quorum call:

mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: madam president, two weeks ago, "the new york times" accomplished an article on congressional democrats' plan for the rest of the year. it boiled down to one thing -- campaigning. that's right, eight months out from the election, democrats in congress have given up on legislating. instead, they're going to spend the next eight months focused on show votes which will -- and i quote from the story -- be timed to coincide with campaign-style trips by president obama. end quote. while these he votes wail focus on -- quote -- "pocketbook issues" democrats hope will appeal to voarkts, the votes aren't designed to accomplish anything. the democrats concede, the times goes on to say that making

new laws is not the point. rather, they're trying to force republicans to vote against them, end quote, that's from "the new york times" story. i want 0 to say one other thing. the article goes on to say and i quote again, "privately white house officials say they have no intention of searching for any grand bargain with republicans on any of these issues. the point isn't to compromise," -- end quote is what a senior with white house official said. so, madam president, that's where we are. the economy is stagnant, unemployment is hovering at recession-level highs, ten million americans are unemployed, nearly four million of them for six months or longer , household income has fallen, health care costs are soaring, and democrats have decided to give up doing anything about it so that they can get reelected in november.

this political strategy was front and center last week when democrats blocked on republican amendments during the debate of the unemployment benefits extension bill. republicans wanted to offer a number of amendments that were focused specifically on job creation. after all, the only reason that we're considering extending unemployment benefits for the 13th time, 13th time since 2008, was because so many americans still don't have jobs. and while unemployment benefits can provide limited short-term help, they do nothing to get unemployed americans what they really want, and that's steady, good-paying jobs with an opportunity for advancement. so republicans thought that we should accompany yet another extension of emergency unemployment benefits with measures to make it easier and cheaper to create jobs for the millions of americans currently searching for work. we proposed amendments to create jobs by doing things like reining in burdensome regulatory

requirements and improving job training for people who are unemployed. democrats, however, didn't want to take any votes on republican proposals so they simply refused to allow amendments to be considered. that's not the mark of a party that's serious about helping the unemployed. if democrats were really serious, they'd be focused on permanent leave through jobs rather than merely treating the symptoms of unemployment. democrats brought up unemployment benefits not because they offer real long-term help to the unemployed, but because they think these benefits might win them a few votes in november. and they're planning to keep doing the same thing. soon democrats plan to bring up the 40th minimum wage hike that the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimates will cost up to 500,000 jobs by the end of 2016.

20% of those job losses according to the c.b.o. would be held by women. that isn't stopping the democrats who hope the minimum wage hike will help them at the polls. this week senator reid filed cloture on the motion to proceed to a similarly political bill, the so-called paycheck fairness act. now, all senate republicans believe in equal pay for equal work. paycheck fairness has been the law of the land since 1963. democrats are playing politics with equal pay in attempting to distract from the real harm that their policies have done to women. madam president, right now there are 3.7 million more women living in poverty than there were when the president took office. the poverty rate for women since the president took office has increased from 14.4% to 16.3%.

income for female college graduates has dropped by over $1,400 and the median income for women is down by $733 since the president took office. now, it would be nice if this legislation that's being proposed by the democrat majority provided women with real economic help. but it's far more likely, it's far more likely to line the pockets of trial lawyers. in fact, this election-year ploy would actually hurt women by increasing federal regulations that would cut flexibility in the work force for working moms and end merit pay to reward quality work. if democrats were really serious about helping women, they would work with us on bills to create jobs and to spanned workplace opportunities for women and for men as well. bills like senator rubio's legislation to amend the national labor relations act to allow employers to give

merit-based pay increases to good workers. or senator collins' bill to repeal obamacare's 30-hour workweek rule which is reducing hours and lowering wages for many workers particularly women who make up 63% of those affected. or the bill proposed by senator mike lee which would help employees balance work and family life by allowing private-sector employers to give workers the choice of monetary compensation or comp time for the overtime hours that they work. or senator mcconnell and senator ayotte's bill which would give hourly workers access to flexible work arrangements like comp time off and flexible credit hours. or my bill combining several of my colleagues' proposals to stimulate job creation and increase hours and wages through energy development, job training and regulatory relief. and then, of course, senator fischer's proposal to give women the tools and the knowledge that

they need to fight discrimination at work. many of these proposals have passed the house of representatives and are waiting action by the senate. these bills would create new jobs, open new opportunities, and help reverse the economic decline that women have experienced over the past five years. but democrats don't seem to be interested in providing economic relief to women. they're interested in elections and they're interested in scoring political points. so, madam president, democrats can go on campaigning for the rest of the year if they want to, they can twist the legislative process for their own political ends and ignore the economic pain that they've caused women, and men, meanwhile the middle class in this country continues to fall further and further behind. republicans in the senate will continue to propose legislation to create jobs and opportunities for americans and help make up

the ground that the american people have lost in the obama economy. and democrats can still change their minds and join us. and, madam president, i hope that they will because the situation hasn't gotten any better. we still have higher chronic unemployment, lower take-home pay, lower household income. people who've been unemployed for more than six months is almost 4 million in our work force today. the labor participation rate, the number of people who are actually in the labor force, is at the lowest level that we've seen literally in 35 years, meaning that there are millions of americans who have left the work force. those statistics are crying out for solutions that will do something about the need for jobs in our economy, that will do something about growing and expanding our economy so that those people who are unemployed in this country can find the work that they need to improve their standard of living and that for their families as well. and so i hope that all these

things that i've mentioned, these are all amendments that have been filed by my colleagues on the republican side of the aisle, and so farther there's no indication, no suggestion that any of these amendments are going to get an opportunity to be offered, to be debated, to be voted on, amendments that actu actually improve the outlook for not only the women in this country but men as well, by growing the economy, expanding the economy, creating the types of jobs, good-paying jobs that will create opportunities for advancement for hardworking americans. but if we're going to continue -- if the senato the ss going to continue to be a place where debate and amendments are shut down, blocked by the other side simply so they can have show votes that are designed to appeal to a political audience as we head into the midterm elections, we aren't going to be doing anything to solve the real-world problems that millions of americans who are unemployed have or millions of americans who have been hurt by this economy and millions of

americans who have seen their standard of living and their quality of life eroded by bad policies coming out of washington, d.c., that make it more difficult and more expensive to create jobs. that's what we ought to be focused on. republicans come to the floor, as we did last week when we were debating unemployment insurance, with amendments designed specifically at growing the economy and creating jobs and at every turn we've been blocked from offering those amendments. and, in turn, we're talking about nothing more than political rhetoric in an election year that does nothing to address the real-world problems of the american people. they deserve better. we can do better. madam president, i hope that we will. i hope the democrats will change their minds and join us and allow us to have that debate and to have those votes and to do something meaningful for middle-class families in this country. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: madam president, today is equal pay day, and i

mentioned that to someone early, and they said, "what's that mean?" what that means is that an american woman working full time in america today, average -- i'm saying the average american woman working full time -- had to work all last year and up to today of this year to earn what the average male in that same job made last year up to december 31st. that's what equal pay day is. that -- just think about that. same job, same job classification, man gets paid up to december 31st; woman has to work all that year and up till today to get the same pay. shocking. that in 2014 that is still happening in america. shocking. because we passed the equal pay act in 1963.

well, in 1963, the -- a woman made about 60 cents on the dollar for what a manmad man mae job. today it's 77 cents so i guess you can say we made some headw headway. 1963, 1973, 1983 -- 40 years. we've gone from 60 cents to 77 cents. well, what we've found out through our committee hearings, the committee i'm privileged to chair, the health, education, labor, and pensions committee, that -- that a lot of employers in this country are not really abiding by some of the provisions of the fair pay act -- the equal pay act. and so i compliment senator mikulski on our committee, also the chair of the full appropriations committee, for her leadership in bringing this

bill, the paycheck fairness act, to the senate. 20 -- at that time when we passed it in 1963, 25 million female workers, as i said, earned about 60 cents on the dollar. so now it's 77 cents. well, again, the deficit and what it means for a lifetime of earning, again, is kind of startling. over the course of a 40-year career, women on average earn more than $450,000 less than m men. and, get this, women with a college degree or more face an even wider gap of more than $700,000 over a lifetime compared with men with the same education. higher education. so, again, the consequences are enormous, impacting not just women but their families as we well.

