first vote on whether to advance the pay equity bill. 60 votes are needed and republican senators are indicating they will not support the legislation unless the allowed to offer amendments. the senate is scheduled to vote on a nomination to the federal trade commission. now live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, who transforms common days into transfiguring and redemptive moments, hallowed be your name. make our lawmakers great enough for these momentous times, as they seek to live worthy of your great name.

lord, cleanse the fountains of their hearts from all that defiles, so that they may be fit vessels to be used for your glory. let your peace be within them, as your spirit inspires them to glorify you in their thoughts, words, and actions. we pray in your sacred name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., april 9, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable edward j. markey, a senator from the state of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i'm told s. 2223 is due for a second reading. is that right? the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for a second time. the clerk: s. 2223, a bill to provide for an increase in the federal minimum wage, and so forth. mr. reid: mr. president, i would object to any proceedings with respect to this legislation at this time. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. reid: i move to proceed to

calendar number 345, s. 23199, paycheck fairness. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 345, s. 2199, a bill to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938, and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: mr. president, following leader remarks and those of senator mcconnell, the senate will -- the senate will be -- all time will be equally divided and controlled until 11:00 a.m., and at that time there will be a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to legislation now before us. excuse me. additional votes are expected today on confirmation nominations. floor staff is working to come up with convenient times for everyone in that regard. and we'll notify senators when we have those votes scheduled. mr. president, today the senate

will vote on whether to begin debate on the paycheck fairness legislation. it is much-needed legislation that provides important protections for women in the workplace. the wage disparity, helping women negotiate for equal pay and it empowers workers to fight back against wage discrimination, women in particular. it is a good bill, an important bill. it helps american women in many different ways. but for reasons known only to them, senate republicans don't appear to be interested in closing the wage gap for working women. as my daughter, my grandchildren, your wife, your daughter, friends, neighbors, mr. president, four years ago the republicans filibustered this exact same legislation. two years later the republicans filibustered this legislation. now for a third time the paycheck fairness act is before us, and it appears it is going

to be filibustered again. they've indicate that had they'll likely not let us begin work on this important piece of legislation, this debate. if they are ideologically opposed to ensuring equal pay for equal work, free to vote against passage of the paycheck fairness act or give speeches as to why it is such a bad deal but we have not heard that. today's vote is to begin debate on the bill. are this so repulsed by equal pay for hardworking women, they'll obstruct equal pay for equal work? republicans have come to the floor and tried to offer amendments that have nothing to do with equal pay. nothing. i'm at a loss as to why anyone would decline to debate this important issue. or if you don't like it, come and tell us why. debate is what this institution is all about.

it's the united states senate. haoubt -- hubert humphrey said once -- quote -- "freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion and debate." that's what he said. we should debate this bill together. we can find a solution to this unfair wage disparity that will cost the average working woman $464,320 over an average lifetime. that's average. american families want to us debate and pass this legislation. this legislation is overwhelmingly supported by the american people. people in support of the paycheck fairness act are calling on us to pass this legislation, are writing letters. they're posting on social media. they're attending equal pay rallies. our constituents have made their feelings known, but the republicans have not gotten the message. henry david thoreau said -- quote -- "it takes two to speak

the truth. one to speak and another to listen." senate democrats have heard the truth about giving women fair shot for equal pay for equal work. the truth is that working women make an average of 77 cents for every $1 their male colleagues make for doing the exact same work. that's not fair. today we'll see if republicans will give working women and their families a fair shot by voting to debate this important legislation. i along with millions of american women, men and women, everyone in america are hoping the third time will be the charm for senate republicans.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: the obama economy has had a devastating impact on the people we represent. it's hurt millions in the middle class and people from every region of the country and almost every walk of life. and when you consider this week's debate in the senate, a few statistics jump out in particular. under this president's watch, more than 3.7 million american women have fallen into poverty. the average american woman now makes about $730 less than when the president took office. and if she's a college graduate, she's actually seen her income shrink by about double that amount. in other words, when it comes to american women overall, what we've seen over the past five and a half years is less income and more poverty. that's the story senate democrats don't want to talk

about. perhaps that's why for weeks now they blocked the efforts republicans have made to improve the picture. senate democrats want to control this debate from start to finish, and basically do nothing to help with our efforts to expand opportunity and jobs for women and for men. it would appear, as some have put it, that they have no interest in solutions or any concern for the consequences of their actions. we see that in how uninterested they seem to be in the statistics that i just mentioned. and we can see it in some other policies they have been defending literally for months. just take obamacare's 30-hour workweek rule, which is basically forcing employers to slash workers' hours. who's impacted the most by it? well, as one study pointed out, it's women. nearly two-thirds of those adversely impacted by this

