javier solano, beef the lisbon treaty had tremendous amount of power and influence. catherine ashton and fred reek mogrini. that is simply a fact. the iraq war, i wasn't saying that the e.u., i wasn't focusing on the e.u. there. i was focusing on the ideology of global governance and how the ideology of global governance has hindered, has hindered the war on terrorism. and using, and. >> we're going to break away from the last few minutes of this. take you live now to the floor of the u.s. senate where they continue work on setting federal aviation administration policy. live coverage now on c-span2. xtend increased expensing limitations and for other purposes.

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mrs. gillibrand: mr. president? i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. gillibrand: thank you. mr. president, after another whole year, a very unfortunate milestone has once again arrived. today is equal payday. this is the day in 2016 when the average working woman after all

last year and the first three months of this year, finally earns as much money as the average man did only during last year. so if you started the clock in 2015 the average woman had to work an extra 103 days to earn the same amount of money as a man. imagine two people who were both hired at a company. they both work hard, they have the same amount of experience, psalm amount of qualifications -- same amount of qualifications but they have one very important difference: one of those workers is a man and the other is a woman. as a result, they will not be paid the same. right now on average, for every dollar a man makes a woman makes only 79 cents. that's the average for all women. many other groups of women have it even worse. working mothers earn only 75 cents for every dollar working fathers make. african-american women earn just 60 cents for every dollar a

white male makes. and our latina women have it the worst. they earn just 55 cents for every dollar a white male makes. the united states of america still doesn't pay its men and women equally for the same exact work and that is unacceptable that in the year 2016 we are still fighting to fix this basic problem. think about how this pay gap affects our families. more women than ever are earning their family's paycheck. four out of every 10 mothers are either the primary breadwinner of the family or the only breadwinner in their family. and because of this pay gap their children are getting shortchanged. mr. president, we need equal pay for equal work. it shouldn't matter if you are a nurse or a lawyer, or even one of the best female athletes in the world. just a couple weeks ago the women's national soccer team

filed a federal lawsuit against the u.s. soccer federation over wage discrimination. i strongly support these women and they are doing the right thing. they are raising their voices about a serious injustice. and i urge all of my colleagues in this chamber to listen to these women listen to the women in their states, listen to the women in this country that deserve equal pay for equal work. the women on our national soccer team are some of the most successful american athletes alive, and even they have to deal with this pay gap. it's shameful and inexcusable that women are still paid less than men for the exact same work in this country. mr. president, i urge everyone here to support the paycheck fairness act. let's get with the times. let's finally make it illegal to pay our women less than our men for the very same work. i yield the floor and i suggest

the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from south dak thune mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president i rise today to address the senate's ongoing effort to reauthorize the federal aviation administration. the bill before us today was described in "the washington post" as one of the most passenger friendly f.a.a. reauthorization bills in a generation thanks to its robust new consumer protections. but even more importantly this bill includes strong new security measures that address the threat that isis and other terrorist groups pose to airline passengers. in the wake of the brussels attacks, travelers are understandably nervous about the threats they face when flying, especially given terrorist preference for targeting transportation. here in the senate we are doing everything that we can to address that threat. and i'm proud that this bill includes new protections to prevent an attack like the one

in brussels from happening at a u.s. airport. the f.a.a. reauthorization includes the most comprehensive set of aviation security reforms since president obama first took office. to prevent airport insiders from helping terrorists, we've included measures to improve scrutiny of individuals applying to work in secure airport areas. this is especially critical as many experts believe the bombing of a russian passenger jet leaving egypt had help from an aviation insider. we've also included provisions to better safeguard public areas outside security in airports and to help reduce passenger backups. these reforms could help prevent a future attack like the one on the brussels terminal last month which targeted a crowd of passengers in an area where the attackers didn't even need tickets. because staying ahead of threats needs to be a priority. we also included additional

cyber security provisions and added antiterrorism security features for new aircraft. the security reforms in this legislation were actually developed months ago as follow-ups to congressional oversight, independent evaluation of agencies, and the study of existing problems. but these reforms have gained new urgency in the wake of recent attacks by isis. we need to constantly monitor and stay ahead of threats so that we can continue to ensure that our air trappings system is the safest in -- transportation system is the safest in the world. mr. president, more than any other reason i support the federal aviation administration reauthorization act of 2016 because it will make the traveling public safer. for all of the many ways it improves our air transportation system the provisions to keep americans safe stand out is especially deserving of our support and is heightening the

need to send this legislation on to the house. mr. president i yield back time and would suggest the absence. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i have 10 unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. a senator: i would ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection corn mr. president today is equal payday and -- mr. cornyn: mr. president today is equal pay today. i'm proud of the fact that one of our members on this side of the aisle senator fischer is taking the lead and pointing out this is not a partisan issue. i know people find that hard to believe in washington where everything seems like a partisan issue, but the fact is that both republicans and democrats and the unaffiliated believe that people who perform the same work ought to be compensated in the same way. so i'm proud of the work senator phish are is -- senator fisher is doing and wanted to make note of the fact in is equal payday. some of our colleagues across the aisle a different view and do think they have a better way to deal with this but it's purely a difference in tactics, not in terms of goals. equal pay for equal work.

yesterday i talked about the fact that this is also crime victims week and that's what i want to talk about a little bit more because there are a lot of people that come to washington, big companies people can hire lobbyists, lawyers accountants other experts to try to make their case to congress but we don't have a crime victims lobby per say. i mean, we have organizations volunteer organizations by and large that try to provide a voice to the voiceless and people who need to be represented here, but the fact of the matter is by listening to those victims of crime and to those who volunteer to help them here in the nation's capital we can make a big difference in the lives of crime victims in this country. i highlighted the justice for victims of trafficking act as an example of what we can accomplish when we get past the partisan talking points and

instead focus on a common goal. and i pointed out that that legislation which is the most -- i think the major -- the most significant human trafficking legislation passed in the last 25 years actually broke important ground because what it did is it used the crime -- it used the penalties and the fines paid by people on the purchasing side of the sex slave trade to be able to fund the resources to help heal the victims. typically a girl the age of 12 to 14, somebody who's maybe run away from home who thinks maybe they've fallen in love with somebody new only to find themselves trapped in modern day human slavery. but we were able to pass that legislation with a vote of 99-0 in the senate and now it's the law of the land. and i mentioned yesterday that some of the provisions, the hero program, which is designed to

provide incentives for returning veterans of the gulf war iraq and afghanistan some of them bearing the wounds of those wars to be able to use the skills they've acquired in the military to help go after child predators and other people who would take advantage of the most vulnerable in our society. but i want to talk about another opportunity where i believe congress can come together to rally behind victims and move legislation that could help save lives. on the first day of december 2013 carrie hunt dunn brought her three children to a hotel in marshal, texas a city east of dallas near the border with louisiana to visit with her estranged husband. sadly, this visit turned into tragedy. according to reports carrie's estranged husband started to attack her. while he did one of carrie's

daughters did what her parents and family had taught her to do in an emergency which is dial 911. she called for help repeatedly but she didn't realize that as in many hotels, first you need to dial 9 before you can dial out and so she kept dialing 911 to no avail not recognizing that she needed to dial 9 to get an outside line. by the time help finally arrived, carrie was unresponsive and later died leaving her three young children behind. obviously this is a terrible, heart wrenching story. i wish i could say it's an isolated event but it's made that much more tragic because the family willnow what the outcome might have been had that first 911 call actually made its way to the proper authorities.

following her death carrie's father hank, decided he had to do something to correct the problem so that tragedies like this could hopefully become a thing of the past. and this is where we have a role to play. i know some people might say well, there are a lot more important things for congress to be doing than dealing with this issue, but this is something we can do, is not partisan and we should do on an expedited basis. so earlier this year i joined with several of my colleagues including the senior senators from nebraska and minnesota to introduce something called carrie's law. a bipartisan bill that already has a companion in the house. this legislation builds on a law passed last year by the texas legislature and several other states have followed suit as well. before us we have a clear albeit a discrete problem and we have an obvious solution. this bill would ensure that people have the ability to

directly call 911 even in hotels and office buildings without having to dial an extra number. by making this simple change, we can ensure that children like carery's daughter -- carrie's daughter can make the call to help call for the assistance of law enforcement and emergency personnel to save valuable time that could make the difference between life and death and prevention of another tragedy. so we should follow the example of the states, like texas that have already done this. we can do this on a national basis. there are lives at stake we know like carrie's and i believe we have an obligation to act to keep tragedies like carrie's from happening again. so as we continue to look for ways to better support victims of crime this week, i hope we'll take another small step to help victims by advancing this

legislation. in so many instances what seem like small steps can have tremendous ramifications. i mentioned yesterday the reforms we've been able to do in terms of testing the rape kit backlog. it had been reported that as many as 400,000 untested rape kits are sitting in evidence lockers in police stations or perhaps in labs untested. and i talked a little bit about the fact that in houston alone thanks to the leadership of the then mayor and the city council working with state and federal authorities, they were able to eliminate the rape kit backlog testing and come up with 850 hits on the database that showed that these -- there were individuals whose d.n.a. was tested and located on this forensic evidence that was already in this f.b.i.

background database known as codis. so there are things we can do that may seem small that can have a dramatic impact on the lives of our constituents. and so, mr. president i would suggest that we don't give up and we continue to do what we can where we can when we can and passing carrie's law would be another important step in that direction. mr. president i yield the floor and suggest the absence. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. a senator: i ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president today beverly cleary, a storied and award-winning author is going to be celebrating her 100th birthday. mr. wyden: throughout her

66-year career, she had written more than 30 children's books selling over 90 million copies by enchanting readers of all ages with the escapades of roman romana henry ralph s. mouse and so many enduring characters with relate able themes of adventure in adolescence and friendship. miss cleary's novels have with stood the test of time and have established their place in the pains of oregon's cultural her -- heritage. beverly clean airidge. at an early age she moved to portland where she developed a passion for oregon that shines throughout the pages of her stories. for years beverly clery's

characters have called portland home and for the countless children who grew up with her writing, ms. clery's stories have been their heyday. her book series are both set in portland and continue to serve as important threads throughout oregon's literary fabric. ms. cleary's impact on the state of oregon and the city of portland have not gone unnoticed. her honors include a public k-8 school in portland. that's the beverly cleary school that some of my staff actually attended. a public art installation at the hollywood branch of the library features many of her books'

neighborhood landmarks and portland's grand park is home to a public sculpture garden with bronze statues of ramona quimby and others. it is beverly cheery's unbound passion and dedication to children's lit a chiewr that has -- literature that has earned her numerous literary awards including a national book award a newberry medal and a national medal of art. in 2000, the library of congress even named her a living legend. just as original, beverly cleary fans enjoyed reading about the lives and adventures of her characters. each new generation of young beverly cleary readers finds a similar connection with those

same characters. ms. cleary's books have sparked the imagination of so many children across america helping to instill literacy skills that last a lifetime. and when it comes to literacy, the importance of reading at an early age simply cannot be overstated. an early introduction to read something one of the most significant factors influencing a child's success in school. and it is linked to better speech and communication skills, improved logical thinking, and increased academic excellence. it is clear that young children who develop a love for reading have an upper hand both in the classroom and later in life. thanks to ms. cleary, generations of kids across the

world can experience oregon from a literary perspective. you would be hard-pressed, mr. president, to find another author who has made such a lasting impact on children's literature. so it is an enormous honor for me and a great personal pleasure to come to the senate floor this afternoon to honor beverly cleary's contributions to literary history to oregon and to children everywhere and to wish her a very happy 100th birthday. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you mr. president. mr. president, last august, several western states and

indian tribes suffered an enormous environmental disaster. it was called the gold king mine spill. in this disaster the united states environmental protection agency caused a spill of 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater into a tributary of the animus river in colorado. before, this was after. people all across the country remember this picture and the poisoning of this river by the e.p.a. this plume of toxic waste threatened people in colorado, new mexico and utah. it stretched to the land of the navajo nation and the southern ute indian tribe. when the indian affairs committee held a hearing of the gold king mine spill last september, we heard testimony from russell bigay. now, he's the president of the navajo nation, which has lands

roughly the size of the state of west virginia, very large piece of land. president bigay told our committee that for the navajo people, water is sacred and the river is life for all of us. he said today we're afraid to use the river with an emphasis, he said, on the word "afraid." the e.p.a. caused that spill more than eight months ago because it made crucial mistakes critical mistakes and it failed to take basic precautions. well, we've still not gotten answers to some very important questions. now that the snow in the rocky mountains is beginning to melt, people in this very area in the course of this river are worried that they are being victimized once again by the failures of the u.s. environmental protection agency. they want to know if melting snow is going to stirrup the lead and the mercury and the other poisons that have settled to the bottom after this

poisonous spill. they want to know if this blue river is going to turn bright yellow again. well next week i'm chairing a hearing and it's a field hearing of the indian affairs committee in phoenix arizona. we're going to be looking at the environmental protection agency's unacceptable response to indian tribes. this includes inadequate handling of the gold king mine disaster. it includes the agency dragging its feet on cleaning up the coldwater uranium mines across the navajo and the hoppe reservations. the members of these tribes deserve to hear directly from the e.p.a. they want answers about what is being done to fix this blunder. from what i've seen lately, i expect the environmental protection agency will be doing its best to avoid giving any answers at all. now, when we first invited -- "we, the indian affairs

committee," first invited the agency to send a representative to the hearing to update us, they refused. astonishing, they refused. they said that they would send written testimony instead. i don't think the e.p.a. understands how this works. we're holding this field hearing to do oversight on this catastrophe that the e.p.a. caused. this isn't optional for them. this is not supposed to be just another chance for the e.p.a. to show how uncooperative and unhelpful that they can be. so tomorrow tomorrow the indian affairs committee plans to issue a formal subpoena for the e.p.a. administrator, gina mccarthy, for her to appear at the field hearing. now, miss mccarthy testified last year when she testified before our committee in washington last september, she said that the agency was taking, her words "full responsibility" for the spill. today the agency won't even come and look these people in the eye

eye. does that sound like it's taking full responsibility? when this disaster first happened the e.p.a. didn't notify the navajo nation until a full day after the spill. after four days, the e.p.a. still had not reported to the navajo leaders that there was arsenic in the water. this disaster happened more than eight months ago. no one no one at the agency has been fired no one has even been reprimanded for their failure. so what has the e.p.a. done? well here's a headline in the "wall street journal" on friday april 8. "toxic spill fears haunt the southwest." "toxic spill fears haunt the west." in the southwest part of the country, according to this article it has been months since the agency has been back

to test the safety of the well water for the families near the river. officials in new mexico and in utah say that the e.p.a. has failed to spearhead a comprehensive plan to manage the spring runoff or even to conduct long-term monitoring. the states and the tribes are having to monitor the water quality themselves. why, you ask? well, it's because the e.p.a. wasn't planning to test enough sites or provide realtime data. and that's what people need. what could is the data if it isn't telling people that the water they're drinking right now is safe? why tell people that the water that they drank a week ago or a month ago was contaminated. they need to know about the water today. there are 200,000 people who drink from the river system that the e.p.a. poisoned last summer. why has the environmental protection agency walked away from these families? why is this agency not taking

full responsibility for making sure that this mess has been cleaned up? i'm not alone in asking that. this article about the toxic spill fears haunting the southwest in the "wall street journal" on friday goes further. they actually quote the state environment secretary from new mexico who lives there lives on the land, knows the situation and this is the state environment secretary. he says the fundamental problem is there is no engagement from the e.p.a. none. this is a specific, definite, concrete environmental disaster and it was caused by specific people at the environmental protection agency. this is about a government agency failing to do its job. they took their eye off the ball. they caused this toxic spill. and now they still are not focused on cleaning up the mess that they caused.