and not just impacting women during their working lives, but keep this in mind, when you're making that much less, then you're getting that much less in your retirement, in your social security or maybe your -- your 401(k) or a defined benefit, whatever it might be. so women get whacked twice during their working life and then when they retire because they have made substantially less than men. so, again, i congratulate senator mikulski for bringing this bill forward and for her indd work on this -- indefatigable work on this issue. it is just time to pass the paycheck fairness act. it's simple, commonsense legislation to make sure that we have procedures and processes in place to make sure that the

equal pay act, passed in 1963, has some teeth, that employers just can't skirt around it anymore, and that there will be avenues for women to take to make sure that they're not discriminated against in terms of pay. well, for one thing, right now it's -- it can be a -- a violation of company policy, for example, in a company if a woman wants to talk to another person about what their salaries are. the company can say, you can't do that. well, this bill says, yes, you can. you can talk to someone else. they don't have to tell you, we don't force anybody to tell you what their salary is, but you can make inquiries, you can discuss it with your fellow employees. and the employer cannot take retaliation against you for doing that. that's a huge step forward, by

the way. a little bit of transparency, a little bit of knowledge that a -- a woman can have to understand whether or not she's being discriminated against in her employment. and, of course, we have reames and reames of information -- reams and reams of information and data about employers retaliating against women for discussing salary information. so this bill is long overdue and we they'd to pass it. madam president, i also want to ask unanimous consent that paul sebadi and emily swords, interns well senate health, education, labor, and pensions committee, be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i thank the presiding officer. but, madam president, we can't just stop there on the paycheck fairness bill. we have to then pass it and then we have to do a few other thin things. we have to tackle the more

subtle discrimination that occurs when we systematically undervalue the work traditionally done by women. the fact is, millions of female-dominated jobs, jobs that are equivalent in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions to similar jobs dominated by men, pay significantly less than male equivalent type jobs. for example, why is a housekeeper worth less than a janitor? think about it. 84% of the maids that clean your room when you go to hotels and stuff, 84% are female of the 75% of janitors are male. while the jobs are equivalent in terms of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions, the median weekly earnings for a maid are $399. for a janitor, it's $484. truck drivers -- a job that is 96% male, have a median weekly

earnings of $730. in contrast, a child care worker, a job that is 93% fema female, has median weekly earnings of $390. why do we value someone who moves products more than we value someone who looks after the safety and well-being of our children? i'm not saying that truck drivers are overpaid. i'm just saying that jobs that we consider -- quote -- "women's work" are on which underpaid, even though they're equivalent in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. quite frankly, some of the jobs that women do, like nurses, require a lot more physical effort than being a truck driv driver. maybe in the old days truck drivers had to be strong to muscle those trucks around. now everybody's got power steering and power brakes and everything else. you don't have to be some big,

heavyweight giant to drive trucks anymore. but to be a nurse, when you're rolling people over that weigh 250 expowndz you'r250 pounds ang things, that can take quite a bit of effort. so why are nurses so much -- paid less than truck drivers? well, that's why in every congress since 1996, i have introduced the fair pay act, which would require employers to provide equal pay for equivalent jobs. my counterpart in the house has been delegate eleanor holmes norton. together we have introduced it in every congress since 1996. it would require employers to provide equal pay for jobs that are equivalent in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. but which are dominated by employees of a different gender, race or national origin.

now, people might say, that -- maybe that's a stretch well, well, madam president, in 1983, the republican legislature of my state of iowa, working with a republican governor, passed a bill stipulating that the state of iowa could not discriminate in compensation between predominantly male and female jobs. they had to pay equivalent wages. so they hired arthur young&company, they evaluated 800 job claz fiction classificae government. and finally in april 1974,4,000 jobs got pay raises. minnesota, our neighbor to the north, the presiding officer's neighbor to the east, they went even a step further. minnesota at that time passed a

bill providing for equivalent pay not only in state jobs but clear down to the local level. in minnesota. so it can be done. can be done. for the women in this country who are currently being paid less not because of their skills, not because of their education, working conditions or responsibility, simply because they're in what we call female dominated jobs. this bill would make sure they receive their real worth. make a huge difference for them and the families who rely on their wages. what my bill would do, basically it would require employers to publicly disclose their job categories and their pay scales. they wouldn't have to publish what every employee was making. they would have to say, here are our job claz fiction classificae are the pay scales in those job classifications. so it would give women information about what their male colleagues or earning or

anyone that's in that -- in that pay scale so they could negotiate a better deal for themselves in the workplace. right now women who believe they're a very many of pay a viy discrimination must file a lawsuit and go through a long, drawn-out process to find out whether the male working alongside them is making more than them. but the number of lawsuits would go down if employees could seeup front whether they're being treated -- see upfront whether they're being treated fairly. several years ago we had lilly ledbetter come testify before our committee. we had provided her with a copy of the fair pay act that i've been introducing since 1996, and she took a look at it with its description and i asked her that if the fair pay act had been law when she was hired, would it have obviated her wage discrimination case.

she said that with the information about pay scales that the bill provides, she would have known from the beginning that she was a victim of discrimination and could have tried to address the problem sooner, before it caused a lifelong drop in her earnings and before she had to go all the way to the supreme court to make things right. so again, the paycheck fairness act, it's time to get that done, put some teeth in it. but it's time to take the next step because the biggest gap right now between what women make and what men make is the number of women that are in what we have traditionally known as women's jobs -- housekeepers, maids, nurse, nurse assistants, on and on. so it's time to take the step that my state, minnesota -- and there are other states. i just mention those two because i'm familiar with them -- have taken to address this problem of equivalency. now, the next thing we need to

do to make sure that the equal payday is not today but is december 31 like what men get paid is to raise the minimum wage. and hopefully we will be voting on that soon to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $10.10. and again, the majority of low-wage workers are women because of the trends i just mentioned. jobs primarily held by women are undervalued and underpaid. most women -- most of the minimum wage workers are women. so again, we have to raise that and we need to raise tipped wages. tipped wages right now are $2.13 an hour. it hasn't been changed since 1991. now, who are most of the tipped workers? women. women. and many of them are providing income for their families, for

their children. and i -- i said this the other day to a group and they were astounded. they thought i must be wrong about it, but i'm not wrong. do you know how you get classified as a tipped worker? a lot of people don't know this. how do you get classified as a tipped worker? well, under the law, if you make -- if your employer says you make more than $30 a month in tips, you can be classified as a tipped worker. think about that. 30 bucks a month. well, let's say if you work five days a week, if you're working 20 days a month, that's a buck and a half a day. if you get a buck and a half a day in tips, you can be classified as a tipped worker and they can pay you $2.13 an hour. unconscionable. unconscionable. so it hasn't been raised since 1991. so our minimum wage bill, which we hope to have on the floor shortly, would raise that tipped wage over six years from its present level to 70% of the

minimum wage and then index it for the future. so there are three things that we need to do -- pass the paycheck fairness act championed by senator mikulski, address and pass the fair pay act and raise the minimum wage. if you do those three things, equal payday won't be today. it will be december 31 for everybody. now, madam president, i see the time has come to adjourn for the caucuses, but i just want to say that today is another important day. today is the 150th anniversary of the date that abraham lincoln signed into law authorizing the institution that we now know as gallaudet university in washington, d.c., 150 years ago today. what began on april 8, 1864 as a school with just eight students has flourished into the world's first and only institution of higher education dedicated to deaf and hard of hearing

students. renowned internationally for its outstanding academic programs, also for its leading research into the history, language and culture of deaf people. i take some more pride in the fact that it was senator james w.grimes of iowa, then-chair of the committee on the district of columbia, who initiated that legislation allowing the school to confer degrees. dr. t. allen herwicz, who is now the current distinguished president of gallaudet, born and raised in sioux city, iowa, not too far from north dakota. in fact, his father -- dr. herwicz' father and my brother were classmates at the iowa school for the deaf. and we're proud of the many iowa students, including a recent intern in my office, joseph louis, harry graduates of gallaudet. it is a wonderful school.