arbitrary provision of obamacare are women. but washington democrats don't seem to care about that. they don't seem to care about the ways the people we represent are being hurt by their policies. and i said -- as i said, they continue to block all the innovative ideas that republicans have been offering to turn the tide. just look at what happened here on the senate floor just yesterday. i along with several republican colleagues offered a series of measures that would not only have helped improve the jobs picture in our country, it would have provided greater opportunities for men, women and families desperate to get ahead. had democratic senators not blocked these ideas, they would have passed. why did senate democrats object to senator collins' proposal to restore the 40-hour workweek? do they think it's fair that obamacare's 30-hour workweek discriminates against working women? do democrats think it's fair to protect a rule that

disproportionately reduces their wages? why did they object to workplace flexibility proposal that senator ayotte and i offered? here's legislation that would have given working moms and dads the option to take time off to help them find a better work life balance, flexibility that's more critical than ever now that obamacare's 30-hour work rule is forcing people to pick up a second or third job just to scrape by. why are democrats so opposed to a policy that a lot of working women say they want, a policy that's tailored to the needs of the modern workforce and that many government employees already enjoy? why did senate democrats object to our job-creation legislation, which includes so many smart ideas from so many different senators? here's a bill that strikes right at the heart of what has ailed our country for five and a half years: a lack of job and

opportunity. passing it should have been a no-brainer. but senate democrats blocked all of it, every last one of our proposals, just like they shut down the proworker legislation senator paul and i offered last week. right to work is smart policy that promises to boost competitiveness while advancing workers' rights, ensuring that they aren't limited by the dictates of a union. it's similar to another bill i'm tproud cosponsor -- i'm proud to cosponsor, senator rubio's raise act which would allow workers to get a raise even if aoupb bosses didn't want them to. take for instance a worker who outperforms her colleagues and is then told by some union boss to accept less pay than she deserves. not a dime more than the coworkers she's outperforming. it's completely and totally unfair, and workers like her shouldn't be penalized by some archaic union rule democratic up

before the age of mad men. these are the ideas that everyone who claims to stand for workplace fairness should want to help us pass. and yet, washington democrats always seem to find some excuse not to. maybe the big labor bosses they answer to are telling them they can't. who knows. or maybe it's the trial lawyers they seem to be so attentive to these days. it makes sense when you consider what senate democrats have been talking about this week, a bill that even publications like "the washington post," "the chicago tribune" and the boston globe have said is bad policy. at a time when the obamacare economy is already hurting woman so much, this legislation would double down on job loss all while lining the pockets of trial lawyers. in other words, it's just another democratic idea that threatens to hurt the very people that it claims to help. well, it's time for washington democrats to stop protecting trial lawyers and start focusing

on actually helping the people we were sent here to represent. we've already seen what five and a half years of washington democratic control has meant. more poverty and lower wages for women. so they need to stop blocking innovative ideas that would move us further along the path to opportunity, because look, the college graduate who has seen her annual paycheck decline by $1,400 over the past several years, she is counting on senate democrats to change their game plan. and the part-time worker who can't imagine how she's going to make ends meet under obamacare's 30-hour work rule, she's counting on democrats to think outside the box. the american people are tired of washington democrats five and a half years of failed policies and all the political games that helped us get here in the first place. americans actually want solutions, and they want them now. and we owe it to them to start

passing the kinds of innovative ideas republicans are committed to pursuing, no matter how many times the majority tries to shut us down. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 11:00 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, this week president obama has been holding what to me appear to be made-for-tv events to talk about the economy. he's talked about the policies that he wants congress to enact, policies that he says will finally get america's economy going again. well, president obama has been in the white house now for more than five years, so i think it's fair to ask, what has this administration, the obama administration, been doing for the economy for the past five years? we know that the recession actually ended almost five years ago. since then, our economy has not bounced back the way it should

have or the way it typically does after a deep recession. the obama administration has spent a lot of money on failed ideas like the so-called stimulus package. since the recession ended, washington has racked up more than $6 trillion worth of additional debt -- additional debt -- and it's not gotten us nearly the kind of growth that we should have added as a result of this spending. now the president has come out with a budget in which he's asked for tax increases of over $1.7 trillion, nearly $2 trillion in higher taxes over the next decade. taxes are already too high. when i go home and talk to my constituents, as i would think most members of this body hear from their folks at home, taxes are already too high. so americans are now preparing to file their taxes.

