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.

>> so it's slightly different business model in terms of the way southern libya is operating. clearly, the displacement of groups across borders is very challenging -- [inaudible] >> [inaudible] just to follow up. when the international community decided to force gadhafi out of power, overturn that government, did they, did the international community, the u.s., not foresee this outcome given the fact that the libyan government really had no reach, much reach beyond tripoli? >> i think it would be hard from the outside given the state of our relationship that pertained then with libya to understand how devoid libya was of institutions to be able to recover after gadhafi's departure.

so my sense is that the amount of information available as far as the ability of libyan institutions to continue without gadhafi, i think that that was underestimated in terms of the ability to proceed forward without very personalistic style of power. so i think some of this was certainly foreseeable ask was foreseen, but the kind of continuing factors of work across borders between northern mali and southern libya and the continuing destabilization there, my sense is that that's worse than what had been anticipated at the time. >> could i ask you about the special forces, the role of special operations forces? as the -- [inaudible] from afghanistan, you're confident that one of your goals is to keep a smart u.s.

footprint. do you see a greater use of sof of foreign internal defense for anti-poaching kind of training and exercises? what's the role of sof going to be in africa as the u.s. draws down from afghanistan? >> they're a big part, obviously, of the small teams and the right places to have a tailored approach to what our partners need most in the internal defense and the training of small units is at the head of that list, obviously. on the poaching piece, we don't get directly involved this that. we do provide some training. some of the minister of force are part of that, but, of course, it's a nexus between that and counterterrorism. there's a large role for special operations forces as well as conventional forces at different levels. >> what's the extremist level you mentioned? >> extremist force. each of the combatant commands has one, it's about a company level, and all of us have one in

our areas. >> what are they for? how would they with be used in the benghazi situation? >> well, they could have been used in a situation like that because they're well trained and able to move quickly. and, again, one of our response forces for any situation -- >> i want to ask rwanda 20 years later, in layman's language, when africom had been in better -- is it in better position now to mobilize evidence of atrocities as their ongoing -- they're on young, kind of seven as the conscience of the nation forcing nato or other nations to respond more rapidly than happened two year ago? >> africom certainly has a con item science, but in the scenario you're laying out, really that's more the intel community with the function to -- [inaudible] based on, you know, kinds of continuous assessments in monitoring situations that are viewed to be tenuous. so i think in the first instance

that the warning tended to come from the -- although it's entirely possible there are indications it would be picked up by the command. but the point i wanted to make is in terms of the kind of policy making apparatus i think we're in a much more robust place now to recognize the situation that's tenuous and respond to it, and then the command itself is now, has response forces available for different purposes that could be moved quickly in extreme mis. >> quickly is the issue, because president clinton said later he wished he had moved more quickly before all the killings were done. you're in a position where the united states could move more quickly or world could move more quickly now. not to put words in your mouth, but 20 years later, you're in the position of push for action more quickly. >> yes. and so are the africans, you know? that response that the africans

have done even in the central african republic is significantly different than 20 years ago. i mean, that's really the strongest difference between now and what happened 20 years ago. >> [inaudible] in africa? >> day-to-day between 5-6,000. and it fluctuates based on exercises and training and, you know, the time of the year. >> sir and ma'am, do you have all that you need? i mean, i know that's a leading question, but specifically i'd like to the talk about, you know, among the problems of africa are corruption, are ungoverned spaces. these are not typically a military organization's place to solve or to work on. so when i say do you have what you need, are you getting what you need from across the river or from international organizations? and how do you characterize that

partnership with these folks? ma'am, you spoke about the partnership earlier. i was just wondering if you could expand on that a little earlier. >> sure. thank you for the opportunity with your leading question. >> that's my job. [laughter] >> appreciate it. you do it well. e think general rod has a wish list so that he does not have all that he needs, but i would say kind of strategically when we look at the situation on the continent, one of the areas where i think we, the u.s. government, don't have the resources that we need are the types of resources that state department and usaid use for their democracy and governance programs. those resources are minuscule. i would probably misquote the amount available this fiscal year, but it is in the tens of millions, maybe on up to 40 if

we're lucky to stretch out across this vast continent where you have probably close to 40 different countries now who do, you know, have been brought into democracy, have elections. but the quality of the elections is something where there is room for improvement. these are types of resources that help in terms of promoting civic action, freedom of the press, independent electoral commissions in various countries, and they are absolutely under pressure. and i think from a dod perspective, we understand that elections, good elections serve as a conflict prevention mechanism in a sense, and where you don't have that kind of ability for the people to have a voice and for change of power on some basis, that's where the tensions seem to build and occasionally explode.

so if you were to ask for my wish list, at the top of that list i would be advocating for additional resources for the democracy and governance account. i know -- >> yeah. and then as she said, you know, the comprehensive approach is going to solve this long term and everything is a challenge for everybody to resource. so we're working very, very closely with our mull the city national partners because nobody as enough resources to do it themselves. so that's why we have the effort as we have in libya where all the partners are working together as close as they ever have in phase three when we're this combat, right? we're trying to do that to be able to better spread the resources where they need to. the sin caron nation, if you can imagine, is a challenge sometimes, but we're working with our partners to get the most for our buck everywhere we are. >> and working very close i with the french. >> yes. >> across the whole continent. >> uh-huh.

>> how to you plan that? >> we have people from, we have french people this our headquarters as liaison officers, and we have french -- we have u.s. liaison officers in their operations center. we work combine planning efforts about once every month, and we continue to synchronize our efforts to best, you know, accomplish the overall common interests we both have. >> i would say at headquarters as well, it's the french, but the u.k. is present, there are liaison officers from i don't know how many different -- >> nine different european nations. >> so, you know, portugal, italy, spain, u.k., france, i mean, i forget a few and make a diplomatic faux pas. >> the african nations are not in our headquarters. we work that through the country teams. we coordinate those efforts. but they're doing the same thing. and, again, rather than have a individual response in a bilateral fashion, they're

working together. and that's why we're really working hard to regionalize and internationalize the effort so that everybody's working together. >> >> [inaudible] of abc news. i'm going to go back to your answer in terms of poaching. what links are you seeing between trafficking and -- [inaudible] what are those groups, and is the africa command making illicit wildlife tracking a priority? i think there's a presidential executive order that does that. >> yes, like i said, we don't directly do it, but we do training for a couple things. one of them is in the intelligence arena, and we do not see a significant amount of direct linkages right now between most of the extremist groups where that is for livelihoods. but that's what we work on. we work on training the security forces mainly in the intelligence function to improve their capabilities to combat

that illicit traffic. >> so you're not seeing links being funneled to -- >> no, no. not like one would think. most of it is done by, most of the funds come from selling of the illicit material like the arms, ammunition and explosives mainly. it also comes from taxation and kidnap for ransom. and it all comes from local taxation. that's where most of it comes -- there is some drug interface, obviously, with the networks to generate some funds that way. >> training -- [inaudible] when it comes to wildlife? >> we talk about the intelligence fusion of their multiple agencies because, for example, tear park rangers -- their park rangers don't share with the minister of interior and police, and we organize that for patterns. >> our intel colleagues are tracking, you know, are aware of the kind of information that says, for example, that lra is involved in working with

poachers or, you know, that type of collaboration. so there is an effort to try to dig into those allegations to see if there's something there. >> there has been a spike in teaching in recent years. is this generated in part because of fundraising efforts or more, like you said, livelihood? >> i think it's been more as livelihood pretty much. in the back. >> wanted to go back to the tracking -- [inaudible] central and south america. do you see those ties have strengthened over recent years, and also too, with the flow of narcotics through africa, are you seeing a counterflow of weapons, arms, munitions back across and possibly to different areas in the world? >> most of the ammunition stays on the continent, does not go outside the continent. the south american network that comes up through west africa is probably pretty close to remaining the same, but there is

a improvement or a growth in the network that comes from south asia across east africa and up to europe as well as in the united states. that has expanded. okay? yes. >> have you seen lately any indications that -- has any kind of operations or any presence in africa mainly in the western part of africa, and if yes, how significant is -- >> there are a couple of those linkages, and they're not that significant at this point in time. they're focusing on other places, as you can imagine right now. >> john harper with stars and stripes. general, what kind of isr shortages are you facing, and what kind of challenges does that present for you in libya and elsewhere, and also as the war in afghanistan winds down, do you anticipate more of those assets will be shifted to your aor? >> on the first parking lot, the challenges with the -- part, the challenges with the isr for us