if you have never been there, you ought to go up and take a look at it. they do just fantastic things at gallaudet, attracting people from all around the globe to go there. and it has -- again, named after thomas hopkins gallaudet, and then conferred university status by the congress. again, 150 years ago today, april 8, 1864, abraham lincoln signed it into law. so, madam president, i ask that -- that my statement on this appear in its full context in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: madam president, with that i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate previous order, the senate >> as you heard the senate is in recess now for their weekly party lunches. they will return this afternoon

at 2:15 p.m. to from maryland senator barbara mikulski who'll be on the floor for about an hour talking to legislation that would encourage employers to pay similarly qualified men and women the same wages for the same work. senate republicans will follow her also for about an hour to address legislative issues. you can see the senate at 2:15 p.m. eastern right here on c-span2. during this break we planned to also bring a pentagon briefing with deputy assistant secretary defense amanda dory and general david rodriguez. there will be live on c-span2 starting at 1:30 p.m. eastern. right now president obama spoke a short time ago from the white house about pay and equality between men and women on this national pay equity day. [cheers and applause]

>> thank you. thank you, thank you. >> thank you. >> all right, everybody. >> thank you, and good morning. >> good morning. >> my name is a live better and i'm honored to stand you today on behalf of of women -- lilly ledbetter, who are struggling to make ends meet because of the gender pay gap. my personal story of unfair pay began in 1979 when i started at goodyear tire and rubber company. it sought -- i thought the job a good you could help me put my two children in college and enable my husband and i have financial security in retirement. as the only female supervisor, i persevered through daily

harassment combat to as little these as possible because i never knew if my job would be waiting when i returned. almost two decades into my career at goodyear, i received an anonymous note that said i was being paid thousands of dollars less than my male counterparts. all i could think about was how much my family have done without, and how hard it again over the years, and how i would never catch up to my male coworkers salaries, nor have the level of retirement benefits. my legal battle for fair pay soon began and wound its way to the u.s. supreme court. when the supreme court decided in 2007 at goodyear had been paying me unfairly long enough to make it legal. i knew i wasn't ready -- [laughter] i knew i wasn't ready to give up

my fight for fair pay. less than two years later, congress signed the lilly ledbetter fair pay act and president obama -- [cheers and applause] >> and president obama made history with his signature on the bill. it was the very first bill -- [applause] first bill he signed, sending a clear message about his priorities. standing behind the president as he signed my namesake bill into law was one of the greatest moments of my life. yet, i knew and the president knew that my bill was just an

important first step in the fight for fair pay. in the five years since, we've seen my bill companion legislation, the paycheck fairness act, stall in congress with little movement in the fight for fair pay. that is until today. folks often referred to me as the face of fair pay, but for today at least that title belongs to president barack obama. [cheers and applause] >> today, president obama will sign an executive order that will ban federal contractors from retaliating against workers who discuss their pay and their salary. that only is this a critical piece of the stalled paycheck

fairness act, but this action also gets at what was my largest barrier for all those years ago. i didn't know i was being paid unfairly, and i had no way to find out. i was told in no uncertain terms that goodyear then and still a government contractor fired employees who share their salary information. it was against company policy. whoever left me that anonymous note did so bravely, knowing that he or she could face retaliation if they were found out. from my namesake bill through today's executive order, president obama has been the outspoken leader, women and families need on their pay. it urge congress to join the president on the right side of history by passing the fair

paycheck act. [applause] >> i thank president obama for his continued courage and vision, and immediately moved to be the one to introduce him today. please join me in a very warm welcome of president barack obama. thank you, thank you, thank you. [cheers and applause] >> thank you, everybody. thank you. [applause] thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you, everybody. all right. well, thanks to my friend, lilly ledbetter. not only for that instruction but for fighting for a simple

principle. equal pay for equal work. it's not that complicated. and lilly, i assure you, you will remain the face of fair pay. people don't want my mug on the. they want your face. [laughter] as lilly mentioned, she did not set out to be a trailblazer. she was just someone who is working every day, going to work, doing her job as best as she could. then one day she finds out, after years, that she earned less than their male colleagues for doing the same job. i want to make that point again. [laughter] doing the same job. you know, sometimes when we discussed this issue of fair pay, equal pay for equal work, and the pay gap between men and women, you will hear all sorts of excuses. well, their childbearing and

they're choosing to do this and there's this and that and the other. she was doing the same job, probably doing it better. [laughter] applaud the same job. working just as hard, probably putting in more hours. but she was getting systematically paid less. and so she set out to make sure that the company lived up to its foundings, the idea that all of us are created equal. and when the court didn't answer her call, congress did. the first time lilly and i stood together in this room was my 10th day in office and that's when we signed the lilly ledbetter fair pay act, the first bill i signed into law. [applause] >> some leaders hope to make that happen are here today including leader pelosi. [applause] senator mikulski. [applause]

congresswoman delauro. [applause] >> and i want to thank all members of congress and all the state legislators who are here and all the advocates who are here, because you'll contributed to that effort. and i want to give a special thanks to the members of the national equity -- equal pay task force who have done outstanding work to make workplaces across america more fair. we are here because today is equal pay day. [applause] equal payday. and it's nice to have a gay. [laughter] but it's even better to have equal pay. at our job is not finished yet. equal payday means that a woman has to work about this far into 2014 what a man earns in 2013. think about that. a woman's got to work about

three more months in order to get what a man got here because she is paid less. that's not fair. that's like adding an extra six miles to a marathon. it's not right. ain't right. it's not right and it ain't right. [laughter] american should be a level playing field, a fair race for everybody, a place where anybody who's willing to work hard has a chance to get ahead. and restoring the opportunity for every american, men and women, has to be a driving focus for our country. the good news is today our economy is growing. this is has great almost 9 million new jobs over the past

four years, more than 7 million americans have signed up for health care coverage under the affordable care act. [applause] that's a good thing, too. and i know it's equal payday and not obamacare day -- [laughter] but i do want to point out the affordable care act guarantees free preventive care like mammograms and contraceptive care for tens of millions of women, and ends the days when you could be charged more just for being a woman when it comes to your health insurance. [applause] and that's true for everybody. that's just one more place where things were not fair. we will talk about dry cleaners next. [laughter] i know that -- i don't know it cost for michelle's blouse then my shirt.

[laughter] but we've got to make sure that america works for everybody. anybody who's willing to work hard, they should be able to get it. we've got to build an economy that works for everybody, not just those at the top. restoring opportunity for all has to be our priority. that's what america is about. doesn't matter where you started off, which look like. if you work hard, take responsibility, you make the effort, you should be able to get ahead. we've got to fight for opportunity agenda which means more good jobs to pay good wages and training americans to make sure that they can fulfill those jobs come and guaranteeing every child a world-class education, and making sure the economy reward hard work for every single american. and part of that is fighting for fair pay for women. because when women succeed, america succeeds. [applause]

when women succeed, america succeeds, it's true. i believe that. [applause] it's true. it's true. here's the challenge. today, the average full-time working woman earns just 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. perhaps -- for african-american women, latinos, it's even less. in 2014, that's an embarrassment. it is wrong. this is not just an issue of fairness, it's also a family issue and an economic issue because women make up about half of our work force. they are increasingly the breadwinners for a whole lot of families out there. so when they make less money, it means less money for gas, less money for groceries, less money

for childcare. less money for college tuition. less money is going into retirement savings, and it's all bad for business because our economy depends on customers out there. and when customers have less money, when hard-working women don't have the resources, you know, that's a problem. when businesses lose terrific woman talent because of their fed up with unfair policies, that's bad for business. they lose out on the contributions those women could be making. when any of our citizens can fulfill their potential for reasons that nothing to do with her talent or their character or the work ethic, we are not living up to our founding values. we don't have second class citizens in this country. certainly not in the workplace. so tomorrow, the senate has a chance to start making this