income tax day is coming april 15. as americans prepare to file their taxes, they're getting a remierpdz oareminder of just hof their hard-earned money washington is taking from them. next tuesday, april 15, the deadline for moves us to fill out the moves and send everything off to the internal revenue service, the ires. americans will spend more on taxes this year than they spend on food, clothing, and housing combined. so we now know how much president obama is spending, but what kind of effect have his policies been having on our american economy? well, we know that the economy is still not producing the number of jobs we need tabor a real recovery -- we need for a real recovery. we know if we want to look for the reasons why that seems to be the case, we could talk about the 2 million jobs that

democrats are blocking with the restrictive energy policies. we could talk about the minimum-wage bill that democrats are pushing right now. the congressional budget office says that that would reduce employment in the united states by half a million jobs. they say maybe as many as a million jobs. yet the majority leader comes here and says it's the best thing you can do for the commitment of but cos-- you can. the probably the largest, the most harmful thing the administration has done with regard not just to the economy but other factors, including the lives of the american public, is the president's health care law. this law is hitting people across the country, folks who are seeing their premiums go up, who are losing access to their doctor, who are getting cancellation notices from their insurance companies, and it's also having an effect on our

economy. we had today our usual wyoming wednesday where people from around the state of wyoming, who come to washington and meet with their two senators from wyoming, talking to people in the communities and what i heard about was another horror story related to the president's health care law. a family that had insurance that worked for them, worked for them for a long time, fit their budget, fit their needs as a family, but of course it was canceled as a result of the president's health care law, and the mandates where the president believes he has a better idea what works for their family than they do. they have a couple young children and a husband and life, and they lost their insurance. they tried and tried again to get reinsured through the exchanges. it took them months. they finally went with paper forms to apply. the stories go on and on, and it's horrible to listen to what american families have had to go through as a result of the president's health care law. this is a family that was hurt

as a result of the president's health care law in terms of what they're paying for snuns insuran terms of the deductibles that are now in place, and in terms of not being able to go to the doctor of of their choice. so we have the effect on the family and the effect on the economy. now, according to the consequentlial budgecongressione health care law is going to lead to 2.5 million fewer people working over the next decade. those are the congressional budget office numbers, not mine. because of the warped incentives that are built into this law, some people will have to choose between working more and getting higher wages or working less so they can collect government subsidies. now, remember nancy pelosi, speaker of the house on the democratic side in the house when this law was jammed through down the throats of the american people, there she was saying, you have t first you have to

pass it before you could to find out what's in it. i actually read the whee whole g and it continues to astonish me how few members actually read it but just took her word. but now what we're seeing these unintended consequences to show up. well, even some democrats have had to admit as much about this issue of people having to choose between working more and getting higher wages or choosing to work less so they can collect greater government subsidies. one liberal columnist in "the washington post" put it in way back in february: he said -- he wrote that the obama 4ebg law is -- quote -- "a drag on economic growth." a drag on economic groanl. -- a drag on economic growth. we see that drag on economic growth as more people decide government handouts are more traikivattractive thank than wod paying higher taxes. the president want wants highers

but he puts into place a policy where if you work more and have higher income. there is another way it has been harmful as well. remember, this law requires employers to pay for insurance for anyone working 30 hours per week or more. that's considered a full-time job, 30 hours a week. there's bipartisan legislation in an effort to try to actually overturn that, get that back to the 40-hour week, which is what most americans think of as a full-time job. but how do people have to respond to the health care law that's out there? what are towns doing with their town budgets? what are counties doing in states across the country? what are school district distri? we see what they're doing and they're talking about it. towns, communities, counties,

school districts, universities, they're cutting back on the hours of their part-time bus drivers, librarians, coaches, and other middle-class workers, cutting back to get them below 30 hours a week so they don't fall into the mandates of the president's expensive health care law. now, what does that mean? it means it hurts people's takehome pay. if someone is working 32, 33 hours a week and finds that their hours have been cut to 29 -- regardless of what the majority leader wants to do with minimum wage -- their paycheck is going to get smaller. smaller because of the health care law. smaller because of policies that democrats have voted for, many of whom never read it in the first place. so is this just a republican versus a democrat idea? not necessarily, because a group of labor union leaders who supported the law initially, they have said that this health

care law will -- quote -- "destroy the foundation of the 40-hour workweek that is the backbone of the american middle class." the house of representatives voted last week to do something about it. they passed in a bipartisan vietnavotea bill that would chae definition of full-time work from 30 hours to 40 hours. senator susan collins introduced a bill to do the same thing here in the senate. so what's happened with it? well, the democrat majority leader isn't allowing a vote on that bill. this is a commonsense way to reverse some of the harm the president's health care law is doing to hardworking americans, how it's impacting their take-home pay, how they're seeing smaller paychecks, impacting their quality of life. but the senate majority leader has blocked the vote. so the health care laws hurt