are really about the ranges and the dwell times that are required. so that's the biggest challenge, of course, and everybody wants more intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance that you can imagine. as the drawdown in afghanistan -- >> we'll leave this briefing at this point. see the rest of it on our web site at c-span.org. senators returning from their party caucus lunches. senator barbara mikulski is expected to take the floor for an hour to address national pay equity day and talk about senate legislation that would guarantee gender equity in pay for similarly-experienced men and es and nows, live to the senateing floor. tomorrow in the united states senate. during the next hour, 11 women -- 11 democratic women will be coming to the floor to speak. i ask -- but i'm not going to introduce each one. we want to get right to the issue rather than flowerily talk about each other; we want to talk about the need for paycheck

fairness. so i ask unanimous consent that each woman speak up to five minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: but i'm the lead-off speaker, and, madam president, i want to be very clear. why are we on the senate floor? we believe that women need a fair shot to get equal pay for equal work. we want the same pay for the same job, and we want it in our law books and we want it in our checkbooks. we want to finish the job that we began with lilly ledbetter five years ago. five years ago one of the first bills passed during the obama administration was that we passed the lilly ledbetter bill which reopened the courthouse door to women who wanted to seek redress for the way they were treated unequally in the workplace. but we need to finish the job, and that's what paycheck

fairness does. what does finish the job mean? well, right now in the united states of america there is a veil of secrecy, a veil of secrecy. and where is it? in the workplace. right now in many companies and businesses, employees are forbidden to talk about the pay that they receive with another employee. the other thing is in many places when an employer seeks redress, she's retaliated against. and last but not at all least, there are loopholes that many employers use to justify women paying less. they invite -- they invent excuses and they call them business necessity explanations. well, we're on the floor today to say we want to end the soft bigotry of low -- the low wages

for women. equal pay for equal work. no secrecy, no retaliation, no loopholes, no way. today is the day for equal pay. we're on the floor today because it is the equal pay day. and what does that mean? it means the women of the united states of america have to work in many instances 15 months a year, or 15 months to earn what a man makes doing the same job, with the same experience and the same seniority, earns in one year. now we're not against the guys. there are many men who do jobs they hate so their daughters can have the jobs they love. and after working to ensure they have a good home and a good education, they see their daughters are paid less. and we all know there is a

generalized suppression going on of the middle class. another topic and another debate. but right now we're on the job, and we want to be paid for what we do. it's hard to believe that women are almost half of the workforce, and yet during that time, as we make up 50% of the workforce, we still make only 77 cents for every $1 that a man makes. african-american women earn 62 cents. latino women 54 cents. almost half. this is a disgrace. we need to change the law, and that's what we seek to do by bringing the paycheck fairness up. now, our president has tried to do his part. he supported the lilly ledbetter bill, and today we were at the white house where he took an executive order step to ban retaliation against employees who work for federal contractors.

so we're going to start being a model employer by banning retaliation not only within the federal government, but with our federal contractors. he also then called upon the contractors to submit data information so that we would know what are the gender differences that are going on on the very contracts that we have. when we signed the equal pay act, it was in 1963 under lyndon johnson. women made only 59 cents. now you know what? that's 50 years ago. in 50 years ago, we've gained 18 cents. 18 cents. well, that's not the way to go. the way to go is to pass the paycheck fairness act. what we will do is to make sure that, as i said, no retaliation, no excuses.

you know, we hear this all the time. oh, the guys do harder jobs. they're a breadwinner. so many women now are heading up households, are single breadwinners themselves. and no longer will limited -- the other important thing is no longer will women be limited to pay, just back pay when they're being discriminated against. my time's up? well, madam president, my time is up. i am so into this bill. i've been at this legislation a long time, but what i would like now is help. hope and help is on the way. reenforcements are here. and now i turn to senator elizabeth warren, and then after that senator claire mccaskill. and senator cantwell in that order. and i'll call others.

senator warren. ms. warren: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: i come to the floor today in support of equal pay for equal work. i honestly can't believe that we are still arguing over equal pay in 2014. congress first moved to solve this problem more than 50 years ago. when the equal pay act was signed into law in 1963, women were earning 59 cents on the dollar for every dollar earned by a man. today women earn only 77 cents on the dollar for what a man earns. women are taking a hit in nearly every occupation. bloomberg census data found immediate kwr-pb income for -- median income for women were lower than for men in 264 out of 265 major occupation categories. in 99.6% of all occupations, men

get paid more than women. 99.6%. that's not an accident. that's discrimination. the effects of this discrimination are real and they are long lasting. young women, for example, borrow roughly the same amount of money as young men to pay for college. but according to the american association of university of women, these women make only 82 cents on the dollar compared with men one year after graduating. so women take out the same loans to go to college, but they face an even steeper road to repay those loans. unequal pay also means a tougher retirement. the average woman in massachusetts who collects social security will receive about $3,000 less each year than a similarly situated man because the benefits are tied to how much people earn while they are working. there's a problem, a big problem, and women are fed up.

50 years, and women still can't earn the same as a man for doing the same work. women are ready to fix it, but it isn't easy. today some women can be fired just for asking the guy across the hall how much money he makes. earlier today the president issued executive orders to stop federal contractors from retaliating against women who ask about their pay and to instruct the department of labor to collect better data for the gender pay gap. and good for him, and good for women working for federal contractors. now the u.s. congress should extend these protections to all women. the senate will soon vote on the paycheck fairness act. this is a commonsense proposal. no discrimination, no retaliation when women ask how much the guys are getting paid. and basic data to tell us how much men and women are getting paid for key jobs. so there it is. it's basic protection, basic information, a fair shot.

that's essentially what this bill does. and sure, sometimes men will be paid more than women. employers can still make different payments for salaries based on factors like skill, performance, expertise, seniority, and so forth. and the paycheck fairness act doesn't touch any of that. it simply provides the tools that women need to make sure that salary differences have something to do with the actual job they're doing and not just the fact that they are women. several states have already adopted a similar rule, and businesses continue to thrive without any explosion of lawsuits. this bill is about good business, a level playing field for men and women, an equal chance to get the job done, a fair shot for all of us. america's women are tired of hearing that pay inequality isn't real. we're tired of hearing that

somehow it's our fault. and we're ready to fight back against pay discrimination. i thank senator mikulski and all of my colleagues for speaking on the floor today, for their leadership on this important proposal. and i urge the senate to pass the paycheck fairness act to strengthen america's middle class families and to level the playing field for hardworking women. madam president, i yield. mrs. mccaskill: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: you know, madam president, every once in a while it is probably a healthy thing for all of us to sit back for a moment and reflect on why we're here. what is the united states senate supposed to be about? why do we come to the senate? why did our founding fathers lay out a constitution that had these branches of government, and in the branch of government

that we reside in, we are called the legislative branch. so what is that about? i think what the founding fathers wanted us to do is to make our laws reflect the values and priorities of the american people. and the paycheck fairness act is a simple step towards making our laws reflect two of the most important values we have in the united states of america. i guarantee you if i walked up to any of my colleagues that intend to vote against this and said do you believe in equality and justice, they would say of course we believe in equality and justice. then why would you not support this legislation? because it is just that simple. we are just trying to make the laws of this country reflect the

american ideals of equality and justice. well, they say there are laws on the books. well, here's the deal. you can't get justice if you don't have the facts. if the facts are as secret, a protected secret, then justice is always going to be elusive and equality is going to be something we give lip service to, not something we will truly enjoy in this country. so this is just a step to say to american businesses, let us understand why two people making the same job have two different levels of pay. explain it to us. what is so evil about that? what is so evil about expecting a business to be able to explain why a man and a woman with the same experience, the same credentials and the same work output are paid differently?

if there is a good reason, then there is no litigation. there is no rush to the courthouse. but if there is not a good reason, that's where that justice comes in. that's where a woman has an opportunity to go into the hallowed halls of our courts, the envy of the world, i might add, to have a fair shot at justice. and the notion that someone could be fired for trying to get the facts about their own compensation. the notion that retaliation would somehow be embraced by my colleagues that don't intend to vote for this legislation. now i know they are trying to explain to the american people this has something to do with us having a love affair with america's trial lawyers. i have never heard more rubbish

in my life. it's not the trial lawyers that we care about. it's the women. it's the single moms. it's the women that have this sinking feeling in the pit of their stomach that they're getting paid less but they're helpless because they can't get at the information, and when they do, they have the entire burden of proof of showing that somehow they weren't inferior for their male -- to their male colleague. there is no absolute possible reason that any of us would be trying to help lawyers with this. it's their clients, guys. it's the women of america. it is the women of america that want the laws to reflect our values of equality and justice.