right by passing a bill that lilly has already alluded to them the paycheck fairness act. [applause] they've got a chance to do the right thing. and it would put sensible rules into place, like making sure employees who discuss their salaries don't face retaliation by their employers. here's why it's important. there are women here today who worked in office where it was against the rules for employees to discuss salaries to one another, and because of that they didn't know they were being paid less than men, just like lilly didn't know, for doing the exact same work. for some it was years before they found out. and even then it only happened because the manager accidentally let it slip, or as in lilly's case, a sympathetic coworker quietly passed a note. she only found out she earned less than her male colleagues

for doing the same work because someone left an anonymous note. we can't leave that to chance. and over the course of lilly's career she lost more than $200,000 in salary, even more in pension and social security benefits, both of which are pegged the salary, simply because she was a woman. and lilly and some of the other women here decided it was wrong, set out to fix it. he went to the bosses and asked for a raise. that didn't work. they turned to the law and filed suit. and for some, for years after waiting, persisting, they finally got some justice. now, tomorrow the senate could picture the to their courage by voting yes for paycheck fairness. this should not be a hard proposition. they should not be that complicated. [applause] sofa republicans in congress

have been blocking progress on this issue and, of course, other issues that would help with the economic recovery, help us grow faster. we don't have to accept that. america, you don't have to sit still. you can make sure that you're putting some pressure on members of congress about this issue. and i don't care whether democrat or republican. if you're a voter, you've got a daughter, you've got a sister, you've got a mom, i know you've got a mama. [laughter] this is something you should care about. and i'm not going to stand still either, so in this your faction i use my executive authority whenever good to great more opportunity for americans. and today i'm going to take action, executive action, to make it easier for working women to earn fair pay. so first i'm going to sign an executive order that creates more opaque transparency by prohibiting federal contractors

are retaliating against employees who discuss their pay with each other applau. [applause] >> pay secrecy fosters discrimination and we should not tolerated. not in federal contracting or anywhere else. second, i'm signed a presidential memorandum directing the department of labor and our outstanding secretary of labor tom perez to require federal contractors to provide data about their employee compensation. so pay discrimination can be spotted more easily. now, you know, i want us to be clear, there are great employers out there who do the right thing. there are plenty of them was out there who are actually certain that there's no pages commission happening in their offices, but then sometimes when the data is laid out it dates -- it paints a different picture.

many times they then do everything they can to fix the problem, and so we want to encourage them to fix these problems, if they exist, by making sure that the data is out there. so everybody who cares about this should pay attention to the senate votes tomorrow on this paycheck fairness act. because the majority of senators support this bill, but two years ago a minority of senate republicans blocked this community vote. even worse, som some commentatos are out of sync but the pay gap doesn't even exist. they say it's a mess. but it's not a myth. it is math. you can look at the paychecks. you can look at the stubs. [applause] lilly ledbetter didn't just make this up. the courts would've looked at

the documents said yes, yes, you have been getting paid less for doing the same job. just the court then said, you know, as lilly said, it's been happening for so long you can't do anything about it anymore which made no sense and that's why we had to sign another bill. it's basic math that adds up to real money. it makes a real difference for a lot of americans are working hard to support their families. and, of course, the fact that we got some resistance from some folks on this issue up on capitol hill just fits with this larger problem, this addition the congressional republicans seen to be continually embracing, this notion that, you know what can you just on your own no matter how unfair things are. you see it in their budget. the budget the republicans in congress put forward last week, it's like a bad rerun. they would give massive tax cuts households making more than a million dollars a year, forged it comes to things that apple --

ackley help working families like early education, college grants and job training, and, of course, it includes the novel idea of repealing the affordable care act, 50th time they've tried that, which would mean the more than 7 million americans who have done the responsible thing and signed up to buy health insurance, they would lose their health insurance and the 3 million young adults a state of affairs plan, they would no longer have that available. take us back to the days when interest to charge women more than just for being a woman. on minimum wage, three out of four americans support raising the minimum wage. usually when three of the four americans support something, members of congress are right there. and yet, here republicans in congress are dead set against it. blocking a pay raise for tens of millions of americans, a majority of them women.

this isn't just about treating women fairly. this is about republicans seemingly opposing any efforts to even the playing field for working families. and i was up in michigan last week and i just -- i to understand fully the theory behind this. i don't know why you would resist the idea that women should be paid the same as men. and then deny that that's not always happening out there. if republicans in congress want to prove me wrong, if they want to show that they in fact do care about women being paid the same as men, then show me. they can start tomorrow. they can join us in this, the 21st century, and vote yes on

the paycheck fairness act. vote yes. [applause] and if anybody is watching or listening, if you care about this issue, then let your senators know where you stand. because america deserves equal pay for equal work. this is not something we're going to achieve in a day. adobe a lot of stuff we've got to do to close the pay gap. we got to make it possible for more women to enter high-paying fields that up until now have been dominated by men like engineering and computer science. women hold less than 6% of our commercial path. that's not good enough. we need more college professors encouraging girls and women to study math and science. we need more businesses to make gender diversity a priority when they hire and when they promote. ..

>> so we're going to keep making te case for why these policies are the right ones for working families and businesses, and this is all going to lead up to this first-ever white house summit on working families on june 23rd. so ultimately, equal pay is not just an economic issue for millions of americans and their

families, it's also about whether we're willing to build an economy that works for everybody. and whether we're going to do our part to pick sure that our daughter -- to make sure that our daughters have the same chances to pursue their dreams as our sons, and whether or not we're willing to restore to the heart of this country that basic idea you can make it no matter who you are if if you try. and that's personal for me. i've said this before. i've got two daughters, and i expect them to be treated just like anybody's sons. and i think about my single mom working hard, going to school, trying to raise two kids all at the same time, and i think about my grandmother trying to work her way up through her career and then hitting the glass ceiling. and i've seen how hard they've worked, and i've seen how they've sucked it up. and, you know, they put up with

stuff, and they don't say anything, and they, you know, just take care of their family, and they take care of themselves, and they don't complain a lot, you know? but at a certain point, we have the power to do something about it for the next generation. and this is a good place to start. so for everybody out there who's listening, ask your senator where you stand on paycheck fairness. [applause] if they tell you that there's not a pay gap out there, you tell 'em to look at the data, because there is. [applause] it's time to get this done, and i'm going to do my small art right now by signing -- small part right now by signing these executive orders. [cheers and applause] get in here. all right.

there you go, that's done right there. all right, and i've got another one. this is for you, tom. [laughter] there you go. [cheers and applause] [inaudible conversations]

[laughter] [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> see ya.

