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 country 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, wisconsin 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 shoes 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 teenfor latinas it's 51 cents.

this pay gender pay gap affects women at all pay levels. according to the council on economic add 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 is 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 thaticer: 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 in bump in time off 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 a 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 talked talked about it today -- 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 then that will help begin 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 debtdetrimentally impact families as 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 they the equal pay act and 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 now live to london for british winners is question time. each week the house of commons is in session, we bring to prime minister david cameron taking questions from members of the house of commons live live wednesday mornings he wants to spend too. we invite your participation via

twitter using hashtag pmq's. prior to question the members are pitching of other business. now live to the floor of the british house of commons. >> would my right honorable friend join me in congratulating greenfield on the successful entry and then market british exports? >> i would like to congratulate the company in his constituency. you've been in the highest advocate for the role those businesses combating climate change. it's fantastic to see that work off the ground. >> order. questions to the prime minister. >> number one, mr. speaker,. >> prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this morning i had

meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today. >> turn to the prime mr. promised by the end of this parliament to reduce net annual migration to uk tens of thousands. will that policy be met? yes or no? >> we've made good steps forward on migration outside the eu where it is down by a third. that is a success and we've seen net migration overall come down by around a fifth. we haven't have seen is what we saw under labour which is 2.2 million people come in debt over 10 years. that was unacceptable. we are getting the situation under control. >> speaking recently with a constituent of mine who has been diagnosed with dementia she's frightened about what the future might hold for her. will be prime minister give his

personal assurances that a new dimension framework will be put in place as soon as possible to help my constituent and of those, other people as well? >> i can certainly get my honorable friend that assurance and i can add in terms of our dementia challenge which is about doubling the research going into dementia and treating it like a disease as cancer or heart disease that will continue. the work we're doing to make sure that local to reduce our do more dementia friendly, that must continue and also improving the care that elderly people get in care homes, nursing homes and hospitals, that final piece of work must continue as well. we will push for this issue globally as well. >> ed miliband. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, the events of last week of course deep concern and angst the public or what lessons has the prime minister

learned from his handling of the situation? >> first of all i agree with them, there is still very deep concern, public concern that is very raw about the expensive scandal that rocked this parliament in the last parliament and the biggest lesson i learned, that, that anger is still very raw and it needs to be acted on. i hope the one lesson that won't be learned that the right thing to do is see that someone has to answer allegations is to just instantly remove them rather than give them a chance to clear the name and get on with their job. >> ed miliband. >> i was asking but his handling of the situation and lessons he learned and he had no answer. now, he wrote in his letter for the cultural secretary today and i quote, i think it is important to be clear that the committee on standard cleared the unfounded allegations made against you. so can you explain what in his view the cultural secretary did wrong? >> the cultural secretary set

out the reason for her rates is nation in her letter but he does make an important point which is the culture secretary was accused of a very serious offense, which was by a member of parliament she was accused of housing her parents at the public expense. she was cleared of that allegation and i thought it was right, other people will be able able to take a view i'm telling about my view, i thought it was right in those circumstances to allow her to make her apology and continue with her job. that is the way i think is the right way to handle it. of the people can take their own view. i think if people clear themselves of a serious offense can you let them get on with the job, you let them try to do the job. that is actually the right thing to do. >> ed miliband. >> i've got to say who -- at stake him, mr. speaker, it is unclear for the country why the culture secretary is not still in her job if he thinks she did nothing wrong. let me explain let me explain -- >> order order.

this section will be conducted in an orderly way however long it takes. i happen to know there are children here today observing our proceedings who would like to thank the house would show a good example. let's see if we can. ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, what she did wrong was she refused to cooperate with inquiry. she breached the code of conduct for mps and she gave an inadequate apology to the south. he said six days ago she hasn't done the right thing and we should leave it at that. does he now recognize this was a terrible error of judgment? >> as i said i think it was right to allow the chance to get on with the job but there is one weakness in the right honorable gentleman's argument. if he thinks this was the case, why didn't he call on her to resign? he seems to be in my view the first leader of the opposition probably in history, to come to

this house and make the first suggestion that someone should resign after they have already resigned. >> mr. ed miliband. >> i've heard everything but it's my job to fire members of his cabinet. [shouting] this is about him. this is about him and the fact he still doesn't understand what she did wrong. the reason the public was so appalled was that if it'd happened in any other business they would have been no question about been staying in their job. why was he the last person in the country to realize her position was untenable? >> it's very clear. she did do some things wrong and that's what she was asked to apologize, and she did apologize. and it wasn't right not to cooperate probably with the committee, and she apologized for that but i have to say it is rather extraordinary to ride on will jump in now coming here having not said she should resign is saying she should have resigned. i think it shows all the time of