mr. president, like so many in washington, d.c. the e.p.a. has grown too big too arrogant too irresponsible and too unaccountable, and people in america deserve accountability. look, we all want a clean environment. that's not in dispute. we all know that the original mission of the environmental protection agency was a noble one. somewhere along the line this agency lost its way. it got preoccupied with other things and it's lost sight of its real job which is to protect the environment. instead we get this. when president begay of the navajo nation testified before the indian affairs committee last fall, he was very clear. this is what he said. he said, the navajo nation does not trust the united states e.p.a. and the we expect it to be held fully accountable.

let me repeat. the navajo nation does not trust the u.s. e.p.a. and we expect it to be held fully accountable. i think that the navajo nation and other tribes in the west are right to not trust the e.p.a. they are right to expect it to be held fully accountable and that is exactly what we intend to do with this field hearing next week. indian country and all of america need to know if the e.p.a. can do its job. from what they see here, they have serious serious doubts. these people don't need a written statement. they need to hear straight from the people in charge. that means from gina mccarthy, who is the head of the e.p.a. now, mr. president, next friday april 22, is earth day. according to press reports administrator mccarthy is planning to go to new york that day for a big media event around the paris climate change treaty.

that's what she's planning for for next friday, the day of this important hearing, a day when the e.p.a. just wants to send written testimony. it's her preference to be in new york talking about what happened in paris instead of going to arizona to face the people who her agency has abandoned. that's what she thinks is more important. that's the way this administration prioritizes its activity. a photo op in new york, not meeting with the people whose lives that her agency has devastated. the director of the e.p.a. still doesn't have her priorities straight. shouldn't have to come down to a subpoena. the environmental protection agency should have done the right thing from the very beginning, and it's up to the e.p.a. to do the right thing now. mr. president, on earth day of all days, we need to hear from

the administrator of the environmental protection agency. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. a senator: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. donnelly: mr. president i rise today to talk about the

severity of the crisis facing our domestic steel industry. workers are losing their jobs. families are losing their homes. and communities are suffering. for several years our domestic industry has been under constant attack. our steel industry is in the midst of a crisis more severe than the one experienced nearly two decades ago. global demand for steel has not kept pace with dploabl production. as a result, many of the global producers have come here to the united states to try to dump their steel. and as a result of that, domestic producers continue to lose ground, surrendering a record-high 29% market share to foreign-made steel last year. the industry currently has about a 65% capacity utilization rate. in indiana we saw an 8% downturn in production last

year. as the senator from indiana a state that accounts for one-quarter of all domestic steel capacity, i visit with steelworkers and their families to listen to their concerns about the impact of illegally traded steel flooding our market. hoosier families are worried. steel plants are idling, and more than 1,000 hoosier workers have been laid off as a direct result of the illegally dumped steel that flooded our market last year. these are the workers who come up to me at church on sundays or stop by my office. they look me in the eye and does me to explain how can other nations get to produce and sell steel under a different set of rules? these workers have never asked me or anyone else for a handout. they simply ask that all parties compete on a level playing field

because these hoosier steelworkers know how value their steel products are here and abroad. congress and the obama administration must work together to not only prevent further job losses but to work to allow the steel industry to grow. when families face the uncertainty of a plant idling, they must prepare for the worst. all the while, small businesses who reside in communities that rely on the steel industry's success, they suffer because families are no longer able to purchase goods and services and groceries and clothes and things for their home because they're just trying to sturevive. -- trying to survive. the current situation only reinforces my long-held belief that strong trade policies strengthen communities they

ensure good employment for our workers, and they maintain a level playing field to foster the kind of fair competition that leads to robust markets. however, as we know all too well such policies only work when everyone plays by the same rules. i appreciate the work of my colleagues here in the senate and across the capitol in the house who have come together and worked in a bipartisan fashion to provide the administration with the significant tools they need to combat this historic influx of foreign-made steel. as you will recall, congress recently passed the leveling the playing field act and also the enforce act to help our steel industry investigate and better fight unfair trade practices. while there's more to be done,

the administration should use these important tools we have provided to vigorously defend our domestic industry from those who willingly do not play by the rules. strict enforcement of the law is necessary to protect the domestic industry now and to deter bad actors from abusing the system in the future. good, strong communities good, strong cities, places like portage and gary and crawfords crawfordsville, and rockport are relying on the united states senate to do the right thing. we must double down on our efforts to combat the illegally traded steel coming into our markets. we must do so together, not only for the businesses and workers impacted by the onslaught of

illegally traded steel but for the children and the families and the communities who have been linked for generations to the success of our nation's steel industry. they're counting on us, and we cannot let them down. mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president i move

that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from missouri is recognized. mr. blunt: mr. president it's springtime in missouri, whether it's the border of our state that joins your state in oklahoma or all the way to iowa, we're seeing trees begin to bloom. great to be home the two weeks that we were home every day and again last weekend seeing the flowering trees sort of move from north to south. and it's one of my favorite times of year, like it is for lots of people. and i guess the flowering trees move south to north and particularly during that two weeks we were home, you could see -- not see the dogwoods and then a couple days later you'd see them further north in the state than you'd seen them before. people like the spring. they like the great weather. they like to get out and do things with their family and only to be reminded sometimes as to just how fickle the spring

weather is. the one thing that a lot of people i know, including most of us, dread in this time of year, however, is that the spring comes about the same time we have to file our taxes. that date comes this week. and if the weather's not predictable, the increasing reach of the tax code should be predictable and is predictable. ronald reagan said that republicans believe every day's the 4th of july and our friends on the other side believe every day is april the 15th. we're having that income come in now and see what happens with it. and it's the time of year we ought to look at what's happening with the money that americans work for the hard-earned dollars of american families. it's estimated that americans will pay about $3.3 trillion in if early taxes about half that

in state and local taxes a total of almost $5 trillion or 31% of all the national income in the country goes to taxes. now, mr. president if we're taking 31% of the money that every family earns at various levels of government as a country, we ought to be thinking about what happens with that and justify every penny of it. another way of looking at that number is that missourians and people across this country will spend more on taxes this year than they spend on food, clothing and housing combined. a lot of people might ask where the taxes are coming from. after all congress in 2001 and 2003 said we were cutting taxes but -- and -- but it doesn't seem to be the case when we pay

taxes on the tax bill. and while we did cut taxes as a country in 2001 and 2003, in 2009 we put a lot of taxes in place. the one prime example of what happened in 2009 is the $1 trillion tax hike in the president's health care bill. now, a trillion dollars over 10 years, mr. president's, a lot of money. it's a hundred billion dollars a year that the government hadn't been collecting in taxes but now is. the ways and means committee a few years ago asked the congressional budget office along with the joint committee on taxation, to look at what the obamacare taxes really meant and they revised that estimate up. they listed 21 tax increases including 12 tax increases on the middle class. and those 21 tax increases

amounted to that trillion-dollar tax hike. a few of these taxes have been delayed for a little bit. we were able to slow down the silly tax on medical devices. who they thought that would help when people that voted for that bill and that tax, i don't know, but an extra tax on medical devices seems unreasonable to me. i don't know any single person that ever bought a medical device because they thought they were going to have a good time with it. they bought a medical device because they thought it was necessary for their health and their capacity to do what they do. and then not only do we collect all this money not only do we collect 31% of all the money that people work for in taxes then we see the national debt continuing to increase. the national debt held by the public stands at about $13.5 trillion. but the national debt is really closer to $19 trillion because we owe a lot of money as a

country and as a people to the places it's been borrowed from from -- the social security trust fund. all 19 trillion of those dollars have to be paid back. and it's hard for most of us to even begin to think how much money that might be, $19 trillion but the gross domestic product the total value of all the goods and services produced in the country is less than that. one of the primary indicators say it's about $17.9 trillion. so another way to look at the national debt is we've managed to accumulate a national debt that's more than equal to everything the country produces in a given year. everything that americans work to make, everything we produce the value of not just the products we make but the goods and services we make is now exceeded by the national debt. there is no credible economic

measure that would indicate that a country is stronger if you have a debt that's bigger than what you produce as a country than if you had a debt that was say, no more than half the size of what you produce as a country country. and we have the debt and then we have the deficit spending. the government spends more money than it generates in revenue and the difference obviously the deficit spending that we see happen year in year. balancing the budget two decades ago wasn't all that easy to do, it required hard choices but we as a country were able to reach a bipartisan consensus that surpluses are preferable to deficits, that a country was far better off as a result that a growing economy was better than a stagnant economy and the

economy's more likely to grow if the government isn't constantly sapping for no defensible reason the economic opportunity of people spending their own money for their ideas about how to advance themselves and their family forward. one of the things that every model shows is it's easier to pay off the debt and it's easier to pay the bills of the country if, in fact, you have an economy that's growing. regulators, out-of-control deficit that is roughly a trillion dollars a year by any standard. if you look at the first year of the obama administration adjusted for inflation to today's dollars that deficit ran about $1.6 trillion. and following that, during the first term, it was $1.6 trillion. then it was $1. trillion. then it was -- then it was $1.4 trillion. then it was $1.3 trillion.

then it was $1.1 trillion. it sounds like the deficit is going down. but this is $1.1 trillion in a budget that just 20 years ago that was balanced. $1.1 trillion in a budget that a decade earlier and a little more than that had been a balanced budget. the average deficit over the last eight years if you accept this year's number, is $963 $963 billion, right at a trillion dollars. and we're borrowing that money and the $19 trillion that came before it, we're borrowing that money at the lowest interest rate almost imaginable. what happens if the borrowing rate goes from where it is to, say, 35%? we already see -- to, say 5%? we already see the deficit -- servicing the debt is quickly becoming the third biggest government payment. social security, medicare paying the debt. things like defending the

country a transportation system that works, health care research -- all of those things are way below just simply the interest that we would have on the debt and that's at the lowest rates ever. federal borrowing is really nothing more than a tax on the future. federal borrowing is nothing more than saying we want to have what we want to have right now and we're willing for somebody else to pay the bill for what we want to of have right now. as people sit down that haven't filed their taxes already over the next 48 hours or so and make that final calculation and look at what they made and look at what they're paying as they've done that over the last few weeks and will do that over the next couple of days, this is an important time for people to talk to the people that they elect to public office and say what -- what do you -- what do you think you're gaining by not

making the tough choices? what do you think you're gaining by not doing the things that we've already agreed we need the government to do and doing those really well rather than coming up with yet another program that may or may not produce results? and, you know, mr. president the health care plan is one of those. i had a hospital group in this morning and they said they'd done a calculation in their hospital of what people were paying -- what part of the bill people were paying with their personal money as opposed to insurance that they had tried to protect themselves against health care costs. before the fordable care act -- before the affordable care act and what they're paying now and what they found out was before the affordable care act they were paying 10% of the bill with personal money. before the affordable care act the average person with insurance was paying 20% of the bill. and so the highest fastest

fastest-growing level of debt that that hospital had was people with insurance who weren't able to pay the bill because their deductible was so high. so we've managed to raise a trillion dollars in taxes insure almost no one in terms of total numbers. we still have about 30 million people uninsured. and the people that are insured don't have in so many cases the coverage that they had before. so people need to be asking what we're doing to mortgage the future and what are we getting out of that. just as missourians have a responsibility to ensure that their taxes are paid by april the 15th, we have a responsibility to ensure that their tax dollars are wisely used or not taken from them at

all. the fiscal policy of the obama administration over the last eight years i think has been an irresponsible way to spend people's money. the cost-benefit analysis that we asked for comes back with silly things like people's -- we've evaluated how much people worry about something or we evaluated how much people's feelings are hurt. what we ought to be evaluating is what do we get out of these excessive rules and regulations and regulators and inspectors that truly is a benefit as opposed to what do we get that's just one other additional burden that people are asked to pay for? and even worse than that, not only that people are asked to pay for but they're asked to pay for and ask their children and grandchildren to pay for by seeing this accumulated debt. we hear from our friends on the other side that to engage in

excessive spending to keep the economy afloat following the recession, that the only way to do that is for the government to play a bigger role in the economy. and what do we have to show for that? the economy is still struggling. the recovery has been unbelievably sluggish at best. wages are stagnant for middle-class families, and why? one of the reasons is high taxes k combined with the onslaught of red tape and regulators that are out of control coming out of this administration have really made stimulated growth in the economy hard to find. and the challenges of getting healthy economic growth and getting our fiscal house back in order will only become more daunting as the direct and indirect cost of things like the president's health care plan accumulate. i think we ought to all commit ourselves here as people are

coming to the end of this tax-paying season to work together to work on both sides of the capitol with both sides of the capitol and both ends of pennsylvania avenue to find solutions for an overtaxed middle class for out-of-control spending unsustained long-term debt and interest payments. we need a flatter fairer, less complicated and more competitive tax structure. if we're going to ask the american people to send 31 cents out of every dollar they make at all levels -- some people send in a lot more, some people send in a little less, but 31 cents out of every dollar of income in the country goes to government. government has a real obligation to see that every one of those 31 cents is spent for a good purpose or not taken from people at all. and with that, mr. president, i

would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. moran: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to address the senate as if in morning hour. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: mr. president thank you. just a month ago i was on the senate floor talking about the struggles of a number of kansas veterans as they attempted to utilize the veterans choice program that congress passed now nearly two years ago. that program is being implemented by the u.s. department of veterans affairs. we looked for many opportunities to try to provide better service, more efficient service more timely service to our veterans and congress ultimately came together and passed the choice act. and as i indicated a month ago and numerous times on the senate floor, that legislation that law says that if you are a veteran that can't receive the service you're entitled to, the medical services that you are entitled to, that you have the opportunity to receive those

services at a medical facility, a clinic, a physician a hospital at home. and as an individual senator who comes from a state as rural as most more rural than many, and certainly as rural as the president's home state, the senator from missouri moves home state, we have a real interest in trying to make certain our veterans who live long distances from a v.a. hospital can access that medical care. and i thought we took great satisfaction in the passage of that legislation. i certainly did. what we've discovered since then is it's implementation has been one handicap, one hurdle, one bureaucratic difficulty, one challenge after another. and while maybe it's difficult for the department of veterans affairs to implement this legislation, they are the ones who ought to suffer the challenges of doing so. not the men and women who served our country. and during my conversation on the senate floor a month ago i

talked about as i said, a number of veterans in kansas, called them by name. one of those was michael dabney, a veteran from hill city, kansas in northwest kansas, out in a part of the state that i grew up in. a piece of good news is that mr. dabney is eligible for the veterans choice program because he lives more than 40 miles from a v.a. facility. so mr. dabney qualifies under that choice program and mr. dabney needed surgery and elected to use the choice program. there is a community-based outpatient clinic hosted by the v.a. in hayes, which is about an hour away from his hometown. he was receiving care and treatment there. the indication was he needed the surgery, and they suggested that he travel to wichita another couple hundred miles for that surgery. but mr. dabney suffers from ptsd