[applause] >> president obama earlier today in the east room of the white house addressing pay equity issues. it's an item that is on the senate's agenda today. the senate is in recess right now for their weekly party caucus lunch. s. they'll be back at 2:15 for debate on legislation seeking equal pay between genders. live coverage here on c-span2 at 2:15 when they gavel back in. a reminder that in about 25 minutes we'll go live to the pentagon for a briefing with deputy assistant secretary of defense amanda dory and david rodriguez, u.s. africa command commander. that'll be live here on c-span2 starting at 1:30 eastern. >> c-span2, providing lye coverage -- live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings. and every weekend booktv, now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors.

c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> earlier today house budge committee ranking member -- budget committee ranking member chris van hollen spoke at a breakfast sponsored by the christian science monitor. we'll show you as much of this as we can until the pentagon briefing on africa starts at 1:30. >> i'm dave cook from the monitor. our guest is congressman chris van holdingen of maryland -- van hollen of maryland. this is his seventh visit with our group, his last was in september of last year. his parents both served as u.s. diplomats and, thus, he was of born in pakistan. he earned his bachelor's degree at -- [inaudible] a master's in public policy from the kennedy school at harvard and a law degree from georgetown. he took that impressive resumé

to a position on the staff to the senate foreign relations committee, was elected to the maryland senate in '94 and to congress in 2002. in 2005 he became co-chair of the dccc working with rahm emanuel and was named chairman himself this -- in 2007. in 2010 his democratic colleagues elected him the ranking member of the budget committee. thus endth the biographical portion of the program, now on to the mechanical details. as always, we're on the record here. please, no live blog or other means of filing while the breakfast is underway. there's no 'em bar bow when the session ends. finally, if you'd like to ask a question, please send a subtle, nonthreatening signal, and i'll happily call on one and all. we'll start off with the opportunity for our guest to make some brief opening comments. thanks again for doing this, appreciate it. >> thank you. it's great to be back. thank you, david.

thank all of you for joining us this morning in getting together. i'm just going to make a few preliminary comments and then look forward to your questions. first, as you know, the senate yesterday passed on a bipartisan basis emergency unemployment compensation extension. it's very disheartening that speaker boehner has already said that he will not allow that bill to come up for a vote. there are two million americans who are looking for work who still can't find it because as of right now in this country three people are looking for every one job. and so the right thing to do both for struggling families but also for our economy and seem who re-- and people who rely on people spending money on at the local grocery store, paying their rent on time, mortgages, is to extend that unemployment compensation on an emergency

basis. so i hope the speaker will reconsider. you've got two million americans x i think that should weigh on his conscience. just a word on the budget, as all of you know, we're starting the budget debate in the house today. it will go tuesday, wednesday, thursday. there'll be votes on a series of different budget proposals. you know, this some ways people have said why does this matter. i would argue that it matters because it shows what the priorities of the parties are. budgets are about choices. they reflect what people care about or care less about, and if you look about the house republican budget, at every turn it chooses to protect powerful special interests and very wealthy americans at the expense of everyone else and everything else.

>> it was something you said. what can i -- [laughter] >> i thought -- >> the lights are going out. >> speaker boehner's turning off the lights on us. all right. power's off. [laughter] there you go. so if you look at their budge, they do two things. number one, they set an artificial political target of balance in ten years, and i'll talk about that in a second because they claim a balance, but it's a fake balance. but having set that target, they then say they're not going to ask anybody except the middle class and lower income americans to pay price of hitting that target. they say it's important to reduce deficits, and we agree with that, but they refuse to close a single tax break for the purpose of reducing the deficit. not one. not for hedge fund managers, not for big oil companies. so we continue to ask the question if hitting a particular target on a particular date so

important, why aren't you going to ask these powerful special interests to make a contribution? and because they ask nothing of the very powerful and the very wealthy, their budget socks it to everybody else, right? i mean, let's start with education. pre-k early education is hit really hard. over $18 billion in cuts compared to the ryan budget, ryan of of of murray budget agreement -- ryan-murray budget agreement. k-12 is hit hard, and higher education takes very big hits, a $250 billion plus cut to current policy in higher education. i'll give you one example, they start charging college students interest on their loans while they're in college. that saves them about $40 billion, again, in a budget that refuses to close special interest tax breaks. we can go over the impact on

seniors. it violates important commitments to our seniors. we had a big debate about the safety net on the farm bill and food nutrition programs. there was a big battle about what was then a very radical republican proposal to cut food nutrition rams by $40 billion -- programs by $40 billion. in the budget calls for $135 billion cut to the food nutrition program. when faith-based groups have looked at these house republican budgets over the last three years, they have concluded that they fail the basic moral test of trying to make sure that we provide for the least of these. and this budget is more reckless than the previous three when it comes to shredding the safety net and very deep cuts. the last point i will make is on the claim to balance. you cannot have it both ways.

you cannot say that you're going to repeal the affordable care act in its entirety and claim that your budget balances in ten years. there, what they do in their budget proposal is they get rid of all the benefits brought by the affordable care act, right? they get rid of the tax credits that help people purchase insurance in the exchanges, they get rid of the provisions that allow young people to stay op their parents' insurance policies until age 26, they get rid of all of the provisions that protect people there being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. but they keep every penny of the revenue from the affordable care act, and they keep every penny of the savings. altogether that's about $2 trillion over the next ten years. you get rid of that $2 trillion, their budget doesn't come close to balance if year ten. in year ten. and in addition, they've got this game withic to get them there. i'm not even going to get into

that. so they've repealed the affordable care act over 50 times in the house. just the other day when they repealed a little portion of it on the bill having to do with 30, 40-hour workweek, that raised the deficit by $57 billion and immediately put this budget that they passed the day before in the budget committee out of balance on their own terms. and that was just a hitting piece of the affordable -- a little piece of the affordable care act. you get rid of all the savings and revenue, they don't come close. so it is a fraud to claim at the same time you're getting rid of the affordable care act and claiming balance in ten years. so i just want to put that out there. and then the democratic alternative that we've introduced and will be debated in the coming weeks is similar lu not identical in all respects to the president's plan although the priorities are pretty much in line with the president's. and i'm happy to talk about that in greater detail.

>> while we work on the lights, let me ask you a couple of questions. you've been known for your candor on election outlooks in august of 2010 when you were running the dccc, you said that democrats were in for, quote, a very tough campaign season. so i wanted to ask you about this campaign season. the cook political report is forecasting a gain for republicans in the house of two seats to twelve seats. a new ap poll released last week on the question of who voters most wanted to control congress, registered voters and the most strongly interested in politics favored the republicans by 14 percentage points. what's going on here? what's the reason for the intensity gap? >> so, i mean, the big issue in these elections is going to be the ability to turn out core voters. and i do think that a couple

things are going to change the calculus that was just laid out in that cook report. one is that despite all their efforts to demagogue the affordable care act, the reality is opinion is beginning to change slowly on that. as you know, more people now support the affordable care act than oppose it, and you have large majorities that are against repealing the affordable care act x. yet that has been the -- and yet that has been the mantra of the house republicans. as i indicated, they voted over 50 times to repeal it. so i think that issue no longer has much ability to persuade what we call persuadable voters. now, does it work to help get out the republican base? sure. and that's why they're focusedded on it the way they are. but i don't think they're

winning over any of the persuadable voters on that issue. by contrast, i think when we focus on these very different priorities that i've talked about the morning that you find in these budgets, the approach that democrats are going to take is much more appealing to the american public than the house republican budget. people do not support the choice of defending powerful special interests at the expense of other important priorities in our country and in the economy. they just don't. and, in fact, if you look at the 2012 presidential campaign, that was pretty much what that campaign was about, right? you had the romney-ryan plan for the economy, and you had, you know, the president and the vice president out there with a very clear contrast. and so we believe that once people focus on those issues, we

will not only win the persuadable vote, but the core democratic voters will recognize very clearly what's at stake here, and that will help, you know, bring more people to the polls. but let me just close. there's no doubt democrats need to get the, you know, core democratic vote out in the midterm election. and that means, thurm one, letting people know what's at stake and, secondly, having an operation on the ground that can do that. >> and finally from me, is it your sense -- well, who are the people that your budget proposal most resonates with? i mean, is it -- i would assume it's democrats who really follow closely policy. is it your sense that it's a large block of voters? >> i think when you boil down the budgets into what they mean

in people's lives, our budget motivates a lot of people, and the republican budget will turn off a lot of people because, you know, we find that large majorities believe that we need to focus, number one, on getting the economy and jobs going, secondly, reduce the long-term deficit in a balanced way. not in a way that takes it out on our kids' education, by violating our commitments to seniors, by shredding the social safety net. they believe that, you know, the very well ty should contribute -- wealthy should contribute a little to reducing that long-term deficit so the rest of the country doesn't take as big a hit. and, again, there are -- let's take students, for example. if you let them know what the means in term -- what this means in terms of reducing the affordability of college, that's