someone being a political bandwagon. [shouting] >> he is jumping on this bandwagon after the whole circus has left town. but where i agree, where i agree with the right honorable gentleman is that there is still more that needs to be done to deal with the problems of expenses that we suffered in the last parliament. now, we've made some big steps for. i'm not sure everybody knows this, but any expense complaint from 2010 onwards is now dealt with by an independent body and not dealt with by mps. that is right. the committee of mps that does the work on the past cases now has members of the public sitting on it. it is right, but i accept let us do more to reach of the public about the scandal expenses and how we're dealing with the. i'm very happy to hold meetings with party leaders, with the authorities of this house. i think it is right we should do everything we can to show that

this is a good and honest parliament with good and hard-working people in it. that is the assumption that i stand for and i make no apology for that. [shouting] >> ed miliband. >> the prime minister describes it as a bandwagon and the circus. let me -- let me actually -- [shouting] this is about the members of this country absolutely appalled by the conduct of his government over the last week. that is what it is about. it is about members of the public who cannot understand why he did not act. he said in his ministry of tone the british people expect a higher standard of conduct we must not let them down. does he not realize that his failure, even now his failed to recognize what went wrong, has undermined trust? not only in his government but in politics? >> what we see is absolute transcript or are taking a today determined to put politics in

every single way that he could. absolutely clear. [shouting] since 2010 -- >> prime ministers answer must and will be heard. the prime minister. >> i think members across this house would know since 2010 and since the last parliament a lot of changes have been made independent members on the parliamentary committee, publication of all meetings visits and gives for ministers publication of all special adviser salaries, publication of government spending, but is there more to do? yes, there is more to do. and if he serious about doing it he will sit down with other party leaders with the authorities of this house and let us ask what can we do to put the on doubt that this is a good and honest parliament with hard-working people? if he wants to put politics and the ones -- carry-on. if you're serious, get a serious. >> ed miliband. >> mr. speaker, i will have meetings with them anytime about

how we reform the systems of the south. of course, i will but he just doesn't get it. that is what he is showing today. he needs to learn profound lessons about how he runs this government. the culture secretary went not because of her bad conduct because of her bad press. he promised in opposition to be an apostle for standards and he spent the last week being an apologist for unacceptable behavior. spent i think what this shows is the right honorable gentleman think his leadership to fire someone at the first sign of trouble rather than actually giving someone a chance to get on with their job, that is absolute and not leadership. that is weakness. if that is his recommendation of leadership, i don't think the country will have any of it. >> with the prime minister agree with me, with the prime minister agree with me people living -- >> order, order. shouldn't be a collective groan.

[laughter] spent the honorable gentleman -- order. the house will hear the honorable gentleman. mr. tim barron. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with the prime minister agree with me people living in rural britain have as much right to decent only and safe health and hospital services as anybody else? and if he does if he does, will he help intervene directly and help me personally to ensure the hospital trust will not downgrade, sell off all her clothes the general hospital? >> i do representing a row constituency i know how important it is people have access to good health services to idle not important it is -- i know how important it is the key to success in so many of our areas. he asked me to look into the specific case and i'm happy to do that. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

in the light of this week's historic visit by the average person, building on the legacy on her majesty's historic visit to ireland in 2011 will be prime minister agree with me that irish relationships have ever been stronger and effort to build lasting reconciliation across these items we need to -- the full commitment of his government along with the irish government to ensure that the prospects potential prospect are delivered and implement the? >> first of all can i strongly agree with the honorable gentleman that it is a landmark visit of the irish president to this country coming three years after the queens extorted visit to the public of ireland. i agree with him and global irish relations are at an all time high and we are absolutely committed to building on that relationship and all the time are thinking of new things that britain and ireland can do as

good neighbors and good friends. in terms of the house talk i do think it would be good if we could make some progress on the issue did something parties in northern ireland started themselves and i would urge them to continue it. >> on the day when bbc radio -- [inaudible] i'm pleased to mind the prime minister the challenge in front of policies to address the damaging a long-standing reputation of women in science and engineering careers. [shouting] spend so what is his response to the thoughtful -- >> order order. the honorable gentleman will be heard. sir peter. >> that's all they did. what is his response to the report published last week?