and indicated that he didn't feel comfortable capable of traveling that extra 200 miles to receive the surgery. and his primary care provider at the outpatient clinic in hayes then indicated to him well, you live more than 40 miles from a facility. you qualify for the choice act. you can have these services provided this surgery provided at home. and mr. dabney elected to do that. so rather than driving another 200 miles for surgery in a city far away, he had the surgery performed at home. that seems like the way this is supposed to work, but the end result was that according to the v.a. he didn't receive preauthorization. so his primary care provider telling him that he qualified for the choice act him getting the service at home, he then started receiving the bills for that service and he then, in

frustration, contacted our office and the folks in my office, like in yours who work to solve these problems, went to work. and here was an example that i thought we could be successful in solving. the record clearly indicates that his primary care provider, his primary v.a. provider indicated he should utilize the choice act and have the services the surgery provided at home. he did so, and the v.a. then declined to pay for those services to the provider, and he began receiving the bills. so we went to bat for mr. dabney and despite our efforts and despite his efforts he has been told that those bills are due and to be paid by him because he didn't get preauthorization. my point being today is the department of veterans affairs

ought to be the department, the federal agency that bends over backwards to help our veterans. and i remember when the current secretary testified before our veterans' committee in his commissioner hearing he indicated that he was going to run the department in a way that was all focused on meeting the needs of veterans. and yet just a few weeks ago mr. dabney was told by the v.a. that -- i don't know that they said they're sorry. they simply said you didn't get preauthorization. you don't qualify. those bills are your responsibility. so mr. president i'm here once again trying to highlight. we went to the intermediary tri-west. they thought they could help us accomplish this and get this information that mr. dabney acted on, ought to be sufficient for the v.a. to pay the bill. and even with their help, the results from the department of

veterans affairs through their wichita hospital, said that mr. dabney obviously didn't understand the rules. and, therefore, they were not going to see that his bills were paid by the v.a. this just seems outrageous to me. the v.a., through its employees indicated he qualified. he relied upon that information their assurance that he qualified to have the surgery done at home. he is a veteran who needed surgery and who suffers from ptsd, would be deserving of all the care and treatment the consideration that could be given a man who served our country so well and suffers the consequences. and yet despite his assurance that he should use the program the decision was made, i'm sorry, you didn't dot the t's and cross the i's. i ask my colleagues to help me as we work our way through the implementation of the choice act. it's discouraging to me the

number of veterans who tell me how disappointed they are with the choice act when i thought it was such a great opportunity for their care and well-being. and the end result is that many are discouraged giving up on the choice act and not receiving the care and attention that they need from the v.a., deciding that the v.a. should not be their provider. and the point being is that we're failing them once again. veteran, one at a time. the consequences is the program is still not working. you cannot not meet the needs of a veteran and then have an expectation that we've done something useful and beneficial to that veteran. there's a discussion going on in the veterans' affairs committee led by senator isakson and blumenthal and the senate veterans' affairs committee that address many of the issues plaguing the v.a., ranging from their appeals system to accountability to remedying the problems associated with the choice act. and i urge my colleagues not to lose this -- not allow this opportunity to bypass, to go

away. that we must take these actions. in my view, this is an example of which the v.a. should solve this problem on their own. they should find a way to make this work. and in the -- while in their absence to do so, we as members of the senate, certainly i as a member of the senate and veterans' affairs committee have the obligation to continue to do battle for those who battled for our freedoms and liberties. i apologize to mr. dabney that he has been treated the way he has by the department of veterans affairs by his government and i will continue to fight on as case by case basis. but we do have an opportunity to come together and agree upon a legislative solution and these and many other problems that playing us and playing our veterans. so i simply am here to make the case hopefully to the department of veterans affairs that they would again find a way to care for this man who served his country and also to ask us,

my colleagues, to work together to make certain that in whatever way legislatively we need to act to meet the needs of those who served our country we do so. mr. president, i thank you for the opportunity to address this issue and the cause of this veteran and many others, and i yield the floor. mr. president, noticing the absence of a quorum, i would request a quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i turn to my prepared remarks -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. grassley: thank you. i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: before i turn to my prepared remarks i'd note that the minority leader came to the floor this morning to complain once again that the senate is following the bidden rules on the supreme court vacancy. as i have said before, there is not much that makes a minority leader more mad than when his

side is forced to play by its own rules. in other words from my point of view you can't have one set of rules when you have a republican president another set of rules when you have a democrat president. so i'm not going to dwell on his daily message. most of us around here have grown used to it and don't pay him much mind especially given his record of leading a senate where even some members of his own party were never allowed to offer a single amendment. the minority leader voted 25 times to filibuster judicial nominees including a supreme court justice and at the time argued there is nothing in the constitution requiring the senate to vote on nominees, and of course he will be remembered as the leader who did more

damage to the senate than any other leader in history when he invoked the so-called nuclear option in november, 2013. i'm going to start with what president obama said last week when he visited the university of chicago -- quote -- "i think just from reading the cases, you will acknowledge that there is politics in legal rulings." end of quote. the president met with law students and answered their questions. they asked him about judicial nominations, including his decision to make a nomination to fill judge scalia, justice scalia's seat on the supreme court. his responses were very revealing. i agree with president obama

that there is tobacco often politics seep into legal rulings. i spoke on that issue last week. he's right as a factual matter. in fact, i said the same thing more than once on the floor of the united states senate. oddly, those on the left who were up in arms over my remarks last week were silent on the president's remarks at the university of chicago. i suppose that's because unlike the president i think it's a bad thing that there is politics in judicial decisionmaking these days. politics in judicial rulings means that something other than the law forms the basis of those decisions. it means the judge is reading

his or her own views into the constitution. unlike the president i believe the biggest threat to public confidence in the courts is the supreme court justices' willingness to be prevent their own personal politics to influence their decisions. now, this isn't the first time the president has talked about how he believes justices should decide cases. he has repeatedly said they should decide cases based on something other than the constitution and the laws. his views on this subject are very clear. when chief justice roberts was confirmed then-senator obama said that in the really hard cases -- quote -- "the critical judgment is supplied by what is

in the judge's heart." end of quote. in 2009, president obama said he views --quote, unquote -- empathy as an essential ingredient for justices to possess in order to reach their outcomes. before he made his most recent supreme court nomination, the president said that where the law is not clear his nominee's decisions -- quote -- "will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics and judgments." end of quote. now, that's what is in the judge's heart or their personal prospective and ethics have no place in judicial decisionmaking.

the president's idea of what -- what's appropriate for justices to consider is totally at odds with our constitutional system. we are a government of laws, not a government of judges. i've said before that we should have a serious public discussion about what the constitution means and how our judges should interpret that constitution. president obama and i have very different views on these questions. politics belongs to us. it's between the people and their elected representatives. it's important that judges don't get involved in politics. that's because unlike senators, lifetime appointed federal

judges be aren't accountable to the people in the elections. it's also because when nine unelected justices make decisions based on their own policy preferences rather than on the constitutional text, they rob from the american people the ability to govern themselves through their elected branches of government, and when that happens individual liberty pays the price. to reserve the representative nature of our government and our constitutional system, our judges need to return to their limited role and decide cases based on the text of the constitution and the laws that the people's representatives have passed.

president obama last week described the justices' power as an enormous one enormous, his words. that's true in a sense but the constitution limits the justices' power to deciding controversies in specific cases that comes before their court. president reagan talked about this on the day that chief justice rehnquist and justice scalia were sworn in. he recounted how the founding fathers debated the role of the judiciary during the summers of 1787. as president reagan said at that time the founders ultimately settled on quote a judiciary that would be independent and strong but one whose powers would be confined within the

boundaries of a written constitution and laws, end of quote. for decades now the supreme court has been issuing opinions purportedly based on the constitution where the constitution itself is silent. this kind of judicial decisionmaking usurps the right of americans to govern themselves on some of the most important issues in their lives. that's what happened, for example, when the court discovers rights in the constitution that aren't mentioned in its text and weren't observed when the constitution was adopted. the same thing happens with ordinary statutes that we in congress pass.

if the justices limited themselves to saying what the constitution or the statute says about the cases before them, their power then wouldn't be so enormous, the word that the president used. president obama says it's not so simple. he says the cases that really matter are the ones where there is some ambiguity in the law. in those cases president obama thinks a justice needs to apply -- quote -- judgment grounded in how we actually live." end of quote. so as you obviously know, i disagree. when judges ask what the law should mean, the meaning of a law will change depending upon

the judge's life experiences or what judge happens to hear a particular case. the people then lose control of what their laws say their laws say. it's not consistent with our system of self-government. james madison you know, the father of the constitution, explained the same thing in a letter to richard henry lee. he said that -- quote -- "the sense or meaning in which the constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation defines the constitution." he said that's the only way the constitution is legitimate. that's because in madison's words -- quote -- "if the meaning of the text be sought in

changeable meaning of the words composing it or the shape and attributes of government would change over time and importantly the change would occur without the people's consent. it wouldn't be consistent with the way we govern ourselves through our elected representatives. that's a very different view than the president suggested in chicago last week when he said that ambiguous cases ask a judge to consider --quote, unquote -- how we actually live. in president obama's view, the judge isn't asking what a law meant when it was passed but what it should mean today. president obama described this as his -- quote -- "progressive

view on how the court should operate." with respect to the president it's my view that the courts shouldn't operate in a political way at all. not a progressive one not a moderate one not a conservative one. instead, in my view, the courts should operate in a constitutional way that ensures government by the people. and again when chief justice rehnquist and justice scalia were sworn in, the president touched on this very subject. president reagan said that for the founding fathers the question about the courts was not whether they would be liberal or conservative. the question president reagan said was -- quote -- "will we

have government by the people?" judges have a role in ensuring that we have government by the people. they fulfill that role when they try to understand what a law meant, either a statute or the constitution when the people's representative enacted it. if the justice decideds decided cases that way there would be much less politics in legal rulings. unlike the president, i think that would be healthy for our democracy. but more important, it was the understanding of those who wrote and adopted our constitution. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: also ask unanimous consent that senator tester and i be allowed to engage in a colloquy for the next approximately 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: madam president i rise today to encourage support for the hoeven-tester air ambulance relief amendment legislation of importance to people living in both rural and urban communities who need urgent and timely medical care. the need for this amendment arises from the fact that federal law preempts states from regulating air ambulance

services pursuant to the airline deregulation act which was passed in 1979. while some air ambulance providers enter into agreements with insurers, a growing number have decided to operate as out-of-network providers and practice what is known as balanced billing. that means consumers not the insurance companies, are responsible for the majority of the medical bill. in recent years state insurance departments have been fielding consumer complaints related to large balances left to them from charges not covered by insurance providers for air ambulance services. patients in need of lifesaving air medical services have been left with balances of more than $25,000 when an air medical provider opts out of agreements with insurance providers. so let me share a couple examples of what i'm talking about with you. in one case, a young couple had a premature child who was in need of intensive care at another hospital. the couple was insured and

assumed that the one-hour helicopter flight to the other hospital was covered by their insurance. the air ambulance company presented them with a bill for almost $40,000 but because the company had not entered into an agreement with the couple's insurance company, they were reimbursed only about $15,000 of that bill, leaving them $24,000 that they needed to pay when they thought they had insurance coverage for the bill. in another case, a woman suffered a snowmobiling accident and was airlifted off a mountain. the charge was $40,000. her insurance paid about $15,000 and so then she was responsible for the $25,000 balance to the company. now, in that case, she negotiated with the company. got it down to a balance of $13,000 but that $13,000 then she had to pay. in a third case, a father and

his daughter were airlifted from the hospital where they were to another hospital because they needed additional care. the young person's condition was deteriorating and she needed specialized care so they had to airlift her to another hospital. they had a single pilot and -- who took them on the flight. after they returned home by car they got a check from the insurance company for $6,800, so the insurance company paid $ 6,800 and that left them with a balance of a bill that was almost $70,000. again, they thought they were covered under their insurance. so you can see that this is a real concern and a real issue. many consumers with health insurance coverage assume these medical bills will be taken care of and don't think to ask if the air transportation company is a participating provider because obviously they're in an

emergency situation. and so unfortunately as a result after the patient is stabilized and in recovery, they learn that they will be faced with an expensive medical bill which they hadn't anticipated. now, in the last session of our state legislature in our state the state legislature made an effort to address this problem in state law. what essentially the state law said was that the hospitals would have a list of providers that accept insurance as payment in full and insurance companies that do this balanced billing so then the hospital and the patient can decide, you know, be informed and make their decision as to the air ambulance provider. the problem is, the state law was struck down in federal court because the airline deregulation act of 1978 took precedence, meaning it's a federal issue which we understand. i mean, obviously airplanes cross state lines so we understand there's a federal aspect to it. but what our amendment would

allow is it would enable hospitals to provide information so that patients could determine which air ambulance provider -- excuse me, which air ambulance providers accept the insurance payment as payment in full and which ones don't. and so then hospitals could have that information available and patients could make their decisions accordingly. so it's a very simple straightforward amendment that would allow state legislatures to make sure that that information is available for patients in their state. and we have a number of organizations that are supporting this commonsense amendment, including the national association of insurance commissioners american health insurance plans blue cross/blue shield association, american heart association american stroke association consumers union and families u.s.a. and so that's the legislation in a nutshell, and i've taken a minute to explain it. now i'd like to turn to my colleague from the state of montana and ask the senator from

montana, you know, as cosponsor of this legislation, i know he's run into this problem with his constituents and ask him to comment both in terms of the situations he's run into in montana and his thoughts on how we can best address it. many mr. tester: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: thank you madam president. and i want to thank the senator from north dakota for working on this important issue that impacts folks across this country but especially in rural america. senator hoeven and i are working -- are on the floor this afternoon working to provide a voice to those who feel that the well-being of ordinary americans are being taken advantage of. these are folks who are honest, work hard, play by the rules that they find themselves victim to an unchecked air ambulance industry with too many bad actors. that's right they're not all bad actors. but and the folks that survive a

flight of a lifetime are waking up the next morning only to find themselves in a new flight -- a new fight a fight to keep their home and their financial well-being. in rural america we're seeing more and more troubling reports about families losing nearly everything due to rising exorbitant air ambulance bills. in my home state of montana over the past 10 years we have seen more out-of-state independent, for-profit air ambulance companies in operation operation. these companies are moving into my state and they're not affiliated with local hospitals. they do not always have contracts with insurance companies. and they're taking financial advantage of families who are in crisis. families who may be forced to cash out their retirement accounts drain their life savings and even sell their homes to cover air ambulance bills that can climb up to $100,000. this has been well documented in the state of montana.

occurrences of people getting billed enormous sums of money after an air ambulance trip has been well documented. so what's the upshod of all this? the upshod is we're a rural state. oftentimes you can't get to a hospital in time by road so you have to call up an air ambulance. if you call up the wrong one you end up with a bill you can't pay. and so people are having to make literally life-and-death choices at a time when they shouldn't have to. and oftentimes because of this experience, they're saying, you know what? i -- we're inbetween a rock and a hard place. we'll take a chance. the wife or spouse may be purple because they can't breathe and we'll take a chance, we'll pile them in the car and we'll drive an hour to get to the hospital. hopefully they'll survive.