this is a simple step. it is nothing to be afraid of. frankly, the only thing anyone who opposes this bill should be afraid of is the wrath of american women across this country that are sick and tired of being told it's none of their business what they're getting paid, it's none of their business what their colleague is getting paid, and by the way, i don't have to explain to you why you make less even though your work output has been superior to your male colleagues. it's time, and it's just about our values. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. ms. cantwell: thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. ms. cantwell: thank you, madam president. i'd like to join my colleagues and thank the senator from missouri for her statement as somebody who has been involved in basically making sure the law is implemented and upheld, too. i appreciate her views on this. and i want to thank senator mikulski for her leadership in advocating for equal pay for equal work. she has been a champion in this

for many years and she is insistent now that we pass this legislation, and that's why we're here, because we want to make sure that our colleagues understand how important it is to pass the paycheck fairness act. i encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation and end the discrimination that many women face in america. this is a critical issue, not just to women but to men because obviously the households of america deserve to have both people making equal pay, and the message from the american people is clear. they want congress to focus on the most important economic issues of the day. that is, jobs and certainly having a job that pays you equally for the work that you do to your co-workers is critically important. the paycheck fairness act is exactly what we should be working on, ways to strengthen the pocketbook of many americans. while we have made progress over the last five decades as we passed the equal pay act, we still have a long way to go.

in my state, the state of washington, women are paid 78 cents for every dollar that men earn for the same work. that amounts to an average wage gap of $11,000 per year. the truth is that many women are the breadwinners in their families, and they should be paid as breadwinners. they should not face discrimination. today women make up 48% of the work force in the state of washington, and these families are very important to our economy. on average, mothers in washington provide 41% of their household income and nationally 40% of women are the sole primary breadwinners for their households. so this is an important issue for our economy. just think of the boost they would get, the boost that we would see if they were paid equally. right now, one-third of those families headed by women in washington live in poverty, so closing the wage gap means that

they would be able to afford 82 more weeks of food, according to the partnership for women and families. it would mean better economic freedom. it would mean the ability to buy more essentials. it means their families would be better off. but more importantly, people need to realize that not only does this pay gap affect women's ability to support a family, also the pay gap reduces their ability to save for the future. from around the age of 35 through retirement, women are typically paid about 75% to 80% of what men are paid, and over their lifetime, a woman in washington will earn $500,000 less than her male counterpart. that's money that can be saved and invested for the future, so we must pass the paycheck fairness act to end this disparity because this act will require employers to provide justification other than gender for paying men higher wages than women for the exact same job, it

protects employees who share that information with others from being retaliated against, and it provides victims of pay discrimination with the same remedies available to victims of other discrimination, including punitive and compensation damages. so this is important legislation. it is important legislation that will end the discrimination that women are seeing in the workplace. the paycheck fairness act will also help eliminate the pay gap to help these families that are struggling in our economy, but just in case people get the wrong idea about this, i want to make sure people are clear. even in fields like engineering, computer science, women earn on average only 75% of their male counterparts. a woman with a master's degree will only make 70 cents for every dollar of her equally educated male counterparts. it's time the senate ends the

pay discrimination by passing the paycheck fairness act. that's why i have been happy to sponsor this legislation and work with my colleagues. i want young women growing up today to know that this is not an issue they are going to have to deal with in the future. they will get equal pay. so i thank my colleagues. i hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will help us in invoking cloture and providing the votes we need to pass the paycheck fairness act. i thank the president. i yield the floor. mrs. gillibrand: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mrs. gillibrand: i am proud to join this fight for paycheck fairness, an effort led by the dean of the women in the senate, the first democratic woman ever elected to the senate in her own right and the longest serving woman in congress today, senator barbara mikulski. this is the same fight many of our own mothers and grandmothers fought for -- equal pay for equal work. the promise made by the equal

pay act 50 years ago literally half a century ago continues to be broken every similar day in this country, and when that happens, it doesn't just hold back women individually, it holds back entire families. it holds back the entire american economy. today, women make up more than half of america's population and nearly half the work force. women are outearning men in college degrees and advanced degrees and are a growing share of primary household earners, but to this day, men are still outearning women for the exact same work. on average, women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns and even less for women of color. african-american women earn 69 cents on the dollar and latinas earn just 58 cents on the dollar. in the years leading to the equal pay act, only about 11% of

families rely on women as the primary wage earner for kids under 18, just 11%. today, 40% of primary or sole wage earners are women. 40% of families with kids under 18 that rely on women to pay the bills, balance the family finances, make the tough choices at the kitchen table and provide for their kids, but you would not know this by looking at america's workplace policies. they are stuck in the past. they are stuck in the madmen era. congress and state capitols have failed to keep up the face of the modern american workplace. this has to change. how can two-income families and sole female bread winning households -- bread-winning households get ahead when they are shortchanged every single month? if we wouldn't a growing economy and a thriving middle class, pay

women fairly. it's really that simple. when women earn equal pay, america's g.d.p. could grow by up to 4%. it's common sense, it's the right thing to do to strengthen our economy, to strengthen our families. so today on equal payday, let's get this done. let's pass the paycheck fairness act and give america's women the fair shot they deserve to earn their way ahead in today's economy. ms. klobuchar: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: i'm a cosponsor of the paycheck fairness act, an incredibly important bill. i'm proud to be here with my colleagues and the leader of the senate, senator mikulski. today is equal payday, but it also marks the day when things are warming up in my state. after a long deep freeze, it looks like we will have

70 degrees. the snow will melt, the flowers will bloom, and i think the message we're all here to bring is it's time to stop freezing the women of america out of this economy. the women of america want to be treated fairly. right now, all the work we're doing, whether it's the unemployment bill for unemployment compensation, it is stuck somewhere in a deep freeze over in the house of representatives, somewhere between the frozen peas and the chocolate ice cream, and it's time to thaw out the freezer in washington, d.c., and help the women of america. that is what this bill is about. that is what the minimum wage bill is about. people deserve a fair shot at the american dream. i'd like to thank again senator mikulski and i'd like to thank her for her leadership with the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. in 2009, we passed that bill to make sure that workers who face pay discrimination based on gender, race, age, religion, disability or national origin have access to the court. in doing so, we restore the

original intent of the civil rights act and the equal pay act. now it's time to prevent that pay discrimination from happening in the first place. we all know women have made great strides in this economy. we have made great strides in this body. we now have 20 women in the united states senate, but of course we are still only at 20%. the fortune 500 now has 23 women c.e.o.'s, but i still think that anyone who looks at this knows that there are great strides that have been made but great progress ahead, and despite all this progress, women in this country still only earn close to 80 cents for every dollar made by men. this pay gap has real consequences for american families. two-thirds of today's families rely on a mother's income either in part or in entirety, and in more than one-third of families, the mother is the main breadwinner. as senate chair of the joint

economic committee, we released a report this week that shows that lower wages impact women all throughout their working lives, and i think that's something people don't always think about. the fact that if you consistently make less money and then you retire and you're actually going to live longer than men, you have a lot less money to retire with in the first place. in fact, women who retire have about $11,000 less per year than men have. that is pretty significant when you look at the age range where women will be in retirement. the other piece of this that we don't always think about, unless you're in the position, is women in the sandwich generation, women who are taking care of aging parents at the same time they are taking care of children. that is happening every single day in this country as women are having to take leaves from work or leave their job to take care of an aging parent while they are still struggling to afford to send their kids to college, to send their kids to daycare. this legislation, madam chair,

will build on the promises of the equal pay act and the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. it will give women new tools and protections to guard against pay discrimination and will help reaffirm that basic principle that all women deserve equal pay for equal work. i'm hopeful that we can get this done for the people of this country. it was the late senator paul wellstone of minnesota that said we all do better when we all do better. i still believe that's true, and so do my colleagues who join me today. we need to focus on this bill. we need to unfreeze some old beliefs, and we need to bring a little spring into the united states senate. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, senator mikulski and i were just whispering to each other about how far we've come since the day

that anita hill came to the hill and we couldn't really do much to help her, but we organized and recognized that women had to be here in numbers sufficient to make a difference, and clearly today we are. my colleague, senator mikulski, is our dean of the women, and all she is basically saying here, with all of us as an echo chamber, is this -- women deserve a fair shot. it's long past time for us to stop shortchanging half of the country and their families. i want to show you a chart that looks at what happens to a woman in a year when she gives up $11,000 because she is not being paid for the same job the same amount a man is. what could that $11,000 do? she could buy a year of groceries, madam president.