>> canopy tribute to my right honorable friend campaigning and working so hard on this issue but it is important for the future of our country also not just for gender equality but for our economic future to get more women into stem subjects and into engineering. i should support the national center for universe and businesses target of doubling the numbers of fema engine and grudges by 23 to forward with employers, professional bodies and academic institutions but i think what most powerful things is role models like the role model he mentioned in his question. >> did the prime minister or any of his staff ask the right audible member to resign her position, and if not should he have? >> the right audible member, my friend is set out the reasons for her resignation in a letter she sent out today and i think people should accept that. i've given the fullest possible answers i could about my

attitude of working with colleagues and giving them the chance to get on with their jobs. that's the right approach. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thanks to this governments long-term economic pride -- [shouting] youth unemployment has been slashed by 42% in my constituency. does the prime minister think that the opening of a new university technical college and a new free college and sells very will enhance the ability of young people to compete in the global raise? >> my honorable friend is entirely right in every word, because what we do see is a decline in youth unemployment. the figures in salisbury and in the southwest are quite remarkable. these long-term youth claimant count has come down by 37% over the last year. what we need to do to further

drive down youth unemployment is make sure the training opportunities and education is there, and that's what the university technical colleges are so important youth unemployment is still too high when we strip of those that are in full-time education. it's 8.7%, much lower than france or italy or spain or the eu average but it still do it and we're committed to get it down. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituent is to lose loose his home after raising concerns about overcharging by solicitor. this solicitor from hell found a loophole by which he could soothe my constituent for complaining to the solicitor's regulation authority described it as morally reprehensible who say they're powerless to act. will the prime minister look at this case and intervene to stop the solicitor's running roughshod their regulators a? >> i'm happy to look into this case, as the honorable gentleman will no the regulators and the ombuds men which were improved

over previous year, they are independent of government so it's not possible to into being directed but what i can do is arrange for a meeting between him and the minister for legal services to discuss what remedies are open to his constituent. if it would be helpful than absorbing put that in place. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the prime minister from pakistan is due to visit later this month. will be prime minister specifically discuss with him to reform the blasphemy laws in pakistan which often used to persecute and prosecute minority communities including the christian committee? will the prime minister urge -- [inaudible] including a british national? >> i can reassure my friend i will certainly raise the issue with prime minister sharif when he comes to the united kingdom. i think it is important in the run up to easter to remember how many christians are still persecuted around the world including the persecution of christians under things like the

blasphemy laws. i will raise the. i look forward to meeting with the pakistani leadership. >> thank you, mr. speaker. is the prime minister to wear that for 3 million low income families, for every three pounds they came to the personal tax loan, they will lose two pounds straightaway for universal credit? isn't the prime minister giving with one hand by taking away with the other? >> i actually think the audible john is quite profound because the whole point about universal credit is that you will always keep a reasonable share of every extra pound earned. the difference between universal credit and the systems put in place by the last government is that you often face people with over 100% marginal tax rates effectively when they were in work but that is what universal credit will change and that's what i thought the party opposite was in favor of universal credit. if they've changed their mind about that as they often do about other things perhaps they should tell us. >> thank you, mr. speaker.

the number of apprenticeship starts to my constituent is now at a record high next week i'm holding the second rally a package of their. with the prime minister agree with me that investing in apprenticeship and skills is a critical part of our long-term economic plan to get local people in the flat country the skills they need to get a good quality jobs and to secure their futures? >> i certainly join my honorable friend in what he says. we've seen 185,000 apprenticeships start in the west midlands under this government. we have now got. we have no go 1.6 million nationwide tour on target for 2 million during this parliament to i want to make sure we continue to grow apprenticeships and we continue to see an increase in the quality of apprenticeships. and also better information for young people in school about the sudden the pathway they want to take whether they want to take

an academic pathway to university or the want to look at apprenticeships. we will be doing more on this front. >> despite all of the progress achieved in northern ireland, a recent poll finds 67% of 65 and 24 think the future life -- 70% citing local politicians were not capable -- [inaudible] as the prime minister agree that this ought to act as a wakeup call to those who continued to indulge in politics discussion and fear to start showing real leadership to inspire young people and get them hopefully start for a better future in northern i'm? >> anyone who believes that change is impossible or politicians can't raise rights to a challenge in northern ireland i think would've been very struck, i was. people have, a huge weight and

we need to continue with that vital work, including the work to fight racism and sectarianism wherever it arises. above all what we need is politicians in northern ireland to build a shared future to take down those piece walls, to make sure the economy can grow and opportunities are there for everyone in northern ireland. >> thank you, mr. speaker. 35,000 runners in lester's london marathon raised -- raised 539 pounds for good course of the i will be running again this sunday -- [shouting] for the forget-me-not children's hospital. will be prime minister join me wishing all the runners, including the children's minister and the shadow chancellor? >> i over the -- i saw an attractive picture of my honorable friend in his shorts and the shadow chancellor in a true spirit of black leggings. [laughter] and i know, i'm over a number of