a child may come in from an accident potentially lost a limb may be bleeding profusely and we'll take the chance. we won't call the air ambulance. this system is broken and it needs to be fixed. it's broken for the patients. it's broken for the providers and right now in this country there is no tool to address it. but we have a solution. senator hoafen and i have an amendment to -- hoeven and i have an amendment to tackle this issue. our amendment would provide states the ability to decide whether they want to create rules regarding air ambulance rates and services. right now states are prohibited from regulating air ambulances. but families have made it clear that something must be done to prevent these companies from raking families over and collecting exorbitant bills. now, one size fits all solution from washington, d.c. is not the answer and that is why the good senator from north dakota and i

believe that each state should have the opportunity to address this growing problem in their own way. our amendment will provide incentives for the air ambulance companies to be better neighbors as we would like to say in montana. it will encourage them to work with local hospitals and insurance providers to ensure that life-saving services that they provide won't cause that family to lose their hope. this amendment is supported by state officials across the nation and for folks on both sides of the aisle. speaking of that, i would ask if senator hoeven would yield to a question. mr. hoeven: certainly. mr. tester: senator hoeven, why is this legislation so important to you and your constituents in north dakota? mr. hoeven: madam president i would respond to the good senator from montana with -- i think we both describe the importance in terms of the cost

that people may face, particularly at a time when they're in an emergency or crisis situation. so it's very difficult for them already. so look, we need to do everything we can to make sure that they can get quality medical care and that there's -- that they're informed as possible in making those decisions and trying to make those decisions easier for them, particularly at a time when they're faced with a life threatening situation or a crisis situation. and i think that the good senator from montana really put his finger on it when he said, we're not asking for a federal one-size-fits-all approach at all. instead we're saying, hey let's empower states and make sure that they can do what makes sense in terms of helping people when they're faced with this kind of emergency situation. so really if you look at this amendment, and we've done a fair amount of work on it with health care providers talking to air ambulance association and others. and we'll continue to work on it. but essentially we're saying

make sure people have that information readily available so when they're in an emergency or in a crisis situation they can make a quick decision and a good decision that fits their needs. and let the -- let the providers compete for the business. i mean, this goes to empowering people in terms of choice and deciding what kind of care they want and then they can make informed decisions about what they want if they're in a situation where they -- that health insurance has to cover it then they make that decision accordingly. if they want some other service in a particular circumstance and they're willing to pay out of pocket then they can make that choice too. so again this really is about making sure that people have the information, particularly at a critical time when they really need it so that they get the health care they need and they also have some ability to know what costs they're going to face. and that's really what it's all

about. that's true in our states which are more rural states, but it's true in the urban states as well. mr. tester: it certainly is and i can tell you we've heard montana -- in montana there's a problem out there. we need some help. i had a lady named christina who called me. her and her husband both work full-time. she pays $1,000 a month for her health insurance. she was being responsible doing everything she was supposed to do but an emergency struck, like it can happen to anybody and her daughter needed to be airlifted to seattle washington. the cost of that flight was the last thing on christina's mind. she only cared about the health of her daughter. in the back of her mind she knew she had health insurance so she knew she would be okay. when she and her daughter returned from seattle they found a bill waiting for them, a bill of $85,000. 85,000 bucks a little bit less

than twice the average american turns in a year. and think about this, getting a bill for a service that you had no choice but to take and then finding out it cost you twice as much as you make in one calendar year. unfortunately the story of christina's is not unique. each year more and more montanans have a story exactly like christine and that's why it's critical that we get this problem addressed with this bipartisan amendment that will provide certainty and justice for families like hers. these folks really have nowhere else to turn, and i think that if we can get this amendment on the f.a.a. bill, and i know we're working with the committee right now tweaking it, trying to make it work so people are more at ease with it, we can begin to address this issue that's haunted too many families. i would just tell you this. i had an accident when i was young, and it wasn't the kind of accident that was life

threatening. and i only had 15 minutes to drive to get my folks -- to get to the hospital. but if i had been a little bit more unlucky and we'd have put it into the 21st century and my folks would have had to get an air ambulance which is necessary sometimes it's absolutely necessary in rural america. it's necessary depend og what problem has happen -- depending on what problem has happened. it would have put the family in a position where they literally could have lost the farm. this isn't right. this isn't what this country is about. all it takes is just a little bit of tweaking, a little bit of knowledge, a little bit of transparency, and that's what this amendment does. and i think we can get this problem fixed and it's just simply the right thing to do. and i want to thank senator hoeven for his leadership and his hard work on this issue and now i would like to yield back

to senator hoeven. mr. hoeven: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: again i would like to thank the senator from montana in joining this bipartisan legislation and just ask that our colleagues work with us to get to a good common sense solution to solve this very urgent need. thank you. with that, madam president i yield the floor and note the absence-- notethe absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. a senator: madam president, i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. hoeven: madam president i would like to speak today in support of several amendments i'm offering to the federal aviation administration's authorization bill. you may recall in 2011 that and -- that i and some of my

colleagues offered a bipartisan amendment that called for the f.a.a. to develop a process to integrate unmanned aerial systems, uav's into the national air space. that legislation included drafting a plan to develop air traffic requirements for all unmanned aerial systems attest sites, certification and flight standards at nonmilitary urchlts a.v. test -- u.a.v. test sites and making sure that the plan is incorporated into the administration's project to modernize the american air traffic control system. importantly it also called for the agency to designate six test sites to help accelerate the national air space integration plan. these test sites were established beginning in december 2013 following a competitive process that

encouraged some of the very best in the phlegmling field of unmanned aerial systems to apply and compete for the test sites. i'm proud to say that grand forks in of north dakota made the cut and is today one of the premiere test sites and hubs of uas research and development in america. the work they have done there and at the other five sites across the nation has been nothing less than remarkable, which is why i'm here today to make the case for some additional amendments to help them maintain that momentum. the first is hoeven amendment 3500 which extends authorization for the six test sites for another five years. the previous f.a.a. bill from 2012 authorized the test sites for five years and the legislation before us extends that to just an additional few months through september 30 of 2017. our amendment would extend this

authorization by an additional five years through september 30, 2022. the northern plains test site in north dak -- north dakota have some important achievements to point to. supporting nasa's urchlts a.s. -- u.a.s. related research. far above the limits for a commercial small unmanned aerial systems. nighttime u.a.s. operations and approval to fly multiple types of u.a.s. in the same air space. none the -- nevertheless, there's plenty of work left to do in support of integrating u.a.s. into the national air space and that will require investment and support from industry partners. they will be much more likely to use the f.a.a. test sites if they can be sure those test sites will be operational beyond the end of next year.

might second amendment is hoeven 3538 the private aircraft exemption which will help to expedite testing of private industry aircraft by not requiring them to lease their aircraft to the test site in order to fly. so let me describe that. the six u.a.s. test sites are intended to work with the u.a.s. industry to perform research necessary to integrate u.a.s. unmanned aircraft into the national air space so what are we trying to achieve here? we're trying to achieve concurrent use of the national air space. right now we have manned aircraft flying obviously all over the united states but where we're going is that we'll have both man and unmanned aircraft flying at the same time or concurrent air space in the national air space. we have to make sure that's done safely. we have so make sure we've addressed the privacy issues. there's a whole gamut of issues that have to be addressed to do this safely and well. that's what the test sites are

developing so that we can move to that new paradigm. and it is vitally vitally important. we fly unmanned aircraft all over the world through our military but we've got to figure out how to do that safely and well in our air space with civilian aircraft. that involves a lot of things. commercial aviation, general aviation unmanned aircraft for a whole myriad of uses. this is not an easy proposition. so we have to figure it out. and if we don't we pay a huge price because right now the united states is the aviation technology leader in the world. the united states leads aviation technology globally, but if we don't figure out how to do this, somebody else will. and we can't afford to forfeit our leadership in aviation technology. we can't afford that from a military standpoint. we can't afford that from a civilian standpoint as well if we're getting to continue to

lead -- we're going to continue to lead in technology job growth, the jobs of the future and the strongest most innovative dynamic economy both now and in the future. so here we are working on the test sites to make this happen, but currently you have to lease your aircraft to the test sievment you can't just come to the test site and get approval to fly. so that's what we need to change. currently, as i say any private industry partner seeking to fly at a test site must first lease their unmanned aerial system, their plane or drone or whatever you want to call it, r.p.a., remotely piloted aircraft, and trillions to the test site -- and release it to the test site. it can then clear the aircraft to operate as a public aircraft while at that test site. the problem is that the u.s. industry is understandably re-luck at that nts to release their -- reluctant to release their aircraft and have

particular concerns about losing proprietary information through the leasing process. this is the latest, greatest, new technology. companies are investing hundreds of millions and billions of dollars in this new technology. they want to keep it proprietary. they don't want to disclose it to all their competitors. at our test site right now, we have not only northrop grumman but we have predator and reaper doing this kind of search -- research and development. they need to protect that's proprietary developments. this isage important issue for them as they're working to develop the aircraft of the future. so my amendment would provide an exemption for the test sites to fly civil aircraft subject to whatever terms and conditions the f.a.a. administrator deems appropriate for public safety and subject to the terms of the

certificate. the test sites have to get approval from the if a to fly all these different aircraft at the test site. so the f.a.a. is already providing that prior authority. we don't need to have the additional work of, in essence making these test aircraft public aircraft. these terms govern the airspace and conditions under which the test sites can operate at these -- can operate with unmanned ariel systems -- aerial systems. this amendment is common sense. current procedures block the test sites from assisting industry to develop technology to integrate that the national airspace. this amendment would enable the test sites to perform as originally intended. that is, as a bridge between industry and the f.a.a. to develop concurrent airspace use for unmanned aircraft, which is a key key part of the future of aviation. test cites sites will have the same

responsibility for safely managing the operation under their certificate of authorization as they do today. so this is about doing things in a march efficient way -- more efficient way without any effect on public safety. in addition, the f.a.a. already grants numerous exemptions hon a case-by-case basis to industry partners known as section 333 exemptions. this amendment effectively serves as a test site 333 exemption, which should help decrease demand for the process. there are other exemption requests again streamlining the process, making it work. finally, i filed hoeven 3543 which leverages participation in the unmanned traffic management pilot program. the underlying f.a.a. legislation establishes an f.a.a.-led pilot program to develop an unmanned traffic management system which will be

essential to the final goal of integrating the u.a.s. into the national airspace. this is how we manage traffic. manned and unmanned aircraft in the same airspace. how do we manage that? safely and well. the amendment would require the f.a.a. administrator to leverage to the maximum extent possible the capabilities of the f.a.a.'s you have a.s. center of excellence and the circumstance u.a. se test sites when carrying out the program. we're saying, work with the test sites and the national center of excellence which we've developed, four unmanned aerial systems norvetionsystems, to move this technology forward. right know we've got to maximize our use of these resources to make sure that we're developing u.a.s. the right way in a way that the public feels is safe, that respects privacy rights, that addresses all of the different potential concerns.

again, it's about doing things right and well with this new technology. again, this is just a commonsense amendment. the f.a.a. should use the capabilities congress has put at its disposal along with its interagency and industry partners to advance development of unmanned traffic management systems. madam president my amendments give our u.a.s. test sites the tools they need to stay out front, which will ultimately yield research benefits on behalf of our country. we've all seen and read in the media about how these remarkable new aircraft are playing a big military role in the security of our nation. they achieve military objectives without putting our men and women in uniform in harm's way. we're also seeing how they play an important role in border protection and other security operations. less well known is their use in precision agriculture disaster

mitigation traffic safety, building inspections energy infrastructure monitoring, and many uses that have yet to be imagined. u.a.s. industry is anxiously awaiting the approval of rules to begin operating small u.a.s. loyalties. this is an important step, but it is just one step. it is limited, which is why we need the test sites for the research and development necessary to move forward. the u.a.s. test sites and the center of excellence are in a position to stay ahead of the curve doing the research necessary to fly higher and further using larger aircraft. madam president these amendments are important for the success of an exciting and rapidly growing segment of aviation in our country. the goal is to make u.a.s. a fully working component of not only america's larger aviation

system but also of our economy. as i said, we are the world's leader in aviation technology, and we must continue to forge ahead to maintain that leadership. and i will close by saying, almost all of us now have an iphone or android, some type of phone in our pocket. and it's so much more, isn't it? it's a full-blown computer. think back ten years. we had no idea that we would all have these cell phones or that we'd have all of these amazing capabilities. but look at how much we use it every day in our lives. i make that analogy with unmanned aircraft. what's it going to look like ten years from now? what's it going to be like? well we don't know yet. we don't know what all these applications and what all these uses are going to be. but what we do know is that the united states needs to be the

leader in aviation technology development and that's what we're talking about with these test sites. making sure that we can do it safely and well and that we can maintain that global leadership. with that, madam president i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i'd like to speak, madam president on an amendment that i have submitted that will ensure the implementation of what is already required by statute a biometric exit system for the united states. law has required a biometric -- that means a fingerprint not as opposed to biographic, which is name and birth date -- biographic system that allows us

to know who comes in this country on a visa and whether or not they left when they were supposed to leave. it's absolutely critical to the safety of the united states. it's something the 9/11 commission in 2001-2002 recommended as a high priority. ten years later when they did their review commission report to see how their recommendations had been carried out they noted one of their top concerns was the failure of congress to complete this system. right now when you come into the united states, you're automobile to put your hand on -- you'rable to put your hand on a screen. they clock new biographically -- biomet truckcally, and then when you leave, there is knee system that clocks you out. it's like going to work every day. you take one of these iphones it's got this place on the bottom where you put your finger your thumb.

i put my thumb on it. i don't have to put in my code. i don't have to put in my passcode. it sumly reads my fingerprint. this is done all over america. these screens are not expensive. they don't rare lot of space and it's -- they don't require a lot of space and it is just something that should be done and it has not been done. the first requirement for this was in 1996 through the illegal immigration reform and immigrant responsibility act. they were ignored, the requirements 20 years ago when it began were ignored. the terrorist attack on september 11 caused us to focus again on the issue. congress responded demanding that congress implement an exit system through the passage of the u.s. patriot act which stated that an entry and exit data system should be fully implemented for airport seaports and land border ports

of entry -- quote -- "with all deliberate speed and as expeditiously as practical." close quote. 15 years ago that occurred. congress then reiterated its demand for a biometric entry-exit system in 2002 when it passed the enhanced border security and visa entry reform act. this bill required the government to install biometric readers and scanners -- quote -- "at all ports of entry of the united states." subsequently and consistent with the recommendations of the national commission on terrorist attacks upon the united states, congress passed the intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004 which mandated the entry-exit system be biometrically based 12 years ago. despite the relative successful implementation of a biometric

entry system, the department of homeland security has largely failed to implement this required biometric exit system. to date, homeland security has only implemented a hndzful of -- handful of pilot programs. they've had one excuse after another and failed to do so. there have been some promising developments in recent months i would note. of primary importance is the fact that congress passed the consolidated appropriations act of 2016. this created a dedicated source of funds for the implementation of a biometric exit system. it has been estimated that this fund will result in approximately $1 billion that will be available solely for the implementation of the biometric exit system to meet the lawful requirements. yet with this significant source of funding the administration continues to dawdle.