something that can help rally them. and you can, you look at seniors which traditionally has been a difficult constituency for democrats especially in midterms, but when they see the impact of the, you know, republican budget, the house republican budget, i think they'll be more motivated to come out and vote democratic. so those are the kind of things that we will emphasize. >> lauren? >> you were talking about -- [inaudible] and we know -- [inaudible] hutch more likely to stay ohm. so i guess by question kind of comes in two parts. what specifically about the budget or obamacare is going to get -- [inaudible] out to the polls, and kind of what's the risk if there is another, say, technical glitch or hoot hiccup for the health care law? >> so, again, with respect to, you know, voting, people coming out to the polls, you have to

have two pieces to the the strategy, right? one, you have to have a message that resonates with those voters, and secondly, you've got to headache sure you deliver that message -- make sure you deliver that message to where the voters are. i mean, that sounds obvious but sometimes when we talk in washington, we're assuming that, you know, the country's listening when all of us know that, you know, at any one time, you know, most people are going about their regular lives. and so reaching them in their homes and delivering that message is a challenge. with respect to the content of the message, as i said, i think that this congressional republican budget is totally out of step with where the country are, is in terms of priorities and jobs and the economy. i should point out that the cbo says it will create a drag on the economy over the next couple years. it will reduce job growth over the next couple years. it, essentially, allows the

transportation trust fund to go insolvent this august meaning no new transportation projects which means thousands of workers who are on federal construction projects would, you know, go out of work. now, whether we fix that between now and then, i don't know. all i know is what the republican budget calls for. and it doesn't, it doesn't do anything about that problem. is i think that for a country that's focused on trying to invest in jobs, expand opportunity, a republican budget that actually hurts job growth and systematically knocks out, you know, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity whether it's education, investment in science and research, infrastructure, that that is not going to go over well. so our challenge is to get that message out. it's not just about our priorities, it's about the clear contrast in our priorities

compared to the priorities reflected in the republican congressional budget. >> [inaudible] >> i'm sorry? >> independent voters if there is another glitch with the -- >> oh, i'm sorry. look, i think that, you know, as you know, they hit target despite the very rocky early rollout. the issue, i think, to look at in the days ahead is, you know, where premiums fall. but if you, if you look at health care costs since the affordable care act was enacted, you actually see a reduction, a significant reduction in the per capita increase in health care costs. now, i'm not arguing that's all due to the affordable care act. there are a number of factors at play. i think the affordable care act is one of them. but the reality is that today we're seeing much slower

increases in per capita health care spending. so that's good news. that's been good news for people's premiums. it's been good news for people's total out of pocket expenditures both in private insurance as well as on medicare and medicaid. >> we're going to go next to david, eric, mark -- [inaudible] david? >> so let me, with dave's indulgence, ask two questions. >> sure. >> first, pig picture budget questions -- big picture budget question. the debate between the two parties has largely centered around how fast to move to reduce deficit and -- [inaudible] but there are an increasing number of economists, larry summers, for example, recently who have been arguing that what we need to do is increase the deficit, that the economy is still performing way below potential and that the only way to get it out of that trap is

for the government to -- [inaudible] a larger deficit and have a much more expansive fiscal policy. and i'm wondering whether there's, whether you sense that there's any support at all for that kind of approach in congress, or is that just so out of step with public opinion that it's a nonstarter? and the other question on a completely different topic is you were talking about motivating voters on the midterm and, obviously, one of the big constituency groups that has been lagging are latinos. and i'm wondering whether you think that it's either for political or policy reasons that it's time for the white house to take some new steps to curtail deportations. >> sure. so is on your first -- so on your first question, i think that there is in the democratic caucus and in the white house if you look at those budgets, they

actually do call for significant additional investments now while the economy is recovering but more slowly than we'd like. but then, you know, greater deficit reduction in the out years as the economy recovers. so, for example, the president's budget while it adheres to the bipartisan budget agreement in the terms of its -- in terms of its allocation, right, in fiscal year 2015, it also calls for the jobs, opportunity and security fund, right? $58 billion fund the make the exact kind of investments that larry summers is talking about in innovation, in sign terrific research. and the -- scientific research. and the house democratic budget that i'll propose on behalf of my colleagues also includes that. the president's budget also includes a $302 billion transportation trust fund

increase to, you know, modernize and expand our infrastructure so we can compete in the 21st century. as i said, the republican budget allows the trust fund to go broke later this summer. so, yes, i think that that is our view. now, as you know, the republicans have already rejected the's plan for the jobs opportunity -- the president's plan for the jobs fund, so in terms of prospects of passage this year, that looks like it's not going to happen. but i do think that that's part of the argument that we're going to take to the country because the republican budget imposes so much immediate austerity, it will reduce job growth in the next couple years. that's what the cbo says. so, you know, our approach has been make sure we headache the investments necessary -- we make the investments necessary to power the economy and have a plan to reduce the deficits over

the longer term. and our budget does do that. i mean, we reduce the deficits. the debt to gdp is declining at the end of the ten-year window under both the president's budget and the democratic alternative. but establishing an artificial target actually, as the republicans do even though they don't really hit it because for the reasons i gave, but establishing that is putting ideology over jobs and the economy. with respect to immigration, i'm glad you raised that. let me just say, first of all, because our republican colleagues are going to have an opportunity to vote for bipartisan immigration reform as part of this budget debate. so i'm really glad you raised that. the house democratic alternative budget, like the president's budget, will include in it the bipartisan immigration reform bill. and the congressional budget

office has indicated that that's one thing we could do right now that would significantly boost economic troth growth and will reduce the deficit, right? over the next ten years, they calculate it will reduce the deficit by $190 billion and by but over two decades close to a trillion dollars. so cpo has analyzed that -- cbo has analyzed that, they've said that will be the deficit reduction benefit of it. so we've embedded that in h.r. 15 which is the house version of the bill that passed the senate committee. and so we're going to have a vote on that when our democratic alternative will include, incorporate the bipartisan immigration reform. so we hope our republican colleagues who support immigration reform will support that. with respect to the deportations, you know, the president has indicated he's asked for a review of the policies to make sure that, you

know, we take into account the humanitarian toll that some of these policies have. and i'm hoping that that review will result in some changes. in the moon time, i i -- in the meantime, it's important to stress i think the fast best way to deal with this would be have speaker boehner vote on comprehensive immigration reform today in the house. it would pass. it would pass. and that would resolve all these issues at one time. so i'm glad the president is reviewing the policy again, but, you know, we could resolve this today, and the president could sign it today if speaker boehner would allow a vote in the house. >> [inaudible] >> is jeb push right that illegal immigration -- jeb bush right that illegal immigration is an act of love? >> i'm not sure -- what was the quote? >> he called it an act of love, people coming into this country. >> look, people coming into this

country they come for all kinds of reasons, to try to make a better life for themselves ask can their families. now, we also, obviously, have an interest in making sure we can secure our boarders, and we need to immove border security. all these bills do improve border security. but it is wrong to bury our heads in the sand on this issue. and that is why the bipartisan senate bill is a solution, it's an imperfect solution. so what is really inhumane is not to allow a vote on a bipartisan piece of legislation that has already passed the senate and is inflicting pain on millions of families. >> [inaudible] >> you talk a little bit more about your budget proposal? how is it specifically different from what obama has proposed and why, and what are you doing new this year compared to the past couple years? >> sure.

it is, in overall architecture it's very similar to the president's budget. it is not identical in respect to every policy. so, for example, when it comes to tax policy, our revenue numbers are similar to the president's, but that doesn't mean that how we fete there is going to be -- how we get there is going to be identical. we lay out some guidance to the ways and means committee in terms of special interest tax breaks and loopholes, but we don't go into great detail. the largest difference with the president's budget is that we eliminate the nondefense sequester for the entire ten-year period whereas the president's budget, you know, eliminates the nondefense sequester for a period of time, and then it's a tapering. he reduces the sequester.