she could provide a year of rent, a year of daycare. she could buy a used car. she could afford community college. that's one year. look at what happens over the course of a lifetime. when because a woman is not getting her fair share, the equal amount she deserves, only 70 cents on the dollar, over her lifetime, it's $443,000. what could she do with that? pay off her entire mortgage. send three kids to the university of california. a great school, i might say. buy 8,000 tanks of gas. what's the point of this? it's to show that the dollars that the women are not getting could be going into the community, could be making sure their families are taken care of, would make all the difference in the world. now, i was a little startled to see some of my republican friends on the other side of the

aisle and the other side, the the house, republican members of the house say this is demeaning to women. this is what i got out of the news report. women don't need this. well, would they have said that children, that children need protection against child labor, and the answer is yes. did workers need protection from a 14-hour day when they were being exploited? yes. did we need to make sure people in hazardous workplaces like chemical companies have appropriate protective gear? yes. did we need to make sure there are fire exits in a crowded factory after a horrific fire called the triangle fire? yes? now we need to make sure that women get equal pay for equal work. it's just part of the continuing of bending that arc of history toward justice. that's what's happening here

with the leadership of senator mikulski and all of us standing on her shoulders. and i have to say it's a great day, it's a great day to hear my colleagues come here to the floor and speak as one. we are speaking not only for the women of america who make up more than half but for their families. that's the point. two-thirds of women are either the sole head of households or they share in providing for the economic well-being of their families. this is a matter of justice. it's a matter of fairness. it's a matter of a fair shot and i am proud to stand with my colleagues, and i hope and i hope and pray that we will get the 60 votes necessary. there's a filibuster going on, as usual. we need a supermajority. but i'd say to my colleagues on the other side, too many women have to be superwomen so you can give them a supermajority.

superjim. not one job but two jobs. so please help us. let's celebrate tomorrow with a great vote and i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, madam president. i want to start my bye expressing my thanks and appreciation to senator mikulski for her once again tremendous leadership in the fight for equal pay and foe bringing the paycheck fairness act to the forefront of the debate this session. the role of women in families and in our economy has really shifted dramatically over the last few decades. today, 60% of families rely on earnings from both parents. that's up from 37% in 1975. 60%. women today make up nearly half the work force. and more than ever women are likely to be the prime mayor -- primary breadwinner in their families.

women are making a difference in our economy, in lecture halls and small businesses. but despite the important progress we have made, since the equal pay act passed now 50 years ago including passing the lily ledbetter act thanks again to senator mikulski in 2009 to give more women tools to fight pay discrimination, women's wages not have caught up with the times. across the country today, women still earn 77 cents on the dollar on average to do the exact same work as men. it would take a typical woman until today to earn what a man would earn the same work in this year in 2013. and that difference really adds up. in seattle in my home state last year women earned 73 cents on the dollar. 73 cents on the dollar compared to the male counterparts. that translated to a yearly gap of $16,000 -- $16,346.

nationwide, over a typical woman's lifetime pay discrimination amounts to $464,320 in lost wages. that's not just unfair to women, it is bad for our families and it's bad for our economy. at a time when more and more families rely on women's wages to put food on the table or stay in their homes or build a nest egg for retirement or help pay for their children's education, it is absolutely critical that we do more to eliminate pay discrimination and unfairness in the workplace. the paycheck fairness act would tackle pay discrimination head on. it would ramp up enforcement of equal pay laws and strengthen assistance to businesses to improve equal pay practice. i hope we can all agree that in the 21st century workers should be compensated based on how they do their jobs, not

whether they are male or female. i hope we'll be able to pass the paycheck fairness act as quickly as possible for working women and their families in this country. but, madam president, we can't stop there. we need to build then on these critical reforms with other steps towards giving women a better and a fairer shot at getting ahead. one out of four women in the united states today would benefit from raising the minimum wage. that's 15 million american women who are making the equivalent of about two gallons of gas per hour. it's clearly time to raise the minimum wage and give working women in the country some much deserved relief. and there are other ways, madam president, we can and should be updating our policies to help women and their families make ends meet. for example, thanks to our outdated tax code a woman who is thinking about reentering the work force as the second earner in her family is likely going to

face higher tax rates than her husband. that would come in addition to increased costs she would then have of child care and transportation and the possibility of losing tax credits and other benefits as her household income rises. all of this means that struggling families will experience higher tax rates than what many of the wealthiest americans pay and it can discourage a second -- potential second earner like a mom who is talking about reentering the work force from returning to her professional career. i recently introduced the 21st century worker tax cut act which would help solve this problem by giving struggling two-earner families with children a tax deduction on the second earner's income. the joint committee on taxation estimates that that change alone would cut taxes by an average of $700 for 7.3 million families next year. the 21st century worker tax

cut would also expand the eitc and lower the eligibility age for people without dependents and young workers just starting out can benefit from the credit. by the way, this has bipartisan roots. it builds on work incentives in the eitc and is paid for by getting rid of wasteful corporate tax loopholes both ways and means chairman camp and democrats agree ought to be closed. now, opinion leaders from across the political spectrum have said that this bill would provide much-needed relief to workers and families. one conservative commentator wrote in "the national review" that the 21st century worker tax cut is -- and i quote --"a serious proposal that has the potential to better lives of a large number of our workers." and a "new york times" editorial columnist said it would -- quote -- "be a huge benefit to low-income childless families and two-earner families."

so i'm hopeful that here in congress we will see similar support on both sides of the aisle for a bill that would help women and working families keep more of what they earn. we've come a long way, madam president, in terms of the opportunities women have in our country today but there is no question we have a lot more work to do. if we take these steps that i've talked about and others are here talking about, we will do much to break down the very real barriers that still exist today. we'll help working women and their families, we'll strengthen our economy and we will expand opportunity for the next generation of women who enter the work force. so i'm here today to urge my colleagues to support the paycheck fairness act and then build on that step by continuing to help level the playing field for american women and their families. thank you, madam president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, this isn't only a woman's fight though we reserved this time. there are many good men in the senate who stand shoulder to shoulder with us and i know senator -- the senator from west virginia would like to have two minutes before he presphwhriedz. i yield him two minutes. actually i should yield him 77% of what we got, but we're for equal pay and equal time as well. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: that will be a minute and 45 seconds,, madam president. as a proud husband of a brilliant, brilliant, talented woman, my wife gale and as the father of two daughters and a grandfather of six granddaughters, all of whom are different gifted and make great contributions to our country it's past time that women earn the same men in the workplace. we need to correct this unfairness to make sure women are paid what they deserve.

as we join together today to celebrate equal pay day in the year 2014, it justifies competitiveness -- defies common sense that working women in west virginia make 70 cents to every dollar a man makes. too many families are working hard to make ends meet and smeationly in families where women are the breadwinners. in west virginia there are more than 81,000 family households headed by women. and about 30% of those families or nearly 29,200 households have incomes that fall below the poverty level. eliminating the wage gap would provide much-needed income to women whose wages put food on the table, pay the bills and maintain a respectable quality of life for their children and families. i was blessed to -- been raised by two strong hardworking women. my grandmother, known as mama k and my mother. both of these women taught me

women can work just as hard if not harder and should get paid the same as a man. as a matter of fact, they should probably get overtime. there is no wroan rhone they shouldn't have received the same pay for the same job as men then and they certainly, certainly resonates that today. since i joined the senate i'm proud to cosponsor paycheck fairness act, and the very first vote i took in the senate was for paycheck fairness. until congress passes the truly commonsense bill i will continue to fight for paycheck fairness because the bottom line is people should earn the same pay for the same work, period, no excuses. and i will say as a former governor, most of my decisionmaking was made around good, strong women who sat down and gave me the facts and nothing but the facts and i appreciated that. it shouldn't mad math whether you're a man or a woman, you should be treated fairly no matter what and no matter are where you are and no matter what you do. thank you madam chairman.

ms. mikulski: senator heitkamp. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. ms. heitkamp: thank you so much. i want to thank our great friend and leader from the state of maryland for continuing her hard work. i wonder if she ever wakes up in the morning and wonders when it's ever going to be done, when we'll see justice and i think she's learned over the years that until you stand up, every day, and lived that life and live a life where you're trying to make positive change in america, it doesn't doesn't get done. she is somebody who has never given up. i think it's interesting because north dakota like west virginia is one of those states where actually women earn less than men and below the national average less than men. but when you look at the national average, 77%, that is a horrible, horrible statistic. but you know what's really horrible? it's really horrible if you live that statistic. not one person in this body lives that statistic. we're all treated equally.

