the high school college postgraduate level are receiving the majority of degrees. the majority. betsey talked about how in terms of young highly trained talent women are the majority in the u.s.. but the way this is also true in europe and it's going to be true in south america in the next few years. so what we already knew is that large companies multinationals are totally aware of this. they already get that they need to get on board and figure out how to close gaps because the talent market is predominantly female. we also know that governments understand and what's the incentive for the companies and how do we begin solving the problem not just where amanda

says which is a totally valid import and reasonable place but amanda wants to be paid fairly. how do you help companies had equal investment in wanting to pick a women fairly and how group roles -- not a regulation before companies can engage and feel good about it and you can get through all the legal hurdles? when you say you want to close the wage gap you are saying that you have the wage gap which can put them at some risk. the mayor mayor buddy now wisely put a task force that included those who understood people like me those who've worked significantly in government like my colleague cathy manahan who chairs the council of the federal reserve for boston and individuals like alison quirk who serves on the management committee for its state street bank and many essences what we like to call main street businesses as well so all levels

of main street business. how can we come together to create an opportunity what we like to call he nudged? how can we nudged people in the right direction? first we have to make it easy. we wrote a gorgeous white paper that listed 33 different interventions that companies could take to help close the wage gap everything from binding greater workplace flexibility so high talent individuals frank the mailer free mail of these interventions to help women. everybody wants a workplace where they can effectively contribute and not need penalized for who they are and do their best work. employers want to leverage the investment they have party made. when amanda told her story what i kept thinking about his amanda is a worker who wants more responsibility who has been with the company for 10 years who has repeatedly asked for growth. that is an employee that companies want because that is someone who is going to get leverage back. they are going to be making

greater profit because they have an employee who has knowledge of the company who has invested in the company who shows commitment who has loyalty it has tenacity wanting to improve. that's the amp play you don't want to lose and have from the sidelines are working for your competitor. when companies look at it from a talent management lands they get it and what we have tried to do is make it easy so we made sure they could choose any three actions that they wanted to take. they sign a compact saying that they are going to do this action which means they can publicize that. they can get credit for trying to do the right thing and then we have given them what i think is going to be the most valuable piece which is a community where they could have a discourse to talk about what's working well and to talk about where the challenges are. the larger the company the more they tend to know whether challenges are. they just don't know how to fixx it. we are giving them an opportunity to participate in a way that they won't be penalized

and there's nothing punitive and we also asked that they give us their scrub data. to your question of how easy is it to make it anonymous? the students at georgetown and harvard were good at taking data making it anonymous and figuring out what is does it tell us? what is the story? we are hoping the example in boston launches be meaningful because it can be replicated but the gaza will tell us things we didn't know. the companies they want to know they want to retain their female talent. they understand that management of female talent is the future and for the u.s. in particular to be competitive into the future we have to solve this because the majority of our talent pool is female. >> is there an overall goal or timeframe that you are trying to do this in? >> mayor benigno was hoping we could solve this right away and mayor marty walsh who is the mayor of austin is an agent as well.

those of us who study these types of issues and work in this field and even amanda talk first thing about this is slow going. we are hoping will be able to see in a way that we can look at clean data disaggregating it from all kinds of other factors to see how long does it take to get change? i think what the goal needs to be when we talk about where things get stalled is moving in the right direction. 77 cents on the dollar, that some believe the leap or considering women are the majority of the educated talent. no one has mentioned today which i'm sure everyone on the panel knows in many of you know, the more highly educated a woman is the larger the pay gap. what is so insidious about that fact is this is an issue in which an individual cannot inoculate oneself from through education. this is an issue which can unbelievably fundamentally not be solved on an individual level

which is why this type of partnership between government academia individual action and public-private partnership is the only way we can tackle such a large and pervasive issue. >> what is the response been? >> the response has been unbelievably positive. my colleague from state street worked effectively on every single thing we put together. we took it to the whole legal team at state street so there was nothing in this report -- we didn't do this in a silent way. had just a right amount of academia or government we would not gotten it right. the way we talk about how diversity brings more effective decision-making for complex problems, this is a complex problem. in order to get it right beneath lots of different actors are on the table who can figure it out. at the time it was brought to the public meaning to different companies who could sign on with the party got it right and it

didn't put companies at risk. my belief you have to meet people where they are and it is respectful. the right way to do it and it makes things move more quick way. so we went and sat with what used to be known as the faults. it's now called the massachusetts competitive partnership. we sat down with the presence of the largest corporations in massachusetts in the greater boston area, and all of them understood that these are types of issues that they were facing. everyone wanted to do something about it and here we were giving them a ready made place to help solve the problem where they can talk about it and what i would call a safe reasonable effective way so we got many of them to sign on which gave a lot of confidence to businesses which were small and medium-size enterprises and a lot of the mom and pop stores really wanted to do something about it.