so that's probably the largest difference. again, while the overall numbers are similar, we do not necessarily adopt the same policies for achieving those numbers. in some cases we do, in some cases we may not. >> mark? >> mr. van hollen, you've mentioned right at the outset an unwillingness to address big items on the republican side like hedge fund managers and so forth. a very prominent democrat, national democrat you know has said one of the great problems with the democratic party is because the democrats and the republicans draw money from exactly the same sources, there is a lack of difference and distinction and definition between the two parties on economic policy. and, you know, i wanted to ask you that. i mean, to what degree the money

becomes complicated. there's, certainly, the staunchest defendants have -- [inaudible] and just a follow up to that, and that is you and mr. ryan have an admirable personal relationship. yet 69% of his cuts come from poor and lower income people. how do you reconcile that with your personal add hi ration for him? >> -- admiration for him? >> sure. so a couple thinkings. one, with respect to the differences between democrats and republicans on economic policy, they could not be more stark, and this budget debate is exhibit a. because the, a primary difference -- >> we will leave the remainder of this discussion here. you can see it in its entirety on our web site, go to c-span.org. live now to the pentagon for a briefing with deputy assistant secretary of defense amanda dory

and general david rodriguez, u.s. africa command commander looking at africa strategy and operations. this is just getting under way. >> potential for rapid hi-developing threats particularly in fragile states including violent public protests and terrorist attacks could pose acute challenges to u.s. interests. additionally, the review speaks to the fact that while core al-qaeda has been degraded, al-qaeda affiliates have expanded into new areas to include in the maghreb and the sahel. in our globalized world, groups that are viewed as distant from u.s. territory are able to threaten our interests, citizens and personnel in other regions as well as those of our partners. in response to these threats, the department's focus in africa is to foster stability and prosperity. and in the scut realm -- security realm, this means building capacity at the institutional and operational levels. and when i speak of partners,

there are many of them. this starts with our african partners, individual african states, the many african regional organizations that focus on security and economic matters, the african union as well as european partners. and then here within the united states, key partners for us include state department and usaid. sometimes when we talk about partnership, it's fair to ask us which partners are you referring to because we have many. the partnerships take lots of coordination, hard work and patients to pay off, but they do. and i think in some cases looking at the intractable conflicts of yesterday they can become the success stories of today. so even as i imagine we'll spend a fair amount of time talking about today's challenges, you know, a decade hence we may be sitting here citing those as success stories in turn. the two that copy to my mind,

the civil wars in the 1990s in west africa and sierra leone and liberia in particular where you've had the united nations, the international community writ large to include the united states and the efforts of those countries themselves that have substantially recovered now to the extent that they are able to send peacekeeping forces to assist in exporting security beyond their borders. theup secretary general, ban ki-moon, in fact, called sierra leone one of the world's most successful cases of postconflict recovery. so i think it's easy to forget in the kind of impressive events that there are some notable cases on the african continent of success across all of the different dimensions in the strategy that i noted up front of we have slow but steady progress in our view in 'em -- in terms of restoring governance in countries like mali, somalia

and democratic republic of congo, and the same model pertains here. the mix of regional partners, the united nations, other exterrible alaskas and dod playing our own role if providing key enablers. examples as enablers, i know we'll spend a fair amount of time on this in the q&a would include planners or other specialized personnel and capabilities. there are a small footprint in targeted support working with willing partners to develop our own strategic approach and is the way our african partners prefer to work with us. with that, i'd like to turn it over to general rod who spends most of his days working with african partners. >> thank you. good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to update you on u.s./africa command. i'm pleased to be here with depp city assistant of -- deputy assistant of defense dory. much of the continent is doing

well. with six of the world's ten fastest growing economies and many countries strengthening their democratic institutions. a growing and youthful population which can be an engine for positive change or a negative force. the picture in africa saw not all -- is not all bright. in some regions disease, corruption, violent crime and extremism have contributed to instability and conflict. the network of al-qaeda and its affiliates that link afterwhat with north and -- africa with north and south america have taken advantage of regional instability to continue to expand their activities. africa command is working with international and interagency partners to mitigate those immediate threats. we also advance enduring security interests by supporting the development of african security institutions and forces who serve their nation and their people. africa command's efforts are

always conducted in support of efforts led by the u.s. ambassadors and the cup teams. -- country teams. our programs exercise and strengthen military to military relationships in a region where the united states has little forward presence. they make u.s. and partner forces more effective as we learn from each other and operate together. they also promote adherence to the rule of law and respect for civilian authority and human rights. let me highlight a few examples of progress in regionalizing and internationalizing efforts in africa. in somalia, six african countries participate in the afterjanuary union mission in somalia.

>> supporting regional, united nations and french operations. across africa we continue to work with the state department to protect u.s. personnel and facilities. the size of the continent alone poses challenges in this regard. and just to remind you the distance between tunis and the tip of south africa is the same distance from washington, d.c. to honolulu. we're supporting efforts to strengthen maritime strength in the gulf of givenny and reduce -- guinea. africa's expanding security challenges make it vitally important that we align all our resources with our priorities, leveraging partnerships and increasing our operational flexibility. we will continue to deepen our collaboration with international and interagency partners to advance our mutual interests.

thank you, and we're prepared to take your questions. >> okay. >> yeah. i'm paul -- [inaudible] with "u.s. news & world report". i'd like to ask you about the military's posture in africa. this week marks the 20th anniversary of the genocide in rwanda, and i wonder how that posture has changed in that time. if such a crisis were to happen today, what would you have available to give to the president that didn't exist before? and the second question, about a year ago the state department classified somalia as one of the greatest success stories in africa. since then there's been the al-shabaab attack on the mall in kenya, and i wonder if you think that appraisal is still accurate. >> on the first question as far as capabilities and forces, we have several forces out there in the continent, in the region to

support our efforts. we have the east african response fort over in dijibouti, and we also have the special forces, special operation forces and extremist force all forward. we have a major forward operating site in dijibouti where there are several thousand personnel, and then throughout the rest of the area there are small pockets of temporarily-placed organizations and people. and we are looking hard at trying to improve our posture in west africa which is really the toughest challenge for security. and then i think that some of the things that the defense department as done to speed our ability to sunday to crises -- to respond to crises would help out in the situation as you discussed. on the somali issue, as you know, the amazon forces when

they became active a couple years ago when they started taking offensive action against al-shabaab have done a good job of pushing al-shabaab out of the many critical areas. and as can be expected, al-shabaab responded by not going toe to toe with them, and they have now, you know, focused on conducting asymmetric attacks. they first went into mogadishu to disrupt the international efforts and the somalian national government which was brand new at that point in time and have also expanded those efforts out into kenya. as you said, the westgate mall and recently another significant vehicle-borne ied in kenya all focusinged at going after the troop-contributing countries. so i think that it continues to be a positive effect. the government is recognized now, so that's been a step forward as well as the ability

of al-shabaab to control large swaths and major cities. so that has decreased significantly. but as always, there's still a long way to go to get the somali national army and police to the level that they need to be. and then, of course, the development of the somali national government. >> could i just from a policy perspective to the first question recalling the an verse verse -- anniversary of the rwandan genocide, i think in addition to the response forces that africom has at its disposal, when you think back 20 years at the time there a department of defense perspective we had multiple different combatant commands with responsibilities vis-a-vis africa. so that a's another change when you -- that's another change when you think about the clarity in terms of roles and responsibilities vis-a-vis africa. so just a footnote in terms of how an operational response would be led, for example. i think in terms of the policy

framework as well, there has been a lot of work to say, as secretary curry did yesterday -- kerry did yesterday, that genocide should never happen again. and the frameworks that have been put in place, there's been a fair amount of attention drawn in the terms of the speech that president obama gave that explained looking at genocide as a prevention of genocide and mass atrocities as a core national security interest and horl interest of the united states. that's something in place in the terms of a policy statement, and then that's been further amplified in the establishment of an atrocities prevention board which is chaired at the white house and meets on a regular basis to serve as an early warning function for countries around the world that are at risk in terms of the potential of mass atrocities. so i think our system as a whole

is much more attuned thousand to that risk -- now to that risk and is poised to act if required. even recently in terms of concerns about the central african republic in december, for example, the concerns were sufficient that the president approved a drawdown of department of defense goods and services that enables africa command to move immediately to bring additional peacekeeping forces from rwanda and burundi into the situation to aist the french -- assist the french and chad at that point who were seeking to stabilize. so i think from the operational perspective and a policy perspective that we're in a very different place than we were 20 years ago. >> yeah. i'd just like to adjust one thing. the african forces that now are available that participate the this these intervention type

things have expanded incredibly in the last 20 years. i mean, six nations in somalia, nine going to 16 in mali, all african, you know, partners and their forces. yes, sir. >> joe -- [inaudible] i don't know if you can give us an assessment of how you see the current situation in libya, and also if you can give us an update about the military-to-military programs with tripoli and what about the training mission it is a taking lace in bulgaria right now. >> the situation in libya, of course, is very, very challenging. the government, as you know, has just changed out the prime minister. the libyan institutions across the board are very, very weak after the reign of gadhafi, and then the security challenges really in the eastern part as

you saw in the paper is a very troubling situation. it's going to be a long, hard road for the libyans to figure out how to lead their way through this effort to control the militias and to continue to build the institutions that are required to run that country. on the training mission, it -- we have two, first of all, we have a multi-national effort that includes the turkish military, it includes the italian military, it includes the united kingdom military, the u.s. as well as the moroccans. two of those countries have started to train, the turks and the italians, and the first turkish force trained has just returned to libya, but it's too soon to tell how effective they will be. between the four european partners, the u.s. and the moroccans, they've committed to

train up to 20,000 people in that force, and we're, the u.s. right now is waiting on money coming from libyan government to begin to fund the training in bulgaria. >> just a quick follow up. have you seen lately any link between the al-qaeda and any other jihadist movement in libya and the rise of extremist group this mali? -- in mali? >> yes. the challenges of security in rib ya as well as the incredible -- libya as well as the incredible amount of ammunition and explosion es that are throughout move throughout the region. between northern mali and southwestern libya is a huge infiltration route that becomes a challenge for all the countries there. >> i'm working for french television -- [inaudible] perceive the situation in mali at the moment in the fight against jihadists? do you think it's a challenge

and how the american forces are involved in that. and my second question is about $. [inaudible] ebola is spreading in many countries in africa. [inaudible] >> on the first part, ma'am, as you know, we continue to support the french and the u.n. in mali. the french with airlift, refueling, intelligence and reconnaissance. we have several small teams embedded to help that effort. the biggest contribution we make to the rest of the effort in mali is supporting the department of state led training that trains all the troop-contributing countries. we have begun to do a small mil-to-mil relationship in capacity building with the u.s. in accordance with the ambassador's desires. most of those are in the medical and intelligence field at this point in time. and the challenge that a the

president has is, you know, trying the figure out how to to reintegrate and bring north into a better place, more inclusive effort. those relationships and negotiations are going back and forth like you would imagine, and we're hopeful that that continues to move forward. >> and on ebola? >> on the ebola outbreak, the military has just taken precautions to protect ourselves. it seems with all the international effort, the medical efforts there that they're not as concerned as they were a week ago about how was that would spread and how bad that could bement so they've done a pretty good job isolating that based on our sources. >> back on libya for a minute. given the security challenges and the situation that you outlined there, how has that affected the ability to go after the perpetrators of the benghazi attack? have you just basically had to

give up on going after them at this point, or is that even still feasible this your mind? -- in your mind? >> i think that the effort to go after that network which has been led by the fbi continues to, to continue to pursue those personnel, it is made more difficult, obviously, by the security situation, but there's still a lot of focus on bringing those perpetrators to justice. >> do you think it's feasible to actually go after them? >> it depends, you know, on the situation and the risk that people want to take. obviously, as you can imagine, most of those would be pretty significantly high risk operations to do that. >> i just follow up for one last thing? >> yes, ma'am. >> it suggests that be in your mind and the fbi you have a pretty fair idea at in the point -- at this point of who they are and where they are if

you can say that they're high risk. you must have a good sense of who -- >> just know the general area. and because the distance away from tripoli and the location of the eastern part in a very tough situation, but that's really the channeling. it's not about -- challenge. we don't have everybody identified and located, ma'am. okay? >> [inaudible] in terms of operations in libya period for official americans, the challenges that our embassy faces and the threats that it faces as well. it's very difficult to move around within tripoli, much less beyond tripoli. so it's, you know, in terms of high risk, i think that's a fair characterization for movement throughout the country at this point. >> general, recently you added some air assets to the

counter-lra mission. want to see if you could talk a little bit about that. is this moving up as a priority for africa command? how close are you to getting joseph kony, or do you think that you've made significant progress so far against the lra, and is this going to improve with the new assets? >> the new assets, they're temporarily -- in fact, they've just begun to move back out, and we'll do it as the nigerians and -- i'm sorry, the ugandans but really the african union regional task force which is led by the ugandans' desires those capabilities. the biggest challenge that the african union legal task force is having light mobility to get after kony and his leaders. so we'll again support those efforts as required. for the, as far as the lord's resistance army itself, it's

really been a good success story. the defections are way up and continue to, you know, go higher. there are less of his forces that are committing the humanitarian, you know, crises that is part of that, part of his modus operandi. and then there is a huge ngo effort that has continued the take care of the people very, very effectively who were negatively impacted by kony and his army. so i think that's a very positive story. they continue to get weaker every day, and we're going to continue to support the efforts of the african regional task force to finish this off. >> will just a clarification on that. are all the assets out now, or is this going to be -- how quickly will they -- when are they expected to leave, and about when would they come back? would they come back later this year? >> they're leafing now, and it'll -- leaving now, and it'll depend on the intelligence that the african union regional task

force and their partners develop, and they'll come back, as i said, at their request when they need it. >> missy ryan from reuters. i'd like to try to follow up on a dimension earlier of al-qaeda-affiliated groups in the maghreb and sahel regions. speaking of these groups, they're, you know, militant groups in general in that region. can you just tell us a little bit more about the nature of the threat that they pose? is are they growing stronger? are they growing weaker? are they growing strength at all from returning jihadis from the syrian conflicts, and do the local governments in libya, tunisia, even elsewhere, are they capable of combating these threats on tear own? -- on their own? >> the expansion of the al-qaeda, its inherents and affiliates includes ansar al-sharia, also includes the battalion which is the mbm-led

unit in northern mali. and then, of course, also added to the foreign terrorist organizations. the linkages, the best example to show the linkages is the attack where really three of those groups got together, trained and took the best people in executing that attack. that's the type of collaboration they're doing. they're also transferring things that are very worrisome like the ied technology and tactics, techniques and procedures. as you know, significant number throughout the region have headed to syria, and not many have come back yet. but, yes, all the governments are concerned about that because they'll come back, you know, with e appearance and better trained from the jihadis' perspective. the governments have a wide range of capabilities. for example, libya would have had a tough time doing too much with those people returning just

because the current security situation. algeria and tunisia are much better, and, in fact, there have been some good things in tunisia where they've prevented seem from leaving. so they are all concerned about the throughout the entire region. >> are the groups becoming stronger, weaker? what's the tendency there? >> it depends where you talk about. in libya i think they're getting stronger. in the eastern part where al-shabaab is, i think their tactics are evolving. not sure they're getting stronger, but they are having more smith candidated -- smith candidated -- sophisticated kind of attacks. and then as you head over to mali, i think they're weakened a little bit, but between the northeastern part of mali and the southwestern part of libya, we're really concerned. >> general, in libya could you describe how these militant groups are getting stronger? is it simply through

intimidation and force, or are they actually providing some kind of government -- governance, rule of law, organization? are they, is it a charm offensive in some respects? >> i think, as always, it's a little bit of everything. i think mainly it's about intimidation at this point, and they have a significant amount or have access to a significant amount of arms, ammunition and explosives that makes it really tough. the oil challenges in the eastern part of libya are a little bit different, because that's about economics. and they do have the resources to take care of some of their people and replace the government in certain situations. but i think it's a complex situation.