it doesn't matter, you know, what gender we are, if we are members of congress, we're treated equally. can you imagine what the outpouring of sympathy and support would be if we got 77% of a male salary? we would think that's atrocious. how can that possibly happen in america? but it happens every day in america. it happens every day for working women who are supporting their families, women who go to work 40, 50, 60 hours to support their families and to improve the economies of their state. and they keep spinning their wheels. they keep working at trying to change this and don't seem to get any further ahead. how many of us could take a 25% reduction in salary? and that's really what we're asking every woman in america to do. not across the board, but certainly on average. every woman in america to take a 25% reduction in their salary.

that is not fair. and it should not be the facts of 2014. it should not be the way things are. you you know, there's been a lot of discussion around the opportunities for women, and obviously we've grown -- you can't see 20 women in the united states senate and not think that we're making some progress. but we have to think not only about those women in professional occupations but those women who are our school cooks and our janitors, like my mother, those women who are working every day at the diner to put food on -- on the table, to -- to put food on their family's table and food on the table of their patrons. and so when we're talking about this, i also talk about the need for an increase in minimum wage, which i know is -- is a topic for further discussion on the floor. but i like to remind my fellow senators that the current minimum wage, which, as we all

know, overrepresented by women, the number of people earning minimum wage, overrepresented by women, is less than 9% -- is less than 9% of a congressional salary. and we have people in this body who think that the -- the salary that they receive is inadequate but yet we expect people to work 40 hours a week -- even if you had two of those minimum-wage jobs, think about it, working 40 hours a week, two of those minimum-wage jobs, you still would make less than 30 -- less than $32,000 a year working 80 hours a week. and that's the story of very many women in this country. and it used to be, you know, when we were growing up and women were in the work force, they were working for, you know, for that extra income or -- or there was this excuse given over and over again, well, she's just supplementing the income and the man's the bread earner and she's just earning a little extra so

she can buy a new refrigerator or whatever it is. that's not the reality of today. the reality today is that more women are the primary or the sole breadwinners for their family and we have got to correct this problem. now, i've listened to the debate on the other side saying, you know, there's -- there's other ideas on how to do this. this won't promote or give a way forward for change. you know, these are the same people who think if you just maintain the status quo, sometimes or somehow things will magically change in this count country. what -- what would suggest to us after 20 years of this struggle or 30 years of this struggle or 40 years of this struggle, what would suggest to us that we are going to get parity if we don't take some pretty proactive action here in the united states senate and the united states congress. to say what a woman does is

valuable. and it's at least as valuable as what a man does in the exact same job. and that's who we are as a country. we are gender neutral and that's what we're trying to do right here is maintain our gender neutrality, maintain a great economy, because we know if we put more money into those women's family budget, that money is going to go out and it's going to grow our economy even more. but at the bottom line is let's have a little sympathy in this body for people who earn less than 20% of what a united states senator earns. let's give them a show of support, a "thank you" from a grateful country for the hard work that they put in every day, and let's tell them that those words in our constitution and that promise of equality is isn't -- still not realized but we can work together to make that a reality in their life. thank you. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. ms. baldwin: i'd like to start by thanking senator mikulski for organizing us all today but much more importantly for your leadership over the years on this issue. we are so proud to have you as our dean. i've come to the floor today on equal pay day to stand up and speak out about an issue that impacts women and families in every state across this country. today i rise to give voice to the belief that we need to be working together across party aisles to build an america where hard work is rewarded and where there is a fair shot for

everyone to realize their pursuits and dreams. in america today, the growing gap between rich and everyone else is at its largest point in 100 years. the absence of upward mobility for hardworking families demands action, because if we can't close this gap, we might someday talk about the middle class as something we used to have, not something that each generation can aspire to. as i've traveled my home state, wisconsinites have told me that the powerful and well-connected seem to get to write all their own rules while concerns and struggles of middle-class families oftentimes go unnoticed here in washington. they feel like our economic system is tilted towards those at the top and that our political system exists to protect unfair advantages instead of making sure that everybody gets a fair shot.

i rise to give voice to the fact that there is paycheck inequality for hardworking american women across this country and that it is time that we do something about it. working women make over -- make up over 50% of our work force and they're working harder than ever to get ahead. and they deserve to get ahead. but many are working full time and many are working two jobs to make ends meet. yet far too many are barely getting by and far too many women and children are living in poverty. the least we can do is level the playing field and give women a fair shot at getting ahead because they deserve equal pay for equal work. it's simply unfair that women are paid on average 77 cents for every dollar paid to a man. this reality is holding women

back and it's holding our entire economy back. i am proud to join my colleagues today to deliver a call for action to pass the paycheck fairness act and give women equal pay for equal work. this legislation will help close the paycheck gap for women. it will help create upward mobility for women and it will help strengthen the economic security of millions of families across our country. let me take the time to tell you just one story of one woman. shannon is a single mother of three from two rivers, wiscons wisconsin. shannon is working hard to support her family but the pay gap is holding her back. shannon has continued her education to advance her career as an interpreter in a school, but she faces the grim reality that women teachers are often paid less than their male

counterparts. in fact -- and this is so hard to believe -- but statistics collected by our department of labor make it clear that women earn less than men in almost all occupations commonly held by women. passing the paycheck fairness act will help close the pay gap and provide shannon and so many others with financial freedom for their families. it would help shannon manage issues that working moms face every single day -- unexpected car problems, children outgrowing their pants and sho shoes, the anxiety of not being able to save a little bit of their paycheck to someday send their children to college. to put this in the simplest terms possible, it would give shannon a fair shot at passing on a stronger future for her children. today women working if you mean time in wisconsin go home with

$10,324 less a year than their male counterparts do. in wisconsin, 31% of households headed by working women have incomes that fall below the poverty level. this is simply wrong and it's our job to work together to change that. millions of american women get up every day to work hard for that middle-class dream, a good job that pays the bill, health care coverage you can rely on, a home you can call your own, a chance to save for your kids' college education, and a secure retirement. but instead, gender discrimination is holding women and their families back. eliminating the pay gap will make families more secure. nearly 60% of women would earn more if women were paid the same as men of the same experience,

with similar education and hours of work. the poverty rate for women would be cut in half. it's wrong for us to ignore the gap between the economic security that american women worked so hard to achieve and the economic uncertainty that they're asked to settle for. with a record number of women in the work force today, the right thing to do is to pass the paycheck fairness act and empower women with a fair shot at equal pay. i urge my colleagues to join me in working to pass the paycheck fairness act because it would strengthen families and our economy by providing working women with the tools they need to close the gender pay gap. it will show the american people our commitment to working together to provide a fair shot for everyone. i yield back.

mr. reed: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you very much, mr. president. i rise in strong support of the paycheck fairness act. i'd like to first commend the senior senator from maryland for her fierce and tireless leadership on this issue. she has been a protein in force when it comes to this issue and so many others. i deeply admire and respect her. this week i held my annual roundtable with the woman's fund in prof dispense we talked about equal -- providence and we talked about equal rights and equal pay and equal opportunity with women who are creating jobs and fighting inequality every day. and today, as my colleagues have pointed out, we mark equal pay day. women have to work until april 8 of this year just to earn what men did as of december 31st of last year. and passing the paycheck fairness act will move us one step closer to being able to commemorate equal pay day on

december 31st each year for both men and women. and that is what we should be striving for. this year we're marking the 50's anniversary of the civil rights act and the war on poverty. we have come a long way but our efforts to form a more perfect but equal union must continue forward. when president kennedy signed the equal pay act into law in 1963, women were earning an average of 59 cents on the dollar compared to men. no matter how you slice it, median annual earnings, weekly earnings, by level of education or occupation, there is still a gender gap in pay today. the women's fund of rhode island just issued a report showing that gender discrimination in pay is even more striking for minority women. in rhode island, african-american women make 61 cents for every dollar that a white male makes. for la teefor latinas, it's 51 .