colleagues in this house i to say i bow down to you in my bread become 26 is a very long way to go. i certainly couldn't manage it but i'm full of admiration and full of admiration for the money that you raised her excellent excellent causes and that be treated to all members on all sides of the house that are taking part. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my constituent sue martin has been waiting over nine months for personal independence -- she now has to borrow from or 84 year-old mother just to get by. why does the prime minister think this is acceptable? >> all delays in the sort of payment are not acceptable to read make sure benefits are paid on time to what we try to do is to introduce it gradually so we make sure the quality of decision-making is good. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week i was privileged to meet a holocaust survivor. is the prime minister aware of another appalling persecution occurring today that is the

ethnic cleansing in afghanistan and pakistan? a gentle religious islam is tolerant people who educate their sons and their daughters. when the need with a member of the ap pg concerned with it, chaired by the audible member to discuss the situation? >> we should absolutely clear that the afghanistan that we have been supporting and will continue to support must be a multiracial and multiethnic afghanistan. that includes pashtuns uzbeks and the many nationalities that make up that country but it's vital for its future. i'm happy to look at the evidence that he has and perhaps arrange any appropriate meetings meetings. >> 2400 jobs have been destroyed, and last friday 650 in newport by one single firm that specializes in buying up

firms, degrading the pay and conditions of the staff, and then abandoning them to unemployment. what protection is the government planning to give to those blameless people, hard workers who suffer from the scourge of this new vulture capitalism? >> i'm very happy to look at the individual case that he raises, but what i would say about the situation in terms of jobs in uk right now if you look at the last week we've had 8000 jobs from birmingham city airport, we got 12,000 jobs and over thousand jobs in what we are seeing is businesses wanting to locate in britain, take people on in britain and grow in britain. it as an example of a practice of very happy to look at it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in 1967, the abortion a term limit was set in 28 weeks.

in 1990, this was reduced to 24 weeks. giving it is now 2014 a quarter of a century onwards, and given recent breakthroughs in anti-natal and neonatal care, does the prime minister agree with me it is now time to reduce the abortion term limit to 22 weeks? >> i've always made my own personal views on this clear and there have been opportunities recently in parliament to vote on this issue but it is always open to members of parliament to bring forward legislation, to amend existing bills and for the house to debate it. that's happened relatively recently. it will continue on this a passenger on the other side to be an entirely free vote issue. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister or any member of his cabinet after -- to re-sign? >> my right honorable friend took her own decision and has communicated a decision in a letter. i really think for members

opposite should respect that decision. >> nigel adams. >> a cloud hangs over the job prospects of 700 mine workers in my constituency. could the prime minister usher the house of the government is doing everything he can to ensure the future for their livelihoods of? >> i can get my honorable friend that assurance. i think it is important despite the difficulties uk coal faces that the government should do everything it can within the rules that are lay down to look at whether there's help and assistance that we can do. that's exactly what is happening. i'm being kept up-to-date with this on sometimes a daily basis and i can assure him it's getting the government's attention. >> in the spirit of a new positive case for the union produced this week can be prime minister perhaps give us his view as to which of the

apocalypse -- [inaudible] >> my view it is entirely positive one about what this united kingdom has achieved together in the past and what we can achieve in the future. i think the ones that take a narrow inward looking rather selfish here about the future are sitting on the benches over there. >> the surgeon general of the armed forces has raised concern of the impact of longer nhs waiting times on soldiers based in wales. does the prime minister agree that nhs including soldiers, or so but not good enough? the welsh government could be undermining the operations of the armed forces and are potentially in breach of the military covenant? >> i think my honorable friend makes an important point. we see 8% cut to the budget in wales to the nhs. the last time a&e targets were

met was 2009. the last time cancer treatment targets were met was 2008 over 30 people miss out on access to diagnostic services within eight weeks. there is a truly dreadful record when it comes to labour's nhs in wales. you see a huge contrast now with the nhs in england properly funded, well run, beating the key target and they shamble in wales. >> five years ago in one of the worst things since the good friday -- my constituent and his colleague, mark quincey, were shot and killed outside their barracks. their families still await justice. will be prime minister look at this case and also -- [inaudible]

in northern ireland? >> first of all can i take this opportunity to express my send it to the families. this is a despicable terrorist attack and i fully share the desire that perpetrators are brought to justice. just because we're trying to do with the legacies of the past does not mean that crimes that have been committed should not be properly prosecuted and those responsible convicted. i know my right honorable friend the sectors they were northern ireland met the parents to discuss their concerns. the trial system in northern ireland was abolished in 2007 and replaced by provision allowing non-jury trials only in specific sets of circumstances. these provisions lapse every two years and in consideration be given to whether they ought to be renewed for a further two years in 2015. >> people would've been reassured this week that the imf of credit countries gross --

[shouting] however, what my right honorable friend agree that they would be more reassured to know that our long-term economic plan -- [shouting] is working in east like a sure by the announcement this week that they've also graded 30 new apprenticeships? >> i think my friend makes an important point. would look at what's been happening in britain this week we can see the imf is saying that the uk will grow faster than any g7 country to exit jobs extra partnerships he talks about, the trade deficit is falling. employment is rising. britain is on its way back. >> thank you, mr. speaker. during the committee stage of the legal aid offenders act the prime minister assure the committee those who would refuse legal aid is still under the new exceptional funding scheme.

he said, the minister, this was a vital safeguard. 617 family law applications have been made, and eight have been allowed. what kind of safeguard is that? >> i will at the close of the cases he raises a key thing is this, that we have to make sure our legal aid system is is affordable and where we can bear our legal aid system with similar common law countries, we still spend far more per head in countries like australia or new zealand or others. he shakes his head but frankly it's no good for members apartment to come department every week and vote against every single spending decision but not to recognize we have to get our deficit down in order to help our economy recover. >> thank you, mr. speaker. will be prime minister take a few minutes over the easter days -- [inaudible] in economic affairs which was announced last night? because if he does i am sure it will get my -- some good ideas

as to why leaving the european union should become part of our long-term economic plan. [laughter] >> well, my honorable friend and i agree on many things but i'm afraid this isn't one of it. isn't one of the i will have a look at the incident pamphlet as a potential piece of holiday reading and see how it competes with other alternatives but -- that is another choice for this festive period. >> order. >> spent here on c-span2 will no be the british house of commons as members move on to other business to you've been watching primus' question time aired live wednesdays at seven in eastern

when parliament is in session. i remind you can see this week's session again sunday nights at nine eastern and pacific on c-span. for more information go to c-span.org and click on series to review every program we've aired from the british house of commons since october 1989. we invite your comments about prime minister's question via twitter using hashtag pmq. >> i think what we need is something akin to the great commission during the reagan administration or the bracket commission, the base realignment and closure commission during i think the clinton administration. an outside group with integrity former members of congress, no current elected politicians recommended a complete audit of government from top to bottom. every agency of government has a piece of legislation or a charter that created the. it has a purpose. if it's not fulfilling that purpose or not doing it within a

reasonable budget, it should be cut or eliminated. let's take head start. this came in with the highest motivation. do you know, and i didn't until i researched it, there are now three had starts? there's early head start, enhanced head start and there's regular history. why do it the other you? the first one wasn't working but why did we have the third when? because the second one wasn't working. >> cal thomas on fixing a broken washington saturday night at 10 eastern and sunday night at nine. and following, a heritage foundation book party as he signed his book and chats with guests. also this weekend on booktv, issues national black writers' conference saturday at noon eastern with panels on race power and politics literature and shifting identities in africa. sunday at two strengthen communities, the historical narrative plus a panel on publishing. booktv every weekend on c-span2.

>> iris the issues and professional tax papers discuss attack progression industry. in february a federal court ruled the irs did not have the authority to license tax prepares. witnesses discuss national licensing for the industry. and how a simplified tax code could help tax filers. senator ron wyden chairs this two and a half hour hearing. >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> finance committee will come to order.

there is just a week to go before the april 15 deadline for filing taxes, and millions of americans are spending a good portion of the spring struggling to fill out tax forms and digging through piles of receipts in a painful annual ritual. the complexity of the tax code creates an environment where confusion and errors flourish. congress isn't blameless on this issue, and that's one reason why it's time to rewrite the code to make filing easier. for many americans, maybe even a majority, nothing will have a bigger impact on their pocketbooks all year long. the great majority of americans want to get it right, but because the tax code is so byzantine, so complicated and so overgrown, nearly 80 million americans pay for help preparing

their tax return. and was especially alarming most of those pay tax return. prepares don't have to meet any standard, any standards for competence in order to prepare somebody else's tax return. earlier this year, because of the baffling outcome of a federal appeals court case called loving v. irs, protection for american taxpayers against incompetence and fraud among tax preparers has taken a significant blow. as often seems to be the case in situations like this, the most vulnerable people in america will bear the brunt of the effects of this decision. they're often people struggling from paycheck to paycheck, counting down the days until their refund comes through to help them make ends meet. they could be seniors or working families who qualify for the earned income tax credit. or they could be immigrants proud to pay taxes in their new

country who want to make sure they're following the rules of a tax code that's hard for anyone to understand. and here is my bottom line. for the second time in eight years, the government accountability office has done an independent inquiry and proven that the absence of meaningful oversight of much of the tax preparer industry is harming too many citizens who can least afford it. the problems they run into could be as simple as a typo or a miscalculation on a form, but they can also be much worse. in some egregious cases preparers calculate a taxpayer's refund in person and skip the line that shows who did the work. then after the taxpayer leaves the preparer falsifies the math to boost the refund, files the return and pockets the difference. and worst of all, unless the taxpayer can prove what happened, they're on the hook for the money when the irs finds

out. the witnesses here today are going to share some more eye-opening stories, and i'm eager to get their thoughts on what the government can do to come up the most important thing is to with more sensible policy. restore standards to protect american taxpayers. i'm proud to say my home state gets this issue right. tax preparers in oregon study pass an exam and keep up with the changing landscape of the tax code in order to maintain their the gao took a look at the licenses, and oregon standards were. system a few years ago and found that tax returns from oregon were 72% likelier to be accurate than returns from the rest of the country. that puts fewer oregonians at the mercy of unscrupulous preparers and reduces the risk of the dreaded audit. there are ways for congress to help in this arena.

for example, i'm a firm believer that comprehensive tax reform must make simplifying the tax code and make filing easier. that must be a priority. when the finance committee passed the expire act last week, practically every senator on the dais agreed it's time to end stop-and-go policies and give americans more certainty about their taxes. the bipartisan income tax reform plan i worked on with senators begich and coats, as well as former senator judd gregg, would make filing a much quicker and simpler process for millions of taxpayers by tripling the standard deduction. that would eliminate the need for more than 80% of taxpayers to itemize deductions. then they could easily prepare the own returns and never fall risk to tax prepares an attitude or misconduct. senator nelson has led the charge to protect taxpayers from identity theft, and few people have fought harder for taxpayer rights than senator cardin.

they've got a lot of valuable ideas that can help solve this challenge and that's the point of today's hearing to look at a variety of approaches to protect the american taxpayer and the integrity of our tax system. as long as the code is so overgrown, so complicated that most americans have to seek out help to file they shouldn't have to worry about crooked or incompetent prepares. it is that simple. and as i wrap up, i'd like to thank both our panels of witnesses for being here today. i'm looking forward to hearing today. senator hatch, we welcome your comments. >> as we all know, the due date for individuals to complete and file their annual income tax returns is one week away. and, at this point in the year, millions of americans face a number of difficulties in trying to comply with that deadline.

the sheer complexity of our tax system requires the majority of americans to seek the services of a paid preparer in order to navigate through and comply with the tax code. of the 142 million income tax returns filed by individuals last year, nearly 80 million, or roughly 56%, were prepared by a paid preparer. our income tax system relies heavily on good faith voluntary compliance, which, in turn requires the services of paid preparers that are both competent and ethical. the irs attempted to implement regulations in 2011 that, for the first time, imposed both ethical and competency standards on any person who sought to prepare tax returns for compensation. the d.c. circuit court of appeals, however, has since prevented irs from enforcing those regulations when it upheld the loving decision on appeal.

among the approaches to solving the problem of incompetent and unethical paid preparers that we will hear about today is government regulation. however, there are other approaches worthy of thoughtful consideration. one approach is comprehensive tax reform that results in a much simpler and straightforward tax system with fewer compliance and administrative burdens. a less complex tax system that allows for simpler compliance rules will reduce taxpayer and preparer errors associated with complexity, decrease the need for complex tax filings, and eliminate opportunities to cheat the system through unethical behavior. it is my belief that the best way to protect tax filers from incompetent and unethical tax preparers is to implement a fair and simple tax system that dramatically reduces their dependence on paid return preparers. until we get there, we need to minimize the damage that incompetent and unethical return

preparers can cause. i look forward to hearing about different ideas on how to accomplish this worthy goal during today's hearing. of course with the irs commissioner testifying before us today, there are other matters that deserve the committee's attention. for example, there is the ongoing investigation into the irs's targeting of conservative groups during the 2010 and 2012 campaign seasons. four congressional committees, including the finance committee are currently looking into this matter. and, up to now, irs officials have, with some exceptions, been cooperating. that's why it was disheartening to hear that, two weeks ago commissioner koskinen apparently tried to spin what had gone on at the irs, claiming that no one had used the word targeting to describe what happened. the fact is that the treasury inspector general for tax administration russell george used the word targeting in his may 2013 report to describe the

allegations, and in testimony before congress he stated that the allegation had proven to be true. furthermore, commissioner koskinen himself described the activities as targeting during his confirmation hearings before this committee. i will want to remind you of that. although i really appreciate you being here today. more than you know. now, this may seem like we're engaging in semantics, but the words we use here are important. if the administration, rather than acknowledging what went on at the irs and trying to fix it is going to engage in word-play to minimize what happened, we are going to continue to have difficulties as we try to resolve these issues. even the washington post fact checker said it is silly and counterproductive to deny that the phrase targeting describes what happened awarding the commissioner three pinocchios for saying otherwise. on top of that, we have the regulatory effort at the irs that appears to be designed to