patients, hurts health care providers and is hurting the economy. and it's interesting, because the president said all he wanted to do was ensur insure people tt didn't have shurn. insurance. so we've changed and made the health care system upside-down, changed one-sixth of the economy, the whole thing to get people who didn't have insurance and get them insured. what does the "wall street journal" say about it today in the headline talking about the new statistics and the rand study? "most who bought policies through the new exchanges" -- "most who bought policies through the new exchanges already had insurance." they weren't uninsured. these people had insurance already. many lost their insurance because of the president's health care law, but yet we've turned upside-down one-sixth of the economy in an effort to help some but have hurt so many in the process and that is one of

the fundamental flaws and problems of a health care law where the president promised if you like your coverage, you could keep it; if you liked your doctor, you could deep; and we have millions of people's whose coverage was canceled, we have many, many people who can't keep their doctor, can't go to their hospitals, seeing higher premiums, higher co-pays, higher deductibles, more pain because of what the president and the democrats have forced through the congress, forced through the house, forced through the senate. the american people wanted to change the health care system in this country and they knew what they wanted. they wanted the care that they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. they didn't get that in this health care law. many americans have seen their costs go up, their initial out-of-pocket costs to buy the insurance on the exchange. they have seen their co-pays go up. they have seen their deductibles go up. and they can't keep the doctor of their choice. so they know what they wanted and this is not what they wanted

but it's what they have gotten instead. people understand that. that's why this health care law is still so very unpopular across the country. now, people see how bad this health care law is in terms of their own lives, how bad it is for the american economy. they see how five years of this administration and the policies have held back our economic recovery. tax day, april 15, coming next week, will be another opportunity for americans to reflect on how much of their money washington has been taking from them and what they've gotten in return. and i would just say, mr. president, as they reflect upon that, they will continue to say they're not getting value for their money. they're not getting value for their money. they -- polling shows that people -- and i hear this at home in wyoming -- for every dollar they send so the government, they think they're getting less than 50 cents on

the dollar in value. they don't like it because it means when government -- when the government takes more, they have less to spend. the government is deciding where the money is spent, not famili families, and it's families that want to make decisions for themselves about their freedoms, about their health care, about the financial choices they want, they need and work best for them. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. mikulski: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: mr. president, what is the pending business before the senate? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. ms. mikulski: i ask that the quorum be vacated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. mikulski: and what is now the pending business on the floor? the presiding officer: the motion to proceed to senate 1992 -- 2119. ms. mikulski: i believe the number of that bill refers to the paycheck fairness bill; is that correct? the presiding officer: the senator is correct. ms. mikulski: what a bloodless

way to talk about such a important public policy issue, to use the motion to proceed -- and very few people to realize -- to simply get a bill on the senate floor, we have to vote on a motion to proceed on whether we're going to take it up. and because this is now going to require a 60-vote majority because of the invoking of this fog of filibuster, we can't even get to a majority vote on how to make sure women get equal pay for equal work. no wonder people are fed up with us. they wonder about us why, when all is said and done, why more gets said than gets done. i travel the state of maryland and the united states of america. people want us to do our job, to work on a bipartisan basis, hands across the aisle, work across the dome to solve national problems. we heard this morning the talk

about the economy. you know one way to help the economy is for people to make more money. you know what's one of the best ways to make more money? pay women for equal pay for equal work. and also, enforce the law, the equal pay act that was passed in 1963. but we haven't been able to do it for several reasons, and this is what the paycheck fairness bill deals with. right now there is a veil of secrecy in businesses all over america, a veil of secrecy about the fact that you cannot ask a fellow employee what they're making. you're not supposed to talk about your salary. you can talk about anything but you can't talk about what the person next to you is making. the second thing is, is if you

in any way, particularly if you're a woman, try to speak up for your rights to get equal pay for the same job, same pay, same job, you're often retaliated against. and then businesses come up with lots of loopholes which are bad. they use business explanations as bad excuses to avoid paying equal pay for equal work. now, we want to pass this legislation to end the retaliation, close the loopholes and lift the veil of secrecy. this in many ways will give american women not a raise but give what justify demands -- give what justice demands. now, i'm here this morning to keep up the momentum in which we've been able to do in this senate. i'm very proud of the fact that

since -- in 19 -- excuse me, in 2009, we passed the lilly ledbetter act which opened up the courthouse doors to women. and now as we continue five years later of listening to stories, terrible stories, about what's happened, there was a kerri sleman, a mechanical engineer in michigan that was told that women -- that men had to be paid more in her company because they were breadwinners. she was a mechanical engineer doing the same job. la toya warfare, -- la toya waiver told me the men were being paid $2 more an hour than she which meant several hundred dollars a year. we want to end that discrimination. no retaliation, no loopholes, no veil of secrecy. this has been going on a long

time, mr. president. in 1964, president lyndon johnson, as part of the great civil rights movement sweeping our country, wanted to pass three civil rights bills: the equal pay act, the civil rights act, and the voting rights act. he started with the equal pay act because he thought it would be the easiest to pass and the easiest to enforce. 50 years later we are still fighting the battles on all three of those legislations, and today we're talking about equal pay. right now women are an emerging force in the workplace. way back in the 1950's, only 11% of the women were in the workplace, though many had been there during world war ii and rosies. now they are the breadwinners. 40% of the households are really breadwinners -- women make up

40% of the households in which she is the head of the house or the prime, or the breadwinner. and it's time to make the labor market reflect these. but most of all, the pay market. when the equal pay act was signed in 1963, guess what women made? 59 cents for every $1 men made. everybody said we've got to fight that. 50 years later women make 77 cents for every $1. over a 50-year period we closed the gap by 18 cents. now what do you think about that? i think that's pretty unjust. i don't think it's even american. we like to say if you work hard and play by the rules, america will work for you. well, women work hard. they play by the rules. and yet, they work, but america doesn't work for them.

and for women of color, it's even worse. if you're an african-american woman, you earn 64 cents. if you're an hispanic woman, you earn 54 cents. you know, you like to hear, oh, you've come a long way, but i don't think we've come a long way with 18 cents improvement in a 50-year period. who in this room thinks that earning one cent more every five years counts as coming a long way? maybe if we made one cent more every year since 1964, we wouldn't think it's so terrific. my constituents don't go for this, either men or women. women want to stand up for their rights and men want to stand up for the women they love. there are men all over this country right this minute who are in jobs they hate so that their daughters could have the job they love, working hard so that they can help them go to school, get the education, get

the skills to be able to take care of themselves, to be able to take care of themselves. you know, this is why they've spoken up for dads. every week and every month as families sit down to pay the bills and husbands are looking at their wives and are saying, tell me about the pay. it doesn't seem right. i heard that george is making, i hear that tom is making. well, what about us? so men are outraged about this too. they see it as a fundamental fairness issue. they see it as a fundamental justice issue. and guess what? it is a family pocketbook issue. we want change, and we want change today by voting for this bill. this way we will change the federal law books so we can help change the family checkbooks. this bill, as i said, will close the loopholes in the law which allows pay discrimination to continue to occur. i'll repeat, paycheck secrecy,

making it harder to uncover pay differences. it's hard to fight when you're prohibited from even talking about it. businesses are under a gag rule. then there's the retaliation and then there's the loopholes. the paycheck fairness act is quite simple. when we say that -- and they say didn't you deal with this with lilly ledbetter? well, lilly ledbetter dealt with the statute of limitations. what this bill is is deal with other issues. no longer can workers be retaliated against for sharing wages. for years lilly, and she tells her own story, she's the story of many, was harassed and humiliated for asking questions about coworkers' salaries. she found out that the guys were making more because of an anonymous note that was sent to her. somewhere in the vast

corporation of goodyear, for whom she worked, a contractor, a federal contractor, by the way, there was somebody, probably a wonderful man who worked with her, who wanted to help her out and told her. but then she went on to try to do something. well, guess what? she faced retaliation. first she faced verbal harassment. she faced threats to her very safety. she faced sexual intimidation. she really got it thrown right back in her face and every day became a torture in the workplace, but she pressed on. that happens to women all over america. now, the other thing is -- and we can't allow that. when you stand up for your rights in america, you shouldn't be harassed. there's much said about the first amendment, yes. there's much said about the

second amendment, the right to carry a gun. women would like to be able to carry a law to be able to fight for themselves. no longer will employers also be able to use just any reason to justify paying a woman less. oh, he's the breadwinner. oh, they do a harder job. when you talk to carries, the mechanical engineer they were doing the same job. in fact in some instances she was the supervisor. for la toya working in the hotel, they were doing the same job and the eeoc verified that. this is why it is important. no longer will women be limited just to back pay, they will be able to get punitive damages, because in many businesses when they're caught and the current law catches up with them, they just pay a fine and see it as the cost of doing business. that's not fine with us. we want to make sure that if you

feel that if you have suffered these injustices, you will be able to seek grievance through punitive damages. and no longer will women be on their owns. the consequences of the pay gap are significant. let's take a college degree. a woman who has had the benefit of an education. for women between 25 and 29, the annual pay gap now is about $1,700 a year. for a woman closer to the retirement age it is more like $14,000 a year. overall lifetime for many women it is $400,000 a year. this has enormous consequences. when you are paid less -- when you are paid less -- it affects not only your paycheck that you take home, but it will affect your retirement, because social security is pegged to earnings.

so when you pay women less, you're going to get less in retirement. this is not fair. i tell you what i'm tired of hearing, that somehow or another we're too emotional when we talk. you know, when we raise an issue, we're too emotional. well, i am emotional. i am so emotional about this, i am telling you if we don't pass this bill, i'm so emotional, i'm going to press on. it brings tears to my eyes to know how women every single day are working so hard and are getting paid less. it makes me emotional to hear that. then when i hear all of these phony reasons, some are mean and some are meaningless, i do get emotional. i get angry. i get outraged. i get volcanic. and the way i want to challenge my emotions is by helping

everything we can do to be able to pass this bill. now there are those who say this is a lawyers' dream. it's not a lawyer's dream. it's a family's dream. now if they're afraid of lawsuits, they ought to follow the law. the best way not to have a lawsuit is to follow the law. so if you retaliate against a worker, don't retaliate. because if you do retaliate, you're going to have to pay up. if you have loopholes that are mean or meaningless, yes, that employee might sue, but guess what, the way to apply the lawsuit is don't be mean, don't be cruel, don't be unfair, don't be unjust. and if you think we're emotional, wait until you see what happens if this bill fails. we're pretty emotional about this. so, madam president, you and i have talked about this, whether it's in north dakota or north

baltimore, we feel the same that when you work hard, play by the rules, do the same job you want fair pay. american women need a fair shot for equal pay for equal work. the same pay for the same job. and we need to pass this legislation today. let's pass the motion to proceed so that we can get actually on the bill to discuss, offer amendments. there are those i know who have other ideas and suggestions. we look forward to that. and then at the end of the day and the end of the week let's pass. madam president, i think that today is the day that's a reckoning on do you want equal pay for equal work. and i want men and women all across america to be emotional about it. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

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

quorum call: mr. merkley: i ask unanimous consent that alexander mar wrvment ow be given floor prills

for the ermder of the day. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: i suggest the answer after quorum -- no i would withhold that request. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on s. 2199, a bill to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938 and so forth and for other purposes, signed by 18 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 2199, a bill to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex and for other purposes shall be brought to a close?

the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? if not, on this vote, the ayes are 53, the nays are 44. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn have not voted in the affirmative, and the motion is not agreed to. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i have a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. mr. reid: madam president, i now ask unanimous consent that at 2:30 this afternoon, the senate proceed to the felton nomination under the previous order. further, that following disposition of the felton nomination, the senate proceed to the mcsweeney nomination, also under the previous order. further, that following the disposition of the mcsweeney nomination, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendars number 06, 619 and 522, that there be two minutes

for debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees prior to each vote and upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order that i have listed, that any roll call votes following the first in the series be ten minutes in length, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, that no further motion be in order to the nominations, that any statements related to these nominations be printed in the record, and that president obama be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. so ordered. mr. reid: madam president, for all senators, under the agreement that we just had approved, there will be as many as five roll call votes starting at 3:30 this afternoon. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. ms. mikulski: madam president, we just lost the vote today on the cloture provision to proceed to the paycheck fairness act, but i want everyone to know,

everyone in the senate and everyone in the united states of america, although we lost the vote, we refuse to lose the battle. we are going to finish the fight. we are going to continue the fight to get equal pay for equal work, lift the veil of secrecy on pay in the workplace, end the retaliation if you fight for your rights, and close loopholes that are mean or meaningless. we have been here before. i remember when we had the first vote on the lilly ledbetter bill. we lost that vote, but we pressed on, and women all over america expressed their frustration and their outrage, so that in 2009, we were able to right that wrong and keep the lilly ledbetter -- pass the lilly ledbetter bill and open the courthouse doors. now, here we are again, we're ready to continue that fight. we're ready to turn our biggest noes into our biggest yes.

we will continue the war against the wage gap and against wage discrimination against women. women of america, we say to you join in this fight, make your voices heard. you want to change the federal law books so we can make a change in your family checkbook. we're going to finish what we started with lilly ledbetter and bring the paycheck fairness act back to the floor. when senator reid voted no, it was so that he could bring it up on another vote on the motion to consider. this is not about parliamentary procedure. this is about how we will press the fight. when we lost lilly ledbetter, i came to the floor then and i come to the floor now to say when we continue this fight, i reminded my colleagues about what abigail adams once said to her husband. when you are making those laws down there, she said do not forget the ladies, for we will

ferment a revolution of our own. so women of america and the good men who support us, keep the revolution on. i said then as i said now, let's suit up, let's square our shoulders. for the women, put your lipstick on and let's fight on. we will be back another day for another vote. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. murphy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you very much, madam president. i applaud senator mikulski for her great work, despite the result today. madam president, i'm here on the floor to congratulate my uconn huskies for a double national championship. it's only been done once before in the history of college basketball, the men winning a national championship and the women winning a national championship in the same year, and the last time it was us, too, 1994, and now -- excuse me,

in 2004 and now in twurt. -- in 2014. so very briefly, i want to add my congratulations to those offered by senator blumenthal. our new coach, kevin ollie, when he took the job went on tv and said that despite some of the tough times surrounding the uconn program, that his intent was for uconn basketball to take the stairs and not the elevator. he said that elevators were cowards and they were going to walk one step at a time towards a national championship. now, given the enact our long-time hall of fame coach had just left, that we had sanctions that didn't allow our team to play for a year in the postseason, people thought that that just wasn't possible, that uconn was ever going to be able to return to the greatness that we have seen over the last 20 years, but in coach ollie's first tournament, he brought his team to a victory, led, of course, by our great point guard, shabazz napier.

another connecticut first and second. there are only two players who are men's champions in the men's tournament who scored 125 points, had 25 assists and 25 rebounds. napier is the second because walker was the first in uconn's last national championship. the women are even more impressive because they managed to win their national championship this year by going undefeated and beating another undefeated team in the national championship game in a rout. now, of course, that's become kind of old hat for the u connecticut women. had this is the third time they've gone undefeated in the past six years and their fourth title in six years, geno auriemma's ninth title, eclipse being the great pat summitt. you saw coach auriemma emotional

at the end of the game. he broang down in tears talking about a couple of his seniors, stephanie dolson and also talking about bria heartily. he has a love for those players, you saw kevin ollie's love for his players, especially the guys who could have transferred to other programs but decided to stay william with him and stay with the program. and what geno said after the game was, you know, he's flattered, he said i'm flattered and grateful at all the things that have come with this kind of accomplishment, nine national championships but what he said is i'm more proud of the legacy that exists and what connecticut basketball is as opposed to the number of championships. when you watch these championship games that now add up for both the men and the women you see throughout the stands former players by the dozens, frankly, maybe by the hundreds who come back because of the legacy that has been

created. in 20 years of nine national championships for the women and four national championships for the men. and even though kevin colonel ollie is the one that said it, u.conn got there the hard way. we don't have a legacy like kansas or kentucky has, we built it over a couple of decades. as kevin ollie has done over the last two years, u.conn in the last two decades in registering 13 national championships has halsals taken the stairs -- has always taken the sphairs arn the elevator. congratulations as a diehard husky fan to our begin within national championship teams. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. coats: madam president, this is not easy for me to do but i'm going to do it in good graces here, congratulate my colleague from connecticut on connecticut's victory over the university of notre dame last evening. now, you watched in joy and

exuberance and i watched in dismay, but i do want to congratulate you, those from connecticut for a singular achievement of having both men and women's basketball chips championships. those of us in indiana are deeply immersed in the basketball culture. we didn't have the best year that -- the kind of year we would have liked but we were very proud of the university of notre dame women and the accomplishments they made, an undefeated season until last evening. it probably is not politic for me to say it's unfortunate that our all-american center who was the key to -- one of the keys to the success of the team unfortunately had a knee injury which prevented her from playing. i'm not saying we would have won had she played because i don't want to take anything away from the huskies. on the other hand, i think it could have been a more contested contest had she been a part of

that. either way, both teams deserve congratulations for the phenomenal seasons that they had. it was a joy to watch from indiana our notre dame women do so well and just as it was a joy for you to watch your men and women do so well. so i congratulate you on that. madam president, that's not why i rose. i rise to advocate for something obviously far more serious and threatening to us and difficult. than a basketball contest. and that is our response to the situation of russia's unlawful takeover of crimea. i want to urge and continue to urge the president as well as our colleagues here in the senate that we need to take more vigorous action to deter further russian aggression. as i speak, as i speak, anxieties are building that vladimir putin's first big bite out of ukraine has not been

satisfied, has not satisfied him and he hungers for more. many signs indicate that russian aggression threatens further incursions into eastern ukraine and possibly beyond. troops are positioned on the border, logistics for invasion are arranged and the russian propaganda machine is ginning up excuses needed to justify the unjustifiable action. the lack of a forceful, effective response, the only thing i can conclude, that the lack of an effective, forceful response by the united states and by our allies, in particular our european allies, has given president putin reason to expect that further aggression will not be punished, despite all of the rhetoric, despite all of the tough talk, very little has

been done and -- effectively with what little has been done with no effect to deter and to condemn what has taken place and deter further aggression. from the beginning of this blatant act, i have waited for the administration to impose real costs on russia for its illegal territorial aggression, and so far, i have waited in vain. for the past month, in two separate resolutions which i have offered here on the floor, several floor speeches, and numerous opinion pieces that i have written for the media, i have consistently attempted to make the case for a hard-hitting sanctions on russia. i joined here with senator durbin and my colleague from illinois, to achieve a unanimous bipartisan passage of an initial list of sanctions that would signal to putin that

the u.s. senate was unified in condemning and sanctioning russia for its blatant takeover of crimea. i stated at the time that this was an initial list, that much tougher sanctions need to come but i wanted to give the administration time to fashion those, to work with our allies across the ocean and to stand strong for the type of hard-hitting, hard-biting economic sanctions that would make russia pay a real price as we had said we were going to do. now, i do realize that the administration has to take the lead on economic sanctions because to implement tough sanctions and steps needed that will ensure massive -- maximum effectiveness, we need to coordinate this with our friends and our allies. but i have seen little evidence that the administration is leading our european friends in the direction of such sanctions, nor have i seen

evidence that our european allies are willing to take the lead. i therefore have come to the conclusion at least wondering if anyone is willing to take a lead in this effort. madam president, more needs to be done, and more needs to be done now. with the russian troops mounting their vehicles on the ukranian border, when i say now, i mean right away. the united states should be using every means available to press for firm measures and our european allies should be joining us in this cause, and those measures should include condemning russia's misbehavior, imposing serious costs so such behavior will not be repeated. further, we should defend our allies and reassure them that we have their back. we need to isolate russia and prevent it from participating in

organizations that give putin credibility and strength. we should impose obstacles to prevent russia from taking material advantage of their conquest and we should convince other nations, businesses, organizations and individuals to follow our lead. i think recent history shows that in conflict issues around the world, if the united states does not take a firm and a strong lead, other nations simply do not feel they have the strength or the backing to take that lead. and so it's imperative that whatever lead is taken comes from these united states, led by our president, supported by a bipartisan congress to send a unified message that we are willing to address egregious breaches of international law and lead the way in doing so. now, the first task as i see it

is to make sure we and others do not accept this aggression and annexation, what some others are already calling a fait accompli. since the united states' refusal to recognize annexation of the baltic states 74 years ago, we have firmly and consistently refused to recognize such annexations. we must do the same in this case. unfortunately, words and actions from this administration and many of our european allies continue to focus on threatening consequences for future russian incursions rather than on the illegal annexation that's already taken place. it is exactly this reluctance to impose costs for the annexation of a portion of ukraine that paves the way for further russian aggression. i sadly note that some of our best european friends are downplaying the importance of

the invasion and annexation that's already taken place. just as chancellor americale from germany was showing signs of a more forceful foreign policy, now it is showing more interest in dialogue and restraint, backing down from the tough talk about making russia pay a price for the actions that it's taken. in fact, there is little indication that anyone in europe is willing to oppose the russian annexation of crimea. and i'm therefore convinced that there is very little reason to believe that further aggression will be adequately discouraged or punished. in this policy vacuum, if we don't find that leadership from our administration or from the europeans, it is imperative, i believe, that congress act and act now. so today i'm introducing yet another response to those i have

previously i have -- i have previously introduced addressing this situation in unanimous ukr. the crimea annexation nonrecognition act, legislation that would mandate an official policy of nonrecognition of russian some of the or crimea, it's airspace and territory and resources is the theme of this particular legislation that i will be introducing for the senate to consider. the purpose of this act is to ensure that the united states will not recognize russian sovereignty over crimea nor take any action that would imply such recognition. further, my bill imposes obstacles to russian exploitation of crimea resources by creating legal uncertainty about investing in crimea and restricts foreign aid to countries that recognize russian sovereignty over crimea. let me illustrate some of the

specific proposals that i've introduced. one, establish firm policy that the united states government does not recognize russian sovereignty over crimea, its territory, airspace and territorial waters and may take no action that implies any recognition of russian sovereignty. secondly, prohibit the united states from financing or guaranteeing investments in crimea with russia as an intermediary. third, oppose international financial institutions assistance programs for crimea that go through russia as an intermediary. fourth, require the department of justice to affirm this nonrecognition policy upon request in order to create greater legal uncertainty for those who hope to contract with russia for exploitation of crimean resources. fifth, deny entry to vessels sailing from crimea with russian customs documentation. six, prohibit u.s. ships and

aircraft from taking actions that imply russian sovereignty over crimea, its airspace or territorial wawrsz and seventh, prohibit some forms of foreign assistance to countries that recognize russian sovereignty over crimea. madam president, there are very few precedents in post-war history where a state has so boldly and aggressively used force against a neighbor for the purpose of territorial acquisition. this -- what has happened in crimea is a crime left over from an earlier age. we, together with our european friends, must move aggressively to oppose it before it becomes repetitive. at a time when so much depends on vladimir putin's unspoken plans, it is not hard to guess how he will respond to meekness. the american response must be much greater if we want p t