this pa gender pay gap affects women at all pay levels. according to the council on economic ad advisors, women are more likely to complete college. in 2012, 25-34-year-old women were 21% more likely than men to be college graduates. but this i has not closed the earning gap. to those who said it's all about education, these people have more education -- that's wrong. it's not. women who earn advanced degrees start off on a relatively even footing, those people with -- but once again over the course of their careers, the wage gap widens in favor of men. and the national partnership for women and families reports that women with master's degrees are paid 70 cents for every dollar paid to men with master's degrees and that women with master's degrees earn less than

men with bachelor degrees. so equal pay for equal work is not only an issue of equity, it is also -- has real economic consequences. families rely on women's income. data analyzed by the national partnership for women and families showed that mothers are the primary or sole breadwinners in nearly 40% of families. if we eliminate gender discrimination in pay in rhode island, a working woman would have enough extra money to buy 74 more weeks of food for her family, make six more months of mortgage and utility payments, or pay 11 more months of rent. and that just doesn't help the woman, it helps the family. one of the best tools in fighting poverty is to close the pay gap. the paycheck fairness act will help fulfill the promise of equal pay by improving the remedies available to women facing gender discrimination. these are commonsense and fair improvements. for our mothers, our daughters,

our sisters, our fathers and sons and brothers, we must pass the paycheck fairness act. we believe everyone deserves a fair shot. that includes equal pay for equal work. i urge my colleagues to come together and pass the paycheck fairness act. and with that, i would yield the floor. ms. mikulski: thank the senator for his comments. the presiding officer: majority time has expired, madam chairwoman. ms. mikulski: thank you. that answer my question, mr. president.

msmr. reid: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. reid: at 4:30 today, the senate proceed to executive calendar 556, 502, there will two minutes of debate equally devoided between the two leaders or her designee. the senate proceed to vote on the nominations. ththe motion tothe motion to red on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and the nominations be printed from the record and president obama be notified's senate's action and the ha senate return to legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: for weeks republicans have been trying to get democrats to focus on the one issue that americans say

they care the most about, and that's jobs and the economy. everyone agrees we're in the midst of a jobs crisis in our country. what republicans have been saying is, here are some concrete things, some concrete things we can actually do about it. but democrats have completely shut us out. if government isn't part of the solution or if it doesn't drive wedge between one group of people and the oh, they are a just not interested. here is just one idea he have a proposed and that democrats have brushinged aside. -- brushed aside. how about helping workers better balance the demand of work and family by allowing them time off as a form of overtime compensation? this is an idea that's tailored to the needs of the modern workforce. it is something a lot of working women say they really want. it's something government employees have already enjoyed

for years. what we're saying is let's give today's working women in the private sector the same kind of flexibility working women have in the government. everybody is familiar with the idea of getting paid time and a half for overtime work. what this bill would do is give people the choice of getting a proportionate butch i bump in tf for overtime work. so if you work an extra hour, you can get an hour and a half off work. so this should be really a no-brainer. this is a concrete proposal to help men and women adapt to the needs of the modern workplace and for the workplace to adapt to the modern workforce. this isn't just a way to help workers. it is a way to especially help working women. flexibility is a major part of achieving work-life balance, especially for working moms. that's what this amendment is all about.

so, therefore, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to s. 2199, that all postcloture time be yielded back and the senate proceed to consideration of the bill and that it be in order for me to offer amendment number 2962 and then for the majority leader or his designee to offer an amendment and then it be in order for the leaders or their designees to continue to offer amendments in an alternating fashion. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i have a unanimous consent request i'd like to put forward as well. i would ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to senate bill 2199 that all postcloture time be yielded back and the senate proceed to the consideration of the bill, and

that it be in order for me to offer amendment 2964, and then for the majority leader or his designee to offer an amendment and it be in order for the leaders or their designees to continue to offer amendments in an alternating fashion with the following amendments on the republican side in order: mcconnell 2162, fisher 2963, alexander 2965, and lee number 2966. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. reid: would my friend give me the subject matter of those three amendments? the four amendments. the presiding officer: can you give the subject matter. mr. thune: the mcconnell amendment has to do with flexibility time, the fisher amendment has d.o.d. with antidiscrimination in the workplace, the lee amendment is also -- has to deal also, i believe, with comp time, flexibility in the workplace, the senator from tennessee, senator alexander is here, and i think he can speak to his

amendment. but most of them deal with the pending business, mr. chairman -- mr. president. it is senate bill 2199 which is the pay equity act that the majority leader expects to get a cloture vote on later. we would just sumly ask that we have an opportunity to offer amendments that pertain to that bill on issues that we think are important in addressing the issue that's before us. mr. reid: mr. president, reserving the right to object, now, is the alexander amendment that you've talked about that will be suggested at a subsequent time, is that the 350-page amendment that was offered last week? mr. thune: the senator from tennessee -- the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: if i may respond to the majority leader, the answer is no. the alexander amendment, i would sty my friend from nevada, is a pretty simple amendment. it talks about giving working parents more flexibility so they

can go to soccer games and so they can go to piano recitals, in other words to be better parents. one of the greatest values that -- a few years ago i along with captain kangaroo, i start add company which has become -- merging with another company -- the largest daycare company in america. the greatest value that working parents with parent was flexibility, and our fear is that this proposal, which is called paycheck fairness, would actually limit the flexibility of employers to give to working parents more flexibility to go to their children's activities. and what my amendment is a very simple amendment, a paragraph or two. it simply restates the law that makes it clear that if you run a dry cleaner with three people in it, you don't have to go hire a lawyer to define a job for an

employee with a child in such a way that that employee can go to the piano recital or cork gaivment so instead of being about more litigation, it is about giving more flexibility for working parents parents. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: before my friend from north dakota -- south dakota leaves the floor, 2964 is the big one then? okay. mr. president, reserving the right to object, i'm happy to see a number of republican colleagues come to the floor. we've been talking about this issue for days now, and to discuss, i thought, the subject of equal pay. -- for women. but there's been no talk about

equal pay for women. the closest that anything in that regard has been suggested is a bill that says that if you have to work overtime, then you have a choice of going home or doing the overtime. but, mr. president, the reason we don't have laws like that is because there can be such advantage taken of the employee, because you're at the beck and call of the employer -- the beckon call of the employer. i think most labor laws would protect against that now. i'm surprised we have heard literally no one come to the floor except on one occasion -- i could have missed it -- and his statement -- the republican senator's statement was that this was -- this legislation of senator mikulski's was a trial lawyer's dream.

the women that have talked about this today and the men that have come and talke talked about it y -- including the presiding officer, which i heard his statement -- are simply trying to say that we need to be enssured that this is a fair shot for the middle class. in this instance, women. but the republicans always want to change the subject. i don't have a debate on this, whether women are entitled to have the same pay as men. the senate is debating a motion to proceed to the equal pay bill. so the question before the senate is whether we should even begin debate on this matter. senators who wish to offer amendments, the that will help n the debate. i'm ails happy to talk about amendments and i'm certainly -- and certainly my friend from south dakota's amendment is nothing that's reasonable.

what that amendment does is offer lots of amendments. i think if we look closely at this 350-page amendment, you might even find a kitchen sink in it. it's got everything else in it. it's really a perfect example of trying to divert attention from the subject at hand. it isn't a serious effort to legislate equal pay for equal work. my colleague's unanimous consent request would also allow for a potentially unlimited number of amendments. we've been there before. we know that doesn't work. providing an unlimited number of amendments is just another way of saying, they want to filibuster the bill, which they have done so artfully over the last five years. so my door remains open to further discussions, but i object to the requests that have been made, including the one that i anticipate from my friend

from tennessee p. the presiding officer: objection has been heard. mr. reid: is there anything pending? the presiding officer: the sph sphrr south dakota. i'm so, the majority leader. mr. reid: i just want to make sure there were no pending requests. the presiding officer: no, sir. the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i think it's -- what you just heard was a number of our members who have amendments they're going to talk about, offer to when we get on this bill -- and i assume we will at some point -- froap those amendments, debate -- to propose those amendments, debate them and vote on them. we're talking about an issue that's important to people across this curntion and we have amendments that we -- across this country, and weavments that we think will improve, strengthen, make better the bill that's going to be on the floor that's been described as the pay equity act by the democrats. we think actually that there's a better way to do this. we think there's a way that actually would improve the

wages, provide better job opportunities, better opportunities forbe advancement for -- for advancement for women in this country. this morning, the majority leader quoted ralph waldo emerson who said, america is another name for tiewfnlts i -- another name for opportunity. i couldn't agree more. americans want good jobs and want to earn a fair wage. but the current obama economy is doing everything it can to hurt the american dream. the economy is stagnant. there are 10 million americans who are unemployed, nearly 4 million for six months or longer. household income has fallen. right now there are 3.7 million more women living in poverty than there were when the president took office. i want to repeat that, mr. president. there are 3.7 million more women living in poverty today than there were when the president took office. the median income for women has dropped by $733 since president obama took office. that's why this body should be focused on enacting policies