further marginalize these same conservative groups. i'm talking, of course, about the proposed regulations governing the political activities of 501(c)(4) organizations. people and organizations across the political spectrum have rightly condemned these proposed regulations because they undermine free speech and the ability of american citizens to participate in the political process. the irs had a record number of public comments filed in response to the proposal from all points on the political spectrum. and, from what i gather, they were almost uniformly negative. this regulation, if given the force of law, would effectively silence grassroots organizations by categorizing a number of routine and long-accepted activities as political. and, it would ensure that a number of the administration's critics remain on the sidelines of the political debate. and that could work both ways in the future. and i don't want it to work both ways. this proposal is particularly disturbing given what has

already gone on at the irs with the targeting scandal. now, last week, commissioner koskinen publicly stated that the regulations are not likely to be finalized this year. to me that's not good enough. these regulations should go away entirely. and commissioner koskinen has the power to make that happen. throughout the public debate over this proposal, little has been said of the role of the irs commissioner in approving the final regulation. however, as was confirmed by secretary lew in his recent appearance before this committee, the irs commissioner has the authority to unilaterally prevent these regulations from taking effect. that being the case any effort to deflect responsibility in a different direction is futile. as you can see, mr. chairman, we have a number of issues to discuss today. i look forward to a robust and informative hearing. so i want to thank you for this. >> thank you, senator hatch. a hearing today will consist of two panels. our first panel includes to government witnesses from the

irs. our second bill would include the joke accounting office and a cross-section of individuals who are knowledgeable about tax preparation. we have eight witnesses and to that and we hope to all of your going to limit your testimony to five minutes. the first witnesses the honorable john koskinen, commission of the intel revenue service. second what does this mean olsen, national taxpayer advocate of the irs. thank you both for coming. your prepared statement of going to automatically be made a part of the record. why did you start, commissioner? >> thank you. chairman wyden ranking member hatch, members of the committee, thank you to discuss iraq's regulation of paid returned prepares. the tax return preparer community is a key ally in the efforts to fulfill our dual mission of tax payer service and tax compliance. each year that prepares are called upon to complete about 89 returns as noted earlier but 56% of the individual income tax returns filed. prepares make the irs job easier

by helping their clients proper report their taxes and pay what they owe. at the same time the level of oversight of paid returned prepares has traditionally been uneven at best. while attorneys and agents and cpas must meet mandated professional competency requirements they make up only about 40% of the universe of paid tax return prepared. that is left another 60% preparing returns with little or no federal oversight. although a few states with a state of oregon as noted has begun regulating unlicensed prepares come most of the tax professional community favors federal oversight avoid the possibility of a patchwork of conflicting state requirements. while the merger of returned prepares our competence and operate with the highest ethical standards, there are those who do engage in fraud. others don't have enough training and are not equipped to do an adequate job of preparing tax returns. to ensure that returned prepares our coveted and the future professional status, the art has launched a tax return preparer

initiative in 2010. under this initiative individuals must register with the irs is to prepare all or substantial portion of any federal tax return or refund claim for compensation. initiative also required paid prepares for not cpas attorneys or agents to pass the competency exam and complete annual continuing education requirements related to tax law and professional conduct. the irs also extended the ethical rules found in regular shoes, known as treasury department secure to 30, to all paid prepares. this allows us to suspend or otherwise discipline tax return preparers who engage in unethical or disreputable conduct. since 2010 more than a million individuals have registered with the irs and obtained a prepare tax identification number. ashas a lasso department 677,000 return preparers were active in

our tax professional database. prepares must use their ptin as the identify number on returns they prepare for compensation and you must renew their ptin's annual. along with the revelation of return preparers the irs has a comprehensive compliance and enforcement strategy. with regard to these efforts it's important to note the registration requirement gives the irs a better line of sight into the return preparer community than ever before. the information we obtain through the registration process helps us to more to analyze trends about anomalies and potentially detect fraud to the our best announced a testing phase of its return preparer program in november 2011. the test was designed to cover preparation of form 1040 and its related schedule. through 2012 about 84,000 tests were given and about 62000 prepares received a passing grade for pass rate of about 74%. this obviously means that 26% were unable to pass the exam.

defeating our annual education requirement consisted of 10 hours a federal tax law topics three hours of tax law updates, and two hours of ethics or professional conduct or a lawsuit against the return preparer program is noted result in a court decision that invalidated the testing and education requirements in january 2013. an appellate court recently upheld that decision. vis is continuing to assess the appeals court decision while consideration is given for appeal. it's true that prepare registration alone does help in identifying the paid preparer community, analyzing trends and determine a general level of taxpayer service. the competent testing and continuing education may put us on the path to ensuring that all tax return preparers provide the appropriate level of service to taxpayers. we believe that this level of service will translate into improved overall tax compliance and certainly without more effective tax administration. therefore we urge congress to pass the proposal in the

administration's fiscal year 2015 budget that would explicitly authorized the arrest to regulate all tax return preparers. this would let his recent mandatory testing and continuing education. in the meantime we're taking a close look at the possibility of an interim step involving a program of voluntary continuing education. before moving forward on this idea we will solicit feedback from a wide range of external stakeholders as to whether such an interim step would be useful and appropriate. but the better solution would be for congress to grant us explicit authority to provide better oversight of tax prepares. this concludes my test when and howi would be happy to take your questions. >> thank you. ms. olson. >> chairman wyden, ranking member hatch and members of the committee, thank you for holding today's hearing on a subject i consider among the most important for u.s. taxpayers. nearly 150 million individual taxpayers filed tax returns every year, many jointly with their spouses, because the tax

code is so complex a significant majority of taxpayers paid prepares to complete their returns for them. unfortunately, many taxpayers have an easy way to determine whether the prepare their hiring can do the job. in recent years, around 80% of tax filers have received tax refunds but the average refund amount is a little under $3000 per return, and it's often higher for low income taxpayers who receive refundable tax credit. therefore the work of a prepare doesn't have a significant financial impact on the taxpayer. other financial professionals whose work affects the financial lives of their clients are widely regulated yet anyone can hang out a shingle as a tax return preparer with no knowledge, no skills and no experience required. i know this well because i began my career in tax administration in 1975 when i myself, hung out a shingle as an on enrolled

return preparer. there was no return preparation software packages. to do my job i had no choice but to study and learn tax law, rules, regulations and publications. because one actually do know something about the tax want to be a return preparer, taxpayers have some assurance of the prepares competency. today, there is no such assurance. the three transformational changes have taken place in return preparation field. first, the advent of return preparation software has eliminated barriers to entry into the profession to second, the enactment of refundable credits has expanded the taxpayer base to include a low income individuals. third, prepares have financial incentives to inflate refunds and cross market nontax goods and services like paystub loans. in fact, in many taxis in advertisements today it is difficult to discern the connection between the service offered, get money quick and the act of tax preparation.

as a result of seeing firsthand the radical changes in industry and its impact on global taxpayers, as national taxpayer advocate in 2002, i recommended that congress enact a program to register test and certify these prepares. i also recommended that congress authorize greater prepared penalties and strengthened due diligence requirements. but there's an important distinction between these approaches. while penalties and due diligence requirements are a vital component of any oversight regime these actions occur only after the taxpayer has been harmed, prevention is less costly and more effective. accordingly, congress should clarify that the irs has the authority to establish minimum standards for the uncle preparer population and to test and required continuing education of these prepares. the only credible argument i've heard against establishing prepares scam is that the cost will ultimately he passed on to the consumer. but that her taxpayer cost of

the program the irs was implementing before the loving decision seemed very reasonable as compared with the far more significant cost the gao and other shopping business have found where preparer errors cost some taxpayers to overpaid attacks by thousands of dollars, and other tax payers to underpay by thousand. and then likely face irs enforcement action down the road. in the absence of clear legislative authority, i believe the irs should do the following. first, offer unenrolled return preparers the opportunity to earn a voluntary examination and continuing education certificate. second, restricted the ability of underworld prepares to represent taxpayers in audits of returns they prepared unless they earn that certificate. third, mount a consumer protection campaign that educates taxpayers about the need to select prepares who can demonstrate competency and

reminds taxpayers to obtain a copy of their tax return with the prepares signature on a. finally, the irs should develop a publicly accessible and searchable prepare database to include all prepares to register with the irs. after all, the best enforcement and consumer protection strategy is to have an informed and educated consumer base. in this instance, taxpayers. who need to have some clear-cut way of knowing which content meet minimum level of competency and which are not willing to make the effort. that is why having a mandatory certified prepare designation along with enrolled agency p.a. and attorney, is so important. it is a bright line that taxpayers can understand. thank you. >> ms. olson, think your colleagues will all take five minutes, five minute rounds at this point but let me start with with you, ms. olson from ithaca. you are the national taxpayer advocate. in other words, it's your job to

go to bat for the kind of people that we are seeing getting sleep around the country. i am particularly struck and would like you to amplify a bit on. you said that there are actually new incentives and new opportunities for the unscrupulous tax preparer to in effect ripped people off. could you describe it in a little more detail? ..