the bill would authorize just over $33 billion in funding over the next year. it includes a new consumer protections for airline passengers and sets new rules for drones. this is live senate coverage on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, you are our rock and salvation. you are our high tower, and we shall not be moved. forgive us when we forget to trust you to order our steps and

direct our path. lord, thank you for our lawmakers who seek to fulfill your purposes in their labors. give them the wisdom and courage they need to glorify your name, as they strive always to live worthy of the mercies you daily bestow. may their work be a delight as they make you the only constituent they always seek to please. help us all to remember that you know what is best for us, so please have your way.

we pray in your strong name. amen. the president pro tempore: 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. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i have been pleased to see the progress we have made on the f.a.a. reauthorization bill, and i appreciate the senators who have worked with the bill managers to process amendments like those to

bolster airport security. last evening, we processed another set of amendments to help make this good bill an even better one. one such amendment offered by senator flake would help improve communication between the f.a.a. and local airports in order to provide a greater say for local stakeholders in the management of the airspace near their own airports. this will benefit communities and airports across the country, including at kentucky's own louisville airport. i appreciate senator flake's leadership on this issue and am pleased to see this provision included in the overall bill. i encourage members to give ideas they think would strengthen the bill and continue to work with the bill manager so we can continue to move this legislation forward. so let's continue working today to take the next steps in seeing this consumer-friendly f.a.a. reauthorization and airport security bill through to passage. this bill contains a number of important measures to increase security in our airports and the skies. it also takes more steps to look

out for airline passengers. here's how. it will improve information about seat availability and create a standard for information on fee disclosures. it will require airlines to offer refunds to customers whose bags are lost or who have paid for services they didn't receive. it will also maintain rural access and help improve travel for passengers with disabilities. i know there are some who think we should go further and reregulate the airline industry, but we know that deregulation has helped make air travel more accessible and more affordable for families and business travelers to get from point a to point b. i know there are some who think that washington bureaucrats should define what constitutes a reasonable fee, but we want consumers to make that choice by themselves. that's why this bipartisan bill includes the important consumer protection provisions that i mentioned earlier. and we know this bipartisan legislation is the result of months of dedicated work by

chairman thune and his counterpart, senator nelson. it sets new requirements for making sure customers understand what fees they could face for certain ancillary services and then importantly it holds airlines accountable for delivering to consumers. this is commonsense legislation, it's the product of senators working across the aisle on behalf of the american people. let's continue working together to move forward. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i call to terminate the quorum. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: last thursday, the senior senator from iowa came to the floor to declare he is feeling no pressure in blocking president obama's supreme court nominee merrick garland. however, his actions paint a far different picture.

on monday, the chairman of the judiciary committee took to the "des moines register," the very newspaper that's pointedly and repeatedly criticized his unprecedented obstruction, but the key senator grassley made in his op-ed only left iowans scratching their heads. in fact, the senior senator from iowa said it's no big deal that we only have eight justices on the supreme court. it's no big deal that our nation's highest cord is deadlocking on important cases. with all due respect, that's the type of argument you make when you know logic and reason aren't on your side, when you know the constitution isn't on your side. the senior senator from iowa seemed to understand the responsibility to act when a republican was in the white house. in 2006, he came to the floor and said, and i quote -- "a supreme court nomination is not a form to fight any election. it's a time to perform one of our most constitutional duties and decide whether a nominee is qualified to serve on the nation's highest court."

close quote. he's reversed himself and that's an understatement. from the time he allowed the republican leader to seize control of the judiciary committee and dictate his actions as committee chair, senator grassley has done a few things, but everything is to deflect responsibility on him personally. he forces committee members to sign a loyalty oath. he tried to force the committee to do its work away from the public eye. when democrats objected, he canceled the meeting altogether. he tried to shut down debate from the presiding officer's chair and the senate floor, which is really unprecedented. he blamed chief justice john roberts for politicizing the supreme court. these are just a few of the things. and then this morning, he final met with judge garland. even that meeting was held in private, far away from the public eye. these are not the actions of a senator and a chairman who is confident with his decision to block a supreme court nominee.

this is the behavior of a senator who knows he is on the wrong side of the constitution and the wrong side of history. wouldn't it be easier for the senior senator from iowa just to do his job? mr. president, we're 102 days into 2016, but because of wage discrimination, working american women are still stuck in 2015. today is national equal pay day, the date that symbolizes how far into 2016 women must work to earn what male counterparts earned last year for doing the very same work. that's because on average american women make only 79 cents for every dollar that their male colleagues make for doing the very, very same job. that means our wives, daughters, granddaughters have to work one year, an additional three months and 11 days to make the same salary that their male colleagues make in a single year. this pay disparity between men and women doing the same work is known as a wage gap and it's our national shame. no woman should make less money

than a man for doing the same work. democrats have tried repeatedly to pass senator barbara mikulski's paycheck fairness act which would provide working women with the tools they need to close this gap. republicans have made it clear that they have no intention of fighting wage discrimination. they have stonewalled this most basic issue of fairness, blocking senator mikulski's legislation five times in recent years, five filibusters. and when republicans finally get around to offering legislation that they claim will address this important economic issue, it's anemic and devoid of actual form. bills offered by the junior senators from new hampshire and nebraska are a case in point. because that legislation does nothing to close loopholes that employers use to justify paying discriminatory wages. they do nothing to help victims of wage discrimination recoup lost income and it does nothing to incentivize employers to follow the law. these are only pieces of legislation to look good, to say

they're trying to do something about this when, in fact, it's nothing. just about the only thing that the ayotte and fischer bills actually do is make it harder for women to discuss wage discrimination at work. the respective bills so narrowly define what a woman can and can't say about wage discrimination that it completely ignores the reality of the situation. factually, many women learn of wage disparities through a casual conversation at work. the famous lilly ledbetter case, that's how she learned about it. they shouldn't be punished for learning they are being discriminated against by their own employer. in short, senators ayotte and fischer's bill would not close the wage gap. where the republican legislation fails, senator mikulski's paycheck fairness act succeeds. the paycheck fairness act would help close the wage disparity by empowering women to negotiate for equal pay. this bill would give workers stronger tools to combat wage discrimination and bar retaliation against employees for discussing salary

information. this legislation would help secure adequate compensation for victims of gender-based pay discrimination. these are commonsense proposals that are supported by the american people, not just women, american people. later today, president obama will announce the designation of a belmont paul woman's equality national monument which is located a few hundred yards from where i stand. formally known as the sewell belmont house and museum, this will honor the work of alice paul who wrote the equal rights amendment. and i think it's important that that was done. president obama's designation is a reminder of the many women who have fought for equality. as we recognize equal pay day, i hope my republican colleagues will come to their senses and address this injustice that hurts millions of american families. working women deserve more than just a half measure from republicans. they deserve our best efforts to right this egregious wrong

because american women deserve equal pay for equal work. i apologize to my distinguished friend from vermont for having him wait while senator mcconnell and i were doing conversations here on the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from -- under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each and with democrats controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, the distinguished senator from nevada owes me no apologies. i was glad to hear what he had to say and i agree with him. you know, mr. president, today we vermonters and our neighbors, americans across the country are going to recognize equal pay day. it's a day that shines a spotlight on the glaring pay disparity between men and women.

now, the united states is often looked to as a leader in the global landscape. we set the gold standard for others to follow. but unfortunately our country fails to lead when it comes to pay parity. american women continue to be treated unequally and unfairly in the workplace. on average, women are only paid 79 cents to every dollar paid to men. it's somewhat better in vermont, but it's still a disparity of 83 cents to the dollar. now, over a career, this means a woman is compensated hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars less than a man about no other explanation for the disparity than their gender. this practice is unacceptable. it runs contrary to american values. the fight for equal pay for

equal work has spanned generations. it continues to impact nearly every corner of our country, from corporate board rooms to the locally owned small businesses, women have long fought for their right to be treated with the same respect and dignity as their male counterparts. and when i think of this fight, i think of lilly ledbetter, a person whom i greatly admire, consider a friend. she has changed the lives of millions of americans with her courage to stand up for equal pay. it has been nearly nine years since five justices just by one-vote majority on the supreme court ruled that her pay discrimination claim was invalid, not because of the facts. she had a good pay discrimination claim. but they said she did not file a suit against her employer within the federally mandated time period even though the way the employer ran things she had no way of knowing she was being

discriminated against at that time. so i was proud to work with senator mikulski and others to overturn this injustice. we wrote and passed the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. this important legislation clarified the statute of limitations for filing an equal pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination, and i was proud to stand with president obama when he signed this, the very first law he signed into law as president. the progress achieved seven years ago was important, but they fight for equal pay for -- but the fight for equal pay for equal work continues today. so i'm proud to cosponsor senator mikulski's paycheck fairness act, an important bill to assure equal pay for equal work, a principle that people say they agree with but for too long it's failed to be a reality. and today, women from all over my state of vermont will assemble at the vermont state

house. they will highlight the initiative known as change the story. it aims to improve the economic status of women in my state. they will note that while vermont women fare slightly better than the average around the country, the current pay to wage gap will not disappear before the year 2048. that is far too long for anybody to have to wait. vermont women are twice as likely to live in poverty in their senior years when their savings amount to one-third of that of their male counterparts. every year maccelle and i present the vermont women's economic opportunity conference. for two decades it helped support women-owned businesses, encourages good-paying tpho*fpb tpho*fpb -- nontraditional careers. as we prepare to mark the 20th anniversary of the women's economic opportunity conference

in june, i'd much prefer it if we could eliminate the need for such a conference. i look forward to the day when there is no gender wage gap and when career opportunities are available to all women. but until that day comes, marcelle and i will continue to sponsor that conference. pay equality has recently received considerable attention at the international level. why? in large part due to the leadership of the u.s. women's national soccer team. we can all recall last year the thrill when this team of world-class athletes won for a third time soccer's most coveted title, the world cup. i remember, i remember my children and my grandchildren watched that thrilling victory as the most widely viewed women's soccer game in our nation's history. like so many other americans, men and women, i took pride in

their historic win. but then fans from across the world were shocked to learn that members of the u.s. women's team only received $2 million for winning the 2015 women's world cup while the 2014 men's world cup champions were awarded $35 million. we're also astonished to learn the 2015 world championship woman's team receivedless than the men's team that loss. even though they made the -- the sports team made enormous amounts of money from the television rights, the women who earned those rights did not, and they got paid less than the men who lost. they got paid less winning than the men who lost. so i introduced the senate

resolution calling on people to eliminate the discriminatory prize award structure and to award athletes equal prizes. it was disappointing that not a single republican was willing to cosponsor this resolution. when i tried to get it passed to support fairness for our champion women's team, when i tried to get this passed to say we should treat women fairly, we should treat the women athletes the same as men athletes, senate republicans blocked it from going forward. i'm hopeful that as more americans learn of this unfairness, senators will join me in support of its passage and republicans will stop blocking it. senators should not be afraid to be on record to support equal pay for equal work for all athletes; in fact, equal pay for equal work for all women. opponents of an equal prize award structure in sports point

to revenues as the reason behind this disparity. this is unacceptable. tennis icons like billy jean king and veep -- venus williams did not accept these arguments. instead they fought for equal prize awards in the face of overwhelming adversity and their efforts led to equal prize awards in the u.s. open tennis championships and wimbledon which now provides all athletes, men and women, the respect they deserve. so i am proud to stand in support of the u.s. women's national team and their fight for equal prize awards for equal treatment of the u.s. soccer federation. disparities that exist in these organizations are outrageous. they should be remedied immediately. they should ensure that men and women are treated fairly and equally. and while every democrat has supported that, i hope republicans will stop blocking. because as we reflect on the

important meaning of equal pay day, i would note it's not republicans or democrats. all americans across the country should continue to join the growing movement to eliminate discrimination from the workplace. hardworking women, our mothers, our sisters, our wives, our daughters, our granddaughters, deserve no less. we should pass this resolution recognizing the achievement of the u.s. women's national team as the women's world cup champions. we should pass senator mikulski's paycheck fairness act which i cosponsored. we should take these simple and straightforward steps to guarantee pay equity, protections against workplace discrimination. the time for equality is now. let us be honest. let us stand up and say both men

and women should be treated equally. i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: as my friend the top democrat on the judiciary committee is leaving the floor, i want to thank him so much. i think the example of women's soccer is so perfect. people don't understand this disparity. some say many more people follow the women's soccer than the men's. and i wanted to thank him for his leadership on that. i also want to say when it comes to equal pay for equal work, you need to remember three numbers, mr. president. just three numbers: 79 cents, that's one number. remember that one. $1 # -- $11,000 and $400,000. remember 79, 11,000 and 400,000.

*79 cents is what the average woman makes compared to the average man on the dollar. so the man makes $1. the woman makes cents for the same work. we're not talking about different jobs. we're talking about the same. $11,000, that's what it costs the average woman and her family a year. that's when you add up that disparity, it's $11,000 a year. think of what that could buy for a family. and $400,000-plus is what the penalty is for the average woman against the average man in a lifetime. $400,000. that could translate into a retirement that is not stressful. so we're going to be here later today talking about this. the mikulski bill will resolve a

lot of these problems, and i hope we can get the republicans to help us. you know, this senate has a rating of about 18% approval. it's because people don't see us doing anything to help the average person. and most women work. we haven't even raised the minimum wage. these republicans fight for the wealthy few, and that's the problem. and we've given them a beautiful way to deal with it. sign on to mikulski's bill. now this morning, in addition to these comments that i just made, i want to talk about an amendment i'm trying to get a vote on to the f.a.a. bill, the federal aviation administration bill that is before us. mr. president, this issue is another no-brainer.

later this morning i'll meet with captain sully sullenberger. i think you remember him. he was the hero of the hudson. he was the one who miraculously landed u.s. airways flight 1549 in the hudson river on january 15, 2009. because of his incredible skill, he saved the lives of all 155 passengers and crew. so when it comes to safety -- safety -- in terms of our pilots being able to think clearly and not be suffering from fatigue, who could be better than captain sullenberger? so i'm going to stand with him and i'm going to explain the issue that he and i are fighting for. i first got into this issue, which is safety standards for all pilots, in 2009 when colgan

airlines flight 3407 crashed into a home near buffalo, new york, killing 50 people. after that tragic crash, senator snowe and i wrote hrerlgs that that -- wrote legislation that updated pilot fatigue regulations. they had been written originally in the 1940's and clearly there was a lot of scientific research on what happens when you have a lack of rest. and we needed to see a new rule. so because of the efforts of senator snowe and me, the department of transportation issued a rule in 2011 to ensure adequate rest for passenger pilots, which was great. shockingly, they left out cargo pilots. so i'm going to show you a picture of two planes. two planes.

look at these planes. they look exactly the same, mr. president. they share the same airspace, the same airports, and the same runways. but guess what? because of the disparity in this rule from the f.a.a., the pilots are not treated the same. now passenger pilots cannot fly more than nine hours in a day while cargo pilots can be forced to fly up to 16 hours a day with no rest. let me say it again. the rule that came out of the f.a.a. said if you're a passenger pilot, you can only fly up to nine hours a day. but if you fly a cargo plane the same size, you can fly up to 16 hours a day. how does this make sense? it is dangerous. it is dangerous. and i will show you how.

but our top safety board, nhtsa -- or i'm sorry, ntsb, the national transportation and safety board, has made reducing pilot fatigue a priority, mentioning it on their top ten list of most wanted safety requirements for years. so follow me. in 2009 we had the rule. the rule left out cargo pilots. and since then i've been trying, along with colleagues klobuchar and cantwell and others, to change this. now let's look at what captain sullenberger has said about this issue. he said it about our bill -- quote -- "you wouldn't want your surgeon operating on you after only five hours of sleep. or your passenger pilot flying the airplane after only five hours of sleep. and you certainly wouldn't want a cargo pilot wouldn't -- flying

a large plane over your house at 3:00 a.m. on five hours of sleep, trying to find the airport and land." they're flying up to 16 hours without rest. so what we say in our amendment is simple. we want parity. we want the same periods of flying time for both pilots. now you say, well, senator boxer, have there been any accidents? yes. since 1990 there have been 14 u.s. cargo p plane crashes involving fatigue, including a ups crash in birmingham, alabama, that killed two crew members. the ntsb cited pilot fatigue as a factor. let's listen to the pilot conversation which was retrieved after the plane crash. let's hear what those pilots who were exhausted said to one

another. and then if the senate doesn't want to have a vote on this, i'm going to stand on my feet until we do. because for sure, one of these planes is going to crash, whether it's in california or nebraska or arkansas or anywhere else in this nation. listen to this. pilot one: i mean, i don't get it. you know it should be one level of safety for everybody. pilot two: it makes no sense at all. pilot one: no, it doesn't at all. pilot two: and to be honest, it should be across the board. to be honest, in my opinion, whether you're flying passengers or cargo, if you're flying this time of day, you know fatigue is definitely -- pilot one:yeah, yeah, yeah. pilot two:when my alarm went off i'm thinking i'm so tired.

pilot one: i know. let's look at what happened to this plane after this conversation. just look at what happened to this plane. i think it's important everybody look at it. it went down. it went down. now, when that flight wept down, i honestly thought the f.a.a. is going to change. they're going to pass a rule. they're going to make sure all pilots get that necessary rest. but they did not. they did not. one hour after that conversation i shared with you, mr. president, this is what happened to that plane. this dangerous double standard risks lives in the air and on the ground, and it cannot continue. that is why our amendment and our bill that we have which we base the amendment on is endorsed not only by captain

sully but also the airline pilots association, the independent pilots association, the coalition of airline pilots association, the teamsters aviation division and the allied pilots association. let me just ask a rhetorical question. if we don't listen to pilots who were in those planes on what they need to fly safely, who on earth are we listening to, and i can't get a vote on this. so far i can't get a vote. i'm hoping i will. let people stand in the well and vote against this safety provision, and the next time there is a crash, they'll answer for it. stand up and be counted, but we need a vote on this provision. one level of safety for all pilots is one level of safety for the public. so i'm proud to stand with

captain sullenberger and all the pilots in america, the organizations that represent them to say if this is an f.a.a. bill, this is a federal aviation bill, and we have all kinds of goodies and tax breaks and this and that in there, which is a whole other conversation. the least we can do is stand up for safety. the least we can do is stand up for safety. i will insist on a vote. i will stand on my feet until i get a vote. and i know the pilots are going to be all over this place today knocking on doors. the american people don't think we're doing anything for them. we have the worst rating. my friends beat up on president obama. he has higher ratings than ronald reagan in his time, in the same time frame. higher ratings than ronald reagan, their hero. we are down in the gutter with

our ratings because we put special interests ahead of the people. now, maybe there is a few special interests that don't want to pay their pilots enough money, that don't want to give their pilots rest. too bad. they are wrong. they are jeopardizing lives on the ground. it's penny-wise and pound-foolish to have someone suffering from pilot florida teeing flying over your home wherever you live in america. all i want is a vote. just asking for a vote. so far i don't have that commitment, but we're working hard, we're hoping to get it. that's why i came here today and that's why i will be standing with sully, captain sullenberger later this morning to call for a vote, to make sure that after nine hours of flight, pilots get a rest. not after 16 hours.

and to make sure that there is parity, fairness, ee qult between those flying a passenger jet, those flying a cargo jet. the fact of the matter is they share the same airspace, they fly over the same homes, and they deserve not to be exhausted as they maneuver their planes. thank you very much. mrs. fischer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to discuss the issue of equal pay for equal work. today is national equal pay day and this provides us an opportunity to talk about how we can promote policies that will make life easier and more flexible for american families. it allows us to celebrate the

amazing advancements that women have made. women have an incredibly positive story to tell. we now hold more than half of all professional and managerial jobs, double the number since 1980. we earn over 55% of bachelor's degrees, run nearly 10 million small businesses, and we serve in congress at record levels. some may be surprised to see a republican speaking out to support equal pay. my friends on the other side of the aisle have made quite an effort to politicize this issue, claiming that republicans, while we don't care about equal pay, i'm here to state unequivocally that is ridiculous. equal pay for equal work is a shared american value. at its core, equal pay is about

basic fairness and ensuring that every woman, just like every man, has the opportunity to build the life that she chooses. for over half a century, the equal pay act and the civil rights act, they have enabled women to make significant economic strides. any violation of these important laws are illegal, and they should be punished to the full extent of the law, but i believe that we can also go further. congress now has the opportunity to recommit itself to this issue and ensure that these existing laws are better enforced. our country is stronger today because women have advanced in the work force. there are stories of young women

who start off in entry level jobs and they rise to the top of the corporate ranks because someone somewhere recognized her potential. there are managers and mentors committed to their team. men and women across the work force are focused on cultivating strengths and providing thoughtful feedback in areas that need improvement. unfortunately, there are also stories of pain, discrimination and bias. we all have friends and neighbors, sisters and mothers who were treated unfairly at some point in their careers. the silence does not foster progress. i want to help every woman and every man put a stop to unfair pay practices, and this starts

by breaking the barriers to open discussion. few realize the extent of this problem. in 2003, the university of pennsylvania conducted a study on how salaries are discussed in the private sector. the survey found over one-third of private sector employers have specific rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with their co-workers. this was reinforced by another survey from the institute for women's policy research. roughly half of workers reported that discussing wages and salaries is either discouraged or prohibited and/or could lead to punishment. it went on to note that pay secrecy appears to contribute to the gender gap in earnings. these studies point to a common problem, one that is fueling

anger, resentment and fear. the american work force is lacking protections for employees to engage in this open dialogue about their salaries. people are afraid to ask how their salary compares to their colleagues'. meanwhile, current law does not adequately protect workers against retaliation from employers who want to prevent those conversations about their compensation. if you want to know how your salary compares to your colleagues, you should have every right to ask. this is as basic as the first amendment. ensuring transparency would not only make it easier for workers to recognize pay discrimination, it would also empower them to negotiate their salaries more

effectively. wage transparency is not a new initiative. it already enjoys support on both sides of the political spectrum. in fact, both president obama and hillary clinton are in favor of it. but not all transparency is created equal. earlier this year, the obama administration proposed a new regulation targeting businesses with over 100 employees. the labor department would use this rule to require businesses to submit large amounts of data regarding race, gender and other statistics to the equal employment opportunity commission. the administration believes that this will end discrimination. i believe this is just another government mandate that intrudes into the operations of a private

business. we can't discount the burden this will put on employers and job creators, and every, every new regulation creates a new cost. i also have real doubts that this raw data will give the administration what it's looking for. instead, it does risk presenting a distorted picture of pay data. moreover, it remains unclear how this information would even identify discrimination. the data does not take into account other factors, including years of experience, education level and productivity, and they are appropriately used to determine a person's wages. so looking at big data alone fails to tell the whole story. i'm concerned that the rigid

compensation structures resulting from the president's proposal could force businesses to provide employees with less flexibility, and that would deal an even greater blow to women. the same is true with the paycheck fairness act. while it is very well intentioned, it will ultimately hurt flexibility for women to form unique work arrangements, and it will undermine merit-based pay. instead, we should be empowering both employers and employees to negotiate flexible work arrangements to best meet their individual needs. i agree that we have more work to do on equal pay, but the way that we can make meaningful and lasting progress isn't through a

misguided executive action that could hurt women. to make a difference in the lives of working families, we must focus on building bipartisan consensus. so i have been working hard to do just that by collaborating with my colleagues and generating support for my bill, which is known as the workplace advancement act. i believe that every american worker should have the ability to discuss compensation without fear of retribution. my legislation breaks down the barriers to open dialogue, allowing employees to ask questions and gain information. access to this information could enable workers to be their own best advocates and let them negotiate for the salaries that they feel they deserve.

knowledge is power. by freely discussing their wages, workers can negotiate effectively for the pay this they want. my proposal has received the support of almost every senate republican and also five democrats, but as we know all too well, in washington, anything that receives bipartisan support stalls with five words -- it doesn't go far enough. the biggest critics of this plan say that it is too modest. they claim that transparency is only the first step and that a second step would require mandates, but the truth is meaningful change cannot happen without action and it cannot

happen, folks, without compromise. by its very definition, it requires both agreement and accommodation. my bill can make a real difference for american workers. and unlike legislation that's offered by democrats, my bill can actually pass. others would argue that this change is unnecessary because the right to discuss salaries is protected under existing law. and while it's true that certain employees and certain conversations are protected, there is no reason why we can't apply the same freedom to all americans. as i discussed previously, surveys suggest over one-third of private-sector companies have

specific prohibitions in place. i'm encouraged by the support that we've already garnered on both sides of the aisle for this bill, this straightforward update to our equal pay laws. it is achievable. we are all here to find solutions that both republicans and democrats can achieve for the american people. an all-or-nothing attitude, well, that only prevents progress and it leaves us with the false choices and stereotypes that have persisted for decades. last week i was encouraged to hear senator mikulski and several other democrats hold a press conference and discuss the importance of protecting workers against retaliation for discussing their salaries. i agree. protecting workers who seek this information is a crucial step to

ensuring women and men are compensated fairly. so with this in mind, i would like to call on my friend from maryland and any other members of this body to work together on solutions to this problem. wage transparency is an area of common ground. democrats praised the president's executive order in 2014, and my bill goes further. it protects more american workers. if we are going to make real, meaningful change, we're going to have to work together. we should not let raw politics stand in the way of progress for working women. congress has a real opportunity to make a difference for both men and women who work hard every day to provide for their

families. above all, we can help them succeed and prosper in the workforce while being secure in the knowledge they are compensated fairly for their work. thank you, mr. president. i yield. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, first of all, i think that senators thune and nelson have done a great job of putting together this, the reauthorization bill for the f.a.a. it's something that should have been done some time ago, and we're hoping that the house will go ahead and, frankly, just adopt what we have or something close to it because we're getting ready to do this. it is significant.

i want to mention one of the things, though, that's happening that people may not be aware of because this month, leaders from around the world are going to meet in new york city to sign the paris climate agreement, an agreement that hinges entirely on president obama's commitments to reduce emixes in -- emissionn the united states. what he has done is said in paris that we commit in the united states that we'll reduce our emissions of co2 somewhere between 26% and 28% by 2025. and of course, it's just not going to happen. but again, president obama has three legacies as his days are kind of numbered right now, and one of them is to take away people's guns. we all know about the second amendment rights. every time something happens, they always try to restrict gun ownership. and he still wants to do that. he has three legacies.

that's one of them. closing gitmo is another one. and the other one is trying to survive the global warming program that he has. while the president's been working to solidify his legacy on global warming, he has chosen to ignore the reality that the united states will not keep its carbon promises. the document that will be signed on april 22 -- that's earth day -- will soon become another stack of empty promises on global warming. this has been going on now since 1997. while president obama will issue a press release praising the signing of this historic event that he won't even be attending -- that should give you a pretty good indication that he knows he's not going to be able to do this thing because he's not even going to be there. i want to make sure the international participants are warned now that the president's commitment lacks the support of his own government and it's

going to fail. there's no question about that. i can say it because history has already repeated itself, and i have been on the front lines dating back to the failed kyoto treaty of 1997. and for other 20 years history is already repeating itself, and i've been on the front lines dating back to that time. here's what happened in 1997. it's kind of interesting. when, at that time we had president clinton and vice president gore, and they went to the kyoto convention, and they came back, they signed the treaty and they thought this is just great. everyone is going to have to do cap and trade, and they got back here and there was a little thing called the byrd-hagel resolution. it passed this body 95-0. what did it say? it said if you come back from the kyoto treaty and it does one

of two things, we will vote against it. that's 95%, 95 members. at that time there were five people absent that day. therethe two things they had we, number one, economic hardship on the united states of america. and, number two, if you come back with a treaty that doesn't treat the developing countries the same as developed countries -- in other words, if we have to do something in the united states that china doesn't have to do, that india doesn't have to do, that mexico doesn't have to do, then we'll vote against it. then of course they came back with something that -l violated both of those, so there was never any possibility that it was going to pass. and it didn't. we took up four cap and trade bills in the following 13 years. now this past year a bipartisan majority in both the senate and the house spoke again when we passed two resolutions of disapproval formally rejecting

president obama's carbon regulations. there's a little thing a lot of people don't know about and that is the c.r.a., congressional review act. that means if the president tries to do something that is against the wishes of the people, of the elected representatives, then you can pass a c.r.a., congressional review act, that will reject the regulation. and so we passed two resolutions disapproving formally what he is trying to do. so that, i say to the 196 countries that might show up here, don't show up anticipating that something's going to happen because it's not. this isn't even supported by a majority of the members in the senate. congress has continuously shown that the american people don't want the federal government imposing harsh penalties like cap and trade to address the highly contested theory of man-made global warming. the first attempt to enact cap

and trade back in 2003 would have cost our economy upwards of $400 billion a year. you know, and i say to our good friend from alaska, who is chairing right now, that every time i hear a large figure, i take the current population of my state of oklahoma. those families that actually pay federal income taxes. and i do the math. in this case this would have cost in the neighborhood of $3,000 a family. and then of course i demonstrate in just a minute, they would get nothing for that. anyway, we had back in 2003 was the first bill that came up. it would cost, and this is not being contested, upwards of $400 billion each year. and the numbers aren't really much different than what the president is trying to do right now with his clean power plant, which is incidentally, he's

trying to do it through regulations because he knows it won't pass legislation. and so the clean power plant is the centerpiece of the president's promise to the international community that the united states will cut greenhouse gases by what he claims to be between 26% and 28% by 2025. yet this plan attempts to do through regulation what the president was unable to do through legislation stands on very shaky legal ground. let's put that chart up here. most recently the supreme court joined the chorus in signaling to the president that the president's efforts on climate change are dead on arrival. this is the united states supreme court. and so if you follow this as to what is happening as we go through to show that this is something that isn't going to happen, i think we owe it to certainly 196 countries to let them know that nothing's going to happen once they get here. but i think it's kind of nice

they all want to come, they all want to tour america and spend their money and maybe take old highway 66 that goes through my state of oklahoma and see what america really looks like. i'd love to have them come, the 196. i want them to make sure they know nothing is going to happen in terms of the president's clean power plan. the supreme court dubbed the president's plan a major blow when they voted to block the presentation of the president's plan while it is being litigated by over 150 entities, including 27 states, including alaska and oklahoma, who have actually said that we are, they're filing a lawsuit to make sure that this does not happen. so we have the majority of states in america saying that not only do we not want it, but we are suing them to make sure it is not implemented. some 24 trade associations and 37 electric co-ops, they're all

filing these lawsuits. so the supreme court comes along and says until these are resolved, we're going to stay this thing. this decision delays implementation of the rule until the next president completely upends obama's paris agreement. now without the central component of his international climate agenda achieving the promises he made in paris were mere pipe dreams. even with the clean power plan, the united states would fail to meet 45% of the promised greenhouse gas emissions reductions. now with the supreme court's stay on these regulations, there could be even greater deficit. if the clean power plan is overturned, the united states will miss the marker by 60%. furthermore, the litigation on the clean power plan won't get resolved until likely 2018. this means the regulations will

be blocked for at least the next two years, as the chart shows. first, the three-judge panel right here on june 2, on the d.c. circuit will need to hear the case which will take place in june. the three-judge panel will issue a decision sometime this fall, and it will almost certainly be challenged with a request for, and reviewed by the entire d.c. circuit. then a decision from an en banc panel won't come until months later, likely by the end of the year as you can see on the chart. this decision will almost certainly be appealed to the united states supreme court. if the court decides to hear the case, a final decision is expected in late 2017 or 2018. the d.c. circuit has already decided to delay hearing the case on the clean power plan's

sister rule on carbon controls for new power plants until after november, the november elections. and that's signaling a little appetite for allowing this to be an easy, quick legal review of obama's carbon mandates. similar to the clean power plan litigation is scheduled, any decision on a new source rule -- that's on new sources of power plants -- it would likely be appealed to the supreme court with final decision expected in 2018. critically, the new source rule is a legal prerequisite for the clean power plan. so without the new source rule, there is no clean power plan. the success of obama's carbon mandates hinge not on just one, but two supreme court wins that will be decided well after he leaves office. he'll be long gone. and with a new administration

needing to fill a vacancy next year on the court, who knows how that will impact or delay consideration of pending cases. we are clearly a long ways off from knowing the outcome of the president's carbon regulations. you wouldn't know this when you hear the releases that came from paris saying this has been a great success and all that. it makes the commitment as to how many reductions we're going to have when he in his own mind knew for a fact that that was not even a possibility. so we're a long ways from knowing the outcome of the president's carbon regulations written to help fulfill his pledge to the international community, but as i said obama will be long gone before -- by that time. it's important for the 196 countries involved in the paris climate agreement to understand what i'm saying. the congress, the courts,

climate expert, industry all pointing to the same conclusion -- president obama's climate pledge is unobtainable and it stands no chance of succeeding in the united states. for the sake of the economic well-being of america, that's a good thing. and again, i'd say we still would welcome the 196 countries to come over here to enjoy america don't expect this to happen. few countries have taken note, specifically china and india. two of the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gas who are now second-guessing the legitimacy of obama's commitments. the senior fellow at the center for policy research in new delhi told "the new york times" that -- and this is a quote -- "the supreme court stay could be the proverbial string which causes paris to unravel." zo gee, the deputy director

general of china's climate center for cooperation also told "the new york times," said look -- this is a quote -- "if the united states doesn't keep its word, why should they make so many demands on us??" in another display of solidarity against obama's climate agenda, i led 34 senators and 171 house members in an amicus brief filed in the d.c. circuit arguing that the clean power plan is illegal. the plan would cause double-digit electricity price increases in 40 states and have no impact on the environment. further, these regulations would prevent struggling communities from accessing reliable and affordable fuel sources, which could eventually lead to poor families choosing between putting food on the table and even turning the heat on in the wintertime. much of the focus of this past year has been the clean power

plan in the paris agreement that is reliant on its success. the administration has the power generation sector in its cross hairs. we know that. we know that obama's war on fossil fuels, fossil fuels are coal, oil and gas. you know i go back sometimes in my state of oklahoma. if i don't have to be someplace in conjunction with my obligations with the senate armed services committee, i'm back in oklahoma every weekend, and i go back and they say -- they ask questions you don't hear in washington. they'll say now, wait a minute, if we're reliant upon fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas for 85% of the power necessary to run this machine called america and obama is successful in killing coal, oil and gas, then how are we going to run this machine called america? now, that's a logical question, but not here in washington. you don't hear that here in washington.

the clean power plan is a template for unauthorized action, and if it works in one sector, future bureaucratic agencies will use it to restructure every industrial sector in this country. the immediate threat to future -- the future generation is not climate change. the climate is always changing and will continue to do so regardless of who is in the white house. luckily, the american people have caught on to the president's climate charade, but don't take my word for it. just look at the polls. i can remember back when the first bills were coming up, that was the mccain-lieberman bill in 2003, and we looked at the bill, and at that time the polls show that it was either the number one or number two concern in america. that's all changed. a fox news poll found just the other day that 97% of americans don't care about global warming when they stack it up against

terrorism, immigration, health care and the economy, and even an abc news/"washington post" poll from last november found that the number of americans who believe climate change is a serious problem is on the decline. according to the gallup poll -- they have a big one every march. the gallup poll in march of this past year had global warming coming in dead last of environmental issues that people are concerned about. george mason did a poll of 4,000 meteoriologists -- tv meteoriologists and also dispelled the president's talking point that there is 97% consensus among scientists that humans are driving climate change. the survey found that roughly one out of three meteorologists do not believe man is the primary cause, if in fact it is happening. overall, neither the american people nor congress supports the

president, his detrimental climate change agenda and his attempt to bolster his personal legacy with empty promises. so the international community, let me wind up and say we welcome you to come over but nothing is going to happen. i'd like to mention just a couple of other things. the countries, many of them who jumped on the bandwagon, the paris meeting was the 21st annual meeting that the united nations had to try to sell the american people on this whole concept of global warming and our obligation to impose restrictions. australia was one of the first countries to join in. they did this several years ago, until they realized what it cost to try to do it, and they came back and they passed legislation taking themselves off of this thing so that they are no longer obligated to -- legally to do anything about their emissions. china -- if you stop and think about china, today china is

every ten days is building and completing a new coal-based generating plant. this is a country that supposedly went there and is making similar contributions to reducing greenhouse gases. the problem with this is that china admits that they are going to continue to build coal-fired plants until the year 2020, and then they will consider reducing their -- and we know it's not going to happen. lastly, i remember when lisa jackson was appointed by president obama. she was his first appointment as director of the e.p.a. i remember talking to her in a public meeting live on tv, and i asked her the question. i said let's assume that one of these pieces of legislation passes on cap-and-trade or that through regulation they are able to do it. is that going to have the effect of reducing overall emissions

worldwide, and she said no because this isn't where the problem is. the problem is in china, it's in mexico. in fact, you could actually say this could have the effect of increasing emissions because as we chase our manufacturing base overseas, it may go to countries like china that don't have any restrictions at all and have the effect of increasing it, not decreasing it. so it's not going to happen. i want to make sure that people are aware -- particularly that we wouldn't want them coming over under the impression that something is going to happen that's not going to happen. by the way, i ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 12:30. further, that the senate recess from 12:30 to 2:15. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. be inhofe: all right. i will yield the floor. i don't see anyone else here. i want to just comment, if i could, about the -- you can go

ahead and take that chart down if you want to -- about the bill that we have, the f.a.a. reauthorization bill. i had a couple of amendments on there and i just want to mention that both of my amendments have been accepted, and i feel very good about that. i think that we are currently considering a bill that is very necessary to go ahead and get passed. again, i commend senator thune and senator nelson for working yesterday to get through a number of important amendments that were approved by the senate,. included in the group was an amendment that i offered to direct the f.a.a. to establish rules to allow critical infrastructure owners and operators to use unmanned aircraft systems to carry out federally mandated patrols and to perform emergency response and preparation activities. now, this is one that i feel very strongly about because there is a lot of controversy

around drones, but we do know that there are some things that have to be done. pipelines, for example. it's just as easy for a drone to do it as -- and it can be done in all kinds of weathers. so this was an amendment by critical infrastructure that it would apply to. this amendment would apply to energy infrastructure such as oil and gas and renewable electric energy. it would apply to power utilities and telecommunications networks. and it would apply to roads and bridges and water supply systems operators. this amendment provides the needed congressional direction to the f.a.a. where there is clear and articulable need and i'm glad it was accepted yesterday. i think senators booker, heitkamp, whitehouse, moran and king for cosponsoring this amendment with me. i want to turn to a provision that is in the base text of the f.a.a. bill that is of

particular importance to oklahoma but impacts the entire aviation community that could commercial, military and general aviation aviators and it's because it impacts air traffic controllers. the a.t.c. instructors, it's a f.a.a. bill includes a provision. this is the bill that we're considering right now to encourage the hiring and retention of high-quality air traffic controller instructors. this is particularly important to me because the f.a.a. academy where all the air traffic controllers are trained is located in oklahoma city. these instructors who are required to have prior experience as air traffic controllers are discouraged from working full time due to existing government regulations because they are former air traffic controllers. without full-time instructors, we need four times as many part-time instructors to provide the needed ininstruction time to

train for the next generation of controllers to manage the air traffic at our control towers. so that means the f.a.a. must bear four times the costs of training new instructors, and i'm glad that this bill will remove the government regulations that discourage full-time instructors, and i thank my colleagues for working with me to address this problem. then another one, this is very significant. this is the volunteer pilot and -- the pilot organization protection. last week, i offered an amendment for consideration that supports volunteer pilots. this is a good samaritan law for pilots. across the country there are a lot of volunteer pilots. i have done this myself. i have been an active commercial pilot now for 60 years. i can remember several times one of us going down to an island that was wiped out by a hurricane just north of occur --

curacoas, venezuela. i took with me medical supplies, food, all of that. during that time if something would happen and someone would have a -- even though he was a good samaritan, he was doing it at his own expense, he could be sued for any number of exposures that are out there. people are generous with their time to provide at no cost air transportation to someone in need, specialized medical treatment. we've done that before, too. this amendment would provide those volunteer pilots limited liability protection as long as they follow appropriate procedures. as long as they have the required flight experience and maintain insurance. my amendment would not eliminate liability but would limit it in certain circumstances. furthermore, volunteer pilots who do not meet all requirements or who are guilty of gross negligence or intentional

misconduct are not -- don't have any protections. furthermore, the pilots are required to maintain liability insurance to qualify for the protection. in the 1997 volunteer protection act, congress recognized that the willingness of volunteers to offer their services is deterred by a potential for liability actions against them. i think that makes common sense, i think we all understand that. this amendment remains true to congressional intent and removes a disincentive that keeps pilots from volunteering to fly financially needy medical patients, humanitarian and charitable efforts or other flights of compassion to save lives and provide great benefit to the public. pilots are not going to get more reckless or choose to act more dangerously because they have liability protection. pilots are already at risk. they have a risk of adverse group because every time they

fly they take their own life into their hands, regardless of why they are flying. these pilots are acting out of the goodness of their hearts and willingness to help. unfortunately, accidents are infrequent and anecdotally, i'm told i understand that in the past 10-15 years there have been perhaps five or six lawsuits involving volunteer pilots and volunteer pilot organizations. so the problem isn't that it's actually going to happen but the fact that there's not a deterrent there to discourage people for doing would they want to do, what a good samaritan does. the volunteer pilot organizations that work to coordinate volunteer pilots do not need to maintain databases of lawsuits, and the results precisely because they are so infrequent. i think it's fair to say that if there were a lot of accidents resulting in lawsuit, the

f.a.a., the ntsb and volunteer pilot organizations themselves would be investigating whether volunteer pilot activity was a safe activity to begin with. the larger concern for volunteer pilots and volunteer pilot organizations is the deterrence effect that the fear of liability creates keeping people from volunteering as pilots and preventing a needy service from being provided. so it's more about what the lawyers say the potential could be and that has a direct impact on recruitment for volunteer pilots. looking ahead if a pilot is ever successfully sued in his or her -- and his or her assets are at risk, it would be too late to act to prevent a mass exodus of volunteer pilots. this amendment about making sure there continue to be volunteers and are willing to provide much needed assistance. the amendment is not agreed to yet, but it recognizes the value

of volunteer pilots and their contribution to the public. i urge my colleagues to support -- be supportive of this effort. in conclusion, let me thank again senator thune for his leadership and senator nelson, too, in bringing this bill to the floor. i look forward to a robust amendment process. in fact, i would encourage right now, i would encourage anyone who has an amendment to come down, present his amendment, talk about it because one of the problems we had back during the highway bill was we couldn't get the people to bring their amendments down and it delayed it several weeks. it was totally unnecessary. so i encourage people to do that. then i would encourage the house to take up this bill and hopefully to pass this bill. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president, today, april 12, is equal payday. ms. hirono: equal payday means women have to work more than four months longer to catch up to what on average men made in 2015. the significant pay disparity has been going on for decades, generations even. even though it is against the law and has been against the law since the passage of the equal pay act in 1963. the gender pay gap persists across all states and nearly all occupations. as we seek to build a 21st century work force, more than 73 million working women are at a disadvantage because of pay inequity and other barriers

based on gender. while we have come a ways from the days of overt pay discriminations, such as the 1930's when the federal government no less required women to be paid 25% less than their male counterparts. the pay gap exists, persists. it's bad enough that women with equal education and experience get paid less, it gets worse. a recent new york university study found that when women begin to enter predominantly male occupations, pay in those fields decreased overall. for example, when women began to pursue careers in design, wages dropped more than 30%. when they entered careers in biology, wages dropped 18%. the study also showed the converse. when men entered fields previously dominated by women, such as computer programming,

wages increased. the bottom line is that these studies show that women's work is less valued than men's. this discrimination won't change because we don't like it or that we hope it will. it will only begin to change if we take action. that's why i joined senator mikulski in continuing our call to pass the paycheck fairness act. this legislation would allow women to compare their salaries without fearing retaliation. how can a woman find out if there's pay discrimination going on in her workplace if she can't even find out what others are being paid? the bill would also require employers to prove that difference in pay for men and women doing the same work are not related to gender. while the gender pay gap affects all women, i want to focus this

morning on inequity in the fields of science, technology, engineer ndz and math -- engineering and math, stem. we need to promote stem to remain competitive in the global economy. stem careers are among the highest paying positions and are some of the most sought after by employers. and to keep our country's historical leadership in stem over the next decade, economists say we need to create a million more stem careers than we currently are creating. we will lose our competitive edge unless the number of women earning stem degrees keeps pace with their growing share of the population. but of course a reminder again, women in the stem fields earn less than men. for example, on average, women engineers earn just 82% of what their male counterparts earn. female doctors' starting salaries are almost $so,000 --

$20,000 less than their male counterparts, even after accounting for factors like specialty and location. in addition to facing lower wages, women in stem often must overcome constitutional barriers, cultural stereotypes, and sexual harassment. these barriers permeate every level of the stem career pipeline. they start as early as in middle school and continue throughout one's career and lead to women and minorities disproportionately giving up interest in stem careers. at the university of hawaii, men earned more than five times the number of computer science bachelor's degrees as women. in the college of engineering, men earned three times as many bachelor's degrees. these kinds of numbers in stem education are not unique to hawaii. and even when women overcome the odds and pursue careers in stem

fields, they continue to face gender biases that can affect the hiring, promotion, and career advancement for women in stem. for instance, researchers found that women in stem encounter bias judgments of their competentes and higher ability. they also receive less faculty encouragement and financial rewards than identical male counterparts when negotiating salary packages. studies show that when women in stem decide to become mothers, they're perceived as less competent and less committed to hard work and offered fewer jobs and lower salaries. in comparison, men are not penalized for being fathers. and if that wasn't enough, women in stem often experience workplace harassment. recently in the new york times, university of hawaii geo biology

professor hope jaron shared an e-mail that was sent to a former student from a male colleague who works in the same lab as the student. and this e-mail read in part -- quote -- "all i know is that from the first day i talked to you, there hadn't been a single day or hour when you weren't on my mind. that's just the way things are and you're going to have to deal with me unless one of us leave leaves." in the age of social media, these kinds of totally inappropriate e-mails are all too common. according to professor jaron, this former student feels like she can't rely on human resources because she's heard stories from female colleagues about how sex yawl harassment happens -- sexual harassment happens -- quote -- "all the time" in their organization but no action is taken. these stories are all too common. again merely condemning this kind of environment is not enough. merely hoping that change will occur is not enough.

we can and must do more to even the playing field for women in stem. and that's why today i'm introducing the stem opportunities act to combat the systemic issues that can lead to women losing interest in stem and leaving stem careers basically in droves. the stem opportunities act helps federal science agencies and institutions of higher education identify and share best practices to overcome barriers that can affect the inclusion of women and other underrepresentative groups in stem. the stem opportunities act also allows universities and nonprofits to receive competitive grants and recognition for mentoring women and minorities in stem fields. mentoring programs, such as my we economic development board, women in technology program, and the native hawaiian science and engineering mentoring program at

the university of hawaii have both seen tremendous success. the women in technology program supports those like deanna garcia who was first introduced to stem through women in technology and now is a mentor to girls who want to follow in her footsteps. this is what deanna said -- quote -- "women in technology gave me the skills, confidence and support i needed. because of their networking and strong ties within the community, i was not only able to find an internship but a career in i.t. because of the women in technology program, i can also pay it forward to current students and show them during career days or tours i'm a product of the program and hope to inspire them to pursue a path in stem just like i did." deanna's story is just one of many successes that programs like women in technology have and i ask unanimous consent to

enter into the record testimonials on the success of existing stem programs. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. hirono: i want to thank congresswoman bernice johnson of texas who legislation laid the groundwork for the stem opportunities act and my colleagues, senators peters, marie gillibrand, bloomenthal, markey, cantwell and merkley for supporting this effort. working together i know we can do better. i know we can assure that women who want to pursue stem careers can do so in a supportive environment without fearing harassment. on equal payday we are reminded of how far we have to go to achieve equality and i urge my colleagues to support the paycheck fairness act, the stem opportunities act, and other legislation that would help close the gender gap in our work force. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. a senator: i want to thank the senator from high for her leadership on this issue. i will be yielding the floor to the lead sponsor of today's effort. mr. durbin: our nation is built on the belief that anyone that works hard should have the opportunity to achieve the american dream. yet there are women across this country who are doing the same job as their male colleagues and being paid less. that's why today on national equal payday, i stand with my fellow senators to renew our efforts to ensure equal pay for equal work. 50 years after the passage of the equal pay act, women still earn only 79 cents on every dollar paid to a man. and this wage gap is even worse for women of color. african-american women who work full-time make only 60 cents for every dollar paid to white males. hispanic women 55 cents. women are paid less even when factors such as age, education, occupation, and work hours are

taken into consideration. in nearly every occupation in our country, women's median earnings are less than their male competitors. it's no different for women in my state of illinois, the median earning for illinois women $10,000 less than the median earning for men. and while african-american women in illinois make slightly more than the national average, hispanic women are paid even less, 48 cents on the dollar. now think about that. hispanic women making less than half the earnings of their male coworkers who have similar levels of education and who do the same job. this isn't right and it isn't fair. the gender wage gap translates into nearly $11,000 less in median earnings for women each year and over $430,000 in lost wages over a lifetime. now that women are many times the sole or primary bread winners in four out of ten families, this means less money for food and housing and

education. it's no wonder that the poverty rate for female head of households continues to be disproportionately high. and this disparity follows women into their retirement since retirement savings and social security are based on income earned. in illinois the average weekly social security benefit for female retirees is 77.3% of the afternoon for illinois males her week. while female retirees receive less on average compared to men under social security, women tend to live longer and spend more on medical care. forcing them to do more with less. what would happen if we closed this wage gap? amazing things. 60% of women would earn nor they were paid the -- would earn more if they were paid the same wage as their male counterparts and nearly two-thirds of single working mothers would receive a pay increase. the poverty rate for women would be cut in half. it would mean fewer families in

poverty, fewer families that need safety net programs. it would also mean that women and their families would have more to spend on basic goods and services, that's good for our economy. what do we have to do to close this wage gap? well, we could pass the paycheck fairness act introduced by my colleague, senator mikulski, and my friend and colleague, senator murray. employers still maintain policies that punish employees who voluntarily share salary information with coworkers. this makes it nearly impossible for employees to find out whether they're being paid fairly. this bill would provide women the same remedies for pay discrimination as people who are subjected to discrimination based on race and national origin. it would also close rope holes in current law -- loopholes in current law that prevent retaliation against workers who disclose their wages. the lily led better.

this is the first law signed into law by president obama in 2009. senator mikulski, you remember that day, don't you? ms. mikulski: oh, yes. mr. durbin: because president obama signed the bill and took the first pen he used to sign it and handed it to you. i thought, that is entirely appropriate that a senator who has dedicated her life to this kind of fairness to women at work would receive the first pen for the first bill signed into law by this new president. my republican clerks why aren't you with us on this issue? don't you agree that your daughter should be paid as your son for doing the same work? it really is a basic issue of fairness. it shouldn't have anything to do with party labels. so we invite you to join us. this shouldn't be a partisan issue at all. certainly for the women at work, it's not partisan. it's just a matter of fairness. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and yield the floor.

ms. mikulski: mr. president, i come to the in regard to urge my closing to support equal pay for equal work for women. the president is right up the street at the civil belmont houshouse. this is the home to the women's party in which so muc organizind strategizing took flies get women trite vote. the president is up there declaring that building a national monument to commemorate the tremendous work of -- that was involved in getting suffrage. under the antiquities act that is his right to create that. but it's not only the building that we want to preserve. i.tit's not only the records ofe battle for suffrage that we want to preserve and be able to

display. it is really what it stands for, the fact that women are included fully in our society. we had to fight every single day and every single way to be able to advance ourselves. even when the men were here in philadelphia writing the constitution, thinking great thoughts and doing great deeds, abigail adams was back in new england running the family farm, keeping the family together, and she wrote john a letter saying, don't forget the ladies because, if you do, we will foment our own revolution. in our country, we call revolutions social movements where people organize -- ordinary people organize and mobilize to accomplish great deeds to move democracy forward. it took us over 150 years to get the right to vote in 1920.

we're coming up on the anniversary of suffrage. but i.t. not only that we got the vote. it's what the vote means. we want to be able to participate fully in our society. we wanted to be able to exercise our voice in terms of choosing leaders who will choose the right policies and along the way we've been advocating those policies. and in 1963 working with the president who was committed to civil rights, lyndon johnson, the equal pay for equal work was passed as for as the great step forward in three major civil rights bills. we thought that we had settled the issue, but oh, no ... 50 years later we have only gained 19 cents -- 19 cents -- and at that rate it will take us to 2058 to get equal pay for equal

work. that's not the way it's got to be. that's the way it shouldn't be. and we need to make sure we eliminate the barriers and impediments that keep this from happening. when we woim figh women fight fl pay, we're often redlined, pink-slipped or intimidated. we're often said, why are you doing? and then we're often harassed for doing it. well, people might say, well, senator barb, didn't you take care of that when we passed the lesht lesht in 2009. what the legislation did and i am a he 10 glad of what we did, was keep the courthouse doors open so that we kept open the statute of limitations. but now we need to pass legislation to end the loophole

that are often strangleholds on women getting equal pay in the first place. now, i know that i have legislation pending called the paycheck fairness act. that paycheck fairness act does three things. first of all, it stops retaliation for even sharing pay information in the workplace. right now if you ask -- you're forbid ton tell or get -- you're forbid ton tell or get fired. if you ask, you're forbidden to tell or get fired. or if you are a wonderful man working side by side with a woman and you want her to know that as a nurse, as a computer software engineer what your pay is and there is an in, she could

get fired, he could get fired. this is wrong. we also want to stop employers for using any reason to pay women less. oh, he has a better education. use the same education for the same job. we're willing to compete. we're out there -- more women are in college. more women are phi beta cap pass. more women are getting ahead. then we hear, oh, he's got to be paid more because he's the breadwinner? well, what are we? crumbs? if he wins the bread, we want to be winners, too. very often it is women who are in the marketplace who are now the sole breadwinner or also a significant breadwinner. and the men -- or the partner that they love -- says, hello. we want you to get equal pay for equal work as well. so we don't want to hear, he is a breadwinner. we don't want the crumbs

anymore. we want to be paid equal pay for equal work. we also want punitive damns for women who are -- we also want punitive damages for women who are discriminated against. back pay alone is not a strong enough deterrent. i want my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to know that they have ideas. one of my colleagues spoke on the floor earlier today. i have such admiration for her. she's a fine senator and she agrees with the thrust of the press conference we had. we faced this the in the past where we shared the same goal, but we differ on means. my means, i must say, are the way forward. these means are the way forward because it solves the problem. of course, we'll sit down and talk, have conversations and see what we could do. but at the end of the day, we face this issue. it costs more to be a woman.

women pay more for everything. women pay more in medical costs than men, sometimes as much, given the same age and the same health status. women pay a significant amount of money for child care. and, guess what? women get charged more for dry cleaning. we have to pay more for our blouses being cleaned than men to have their shirts washed and presses. we're tired of being taken to the cleaners. we're just tired of being taken to the cleaners. we want equal pay for equal work, and whether we're united states senators, whether we're nurses or executive assistants or others, we want to be paid, and we stand with the women's soccer team. they kick the ball around, but we're tired of being kicked around. so give us equal pay for equal work. pass the mikulski bieffort here

for equal pay for equal work. why should our women go to the olympics wing the gold when they -- winning the gold had they don't paid the gold? so time for a change, time for a difference, and time for seeing what we can do. i now yield the floor. ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: i want to say a very special thank you to senator mikulski for her terrific leadership on all of this. today is equal payday. from the sound of it you would think it is some sort of historic holiday commemorating the anniversary of a landmark day that our country guaranteed equal pay for women. these not what it is about. in the year 2016 at a time when wref self-driving cars and computers that sit on your wrist, women still make only 79 cents for every dollar a man makes, and we're still standing here in the united states congress debating whether a women should get fired for

asking what the guy down the hall makes for doing exactly the same job. so why do we recognize april 12 as equal payday? it took the average woman working from january 1 of last year until today to make as much as the average man made in 2015. that means she had to work an extra three and a half months in order to make what a man made last year, and that means, once again, she starts the year in hole. equal payday isn't a national day of celebration. it is a national day of embarrassment. we arwe hear a lot about how the economy is improving. unemployment is under 5%. g.d.p. continues to rise. the stock market is up. but too many families across the country feel like the game is rigged against them.

they work hard. they play by the rules. and they still struggle to make ends meet. here's the thing: they are right. the game is rigged against working families, and pay discrimination is part of that. for women, it's been a one-two punch in the gut. for decades, wages have flattened out for american workers and for women the wage gap just exoned that problem -- compounds that problem. if we closed both the productivity wage gap and the gender wage gap from 1979 to 2014, women's median hourly wages would be 70% higher today. but even though we've got solid data, the republicans in washington refuse to act. heck, they'd rather spend their time trying to defund planned parenthood health clinics and cut women's access to birth control than do anything --

anything at all -- to give working women a raise. so, yes, the game is rigged when women earn less than men for doing the same work. it's rigged when women can be fired for asking how much the guy down the hall makes for doing the same job. it's rigged when women have to choose between healthy pregnancies and getting their paychecks. it's rigged when women can get fired just for requesting a regular work schedule to go back to schedule or get a second job. and it's rigged when women earn less their whole lives so that their social security checks are smaller and their student loans are bigger. the game is rigged against women and families, and it has to stop. by standing with my colleagues today, i'm standing with women and friends of women all around the country t to demand equal py

for equal work. it is 2016, not 1916. and it's long past time to eliminate gender discrimination in the workplace. this is about economics but it's also about our values. it's about who we are as a people and what kind of a country we are trying to build for both our sons and our daughters. today we recognize equal payday and we fight today because we don't want to have to recognize it year after year after year in the future. thank you, mr. president. i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i've come to the floor today on equal payday to stand up and speak out about an issue that impacts women and families in

every state across this great country. mri rise that there is inequality in pay across this country and it's time that we do something about it. working women make up over 50% of our work force and they are working harder than ever to get ahead. but far too many are barely getting by and far too many women and children are living in poverty. in wisconsin the economy is lagging behind other states. household incomes are falling and communities across our state are experiencing job loss and layoffs. ms. baldwin: recent results have concluded that poverty in wisconsin has reached alarming levels. 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. so i am proud to join several of my colleagues today to deliver a call to action to pass the paycheck fairness act. i'd like to share the story of shannon. shannon is a single mother of three from two rivers, wisconsin. she's working hard to support her family. in order to help her family get ahead, 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. and it's not just teaching. when we look at men and women working equivalent jobs across different industries, women are

making less than their male counterparts across the country. this paycheck inequality is holding women back and it's holding our entire economy back. closing the gender pay gap would give shannon and her family more financial freedom to better deal with the daily issues that working moms face, whether it'sen awn expected car problem -- it's an unexpected car problem or children outgoing -- outgrowing their clothing or shoes, whether it's helping to pay off student loan debt or the ability to save a little bit of their paycheck to ensure that their kids have a chance for a higher education. working families across america need paycheck fairness to ensure that they have a fair shot at getting ahead. millions of american women get

up every day to work hard for that middle class dream. a good job that pays the bills, health care coverage you can rely on, a home that you can call your own a secure retirement. but instead gender discrimination in pay is holding women and their families back. let's pass the paycheck fairness act and strengthen families and our economy by providing working women with the tools that they need to close the gender pay gap. by taking action we will show the american people our commitment to building an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. before i yield, i wanted to take a moment to thank and recognize the senior senator from maryla maryland, barbara mikulski for

her tremendous leadership on this issue. it's been an honor to serve alongside such a champion for women and families, and i'm looking forward to continuing this particular fight together and winning this fight together. thank you and i yield back. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland maryland. a senator: first let me thompg senator baldwin for her comments -- thank senator baldwin for her comments. i agree with her statement and i'm very proud of the senior senator from maryland and the leadership that senator mikulski has shown on gender issues. this bill on paycheck fairness is just the most recent example of her extraordinary leadership throughout her career on gender equity issues. mr. cardin: i particularly wanted to be here not to say how proud i am of senator mikulski but also that the paycheck fairness act is not about women. it's about families and it's

about our economy. it's about fairness, about american values. it affects everyone in our country and we all should be personally engaged to making sure paycheck fairness becomes the law. to me it's outrageous that a woman has to work five days, the same work that a man works four days with the same pay. that's inherently unfair and needs to be corrected. and the paycheck fairness act would do that. i know that we are on equal payday which basically reflects how long women have to work basically without getting a paycheck in order to get paid for the same amount of work that a man does at the same level. that's just not american. it's not fair. mr. president, i had the privilege of being, as the chair knows as a member of the senate foreign relations committee, the rarpging democrat -- ranking democrat on the foreign relations committee. as the president knows, america

-- one of the things we look at is how well other countries deal with basic rights. one of those rights is how they treat their women. and one of the barometers determining how well a country does is how well do they treat women. if they treat women well, they generally are doing much better. the truth of the matter is women in many cases do better investments than men. they invest in children. they invest in families. they invest in economic growth whereas men are more likely to invest in -- we see economic growth where women are treated fairly in other countries. so it's an important value for america and we have promoted gender equity issues in our foreign policy and our development assistance, in our diplomacy. but for us to be effective globally, we first need to take care of our issues at home. and the paycheck fairness would do exactly that. it would deal with the issue of fairness in the workplace in

america. and we are not where we need to be. everybody talks about the fact that women aren't pay as -- paid as much and that's true but if you happen to be a minority, it's even worse. so we need to take care of this for the sake of the american economy, for our values, et cetera. mr. president, i've introduced legislation that would allow us to pick up the ratification of the equal rights amendment so that we could have in the constitution of the united states the fairness of no gender discrimination. this would make it easier. we only need three states to ratify to become part of our constitution. the late justice scalia noted accurately that there's nothing in the constitution that requires discrimination against women but there's nothing in the constitution that protects against discrimination based upon gender. so we can do a better job in fundamental changes, but what we can do in this congress now is

paycheck fairness. that can get done in this congress and can be effective this year and can be the legacy of this congress. i would urge my colleagues let's do that. let's -- we all talk about gender equity issues. with the bill that's pending on paycheck fairness, we can act and we can act now and we can make a major change in american policy that will not only be fair to women but be fair to all americans and allow our economy to grow. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. a senator: thank you, mr. president. i'm pleased to join my esteemed colleague from maryland who was here with a number of other people to talk about the need to pass the equal pay act to make sure that we end once and for all paycheck discrimination against women. mrs. shaheen: i think the american people believe very strongly in fairness, equal treatment and a level playing

field for everyone because these are core american values. i think that's why people find it shocking and unacceptable that women in the united states continue to be denied equal pay for equal work. more than half a century ago, president kennedy signed into law the equal pay act and yet today wage discrimination continues as an ugly reality across our nation. women earn only about 79 cents for what -- for every dollar men earn and it's a disparity that exists at all levels of education in nearly every industry across hundreds of occupations, from elite professionals to everyday blue collar works. there -- workers. there are complex factors that contribute to the gender pay gap but according to a new study by the joint economic committee, as much as 40% of the pay gap can be attributed just to outright

discrimination. 40% discrimination. i think probably most people who have watched tv in the last couple of weeks have seen one particularly egregious example that's been cited, and that is of the women's soccer team, the u.s. women's soccer team whose members make only about one-quarter of what their male counterparts make. both the women's and men's soccer teamwork for the same employer, the u.s. soccer federation, but the women's -- and the women's team generates significantly more revenue than the men. it'its -- it's won the world cup three times, has been olympic champions four times and been the world's top ranked team for nearly two decades and yet they're paid only a quarter of what men make. it's hard to understand that under any circumstances except outright discrimination. but as outrageous as that case is, the wage gap is really

damaging to the women out there, the 40% of american women who are sole or primary bread winners and households with children, to the women who are waitresses and certified nursing assistants and secretaries who work at jobs where equal pay is not only about fairness but it's also about providing adequately for their families. it's about being able to afford internet access to their kids can do their homework. it's about paying for their child's inhaler. there is a lot that women bread winners can do with that extra $10,800 that women would earn on average if it were not for pay discrimination. i also serve as the ranking member on the senate's small business and entrepreneurship committee. and so i've seen how similar

gender gaps confront women-owned small businesses. just as women on average are paid 21% less than men, a recent commerce department study found that the odds of businesses owned by women winning a federal contract are about 21% lower than for otherwise similar companies, for male-owned enterprises. so in workplaces across america, women are speaking out more and more who are demanding equal pay. it's time for congress to do our jobs as well. and i know from experience that legislation can make a difference. as governor i signed a law to prohibit gender-based pay discrimination in new hampshire and to require equal pay for equal work. now we haven't made as much progress as i would like at this point, but at the time we signed

that law, women in new hampshire were making 69% of their male colleagues' wages. today they're making 76% or a little less than the national average. back in the early 198 on's i served on new hampshire's commission on the status of women and i chaired a report on employment in new hampshire. and at that time women were only making 59 cents for every dollar a man earned. and the conclusion of that report was that this has an impact not just on women but it's an impact on of course their whole family. it's something that their children, that their husbands, that their entire family is affected by. and if we can close this pay gap for women, it helps not only the women who make up two-thirds of minimum wage workers but it helps their families. it helps pull their kids out of poverty. we need to do more at the

federal level. and that's why i strongly support the paycheck fairness act because this legislation would empower women to negotiate for equal pay. it would it would close loopholes that courts created and the laws that are already in place and it would create strong in m incents for employers to obey these laws. this legislation is about basic fairness. it's about equal treatment. it's about creating a level playing field in the workplace for our daughters and ash granddaughters -- and our granddaughters and forever american. and it's also about making sure that their spouses, their children, their relatives benefit from making sure that they have the same access to equal pay as the men in the workplace do. so i urge my colleagues to support the paycheck fairness act. 16 years into the 20th century, it is way past time to

make good on our promise of equal pay for equal work in the united states. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, we are 103 days into 2016, and on equal payday that number takes on significant, unfortunate meaning. women have to work 103 extra days to match what men earned last year. that's unacceptable. workers should be paid fairly for the work they do, regardless of their gender.

and closing the wage gap would help grow our economy from the middle out, not from the top down. i'm glad to be here today with my colleagues to recognize equal payday, to stand up on behalf of women across the country, and to renew our call to put an end to the wage gap. last year i heard from a woman named sandy from seattle. right out of college, sang did i got a -- sandy got a job at a local nonprofit. after a couple months of work, she was chatting with a male colleague and found out he was offered 20% more in salary for doing the exact same job. she thought there'd been some mis-stage of but when she asked about it, her boss told her, they couldn't offer her a pay raise because of budget constraints. you know, sandy's story is so common. on average, women today make 79 cents for every dollar a man makes.

and the pay gap is even wider for women of color. that's not just unfair to women, it hurts our families and it hurts our economy. today, 60% of working families rely on wages from two earners. and more than likely, women are the primary breadwinner. it is critical to our nation's economy as a whole. we need to pass the paycheck fairness act to help close the wage gap. i so are aappreciative mikulski's tremendous leadership and passion on this issue. her paycheck fairness act would make it unlawful for employers to retaliate against workers for discussing pay, and it does so in a commonsense way that reflects today's reality in the workplace. it would empower women to

negotiate for equal pay. the it would close significant loopholes in the equal pay act. and it would create strong incentives for employers to provide equal pay. passing the paycheck fairness act is a critical step on a long list of things we could do to build our economy from the middle out and make sure our country works for all families, not just the wealthiest few. no matter where they live, no matter their background, no matter what career they choose, on average women earn less than their male colleagues, even women soccer players on the u.s. national team. the women's national team has won three world cup titles. they've won four owe lum pick gold medals. but despite all of their success, they are not immune from the pervasive wage gap. in fact, on average, as players they earn four times less than

their male counterparts. and i.t. not just about the money. think about the message the wage gap sends to young girls who see women valued less than men for doing the same work. and in the case of the women's soccer team, doing so much better. so i'm glad members of the women's soccer team are taking a stand to gain equal pay for the work they do, and in the senate we're going to keep championing the paycheck fairness act to make equal pay a reality for women across the country. mr. president, i actually look forward to an equal payday in the future that we can actually celebrate once we finally achieve pay equity, regardless of gender. and until then, i along with my colleagues are going to keep fighting on behalf of all women and families until they get the equal pay they have earned. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president,

i'm very pleased to be here with both senators from washington, one of the few states who have two senators that are women, and i.t. great to be here with both of them. i'd also like to thank senator barbara mikulski for leading the effort for the paycheck fairness act. she is the longest-learning woman in congressional -- longest-serving woman in congressional history. she has opened many doors for all of us. when she first wrote her book about women in the senate, it was called "nine and counting." ing with today we are counting even higher as there are 29 women in the senate. bash bra mikulski was the first woman to chair the senate appropriations committee. because of her groundbreaking work in this congress, ten committees have either a chair or ranking member who is a woman. today president obama formally dedicated a new national monument to honor women's suffrage and equal rights. i am a cosponsor of the bill.

the beaumont national monument is named after alice paul and alva belmont, two leaders of the national women's party and will house an extensive collection that documents the history of the movement for women's equality. so what has happened in the last decade or so? well, in 2009, we passed the lilly ledbetter act to make sure that workers who face pay discrimination based on gender, race, age, religion, or national or general have access to the courts. now it is time to prevent that pay discrimination from happening in the first place. we all know women have made big strides in our country and in our economy over the last few decades. women are getting advanced degrees. they're starting new businesses. the fortune 500 now has 20 women

c.e.o.'s. that doesn't sound like much, but when you look back just a few decades, there weren't any. yet, despite all the progress we've made and all the gaps that we're starting to close, women in this country still only earn around 80 cents for every dollar a man makes. when two-thirds of today's families rely all or in part on the mother's income and in about 40% of families the mother is in fact the main breadwinner, this pay gap has real consequences for american families and our entire economy. i wanted to focus on one issue at the end here and that is retirement savings, which is not maybe the first thing you think about when you think about a pay gap. it is probably not what our young pages think about. they don't think, well, what about the retirement gap? but in fact it is something everyone should be thinking about. when i was a senate chair of the joint economic committee, i release add report showing how

equal pay affected women's financial sciewmplet the report shows that lower wages impact women all throughout their, wog lives and these lower lifetime earnings translate into less security in retirement. according to the j.e.c. report, the annual average mcnor women 65 and old including pensions, private savings and social security is $11,000 less than it is for men. social security retirement benefits are based on a person's lifetime earnings, and the average monthly benefit for female retirees is 77% less. the same thing goes for pensions. a woman's pension income is 53% that of men. women also receiving smaller pension checks from federal, state, and local pension plans. a recent study showed that the average woman was able to save less than half what the average man was able to save in an ira. so we have here, first of all,

women are making less to begin with. that's what we're talking about today. so that means they save less, less money in social security. secondly, they live longer. that's great, but it means they're going to have less money. and then finally we have the fact that they are often a single breadwinner. 40% of the households, the fact that they have -- take time off often to have children, that's the third factor that leads to less savings. so what we should be doing is how we can address that savings gap and there's ways we can address it with making it easier to save and making it easier to set up 401(k)'s and ira's and looking at the millennials and how we can respond to what is an increasingly different economy for young people. but we also can simply make sure that women make the same amount as men when they do the same jobs. it was the late paul well o