that lift the government-imposed burdens that impede job opportunities and economic growth. i've offered an amendment, just asked consent to be able to have it debated and voted on when we get on this bill that actually is focused on enacting policies that lift the government-imposed burdens that impede job triewnts and economic growth. it's called the good jobs, good wages and good hours act. it would help return america to a place where there are good job opportunities. my amendment would help create good-paying jobs by reining in burdensome regulatory requirements, shielding workers from the damaging effects of obamacare, approving the keystone x.l. pipeline and providing permanent tax relief to employers who are looking to expand and hire. republicans could not agree more that women should have equal opportunities and pay in the workplace. unfortunately, the legislation that our friends on the other side are pushing will not accomplish that goal. their legislation would increase federal regulations that would

cut flexibility in the workplace for working moms and end merit pay that rewards quality work. democrats seem to be trying to change the subject of how their ideas are actually hurting women in the work force. of those affected by the democrats' obamacare 30-hour work week, that's reducing wages, 63% are women. so that policy going to a 30-hour work week that was defined as such in obamacare, 63% of the impact of that is being felt by women in this country. of the roughly 500,000 jobs that c.b.o. projects would be lost by the end of 2016 thanks to the democrats' 40% minimum-wage hike, 285,000 of those, or 57%, would be jobs that are held by women. disproportionately these policies are going to hurt women, mr. president. the poverty rate for women has increased to 16.3% from 14.4% when the president took office. so the poverty rate is higher,

you've got women who are living in worse economic conditions than when the president took office, and if the democrats were really serious about fixing that problem, if they're really serious about helping women, they would work with us on bills to create jobs and to expand workplace opportunities for women and for men as well. that's exactly what my amendment does, it addresses the problems created by obamacare, it includes a provision pushed by senator collins that will restore the 40-hour work week that i just mentioned earlier, and it will finally repeal the job-destroying medical device tax, which senators toomey and hatch and coats have been tirelessly fighting. my amendment ensures that veterans and the long-term unemployed are not punished by the costs of obamacare, the employer mandate in that legislation. senator blunt has raised that issue in the senate on behalf of veterans and in the house, a similar bill passed by a margin of 406-1. mr. president, my amendment also provides permanent targeted tax relief to millions of small businesses.

small businesses create 65% of all new jobs yet this administration's done little more than punish them with more regulations and higher taxes. the amendment also halts the harmful e.p.a. regulations until the e.p.a. conducts additional analysis of the impact those existing rules would have on jobs. it is time, mr. president, that this body recognizes the policies the other side is advancing are not achieving the outcomes that they claim will occur. we need to renew or commitment to helping all americans, including women, find job opportunities that allow them to achieve the american dream. we need to return this country to a place where america really is another name for opportunity. earlier today, the president and c.e.o. of the small business and entrepreneurship council, karen care began, wrote an article that said this proposal i'm talking about offers a set of really good set of policy proposals to help women entrepreneurs and women in the work force.

end quote. and that's why i was down here, mr. president, asking unanimous consent to be able to have this amendment debated, to have it voted on and along with many of my colleagues, we've got the senator from nebraska, senator fischer, the senator from new hampshire, senator ayotte, are here to talk about amendments that they want to put forward as a part of this debate. and i asked unanimous consent earlier that those amendments could be considered as well, mr. president. and once again that has been blocked by the majority leader. that's the wrong way to deal with an issue of this consequence. if you really want to help people in this country, if you want to create jobs, if you want to grow the economy, which ultimately helps lift all the boats in this country, improves the standard of living for middle-class families, women and men, the best way to do that is to get a growing, vibrant economy instead of the stagnant economy that we have today with too many who've been unemployed for a long period of time. so i hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will come to the conclusion that if we're going to debate this

issue, we need to debate it in a comprehensive way that takes into consideration all the ideas that are out there, including those that are going to be offered by my colleagues here this afternoon. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. nebraska. i'm sorry. the senator from nebraska, i'm sorry. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i strongly affirm the principle of equal pay for equal work. both the equal pay act and title 7 of the civil rights act, which were passed on a bipartisan basis, have helped increase career opportunities for women and ensure they receive equal pay for equal work. that's a principle that we strongly support. women have made progress. they now hold more than half of all managerial and professional jobs, more than double the number of women in 1980. and women comprise the majority

in the five fastest-growing jobs fields. according to the department of education, women receive 57% of all college degrees, 33% more than in 1970. we believe the reports prepared for the u.s. department of labor recognize that commonly used wage gap statistics don't tell the full story. factors, including differences in occupation, education, fields of study, type of work, hours worked and other personal choices, shape career paths and they shape earning potential. moreover, salaries alone don't account for total compensation. still, some women continue to struggle with gender-based pay discrimination. directly impacting a woman's livelihood, financial future, and her job security.

with 60% of women working as the primary breadwinners, lost wages debdetrimentally impact families well as single women. we fully agree that gender-based pay discrimination in the modern workplace is unacceptable. we just have different ideas from some of our colleagues about the best way to combat this. prevailing concern among women with wage discrimination indicates that there is more work to do. and that's why i've worked with senator collins, senator ayotte, senator murkowski to file an amendment to modernize key portions of that 51-year-old equal pay act. our proposal prevents retaliation against employees who inquire about, discuss, or disclose their salaries. it reinforces current law which

prohibits pay discrimination based on gender, and it requires employers to notify the employees of their rights. but we don't stop there. because i believe we need a solution that addresses both discrimination and the opportunity gap or the need to provide both men and women with good-paying jobs. our amendment consolidates duplicative job-training programs and it provides federal grants to states for the creation of industry-led partnerships. this program is meant to provide women and men who are underrepresented in industries that report worker shortages with the skills that they need to compete. such industries include manufacturing, energy, transportation, information technology, and health care.

importantly, no new spending is appropriated. unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are blocking consideration of what i believe is this very, very commonsense amendment. and another -- and a number of other republican amendments that would also help with job creation. you know, this is nothing more than election-year politics and i find it very, very disappointing. as women and as lawmakers, we believe that our proposal to directly address discrimination in the workplace is reasonable, it's fact based, and it's a great approach. more government and more lawyers will not lead to more pay for women.

thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: mr. president, i want to praise my colleague from nebraska for her leadership on the important amendment that she has just described, the workplace advancement act, that will address legitimate issues to ensure that laws that we have had in place for half a century, including the the equal pay actd title 7 of the civil rights act, are enforced and that women are informed of their rights in the workplace to ensure what we all believe in, that women should be paid the same for the same job. and, frankly, as a woman, i -- i would like the opportunity to outperform and to be paid more. and one of the concerns that i have about the -- what i view --

the majority leader came to the floor and said that this was an important issue to them. well, if this was such an important issue, why didn't they have a markup in the help committee, where everyone could offer their amendments to deal with this legitimate issue that i believe my male and my female colleagues think is important. why is it that when we have brought legitimate amendments to the floor, including my colleague's amendment, the workplace advancement act, as well as a provision that would allow greater flexibility for employees with comptime, the same that is enjoyed by those in the public sector, my colleague from south dakota, who has a strong amendment to help create a better climate for job creation and more opportunity in this country, if this is such a serious issue, which i agree this is an important and serious

issue, then why is it that these amendments are being blocked? why is it that we're having a legitimate -- is it that we're not having a legitimate dedebait? unfortunately, something that i think is an important and legitimate issue has turned into a political ploy of election-year politics. and i share the sentiments of my colleague from nebraska, i'm very disappointed by this. and, in fact, one of the concerns that i have about the bill pending on the floor, the so-called paycheck fairness act, is that it will actually have the impact of reducing flexibility for working families, that it could have the opportunity -- the impact of reducing the ability of employers to award merit pay because, mr. president, i had the privilege of serving as the first woman attorney general in my state.