we are working and coming up with -- we have some type of bike grant like the good housing housing -- good housekeeping seal that people can display in their shop window and people can say hey we are trying to do the right thing we have signed on to the boston compound so we have had no detractors great i'm sure we will have some people who don't want to sign on. we thought it would take us quite a while to get to our first 50 employers. it went briskly and we are looking forward to seeing how it plays out in i'm the most excited about what the data will bring forward. >> i wonder if you could speak to do these voluntarily efforts helpful to you? >> i was very excited and it is a gorgeous white paper by the way. when i saw it particularly by the fact that a lot of these pay

around the gender gap is does it happen because of choices women make or is it really discrimination? i think overwhelmingly if you look at all the research there is some part of the gap that cannot he explained by discriminatory factors. there's also a a difference in the pay gap in the private sector and the public sector. in the public sector where there is greater transparency where very often the pay scales are not very discretionary and where they are publicized the pay gap is a fraction of what it is in the private sector. so we do know this isn't a figment. there is reasonably from all the research and issue and to your point about highly educated women in where they stand in this there have been two studies

recently about women with medical degrees. one out of new york and the other, i forget what part of the country it's in but it was conducted and published in the journal of american medical association publication. both found that after you control for differences in specialty because for many years the medical specialty explain this gap by saying the problem is women choose the parts of medicine or the specialties that are less well compensated. they want to be family practitioners and they are not orthopedics and neurologists and that is the problem. these research -- researchers have saying we are great to compare apples-to-apples. we are looking at a residence with the same specialties, the same background, with comparable grades and comparable experiences and still the gap is there and still the gap is in

the case of a new york residents more than $16,000. to your point obviously if you think about someone's medical career it will only grow from there. that compensation will become a baseline for the next job or that compensation may determine what kind of research dollars they are able to access. there's no question that there are things that require some change. i was excited to see the roach that you have taken in boston and frankly it's very solution oriented. i think we can spend a lot of time talking about the problem of the gender pay gap. my worry is that if that is where we stop the discussion begins and ends every equal pay day with that we will be where the past president of catalyst said we are today which is at the rate we are going to pay gap will not be completely closed

until 2057. i think that's too long. i think everyone on the panel thinks that's too long so certainly the kind of approaches you were taking and really taking a fresh look in trying to figure out interventions that will make a difference is an exciting one. >> i will share one additional piece. it and the changes we have been looking at as well. we finish something called the gender active portal which is going live in a month and a half where we are taking all of this data experimentally based randomized data and there's a link to the paper is well for so for those who want to read the paper good camp. you can put in a wage gap and papers will come, then different interventions. we look at how is opposed to what. how do you close it and understanding one size won't fit all and every company and corporate should have a culture

and capacity for change they need to deal with. they have the questions on the inside of predominantly i fundamentally believe and there's evidence that most of the time people think they are whether or not they are so there is change has to come from getting the mind-set isn't quite right and how do you change that mind-set without having to tell anyone that you are bad? telling someone that they are bad or wrong slows down the process. it's required sometimes what if you can get to the change without that --. >> do you have the companies talk to each other and do they share best practices? >> we will have that opportunity if people choose and again they get to choose how much they will share in what they will talk about them with whom will they talk about it but it creates a space where everyone is working on solving this with an investment that's better for the hole canonic model that began as

a city that is now growing in the governor has just appointed a task force which i am also part of as well as all of the actors that you would expect that are working together to figure out how we do this more broadly? i just presented it to the mayor of san francisco. we have all kinds of people oranges did because no one wants their city to underpay. how does that help to ed's point directly. people want to grow their economy and this is one of the ways to do it. women's challenges here this is a great untapped resource. >> i assume madam chair that it's helpful to have an initiative like this is a voluntary initiative where people are sharing information and looking at their practices. do you also provide technical assistance? is that part of the role that you play? >> absolutely. a big part of what the ds does someone of the pillars of our strategic approach to enforcing the law is really prevention

through outreach education and technical assistance. there definitely is something that we can learn that i also want to share that one of the aspects of our work unequal pay issues today really thanks to the launch by president obama the national equal pay enforcement task force in 2009 and eeoc has been a part of it since it's been launched together with the department of labor the office of personnel management and the department of justice. we are doing on the government side some of that same informatiinformati on sharing. we are learning from each other and sharing best practices. we did something which seems like a simple intervention but it had not been done. each of these enforcement agencies has researchers. we have investigators, lawyers and one of the things we did was collaborate on developing training to deal with it pay issue.

why should one agency look at this one way and approach a it one way and another agency look at it and approach it another way? as a result we trained in 2011 more than 2000 federal employees not just from the eeoc but from across all of those agencies as well as from the state and of fair and plame and practice agencies. it's just one example of how we too are trying to make sure we are working smarter that we are collaborating and sharing information. there's no reason for any of us to reinvent the wheel wheel. we are taking the summer approach and sharing information as well about data collection issues and challenges and how to improve our strategic enforcement of the laws.