my amendment will end that delay and bring this matter to a close. it will complete the system, as the 9/11 commission said is essential for our national safety and security. my amendment simply states that no funds from the f.a.a. bill that we pass can be obligated or expended for the purpose of fiscal modification of existing air navigation facilities; that is, a port of entry or of the construction of a near navigation facility intended to be a port of entry unless the secretary of homeland security certifies that the owner or sponsor of the facility has entered into an agreement that guarantees the installation and implementation of such a facility not later than two years after the date of the enactment of the act -- close

quote. in other words, they have to complete the contract to make the system work and that we give them two full years to accomplish that. more than enough time. the amendment allows the customs and border patrol officers at each airport that serves as port of entry -- an international port -- a solution that works specifically for the needs of c.b.p. and the airport. it gives them some flexibility to work these things out. it does, however require finally and i hope fully an agreement that guarantees that the system will be implemented at the airport in two years. now, these airports, they drag their feet. airlines drag their feet. they don't like to be bothered about this. i.t. not on their -- it's not on their priority. but it is not going to cause them great problems. it is not going to cause the airlines a great problem.

and somebody needs to be representing the national interests around here. what's in the public interest? they don't get to undo law passed by congress for 20 years that should have already been implemented years ago. it's just that simple. this deal could be done in six months if we have an administration that's determined to get it done. the equipment is already available all over the country. many police officers have these screens in their cars. they arrest somebody for d.u.i., make them put their hand on the screen it runs a check throughout the united states. they may find out that someone arrested in alabama has a warrant for a murder in new york city. that's the way the system is working today all over the country. we can't make this work at an international airport to ensure people who have a limited time visa in the united states

actually left when they're supposed to? and we found out someone may be a terrorist or connected with some illegal enterprise or terroristic plan. we want to know did they actually leave the country or are they still in the country. this is things law enforcement f.b.i. and homeland security need to know about. i was told by one company that there are many competitors who would bid for this work. there are all kinds of systems out there. one manufacturer suggested we should host in the capitol a products day and let all these companies bring in their systems so staffers and congress and members can go out and see what the possibilities are anderase forever this idea that this is somehow impractical not feasible and can't be done. if apple and samsung and others can implement technology on your

cell phone mobile phones to access them, you can be sure the united states government can work with airports to complete a biometric exit system as the law has long required. such a system will not have large space requirements. the border patrol can work with the larger airports at the international terminals and it only applies to the international terminals and install physical equipment at their departure gates. c.v.p. and work with smaller airports and employ hand-held systems like this, if need be, at the various gates that handle only international flights. ultimately all that passengers exiting the united states need to do is place his or her hand on a simple screen or with some devices, even just wave the hands in front of them. we had experts tell us that they've got a system you don't even have to touch the screen.

you can wave your hand in front of it and it reads the fingerprints. and the devices will biometrically identify the passenger as the person exiting. somebody can take your name and go to the airport and exit the country with some sort of i.d. and claim that they exited as you are supposed to exit without this biometric check because you can use any name. if they clear this screening area where they move into the boarding area, they'll be allowed into the boarding area. if there's a hit because the border is on some no-fly list because of danger, the passenger can be denied boarding or removed from a plane before it takes off and their baggages can be removed from the plane. importantly, the united states would then have a unified automatically produced list of

those who have departed on time and those who overstayed their visas. i would note, colleagues, that we're having a huge surge in the number of people who come to this country on a visa and don't go home. it now amounts to over 40% of the people illegally in the country came on a visa promising to go home at a certain time and not going home. and we had the democratic debate a few weeks ago and former secretary clinton said, well, if you are found in the united states unlawfully, you should only be deported if you are indicted or charged with a violent felony. how did this become the law? you're not required to stay in the country. you can't stay in the country if you overstay your visa. that's against the law.

you're deportable right there whether or not you're a good person and never committed a traffic offense. so now we have leadership in this country so detached from law, so detached from the will of the american people that they're saying you can come in, stay for years after overstaying your visa and only be deported if you commit a violent felony? this has really got to be brought to a conclusion. the american people want a lawful system of immigration. are they wrong to ask for that? one that serves the interest of the american people, one that's worthy of a nation that validates the rule of law. or do we just give in? to recapitulate to lawlessness. and anybody that comes, that can get into our country even a month presumably to commit a $50,000 bank fraud is not going to be deported because it's not

a violent crime even though the law says otherwise? let me just note that for a host of reasons the system should be based on the fingerprint system where we maintain our extensive database. you've got eye system, they'll read your eyes. we've got systems that will read your face. but do not let them, colleagues, lead us off into that. we're not ready to do that. there's no did data system that supports a face system. let's stay with the fingerprints as experts told us. let me note that numerous countries across the world including hong kong and singapore are using biometric systems now. this is proven, 17 countries. so ending this failure as bipartisan support my subcommittee the subcommittee on immigration and national interests, held a hearing on january 20 entitled, why is a

biometric exit tracking system still not in place? well, during the hearing we got promises from the administration but no commitment regarding when such a system would actually be deployed. when as i've noted the law has required it for 20 years. but a few weeks ago secretary johnson of homeland security made statements directing the department of homeland security to begin implementation of the system at our airports by 2018. begin implementation by 2018. so this is another mere promise the kind of promises that have never resulted in the production of a system, and that uncertainty must end. the obvious missing piece is an actual completion date. this bill would create that. it's these kind of lulling comments that we've heard for

all these years that have kept us from actually following through on a system. if congress would like to know why the american people are not happy with their leaders in washington, this is a good example, a very good example. congress promises to fix a problem. we even vote for a bill to fix it. and in this case we vote for bills to fix it, and they pass and become law and require the problem to be fixed. but it doesn't happen. and we sit back as decades go happens. so a special interest group speaks up here and a special interest group speaks up there and somehow it never happens. it's time to fulfill a promise and a commitment to the american people. we promised the american people a system that will demonstrably improve our national security. as noted bid former commissioners of the national commission on terrorist attacks in a report issued in 2014 -- quote -- "without exit" -- i'm

quoting the commission. "without exit tracking, our government does not know when a foreign visitor admitted to the united states on a temporary basis has overstayed his or her admission. had the system been in place before 9/11, we would have had a better chance of direct detecting the plotters before they struck." close quote. so we have long known that visa overstays pose serious national security risk. a number of the hijackers on stphepb -- september 11 overstayed their visas. the number of visa overstayed is a significant number. a new poll came out earlier this year that indicates that three out of four americans not only want the obama administration top -- to find these aliens who overstay their visas not just the ones who committed violent

felonies but also deport them. the same poll indicates 68% of americans consider visa overstays as a -- quote -- "serious national security risk. 31% consider visa overstays as a very serious national security risk." and there's little doubt about why. the risk to our national security are too high for us to maintain the status quo. we're adding more and more people travel by air to the united states and around the world. we simply allow them to come on a very generous basis. they commit to leaving after a given period of time, whether it's for a vacation or job and they plan to return to their home countries and we need a system to know if they're complying with that. we must fulfill the promise we made to the american people and must do all that we can to complete this system. my amendment would do so.

it would finally bring this to conclusion because it would say to the airports we got money to help you do your runways and expand your airports and do the kind of things you'd like to, but we want this agreement in place first. mr. president, i understand that some on the democratic side intend to object to calling this amendment up so it was my intention at this time to call up this amendment. and i don't see any democrat here but i've been told that that's what they want to do, and they passed that word along. so in an act of courtesy, i will not call up the amendment at this time. but we need to bring it up. every democratic member of my subcommittee that attended the hearing -- senators schumer feinstein and franken -- all said they favored fixing this. i think we have a bipartisan

agreement if we can get a vote. but once again we're not retiree may not be having a vote and that would be a very distressing thing because i don't see how anybody could oppose the final completion of this much-needed project. i would thank the chair and yield the floor. ms. ayotte: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. ms. ayotte: thank you, mr. president. i rise today because it is equal pay day and i would like to talk about the importance of ending finally gender-based discrimination of wages that unfortunately i can't believe we're in the year 2016, this is still an issue we need to address in this country but it is. i had the privilege of serving as our state's first female attorney general and i think it's just the right thing to do

and the obvious thing to do, and under our laws already that equal pay for equal work should be the standard, and that all of us should be judged in our workplace by our experience, our qualification, our capability at doing our job and nothing else. women face many challenges in balancing work and family life. i know that firsthand from being the working mom of two young kids. on top of those challenges, no woman, whether she's a mother or not, should ever face gender-based pay discrimination in the workplace. today more than half of new hampshire's women serve as the primary or co-earner in their household. that just underscores the serious need to address this problem.

men and women should simply receive equal pay for equal work. it's that simple. their salary should be based on how you do your job. because of this, i introduced the gender advancement in pay or gap act along with senators capito portman burr and heller. and i want to thank my cosponsors for supporting this effort. what we did is we built on a highly successful bipartisan pay equity law that was signed into law in my home state of new hampshire in 2014. and the gap act makes it clear that employers must pay men and women equal wages for equal work. without reap duesing the -- without reducing the ability of employers to provide merit pay and reward merit which all of us want, because i like to, you know having been the first

woman attorney general, i want to give women the opportunity to outperform their male counterparts as well. because i know we can. today there are a patchwork of laws that govern equal pay and employees' ability to discuss their pay without fear of retaliation and differing court opinions that have led to a situation where some employees receive protections not available to others, simply based on where they live. as such, the gap act is a sensible approach to updating, clarifying and strengthening these laws. for 20 years the paycheck fairness act has been around in the congress. it has never passed. and one of the reasons i think was described very well in 2010 by the "boston globe." it said paycheck fairness act as a whole is too broad a solution

to a complex nuanced problem but that a narrower bill that would stiffen some penalties and ban retaliation would be helpful. and that's exactly what the gap act is, a bill that stiffens penalties and bans retaliation and clarifies the law so that we can ensure that we have equal pay for equal work. in short my bill updates the equal pay act's factor other than sex clause. currently employers can explain away pay differentials by pointing to a number of factors but one of those was ambiguously written to be a factor other than sex. our bill closes this loophole and clarifies that any factor other than sex must be a business-related factor such as education, training or experience. it makes sense doesn't it? why would you allow a defense of a factor other than sex that has

nothing to do with your job? that seems to me to be inviting discrimination, and that is why we should clarify the law to make clear that it has to be a factor related to your job such as education training or experience. and this would clarify the law for employees to protect the rights of employees and also so employers clearly would have this provision defined. the gap act also creates a penalty for willful violations, and this is one step further actually than new hampshire's bipartisan pay equity law and so it would put teeth into it but i think it's important. employers that act knowingly with the intent to discriminate should have to pay a penalty and what we do with the funds from this penalty is we actually take the funds rather than putting it back in the general treasury and we are going to

study the wage gap issue make sure we have the best research on what's causing it and what's happening, and find more ways to expand opportunities for women in the work force with better-paying jobs. the gap act would also promote salary transparency. according to the institute for women's policy research, about half of workers were discouraged or outright prohibited from discussing their pay with co-workers and so when employees are allowed to discuss their pay, they are more likely to uncover incidents of discrimination. but yet if i'm not allowed to discuss my pay and i find that i have a co-worker that is the same situated as me yet making more money who is a male counterpart and i'm not allowed to raise this because i can't discuss pay comparisons then how am i going to raise a claim of discrimination? and so we need to make it more transparent, and we need to

ensure that employees are allowed to discuss their pay and this will make it more likely to uncover incidents of gender-based pay discrimination. so our bill prohibits retaliation against employees who discuss their pay and tells employers that they can't institute secret pay policies, and in fact they can't ask an employee to bargain away their right to be able to talk about their pay if they choose to. and importantly after getting feedback from stakeholders in our states, we made sure that that provision is strong and we reintroduced the cosponsors of this bill an updated version of the bill this week to ensure that there are stronger provisions for salary transparency and makes clear that employers cannot sidestep provisions that ban retaliation against employees who discuss their pay and it prohibits pay secrecy policies that could

encourage this kind of behavior. on equal pay day today it is very important that we all work together to do anything we can to end the gender wage gap. and you know what? one of the things i think we should do is let's stop the political posturing let's stop using this incredibly important issue as a political football because legislation like the paycheck fairness act has been around 20 years and so i'm glad to introduce the gap act because i believe this is a commonsense piece of legislation that actually gets at the issue by clarifying our laws in a way that benefits employees makes sure it's clear that if you willfully violate our laws, that you're going to to have to pay a penalty, and we're going to take that money and we're going to put it back into research to

further help us address the pay gap and we're also going to make clear for plaintiffs, if you want to file an eeoc claim and you also want to file an equal pay claim that we will make sure that you can do both and your rights will be protected to do both by staying with the statute of limitations while the c.e.o. claim is going forward. this will help plaintiffs not have to litigate in two forums, and this will also allow the eeoc to do its job and to if they find discrimination to be used in an equal pay act claim. this is another important step both for plaintiffs and also to clarify those who are victims of discrimination to be able to allow them to bring their rights forward. on equal pay day today i hope that we can stop making this a partisan issue and we can start actually passing legislation

that will make a difference. in new hampshire in 2014, they passed an important law and i was glad that new hampshire did this and i was glad that i could introduce what new hampshire did here in the united states senate on a bipartisan basis and actually build on that to introduce the gap act with some of my colleagues. so i hope today on equal pay day that we will take up legislation like the gap act and address gender-based pay discrimination because we're in 2016. i have an 11-year-old daughter. i don't want to be discussing this 20 years from now. what i would like to do is have us really work on this in a serious bipartisan manner, address this and end gender-based pay discrimination once and for all because equal pay for equal work, it just makes sense. it's the right thing to do, and

it should be how our laws work. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. flake: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. flake: mr. president, i rise to speak in support of the flake amendment number 3556. the amendment is simple. it simply strikes the newly added prohibition in the visa waiver program on citizens of visa waiver program countries which are also dual nationals of certain other countries such as iran iraq, sudan and syria. just to be clear this amendment keeps in place all other provisions added to the visa waiver program to improve the

security of the program such as requiring greater information sharing. however, the dual national provision does not provide any meaningful security benefit and instead it is a detriment to the country and the vast majority of dual nationals who provide a great benefit to the united states. the problem with the dual nationals prohibition is twofold. it is both imprecise in its application, and it is difficult if not impossible to administer. one reason the prohibition is imprecise is because it prevents travel under the program regardless of travel history. for example a dual national of iran was prohibited from using the visa waiver program need not have ever been to iran to be prohibited. and in fact, there is no clear definition of who qualifies as a dual national. it demonstrates how this prohibition is impossible to

administer. many groups have pointed out that there is no international agreement on the rules of nationality and that many people are dual nationals even if they do not wish to be. for example, there is no automatic way to relinquish one's iranian nationality. it can only be accomplished if the individual is allowed by the iranian council of ministers and to fulfill a number of requirements including the completion of national military service. does this sound likely or possible for an individual who has never resided in iran? now, the administration has recently stated that it will determine each potential visitor's nationality on a case-by-case basis. according to them, the u.s. government -- quote -- "need not recognize another country's conferral of nationality if it determines that the nationality -- or determines the nationality to be -- quote -- nominal." they also said, quote -- "d.h.s.

assesses whether an individual is a national of a country based on an individual's relationship to that country such as if an individual maintains allegiance to that country. however, the administration would not specify what counts as -- quote -- maintains allegiance." these examples show that the visa waiver program is gaining nothing when it comes to actual security and instead unfairly prohibits individuals participation based on meaningless standards. furthermore, of greatest concern is the potential for reciprocal treatment of u.s. citizens. just today the european commission asked european union governments and european union lawmakers to suggest what actions the commission might take due to the lack of visa waivers for some e.u. citizens. now, while there are a number of concerns when it comes to reciprocity, this dual nationality provision has not gone unnoticed. specifically, the commission stated that -- quote -- in

parallel to discussing full visa reciprocity, the commission will continue to monitor the implementation of the changes in a visa waiver program." and after expressing concerns about the negative consequence of these changes on -- quote -- bona fide e.u. travelers -- unquote -- the commission invited the u.s. to consider the equal protection of travel act in 2016 in order to mitigate restrictions imposed on dual nationals. this amendment is in that act. or this amendment is that act. i agree that we should mitigate these restrictions on dual nationals and mitigate the chances of reciprocal treatment for u.s. citizens. the united states passport is the most powerful in the world and we need to ensure that it remains that way. we should not threaten that status for a provision that is both imprecise and impossible to administer.

i hope that we can have a vote on this amendment and i hope that my colleagues can support it, and with that, i yield the balance of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president i rise today to speak in support of the federal aviation administration reauthorization bill that is before the senate

and that we've been debating over the last week. and ensuring that our great nation states like colorado, states like alaska that have important aviation industries have a healthy and safe general aviation community and comprehensive aviation infrastructure are exactly the type of issues that this congress needs to be working on. and the type that have been a top priority in previous congresses. now, in my state aviation has a very rich history and is an incredibly important driver of our economy but also an important element of just connecting the entire state. many aspects of our lives in alaska rely on commercial and general aviation. living in a state of such enormous scale with numerous remote communities gives

alaskans a very deep appreciation for air travel which in many cases provides the only means for transportation for many residents. you know, mr. president one of the things that's very much an honor being in the u.s. senate is how different senators come and describe life in their states so all americans have a better understanding of how the entire country's knitted together, how we work together but what unique challenges different states have. more than a hundred communities in alaska including regional centers like bethel, nome, barrow kotzebue aviation is the only means of getting in and out of those communities since there are no roads. imagine that. most states don't understand that. we have hundreds of communities no roads no ferry service so aviation is critical. alaska is unique in its

dependence on aviation. indeed, we have very busy what we call highway of the skies. more pie lats per capita -- pilots per capita in my state than in any other state in the country. and so that means everything from mail to groceries to baby diapers have to be flown in by plane to many communities. and if someone gets sick and needs to see a doctor, oftentimes that can only be done by air. there are over 400 general aviation airports across alaska, 250 of which are owned and operated by the state of alaska. and that doesn't include over hundreds of heliports that support mining, timber, the oil and gas industry and others. so general aviation and aviation infrastructure is a critical component of our economy our quality of life.

for our state for alaska, it's fundamental in terms of connecting people and communities and promoting and sustaining economic development. indeed estimates show that the general aviation community contributes over $1 billion a year in economic activity to the state of alaska's economy and supports over 47,000 jobs. that's 1 in 10 jobs in the entire state. so this is a very important bill bill. this is an important bill for the state of alaska but it's also an important bill for the united states of america. the f.a.a. bill reauthorization will expire in july and it is important to avoid the uncertainty of more short-term extensions by passing the authorization bill we have had on the floor here in the senate over the last week. so i want to thank the very hard work of chairman thune ranking

member nelson for all the work that they have been doing night and day really for months on this important bill this important bipartisan bill. so far the process has been a model of how the senate should work and, you know, our friends in the media they love to write the stories about nothing work being in the u.s. senate. i don't think so. there's a lot of important bills moving. a highway bill, education bill, human trafficking. now we're looking at a bipartisan way to address a very important bill for the country that's aviation, that's aviation infrastructure and that's aviation security. so let me talk about some of the substance more broadly for the country on why this bill's so important. one aspect of the bill is the pilots' bill of right' bill of rights 2. building off the initial success of the pilots' bill of rights,

this bill continues to make essential reforms for pilots, mostly general aviation pilots that are so important to my state, streamlining an overly burdensome medical certification process, increasing transparency and access to additional information for pilots in all the different aspects of their requirements as being pilots in the general aviation community. there's provisions that also balance and the make essential inroads towards rebalancing the relationship between the f.a.a. and general aviation pilots and one thing that this senate bill does not do -- there's been a discussion over in the house -- it does not transfer the air traffic control services that are so important to many of our states particularly rural states to a private corporation corporation. mr. president, this bill also very importantly strengthens safety for pilots and passengers

across the country. you can't pick up the news and see how important this issue is. from the terror attacks in brussels at the airport there to the russian flight out of egypt that went down because of a suspected isis attack to instance of criminal behavior even among u.s. airport employees events around the world have underscored just how important the need for stronger security measures for our nation's air travel is. and what's really important mr. president is this is the senate taking proactive action. this is not a bill on aviation security where we're reacting to some horrible tragedy god forbid, in terms of aviation security whether a accident, whether terrorist attack at one our airports. what we've been doing is looking at the challenges in these areas

and taking proactive measures so when there's a terrorist attacks-- a terrorist attack or an accident. so these are comprehensive airline security reforms that are some of the most important that we've occurred and debated in this body for over a decade. let -- let me just list a few of them. the bill includes several measures for the security of passengers by improving airport employee vetting to ensure the potentially dangerous individuals don't have access to secure areas in our airports, expanding the enrollment in tmplets s.a. -- tsa prechecked programs so passengers move through security lines and into more quickly. we saw how important that was in brussels and enhancing security for international flights bound for the united states. so overall this legislation addresses a growing concern in terms of security, including the

cyber security threats facing aviation and air navigation systems for our commercial airlines. the bipartisan f.a.a. reauthorization does more for passengers and more for security than any bill at least in the last decade. it's an important bill. it's a good bill for america. it's a good bill for alaska. it will advance measures to keep us safer and that's why i'm supporting this bill, and i encourage my colleagues to do so as well. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. a senator: mr. president as we have heard all day today today is equal payday. ms. heitkamp: what does that mean? that means that today is the first day women in the work force, if we were -- if we separated male workers and female workers, this is the

first day women would actually get a paycheck in the year. pretty remarkable. and it's a disparity that we have been working on for decades in this country but still have not achieved the parody -- parity that we believe is absolutely essential if we are going to be a family friendly, a forward-looking country and certainly a country with a growing and prosperous middle class. i think way too often the issue of pay equity, the issue of equal pay is characterized as a women's issue is characterized as something that only elite women care about. it's characterized as something that is not something for government to address. well i'm here to dispel all of those myths. i think we could only fairly say that by shortchanging women employers are also shortchanging

working families. and families could use a full salary to put food on their table for their families or to make sure children get the medical care that they deserve. we've all heard the stark statistic that women only earn 97% nationally of what white non-hispanic males are paid. in north dakota the numbers are even more dramatic. the pay equity there is 71%. women earn just 71% of what men make in my state. it's unacceptable. it's unacceptable at a time when according to a recent study from pew research center, women are now the leading solo bread winners in 40% of households. that compares to just 11% in 1960. it does not make sense that we are still struggling to make the

same amount for equal work as what men make. additionally in north dakota, 74% of children live in households where both parents work. those parents both need to work to be able to support their families. when women don't make as much as men, it doesn't just hurt them but it hurts their children and it hurts families across the country. so what is congress to do about this disparity? we need to pass paycheck fairness. we need to make sure that that critical piece of legislation which responds to this concern is actually in our laws and is in the statutes of the united states of america. so what does paycheck fairness do? it would help close the pay gap by taking critical steps to empower women to negotiate for equal pay.

i can't tell you the number of times i hear from women in my state, well, i just didn't know that i wasn't getting paid what a man is getting paid and an employer saying, well, she didn't ask and he did. i think that we need to be able to give the tools to women so that they know when there's disparate treatment. we need to close the loopholes the courts have created in the law. we need to create strong incentives for employers to obey the laws that are in place and we need to strengthen federal outreach and enforcement efforts. but looking at pay is really only one part of the equation. we also need to pass other family-friendly policies, like the family act which would establish a federal leave policy paid leave policy. now, i can only imagine what the debate was in this body when someone came up with the idea that we ought to do employment

insurance. i'm sure there was a lot of discussion about yet another program, yet another system that would actually add to payroll tax, add to burdens put on families. who today -- who today in this body would propose that we eliminate unemployment insurance? it has been a valuable transition opportunity for our workers to look for that next job without disrupting their family payment. as a person whose father was a seasonal construction worker, i know how critical that benefit was to my family growing up. i know that frequently the opportunity to earn unemployment was in fact put food on the table in my household. so let's talk about what happens when someone has a baby. let's talk about what happens when someone's mom gets sick. let's talk about what happens when we have catastrophic

illness of our own. many people in my state in fact the majority of people in my state do not have one day of paid leave. so their choice is to take care of their family's health conditions, to take care of their newborn child and just quit their job or to go on unpaid leave and not actually receive a salary. how many people can go on unpaid leave and not receive a salary? not a lot. and so what it means is that frequently when people have to transition away from work, all of a sudden that person qualifies for food stamps, qualifies for medicaid, qualifies for other government assistance programs. this for the price to an employer of a cup of coffee a week a dollar 50 a week per employee, we can provide this benefit. and how do we know we can provide this benefit? because we have states who have

done it. california which restricted their payment, two families who would use this insurance benefit restricted, i believe to 50%. they recently upped that amount to 70%. this bill would put it at 66%. and so the family act is also a critical piece of legislation that moves our employment economy into the 21st century. it actually recognizes that women are in the workplace and they're in the workplace for real and for -- permanently. it recognizes that when we have family-friendly policies, we have a better work force. we have a more economical work force and we have an opportunity for employers to keep their businesses. recently in north dakota, senator gillibrand and i traveled around the state talking about our paid leave policy and the family act.

we were in a small business, someone with less than ten ploy ployees. he said he would love to provide this but there was no way he could economically afford it if it happened to his employee. he couldn't give this benefit and hire a temporary worker. but if he had the opportunity to share that risk broadly across all small employment -- employers in the country that shared risk then would make this benefit available to him. and he could keep his employees. he could keep those employees that he trained. he could make sure that they were better employees when they came back because they had that benefit. and so we need to understand that this isn't just about the girls. this isn't just about the women of the senate standing up. it's about a shared experience that we've all had a shared experience of having to choose between going home and taking care of your mother or actually

feeding your family. that's not much of a choice. and when we look at why people are angry in america today why they feel like they're not getting ahead is because they're falling further and further behind because we aren't adopting 21st century policies like the family act like equal pay for equal work, like recognizing the value of what women do. i'm going to close with a story and it's true. when i was in college i spent the first year between my freshman and my sophomore year i was a nanny. it was very rewarding. i loved the kids but it was hard work and it was 24/. so -- 24/7. the next years after i did that i worked construction. you know why i worked construction? i get paid better and the work was not as difficult. so i worked in a factory cleaning pipes. i worked on road construction. i worked on rural water

construction. and, yes that's hard work. and i was a labor in all -- laborer in all those jobs. that's hard work but none of it is as hard as taking care of children, as taking care of sick people, as taking care of our elderly yet in america those jobs pay less. they fay less. and -- they pay less. and it's time we really evaluate what's happening in the workplace, what's happening for america's families so that we can adopt these family-friendly policies so that we can in fact listen to our constituents, so that we can have empathy for the challenges of american families. when that empathy finds its way to public policy in the halls of congress people will feel once again reconnected to their government. so i really encourage everyone who hasn't taken a look at pay equity, hasn't taken a look yet at the family act to really understand and appreciate what this can do for their constituents, what this can do for the american workplace and

how we can help small business provide the services that they need to provide the benefits that they need to provide to be competitive in this very competitive work force environment. with that, mr. chairman, i would yield the floor. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to table the amendment number 3464. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes go have it. -- do have it. mr. mcconnell: i call up number 3679. the presiding officer: the clerk will report clerk mr. mcconnell for mr. thune proposes amendment 3679. strike all after the enacting clause. the presiding officer: i ask consent the reading be waived. the presiding officer: without

objection,. mr. mcconnell: i sentsz r send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: we the undersigned senators of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on senate amendment numbered 3679 signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading of the names are waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the mandatory quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion for the bill to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture. the clerk: cloture motion we the undersigned senators in cortd dance with the provision also of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on calendar number 55, h.r. 636 an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently extend increased limitations and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i ask that the reading be dispensed with and i ask that the mandatory quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from south dakota.

mr. thune: mr. president i call up amendment 36780. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. thune proposes amendment 3680 to amendment 3679. strike section 4105. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the reading be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 391 s. 2133. the presiding officer: the clerk will report rmt. the clerk: calendar number 391, s. 2133 a bill to improve federal agency financial and administrative controls and procedures and so forth. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i further ask that the carper-tillis amendment be agreed torque the bill as

amed be agreed to and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i now ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. wednesday, april 13. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders being reserved for their use later in the day. further, that following leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. finally, following morning business, the senate resume consideration of h.r. 636. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: so if there there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the

and it includes new consumer protections for airline passengers. also today, senator spoke on the floor of a pay equity between men and women. today is pay equity day. the average woman of had to have worked all of 2015 until today in 2016 turn with the average man made in 2015. ms. hirono: e >> today is equal pay day. catch up people pay day means women have to work more than four months longer to catch up to were on average men made in 2015. significant pay disparity has been going on for decades, generations even even though it is against the law and has been since the passage of the equal pay

act in 1963. the gender pay gap persists across all states and nearly all occupations. 21st as we seek to build the 21st century workforce 73 million working women are at a disadvantage because of pain equity and other barriers based on gender. from the days of overt pay discrimination such as the 1930s when the federal government required women to be paid 25 percent less than their male counterparts. the pay gap exists, persists. is that enough that women with equal education and experience get paid less? it gets worse.niversity a recent new york university study found that when women begin to enter predominantly began pay in those fields decreased overall. wages

when women began to pursue careers in design wages dropped more than 30 percent. d landed careers in biology 18%. wages dropped 18 percent. when men the study also shows the converse when men entered fields previously dominated by women such as computer programming, wages increased wom the bottom line is thaten these studies show that women are less valued than men. because w this discrimination won't change because we don't like it or that we hope it will. t it will only begin to change if we take action. that is why i joined the senator and continuing our call to pass the paycheck fairness act. woman compare their salaries without fearing retaliation. how can a woman find out if there is pay discrimination going on her workplace if

she cannot even find out what others are being paid. the bill would also require related to employers to prove the difference in pay for men and women doing the same work is not related to gender. all the gender pay gap f affects all women, i want to focus this morning on equitydz in the fields of science technology, engineering, and math. nationally we need to promote stem to remain competitive in the global g economy. and are stem careers are among the highest paid positions inand are some of the most sought after by employers. to keep our country's historical leadership to economists say we need to create a million more than we currently are creating.omen they will lose ourur competitive advantage unless the number of women keeps pace with their growing share of the population. again

but of course, women in the. fields are less than men. for example, on average, women engineers are just 82 percent of what their male counterparts earn. starting salaries are almost 20,000 less than their male counterpart. even after accounting for factors like specialty and location. in addition women in stem often must overcome institutional barriers cultural stereotypes andat sexual harassment. his barriers permeate every level of the stem career pipeline. to they start as early as middle school and continue throughout one's career and lead to women and minorities disproportionately giving up interest. of at the university of hawaii

men earn more than five times the number of computer science bachelors degrees is women. ba and in the college of engineering men and threech times as many bachelors degrees. these kind of numbers in stem education are not. unique to wife. and even when women overcome the odds and pursue careers they continue to face gender biases that can affect the hiring, promotion, andn career advancement for women in stem. for instance, researchers found that women in stem and counter bias judgment as competence. they also receive less faculty encouragement and financial reform than identical male counterparts when negotiating salary s packages. they're studies show that when women decide to become mothers they are perceived as less confident and committed to hard work and offered fewer jobs.

in comparison command if that wasn't enough women often experience workplace harassment. recently in the new york times university of hawaii shared shared an e-mail that was sent to a former studenta former student from a male colleague who works in thean same lab is the student. in this e-mail read in part from all i know is that from the 1st to talk to you there has not been a single day or hour when you weren't on my mind. that is just the way things are.f in the age of social media these kinds of totally inappropriate e-mails are all too common. according to the professor the former student feels like he cannot rely on human resources because she has heard stories from colleagues about how sexual

harassment happens all the time. their but no action was taken. too again, merely condemning this kind of environment isin not enough. really hoping that change will occur is not enough. for wom we can and must do more to even the playing field for women in stem, and that isun why today i am introducing the opportunities act to combat the systemic issues that can lead to womenng losing interest and leaving opportuni careers basically in droves. they help identify and share best practices to overcome barriers that can assist underrepresented groups.it this tim opportunities act

also allows universities and nonprofits to receive grants and recognition for mentoring women and minorities. mentoring programs and the native hawaiian science and engineering mentoring program at the university of hawaii have both seen tremendous success. deanna this program supports those technology a by garcia who was 1st introduced through women in technology and now as a mentora mentor to girls who want to follow in her footsteps. women in technology in the skills, confidence, and support needed because of networking and strong ties within the community sowas not only able to find an internship but career. because of the women in technology program i can also pay it forward toay current students to show

them i am product of the program and hope to inspiret them to pursue the path justto like i did. that p just one of many successes. enter into i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record testimonials on the success objection. of the program. >> without objection. >> i want to thank the congress: is legislation laid the groundwork and my colleagues for supporting this effort. working together, i know we can do better and is sure women who want to pursue stem careers can do so in a supportive environment. reminded unequal payday we are

reminded of how far we have to go to achieve equality command i urge my colleagues to support the paycheck fairness act and other legislation that would help close the gender gap. a senator: mr. i yield the floor.ielding t >> i want toi want to thank the senator from hawaii for her leadership on this issue.lohat our nation is built on the belief that anyone that works hard should have the opportunity to achieve the american dream.ional that is why today i stand with my fellow senator for efforts to ensure equal pay for equal work. only women still earn only $0.79 of every dollar paid to a man. who

in this wage gap is even worse for of color.ts for the make only $0.60 for every dollar paid to white males. hispanic why $0.55. our in nearly every occupationn women's earnings or less than the male competitors. it is no different for women in my state of illinois.rning $10,000 less than men. while they make slightly more than the national average hispanic woman to pay even less. similar think about that. hispanic womenthat. hispanic women making less than half the earnings of their male coworkers have o similar levels of education and are doing the same job. the gender wage gap n translates into nearly

$11,000 less in earnings for women each year. now that women are the primary bid winners with this means less money for education. it is no wonder that the poverty rate for female-headed households continues to beom disproportionately high in this disparity follows women into retirement. in illinois the average weekly social security 77.3% of benefit is 77 .3 percent of the average for males. all-female retirees receive less on average women tend to live longer and spend more medical care, forcing them to do more with less. earn

60 percent of women will m earn less. mal and two thirds would receive a pay increase. rate the poverty rate would be cut in half. fewer families that need safety net programs. equal pay for equal work is good for the economy.eck we can pass paycheck fairness act. employees still maintain policies of those who voluntarily share salary information.re this makes it nearly impossible for employees to find out whether they are w being paid fairly. discriminati this will provide the same remedies as people who are subjected to discriminationin curre based on race or national

origin. the paycheck fairness act wages. would build on the success of the lily ledbetter fair pay act which clarifies the hundred 80 day statute of limitations that we set with each affected paycheck. this is the 1st bill signed into law by president obama in 2009. yes president obama signed the bill, took the 1st pin he used to signed and handed it to you. senat i stood there and thought that it was entirely appropriate. my republican my republican colleagues why aren't you with us? really is don't you agree adarsh within the same as your son? it really is a basic issue

of fairness. so we invite you to join us. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and yield the floor. >> the senator from maryland >> i come to the floor today i to join my colleagues and calling for equal pay for equal work. i just left the president of the united states.is is this is the home to the women's party. the president is calling of building a national monument to commemorate the tremendous work.

under the act that is his right to create that. to but it is not only the building that we want to preserve, not only the records that we to preserve. it is -- writingon, thinking gre constitution, thinking great thoughts and doing great deeds, abigail adams goes back running the family farm lette , keeping the family together and wrote john letter saying don't forget the ladies because if you do we will ferment our own

revolution. where peopl people organize ordinary people organize and mobilize move to accomplish great deeds. it took us over a hundred 50 years to get the right to vote. we are coming up on the anniversary of suffrage. we want to we wanted to be able to participate fully in our society will be able to exercise our voice in terms of choosing leaders, and along the way we have been advocating those policies. 1963 working with the president committed to civil rights lyndon johnson as part of the great straightforward, we thought oh, n

that we had settled the issue.er we have the 50 years later we have only gained $0.19. and at that rate it will take us until 2058 to get t equal pay for equal work. we need to make sure they are limiting the impediments. we are often sidelined, pink slipped, harassed or intimidated. why are you doing this? har and then we are oftenas harassed for doing it. people might say and we take care of that we passedn the lily ledbetter fair pay act?he legislation the lily ledbetter

legislation, and i am so proud of what we did keep the doors open so that the statute of limitations, but now we need to get passed legislation to end the loopholes that have a stranglehold on women getting equal pay in the 1st place. paycheck i know that i have legislation pending.to that paycheck fairness act is three things, it stops recalibration for sharing pay information in the workplace. or g by now your forbidden toet tell. forbidd you're forbidden to tell or get fired.rful nor if you are working

side-by-side as a nurse, as a computer software,r software engineer she could get fired and you could get fired. t this is wrong.o i also want to stop employers from using any reason to pay women less. he has a better education. we are willing to compete. then we heard he has to be paid more because he is the breadwinner. what are we, crumbs? very often it is women in the marketplace for now

either the sole breadwinner the or also a significant breadwinner.you to hello, hello, so we don't want to hear he is a breadwinner.ork. we want to be paid equal pay for equal work. for they also want punitive damages. that pay is not a strong enough deterrent. that the hello my colleagues to know that they have ideas. i have such admiration for her. she is a fine senator. we should. my needs of the way forward. problem.

these needs of the way forward because it solves the problem. the of course, we will sit down and talk and have conversations. be that the end of the day we a face this issue. but in pay more for everything. s sometimes given the same areas the same health status. c guess what charge more for dry cleaning.esses. we are tired of being taken to the cleaners. for we are tired of being taken to the cleaners. united states senators nurses are executive assistance, we stand with

the women. they kick the ball around pay and we are tired of being kicked around. equal pay for equal work. and i think we can move this forward. gold? time for a change, time for a difference.ficer: the >> the senator from massachusetts. >> i want to say a special thank you.all her terrific leadership.f it today is equal pay day. cou our country guaranteed equal pay for women. in in the year 2016 at a time

when we have self driving cars women still take only $0.79 for every dollar men makes. get in the united states congress debating whether women should get fired for asking what the guy down the hall makes for doing exactly the same. the it took the average woman working from january 1 of last year until today to make as much is the average men makes in 2015. extra that means she had to workon an extra three and a half months in order to make what a man may last year. she starts the year and a whole. it is a na it is not a national day of celebration.nder

we hear a lot about how the economy is improving.ame is too many families across the country feel of the game is rigged against them. they still struggle to make and meets. again the game is rigged against working families, and pay discrimination as part of that. wages for decades wages of flattened out for americanag workers. the wage just compounds the problem.nd the the productivity wage and the gender wage gap from 1979 until 2014, women's median hourly wages will be

70 percent higher. refuse t the republicans in washington refuse. defund planned they want to spend the time trying to defund health clinics could access to birth control then doiv anything at all to give y working women to raise.women earn the game is rigged when women are less than men for doing the same work. it is rigged when women can be fired for asking how much the guy after all makes for doing the chain -- doing the same job. women can get fired just for requesting aa regular work schedule to go back toig school or get a better job. and it is rigged when women unless their whole lives so that their social security l checks are smaller and

student loans are bigger. the game is rigged against women and families and it has to stop. w am standing with my colleagues today to demand equal pay for equal work. it is 2016, not 1916, and it is long past time. this is about economics, but it is also about our values. of a about who we are as a people and what kind of a country we are trying to build.today today we recognize equal payday and fight today because we don't want to have to recognize year after year after year. thank you, mr. president. the

>> thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today to stand up and speak out about an issue that impacts women and families in every state across this great country. .. i rise that there is inequality in pay across this country and it's time that we do something about it. working women that it is time that we do something about it. >> working women make up over 50% of our work force and they're working hard irthan 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. in fact recent reports 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 is working hard to support her family.ed in order to help her family get ahead, shannon has continued her education to advance her careerli

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 acrossos different industries, women are making less than their mail -- 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's an unexpected carar shoes, w problem, or children outgrowing their clothing and their shoes whether it's helping to pay off student loan debt or the ability

to save a little bit of the paycheck to ensure that theirs kids have chance for 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 healthcare 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 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.d to not just those at the top. before i yield, i wanted to take a moment to thank and recognize the senior senator from maryland, barbara mccull ski for her tremendous leadership on this issue. it's been on 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.leadership that >> i thank senator bald win for her comments. i'm proud of the senior senator from maryland maryland and the leadership senator has shown on gender issues.

this bill on paycheck fairness is the most recent example of her extraordinary leadership throughout her career on gender equity issues. wanted to be here not say how proud i am of senator mccull -- the senator -- the paycheck fair mass act not about women. it's about our economy families fairness, american values, and we all should be personally engaged in make sure paycheck fairness becomes the law. to my it's outrageous that a woman has to work five days of the same work that a man works four days with the same pay. that is inherently unfair. and needs to be corrected. and the paycheck fairness act would do that. i know we're on equal payday, and reflects how long women have to work basically without getting a paycheck in order to

get paid nor 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 member of the senate foreign relations committee, the ranking democrat, and as the president knows america, one of the things we look at is how well other countries deal with basic rights, and one those of rights is how they treat their women, and one of the barometers for determining how well a country does is how well do day treat women? if they treat women well they generally are doing better. the truth of the matter is many women do better investments that men. they invest in children and families and economic growth whereas men are more likely to invest -- we see much more economic growth where women are treated fairly in other countries. so it's an important value for

america, and we have promoted diplomacy. gender equity issue in our foreign policy and development assistance and diplomacy, but for us to be effective globally we first need to take care ofh 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 be the fact that women aren't paid as much, and that's true, but if you happen to be a mine note, 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 we could have in the constitution of the united states theeed thr fairness -- this would make easier to ratify to become part of the constitution, but like

justice scalia note it accurately, there's nothing in the constitution that requires discrimination against women but there's nothing in the con constitution that protects. so we can do a better job in fundamental changes but what we can do in this congress now is the paycheck fairness.gr that can be done in this congress and be effective this year and can be the legacy of this congress. i urge my colleagues, let's do that. let's -- we all talk about gender equity issues. with the bill pending on paycheck fairness, we can act, and we can act now, and we can make major change in american policy that will not only be fair to women, but be fair toa all americans and allow our economy to grow. with that, mr. president, yield the floor. >> center from new hampshire.

>> thank you, mr. president. i'm pleased to join my colleague from maryland who was here with a number of other people too talk about need to pass the equal pay act to make sure we end once and for all paycheck discrimination against women.an 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, and 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 79 cents for what -- for every dollar a man earns, and it's a disparity that

exists at all levels of education and contracts hundreds of occupations from elite professionals to everyday blue color do -- blue collar workers. there are factors that contribute to the gender by gap but as much as 40% of the pay gap can be attributed just to outright discrimination. 40%. discrimination. and i think probably most people who watch tv in the last couple of weeks have seen one particularly egregious example and that the u.s. women's soccer team, whose members make only a quarter of what their male cars parts make. the women's and men's soccer team work for the same employer, the u.s. soccer federation, and the women's team generates significantly more income than then enwon.

have been olympic champions four times and the world's top ranked team for nearly two decades and yet they're paid only a quarter of what men make.tr 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 solo primary breadwinners 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 onlye about fairness but it's alsoso about providing adequately for their family. it's about being able to afford internet access so kids can do their homework. there's a lot that women,

bred-winners, can do with thatnation extra $10,800 that women would earn on average if it were not for pay discrimination. business i also serve as the ranking h member on the senate's small business and entrepreneurship committee so i've seen hows similar gender gaps confront women who own small businesses of just as women on average are paid 21% less than men, recent study found that the odds of businesses owned by women winning a federal contract are 21% lower than for otherwise similar companies, for male-owned enterprises. d 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 lot of 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. t back in the early '80s i served on new hampshire's commission on the status of women, and i chaired report on employment in new hampshire, and at that time women were only making 59 cents for every dollar 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 itl helps their families. helps pull their kid 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. which and close loopholes that courted created in laws that are already in place, and would create strong incentives for employers to obey these laws.ay this legislation is about basic fairness, about equal treatment and a level field in the workplace for our daughters and granddaughters and every american and also about making t 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 20th century, it is way past time to make good on our promise of equal pay for equal work in the united states. >> 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 to 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 numbers since 1980. we are in over 55% of bachelors degrees, 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 bat basic fairness, and ensuring that every woman, just like every man, has the opportunity to build a life that she chooses.

for over half a century, the equal pay act and the civil rights act have enabled women to make significant economicy strides. any violation of these important laws are illegal, and they should be punished to the full extent of the law. but i believe 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 inwh the work force. there are stories of young womenth who start off in entry level jobs and they rise to the top of the corporate ranks because someone, somewhere recognized her potential.

for a manager, and mentors committed to their team. men and women across the work force are focused on cultivating strength and providing thoughtful feedback in areas that need improvement. unfortunately, there are alsoav stories of pain, discrimination,te and bias. we all have friends and neighbors, sisters and mothers who were treated unnearly at some point in their careers -- 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 inva the private sector. the survey found over a third of private sector employers have specific rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with their coworkers. this is 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 some/or could lead to punishment. 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.ns 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 colleague's, you should have every right to ask. this is as basic as the first amendment. ern suring 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. to a labor depth 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 this government m 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 would put on employers and job creators, and every, every

new regulation creates a new cost. i also have real doubt that this raw data will give the administration what it's looking for. instead, it does this presenting a distorted picture of pay data. moreover, remains unclear how this information would even identify discrimination. the data does not take intol account other factors, includingit years of experience, education level, and productivity. and they are a 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 conversation 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 empow 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 buildingleagues

bipartisan consensus. i've 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 withoutba fear of retribution. allowing e my legislation breaks town 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, let them negotiate for the salaries they feel they deserve. knowledge is power. by freely discussing their wages, workers can negotiate effectively for the pay that 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 a bipartisan support stalls with five words. it doesn't go far enough. modest. the biggest critics of this plan say that it is too modest. a 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 withoution. compromise. it requires both agreement and

accommodation. my bill can make a realt' difference for american workers and unlike legislation that is 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,ave surveys suggest over one-third of private sector companies have specific prohibitions in place. i'm encouraged by the support we have garnered on both sides of

the aisle for the bill. the straightforward update tower equal pay laws. it is achieve everyone we're all their find solutions that both republicans and democrats can achieve for the american people. and it and the attitude not 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 mccosky and several other democrats hold a press conference and discuss the importance of protecting workers against retaliation for discussing their salaries. i agree, protecting the 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 a solution for 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 americane're goi 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 interior family -- provide for their families. we can help them proceed and prosper in the work force while being secure in the knowledge

they are compensated fairly for their work. thank you.ise today >> mr. president. >> senator from new hampshire. >> thank you mr. president. i rise today because it is equal pay day, and i would like to talk about the importance of ending, finally, gender-based discrimination of wages that unfortunately i can't believe we're in the year 2016 and this is still an issue that we need to address in this country, but it is. i had the privilege of serving as our state's -- first female attorney general, and it's the right thing to do and the obvious thing to go, under our laws already, that equal pay for equal work should be the standard. and that all of shoes be judgedn, in our workplace by our experience, our qualifications

our capability at doing our job, and nothing else. f women face many challenges in balancing work and family life. i know that first hand from being a working mom of two young kids. on top of those challenges, no woman, whether she is a mother or not, should ever face the gender-based pay discrimination in the work place. ... serious need to address this problem. men and women should simply re fischer >> men is women should receive equal pay for equal work. it is that simple. your salary should be based on how you do wrour your job. because of this i introduced the

cap act and i want to thank my co-sponsors. we built on a highly successful, pay equity law that was signed into law in my home state of new hampshire in 2014. the gap act makes it gear employers must pay men and women equal wages for equal work withoutwhich allows merit pay which all of us want. having been the first woman attorney general i want to give women the opportunity to out perform our colleagues as well because i know we can. there are laws that govern equal pay and fear of discussing pay

without retalitation and some protections being available to some and not others. as such, the gap act is a sensible approach to updating, clarifying, and strengthening these laws. for 20 years, the paycheck fairness act has been around in the congress. it has never passed and one reason i think was described well in 2010 by the boston globe that said paycheck fairness as a whole is too broad solution to a narrow problem. the gap act is a bill that stiffens penalties and bans retalation and clarifies the law so that we can ensure we have

equal pay for equal work. ensure my bill, update equal pay act, factor other than sex clause. exployers can explain pay differences by pointing to a number of factors but one of them was written to be a factor other than sex. our bill closes this loophole and clarifies that any factor other than sex must be a business-related factor such as education, training or experience. makes sense, doesn't it? why would you allow a defense of a factor other than sex that has nothing to do with your job? that seems to me to be inviting discrimination. and that is why we should clarify the law to make clear that it has to be a factor related to jour job.

the gap act creates a penalty for willful violations and this is one step further than new hampshire's bipartisan equal pay law. employers that act knowingly with the intent to discriminate should have to pay a penalty and what we will do with the funds from the penalty is we will actually take the funds, rather than putting it back in the general treasury, and we will study the wedge gap issue. make sure we have the best research on what is causing it, and what is happening, and find more ways to expand the workforce for women with better paying jobs.

the gap act would promote salary transparency. according to the women's institute study half of female employers were discouraged to discuss their pay with others and when they do so they are more likely to discover discrimination. but if i cannot discuss pay, and i find i have a coworker in the same situation as me, but making more money as a male counterpart, and i am not allowed to raise it because i cannot discuss pay discrimination then how do i claim employer discrimination? we need make sure employees are allowed to discuss their pay and this will make it easier to uncover gender differences. so our bill ends retaliation and tells employers they cannot

enforce such policies. they cannot ask an employee to bargain away their rights and not talk about pay. after getting feedback trompeople in our state, we made sure that feedpart is strong and introduced an updated bill with stronger provision for salary transparency and makes sure employers cannot side step and prohibits pay secret policies that could encourage this kind of behavior. on equal pay day today it is very important we all work together to do anything we can to end the gender wage gap. let's stop the political posturing.

let's stop using this important issues as a political football. legislation, like the paycheck fairness act has been 20 years. i am glad to introduce the gap act because i believe this is a common sense piece of legislation that actually gets at the issue by clarifying our laws in a way that benefits employees, makes sure it is clear if you willfully violate our laws you will pay a penalty and we will take that money and put it back into research to further help us address the pay gap. and we will also make clear for plaintiff if you want to file an eeoc claim and you also want to file appear equal pay claim we will make sure you can do both and you are rightfully protected

to do both while staying the statue of limitations. this helps plaintiffs have to not litigate two forums and allow the eeoc to do its jobs and the discrimination to be used in an equal act claim. this is another important step for plaintiff and also to clarify those who are victims of discrimination to allow them to bring their rights forward. on equal pay day today, i hope we can stop making this is a partisan issue and we can start actually passing legislation that will make a difference. in new hampshire in 2014, they passed an important law. i was glad that new hampshire did that and i was glad i could introduce what new hampshire did here in the united states senate on a bipartisan bases and build on that to introduce the gap act

with some of my colleagues. so i hope today on equal pay day that we will take up legislation like the gap act and address gender-based pay discrimination because we are in 2016. i have an 11-year-old daughter. i don't want to be discussing this 20 years from now. what i would like to do is have us work on this in a serious bipartisan manner, address this, and end gender-pay based discrimination once and for all because equal pay for equal work. it just makes sense. it is the right thing to do and it should be how our laws work. >> mr. president, as we approach all day today, today is equal pay day. what does that mean? that means that today is the first day women in the workforce, if we separated male workers and female workers, this

the first day women would get a paycheck in the year. pretty remarkable and that is the disparity we have been working on for decades in this country but haven't achieved the parody we believe is essential if we are going to be a family-friendly, a forward looking country and certainly a country with a growing and prosperous middle class. i think way too often the issue of pay karaokeecquitequity, the issue of equal pay is characterized as a woman's issue and characterize something only elite women care about. it is characterized like it is not something for government to address. i am here to disspell all of those myths.

by short changing women, employers are short changing all of society. they could use the funds to put food on the table, or make sure their children get the medical care they deserve. we have all heard women-only earn 97% nationally of what white non-hispanic males pay. in north dakota, the numbers are more dramatic. the pay equity there is 71%. women earn just 71% of what men make in my state. it is unacceptable. it is unacceptable at a time when according to a recent study from pew research that women are the leading breadwinners in 40% of house holds comparing to 11% in 1960. it does not make sense we are still struggling to make the

same amount for the equal work as what men make. additionally in north dakota 74% of children live in households where both parents work. those parents both need to work to be able to support their families. when women don't make as much as men, it doesn't just hurt them but it hurts their children and it hurts families across the country. so what is congress to do about this despairy? we need to pass paycheck fairness. we need to make sure that that critical piece of legislation, which responds to this concern, is actually in our laws and is in the statutes of the united states of america. what does paycheck fairness do? it would help close the pay gap by taking critical steps to empower women to negotiate for

equal pay. i cannot tell you the number of times i hear from women in my state i didn't know i wasn't getting paid what a man was. and an employer saying she didn't ask and he did. i think we need to be able to give the tools to women so that they know when there is disparate treatment. we need to close the loopholes that the courts have created in the law. we need to create strong incentives for employers to obey the laws in place and we need to strengthen federal outreach and enforcement efforts. but looking at pay is really only one part of the equation. we also need to pass other family-friendly policies like the family act which would establish a federal leave policy. paid leave policy. now, i can only imagine what the debate was in this body when someone came up with the idea that we ought to do employment insurance.

i am sure there was a lot of discussion about yet another program, yet another system that would actually add to payroll tax, add to burdens put on families. who today in this body would propose we eliminate unemployment insurance? it has been a valuable transition opportunity for our workers to look for that next job without disrupting their family payment. as a person whose father was a seasonal construction working i know how critical that benefit was to my family growing up. i know that frequently the opportunity to earn unemployment was in fact put food on the table in my household. so let's talk about what happens when someone has a baby. let's talk about what happens when someone's mom gets sick. let's talk about what happens when we have catastrophic

illness of our own. many people in my state, in fact the majority of people in my state, don't have one day of paid leave. so their choice is to take care of their family's health condition or newborn child and lose their job. or go on unpaid leave and not receive a salary. how many people can go on unpaid leave and not receive a salary? not a lot. what it means is frequently when people have to transition away from work all of a sudden that person equalifies for food stamps, equalifies for medicaid and other government assistance programs. this for the price to an employer of a cup of coffee a week -- a $1.50 a week per employee we could provide this benefit. how do we know week provide this benefit? because we have states who have

done it. california, which restricted their payment to families who would go use this insurance benefit, restricted i believe to 50% but recently upped that to 75%. this bill would put it at 66%. the family act moves employment economy into the 21st century. it recognizes that women are in the workplace and they are in the workplace for real and permanently. it recognizes that when we have family-friendly policies we have a better workforce, we have a more economical workforce and we have an opportunity for employers to keep their businesses. recently in north dakota, senator jill brand and i traveled around the state talking about our paid leave

policy and the family act. we were in a small business. someone with less than ten employers. he said he would love to provide this benefit but there is no way he could economically afford it if it happened to this employee. he said there is no way he could give this benefit and hire a temporary worker. but if he had the opportunity to share that risk broadly across all small employers in the country that shared risk then would make this benefit available to him. and he could keep his employees. he could keep those employees he trained. he could make sure they were better employees when they came back because they had that benefit. so we need to understand that this isn't just about the girls. this isn't just about the women in the senate standing up. this is about a shared experience we have had all. a shared experience of having to chose between going home and

taking care of your mother or actually feeding your family. when we look at why people are angry in america today, why they feel like they are not getting ahead is because they are falling further behind because we are not adopting it 2 1st century policyies like the family act and the paycheck fairness act and recognizing the value of what women do. i will close with a story. when where was in college, i spent the first year between freshman and sophomore year i was a nanny. it was rewarding, i loved the kids, but it was hard work and 24/7. the next years i worked construction. you know why? i got paid better and the work wasn't as difficult. i worked in a factory cleaning pipe. i worked on road construction. i worked on water construction.

and yes, that is hard work. i was labor in all of those jobs. that is hard work. but none of it is as hard as taking care of children, as taking care of sick people and our elderly yet in america those jobs pay less. it is time we really evaluate what is happening in the workplace, what is happening for america's family so we can adopt family-friendly policies so we can listen to our constituents and have empathy for the challenges of american families. when that empathy finds its way to public policy in the halls of congress people will feel connected to the government again. i encourage everyone who hasn't looked at pay equity and the family act to understand what this can do for their

constituents and the american workplace and how we can help small businesses provide the benefits and services they need to provide to be competitive in this very competitive workforce environment. with that, mr. chairman, i would yield the floor. >> the u.s. senate has completed work for today returning tomorrow at 9:30 tomorrow morning eastern to continue work on a bill reauthorizing the faa for a little over a year. senators will try to get agreement on many measures tomorrow. a final vote is scheduled for thursday and we will have live coverage of that debate here on c-span2. president obama's supreme court nominee was on capitol hill today meeting with senators. even though republican leaders say the nomination will not come to a floor for the vote. the appointee met with cory

booker today. >> thank you. getting your picture taken at a level that has never happened before probably. >> i will try to look my best. you have been sprayed a lot today. you are done hopefully after this? >> no, i have one more. >> what is your daughter doing now? >> one of them is studying criminology at cambridge. >> which one is the one -- >> that was the one that graduated in 2007. >> i hope adventurous and

traveling? >> she is travelling all over the world. >> i cannot tell you how much i encourage people to do this. >> i told her this is your moment. >> after the meeting with supreme court nominee garland senator booker spoke to reporters about today's meeting.

>> hi, everybody, sorry to be so long. especially the new jersey media. i have to suck up to them. >> you better keep talking now. >> anything for you guys real quick? >> how did it go? >> it was a very meaningful meeting. i have met a lot of people from heads of state to policy experts to even entertainment folks but this is probably one of the more meaningful meetings i have had for a guy that could likely be on the supreme court making decisions about things you know i work on passionately within the justice system. it was a good meeting and great opportunity to discuss judicial philosophy. a great opportunity to hear more about his own personal experiences as a prosecutor dealing with tough issues.

it helped make him more of a human being and as a potential jurist i will say this, these are the kind of conversations that should be held in an open forum in a hearing where the public, as well as all senators can benefit from the conversations that are now being held behind closed doors. he deserves a hearing and i think i deserve to benefit from durbin and cornin and lee and others. [inaudible conversation]

>> first of all, there is a section in the constitution that says it isn't my choice, the liberal people's choice but it is the president's choice. my job is to advice and consent. what the people of new jersey want me to do is provide that consent. there is no way to do that mately with a vote. so to me, this is a dramatic offense, not just to every voter in new jersey and every resident in new jersey because there are two senators who are not being able to do their jobs because other centers won't do theirs, specifically mcconnell and grassley are not holding hearings or allowing a vote. you could be sure if there was hearings some of the senators

who do represent very -- or are champions of the liberal left, you can be sure a lot of these concerns would be brought up in a series of questions. a public forum that could benefit not only the senators but be a level of transparency that could be valuable for this country as a whole. >> did he tell you anything you didn't know before today that stays with you? >> i say this as guy who walks into rooms in this place and gets chills. he told me a lot of moving things. i am a two and a half year old senator. first supreme court justice nominee i have been able to sit down with. it is a meeting i will never forget for the rest of my life. i took every word he said. i will be reflecting on it with my staff when we have the time.

i learned about him and his life and discussed his years as the prosecutor and judge. i talked to him and engaged with him about judicial philosophy and judges making decisions. we talked about specific sort of elements of history. it was a good session. >> can i ask about senator grassley -- and republicans are saying at this pace they will not do anything about the nomination. how is he holding up with that stance? >> anybody that does know about his history he is a pretty

resilliant guy who has dealt with a lot of tough situations like the oklahoma city bombing trial case -- resilient -- he seems strong and appreciative of everyone, republicans and democrats, who are trying to meet with him. again, the roll is not to have -- role -- 99 meetings or a hundred meetings. it would be a lot better to have open hearings that could serve the purpose of issues being vetted with more substance and that, in addition to meetings, would give the ability for, i think, would lead into the ability for senators to provide their consent or not in a vote on the floor. i think he's doing well. this is a guy who has a career of many challenging days. he did very well and i think he will do well in one-on-one meetings but that is not the process.

what is happening is very much a violation of the constitution. >> after his nominations, he was further to the right than scalia on some issues. did you talk about that? >> anybody who knows me, and this is plain, i think we have gone way off the rails in term of our criminal justice system. it is broken and the shards are cutting all americans who are paying trillions in tax money to fuel a broken system which is undermining people's lives and wounding the people who are wounded and it is bias against

poor mentally ill, and minorities. rest assured that is a focus of mine in evaluating who is going on that court. what frustrates me is there is not a thorough flush out of those issues. and understand, the criminal justice bill we have right now is coming out of the judiciary committee, only myself and scott are on the bill that are not in that committee. these issues i know would be brought to bear in a way where you would have to answer to a lot of these questions. ...

today president obama designated the new national monument in washington d.c. in honor of the women's rights and suffrage movements. previously known as the sewell-belmont house for women's equality national monument was