before i went to the attorney general's office, i worked at a private law firm. i've had the opportunity in the position that i serve in -- that i served in to meet incredible women leaders in the health sector, in the business sector, and there many instances, frankly, where women, based on merit, have outperformed their male colleagues. and so what we don't want to do is create and pass a law that actually reduces the opportunity for employer in the workplace to reward merit because women want the opportunity to earn more than men when they do a better job, just like my male counterparts want the same. and that is one of my concerns about the paycheck -- so-called paycheck fairness act and that is why i very much appreciate i

think which is a very approach by my colleague which reinforces the enforcement of laws that have been in place that rightly prohibit discrimination based on sex in the workplace, including discrimination based on people being paid differently even though they are performing the same job, where there are no merit differences. that is wrong, it's unacceptable, and my colleague from nebraska's ideas i think are very, very good, and i would hope that the majority leader would allow a vote on this. i would also like to discuss the amendment that was offered by senator mcconnell which i am a cosponsor of, and that would provide working families with more flexibility in the work force. in fact, what it would do is it would allow the same options currently available to those in the public sector to working families in the private sector. it would allow workers, if they

want to and it's their choice, to receive comp time instead of overtime pay so that they can have more time off if they want and they choose, this is all voluntary, so if they want more time off to go to that soccer game, if they want more time off to have time to care for their children or more time to care for an elderly parent, then private sector employers will have the same ability to enter those agreements voluntarily with their employees to give their employees more flexibility in the workplace. and what we know is that today nearly 60% of working households have two working parents. i happen to live in one of those households. we struggle in our household to get to all the events we want to get to for our children. i have a 9-year-old and i have a 6-year-old. this is a huge challenge that so

many parents face. and so the family-friendly and workplace flexibility act, which is an amendment that senator mcconnell offered earlier that i'm a proud cosponsor of, would provide this needed flexibility for employees and workers and let them decide with their employer whether they would like to receive more comp time, because right now public sector employees have the right to do this, they have this flexibility, and it seems that we should provide the same legal framework allowing private sector employees this type of flexibility with more and more families trying to balance both parents working and challenging circumstances in the workplace. in fact, some companies like dell, bank of america and g.e. already provide flexible workplace arrangements to their salaried employees who are exempt from the fair labor

standards act, and what this would do is allow these types of agreements to -- to other employees to have the access of the same kinds of benefits if they choose. it is their choice, and this is giving families more flexibility, more opportunity to deal with the challenges that so many of us are dealing with in terms of balancing work and family and wanting to be good parents, wanting to be good at our jobs, and it seems to me that this is a commonsense amendment, and i am disappointed that the majority leader would also block this amendment as well as the excellent amendment offered by my colleague from nebraska, and obviously the amendment that was offered that's a very good amendment from my colleague from south dakota to really deal with this underlying issue of creating a better climate of opportunity for women and men throughout this country. so i believe this is a serious

issue, but if it's a real serious issue, which i think we all share a feeling of on both sides of the aisle, then why is this being treated more like a political ploy instead of having a legitimate debate on the floor? why didn't this go through the regular committee process where people can offer their amendments and have a markup that can improve it, make sure that we're addressing the underlying issue? and to me, it's disappointing that the senate continues to operate in this way because this is not the first time that i have come to the floor or that my colleagues have come to the floor with a legitimate amendment that is relevant to the bill that is pending on the floor yet had been blocked by the majority leader on an important issue. i thank you, mr. president. . the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: the senator from utah has an amendment that he is

going to speak to here in just a moment. i want to say one thing, and i appreciate the observation made by senator from new hampshire, senator ayotte, with regards to this going through a regular order process. if this were a serious discussion, there would have been an opportunity to have a debate at the appropriate committee, the help committee. you have just heard great presentations by the senator from nebraska, the senator from new hampshire on amendments that they would like to have considered and debated and voted on, substantive amendments that address which is at the heart of this issue. and i think we all understand what this is about, and i mentioned this morning on the floor that the "new york times" story from a couple of weeks ago about what the intention is with regard to these issues. and, again, this is from the "new york times" story, and i quote, to be timed to coincide with camping style trips by president obama, democrats can see the times reports -- quote -- that making new laws is not really the point, rather trying to enforce republicans to vote

against them, end quote. and it goes on to say and i quote again, privately white house officials say they have no intention of searching for any grand bargain with any republicans on any of these issues. the point isn't to compromise, end quote. that's from reporting in "the new york times" and quoting a white house official with regard to this. this is clearly designed as a political ploy, as my colleagues from new hampshire and nebraska just pointed out, and if we were serious about this, it would be an open process where we could consider amendments, amendments that improve and strengthen the legislation that's before us and actually would be a better approach to addressing the issue that's before us, and that is to try and create better salaries, better wages, better opportunities for women in this country. and i say that as somebody who is the father of two adult daughters who are both in the workplace, i want to see them have every opportunity to advance themselves and to get the -- to maximize the potential that they have, but we can't do that if we have policies coming

out of washington, d.c., that make it more difficult, more expensive to create jobs in this country, that throw a big wet blanket on our economy and stifle the growth that we need to create those types of opportunities for all americans. and so the senator from utah is here, he is going to speak to his amendment, but i think it's very clear what this is about, mr. president, and that is simply trying to score a political point rather than trying to have a serious, meaningful, substantive debate about solving an issue. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: i thank my colleague, the senator from south dakota, for his leadership in this area. i agree with his comments and support those statements along with the other actions taken by my colleagues from new hampshire, kentucky and nebraska in addition to others. mr. lee: i, too, had an amendment that i wanted to present in connection with this legislation. i, too, offered that up and identified reasons why this is

both relevant and germane to the legislation at hand. unfortunately, the majority leader saw fit to block this, to object to it, to refuse altogether to allow the united states senate, which is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative legislative body to consider these or any of the other amendments that were presented along with them. we're not asking for passage by unanimous consent. we recognize that some people might not share our views. we recognize that there might be a diversity of opinion within this body. we nevertheless believe that as united states senators, we are entitled to have these amendments considered because they are relevant, because they are germane. and we also think that they should be considered because they would benefit the american people. this is the sort of thing we're supposed to do. it's what we do. what we're supposed to be doing as senators is to be offering up amendments and voting on amendments to make legislation

that we consider better. you see, the amendment process can make a bad bill good or at least better, and that's exactly why we have an obligation to consider amendments. it's important to point out here that one of the reasons why i ran this amendment in the first place has to do with the fact that one of the struggles facing working families today is the constant struggle that moms and dads feel as they try to juggle the work-life balance. parents today need to juggle work, home, kids, community and other obligations that they face. for many families, especially families with young children, the most precious commodity that parents have is time, but today federal labor laws severely and i believe unfairly restrict the way moms and dads and everyone

else can use their time. that's because many of those laws were written decades ago, decades ago before the internet existed, decades ago when a number of demographic factors were aligned much differently than they are today, when a number of social trends operated much differently in our economy than they do today, and because of these laws, these same buddy holly-era, elvis-era laws, because of these same antiquated laws that need to be updated, an hourly employee who works overtime is not allowed to take comp time, not allowed to take flex time, even if she prefers it, her boss can't even offer it without violating federal law. today if a working mom or a working dad stays late at the office on monday or tuesday and instead of receiving extra pay wants to get compensated by

leaving early on friday and spend the afternoon with the kids, that kind of arrangement could well be violating federal law. that sounds unfair, especially to parents, and it is unfair, especially to parents and their children and everyone else. it also seems like the kind of arrangement that should not be prohibited by federal law but ought to be perfectly acceptable, but how do we know that for sure? well, we know that for sure because congress gave a special exemption from that very law, the law i just described a moment ago, that's available only for government employees. this is unacceptable. the same work-life options that have been made available by congress itself to government employees should be available to the citizens that they serve. in may of last year, the house

of representatives responded to this deficit in existing federal law by passing the working families flexibility act, sponsored by representative martha robey of alabama. to equalize the comp time rules existing within the government employment context for all workers. last fall, i introduced companion legislation in the senate proposing to do exactly the same thing over here. now today, i'd like to offer an amendment that is modeled on this same legislation to end this flex time discrimination, this comp time discrimination against private sector workers. you talk to any working mom or any working dad and they will tell you that they need more time. now, mr. president, as you well know, we can't legislate another hour in the day.

if we could, i'm sure it would have been done by now, and frankly i'm a little surprised someone hasn't tried it. we know mathematically it will not work, it wouldn't do any good. what we can do is to help working people so that they can better balance the demands that they face, the demands of family and work and community and every other demand that they face. we can ease some of this pressure by removing an unnecessary, outdated and manifestly unfair federal restriction on utilizing comp time in the private sector. there are real problems in this world, mr. president. there are bad things that can be and must be prohibited by federal law, but, mr. president, the fact that working parents would prefer, quite

understandably, to spend more time with their families is not one of those things that needs to be prohibited. or is it one of those things that we should allow to continue to be prohibited, especially when it's prohibited in an unfair, discriminatory fashion, one that inures to the benefit of government employees, that inures unfairly to the detriment of everyone else. congress needs to stop punishing america's moms and dads for just wanting the same fair treatment that government employees are able to receive through comp time and flex time programs. the united states of america deserves to have amendments like this one and other amendments that would make our laws less intrusive, less oppressive, less unfair. it would lead to the development of a more fair, just economy and

a more fair, just system of laws. we're never going to be able to get there if we're not even allowed to debate and discuss and vote on it, consider, much less pass amendments. it's time to restore the senate to what it was always intended to be, which is the world's greatest deliberative legislative body. that can't happen when amendments like this one are categorically blocked from consideration. we must end this, mr. president, we must do better. we can and we must and we will. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: