we have to have concern for those people and have ideas. guess what? the president's ideas are not working. 20 million people are out of work. black unemployment is twice white unemployment. 3.7 million women have been added to the rolls of poverty. maybe it's their side. if we want to grow our movement, -- i thought the bank bailouts were a horrible idea. sending myeel like money to a guy that made $100 million a year working on wall street. and somehow me and middle america, i am supposed to send

my money to bail out these bankers. that is part of why the tea party started. they were frustrated with republicans and giving up on the democrats. are frustrated on republicans voting for the bank bailout. there is a bigger working than an honors class. i want to tell the workers of america that we are on their side. the president keeps offering you free stuff. more unemployment insurance. when is the last time that we created millions of jobs? it was under ronald reagan. forwardld reagan come and say, let's just cut taxes for low income people?

he said let's cut everyone's taxes. that's what rich people pay. more revenue came in in fact. people were carter and make more money. more revenue comes in. say,n't let the democrats richower the taxes for people. anyone here ever work for a poor person? we are all interconnected and we've got to get beyond this class warfare. we can't let them beat us up -- how manyave to people have their policies employed?

barely growing. you never get out of poverty. the government steals the value of your dollar. you have a little bit more. the gas costs more and you can go on vacation. all of this occurs from big government. $17 trillion worth of debt. losing onesay we are million jobs a year because of the burden of this debt. we are on a precipice. the time approaches. i remember seeing patients in my and looking at my money market account. my definition of panic is when you are worried about your money market account losing its value.

i still worry about the fundamentals of that. our movement has never been about the plutocrats. the other side paints it is that. will let the media know we are the middle class. why isn't he helping us? [applause] the president is simply loading more people in the wagon. these are not bad people in the wagon. they are people out of work and suffering. he debate needs to be not about who cares more, it needs to be about what policy will help people more. new hampshire, send me your money, i will give you some back later doesn't work. policy ism with the if i come to new hampshire and i take your money, here is

$100,000, go create jobs for people. nine times out of 10, i will pick the wrong person because the marketplace chooses. think about solyndra. president took $500 million from the middle class and gave it to one of the richest people in our country. that doesn't sound like it's good for the middle class. the president says a lot of things but doesn't quite get around to doing them. phone? got a cell you are under surveillance. the president says he's not listening, he's just looking. even that's not exactly true. they occasionally are.

if we want to grow our movement bigger, the message resonates with some young people. young kids on the right and on the left, this message resonates. they don't like our message, they just don't have any money. you have to talk to people about things they are concerned with. thosed of listening to supposedly in charge of the party that want to dilute the message, we keep our core message. they take it to people. it we will be the dominant party again.

i love the image of that. we need to proclaim our message with the passion of patrick like a man coming over the .ill singing with optimism no matter what walk of life you are. we once again proclaim our message like a man coming over the hill singing, we will be the dominant party. is senator ted cruz. [applause]

>> wow. [applause] >> god bless new hampshire. [applause] afp.less wow. each ofilled to be with you today. thank you for that incredibly warm welcome. blessed to me are have two little girls at home. caroline and catherine. caroline is five and catherine

is three. indeed. for every one of you who are parents, you know god makes every child very different. is the essence of sweetness. she is just a sweet, sweet little girl. rascal. is a , heidi had those girls up in d.c. one weekend. a beautiful fall day. we decided to show the girls mount vernon. we are driving down the george washington parkway. the trees are turning. they are red and orange and yellow. we are driving down and caroline is sitting behind me kicking the back of my seat like she always does. catherine is sitting on the other side. caroline asks her sister, catherine, what do you want to do when you grow up? catherine says, i want to work

in the u.s. senate. i want to work with daddy. boring. says, that's we are going to be rock stars instead. zinger. tosses out the besides, daddy will be dead by then. [laughter] that's a real conversation. i'm sitting there like, hello, i'm right in front of you. de me wonderake me if maybe caroline had been speaking with republican leadership. [laughter] >> you are the leadership >> "washington journal" continues!

[applause] even more in portly, you are the leadership. there is nothing as scary in washington as what i'm going to face tonight. sext week, caroline turne six. when i get off the airplane, i'm going to a princess sleepover party. [laughter] last week, caroline told me, daddy, you are not invited because you are not a girl. i said, sweetheart, if it is in my house, daddy is always invited. she proceeded to put her hands on her hips and say, fine, then we are going to play attack the

daddy. in a few hours, i'm going to walk in my home to be greeted by 11 six-year-old girls dressed as disney princesses try to tackle me. let me ask for your prayers that i might see tomorrow morning. thrilled to be back here. to be back with so many friends new hampshire. i'm thrilled to encourage -- you all are here because there is a sense of urgency to what's happening in this country. you all are here because you understand that this is not in or near retirement politics. archedeats we are facing her neck. ie most common thing hear is, ted, i'm scared.

i'm scared for the direction of this country. i'm scared for my kids and grandkids. we're bankrupting the greatest country in the history of the world. profoundly optimistic. together, we will turn this nation around. [applause] let me tell you three things we need to do to turn this nation around. number one, we need to stand for liberty. [applause] liberty has never been more under assault that it is right now. this administration has tried to go down the bill of rights and violate each one of them. irs that doesn't

respect the first amendment. it is going after individual citizens saying, tell us what books you are reading. tell us the content of your prayers. federal government has no business asking any american is the content of our prayers. [applause] i do kind of wish the answer had been, forgive them, father, for they know not what they do. you look at the second amendment. -- you don't need a punchline. [laughter] you just say his name. the next time you're at a party, ,alk up to someone and just say

"joe biden" and close your mouth. they will crack up laughing. [laughter] said, "if anybody attacks your house, go outside with a double barrel shotgun and fire both into the air. ." that is very good advice. if it so happens you are being attacked by a flock of geese. [laughter] look at the fourth and fifth amendments. our right to privacy. how many of you have your cell phones? please like to ask you, leave your cell phones on. i want to make sure president obama hears every word i have to say to them. [laughter]

you look at the 10th amendment with the federal government trying to intrude into the prerogatives of the states all across the board. things like trying to set educational standards. we need to repeal common core. [applause] and then there's the pattern of lawlessness in this administration. ignoring law after law after law. if this president does not agree with the law, he refuses to enforce it. whether immigration laws or welfare laws or marriage laws or drug laws. -- pleasebama care take obama care! [laughter] 30 times this president has simply unilaterally changed the law. no authority in the law for that. how many of you will remember

sixth grade civics? your member schoolhouse rock how a bill becomes a law? apparently the president missed that tday. we have never had a president asserted the authority to ignore and unilaterally changed the law . this should trouble everybody. anybody who cares about rule of law and the constitution. when you have a president who can pick and choose which laws to follow and which laws to ignore, you no longer have a president. [applause] to stand for liberty. number two, we need to stand for growth and opportunity. [applause]

officeer one priority in from the day i was elected, bringing back jobs and economic growth. the reason is simple. that is the top priority of the xans i am proud to represent and the priority of americans all caps this country. you want to know why people are frustrated at washington? the biggest divide we have in this country is not between democrats and republicans. it is between entrenched politicians in both parties in washington and the american people. [applause] all across this country, people are frustrated going, what is wrong with them? they get elected and go to washington and they stop listening to us. they stop listening. the top priority of the american

people at his jobs and economic growth. in the year i have been in harry reid senate, we have not spent a minute talking about jobs and the number of. it is simply not a priority. aboute not talk fundamental tax reform. we should abolish the irs. [applause] for five years, we have been trapped in the great stagnation under president obama. his policies are not working. the rich and powerful, those who walk the corridors of power are getting fat and happy. economic obama agenda. the top one percent the president loves to demagogue are in the higher share of our

national income since 1920. nothing happened after 1928. [laughter] the people who have been hurt the most by the obama administration are the most vulnerable among us. young people come hispanics, african-americans, single moms. people who are struggling to climb the mer economic ladder. i think of all of the issues we face from the perspective of my dad. 57 years ago, my dad fled cuba. and torturedrison and beaten almost to death in a cuban jail. he came to america at age 18, fling the batista regime. he could not speak in the spirit he had $100 so and was underwear . i don't advise caring money in your underwear. [laughter] dishes, job washing

making $.50 an hour. he worked seven days a week and paid his way through school and went on to start a small business and to work towards the american dream. policies -- myhe father was still washing dishes today, the odds are very high he would've lost his job because of the 1.7 trillion dollars in new taxes from this administration. because of crushing regulations that are hammering small businesses. small businesses generate two thirds of new jobs in our economy. it is kids like my dad were the ones bearing the brunt, getting hammered by the obama economic agenda. had been lucky enough to not lose his job, the odds are overwhelming he would've had his hours forcibly reduced to

28-29 hours a week. you cannot pay her bills or theater kids or pay your way through college on 20 hours week. the reason we should support is it is foundational to opportunity. the opportunity of everyone to achieve the american dream. [applause] i think every republican should have two words tattooed on their hands. growth and opportunity. i'm so inspired by you all, i might get an eagle tattooed on my chest. [laughter] [applause] exactly. leads to my third and final point. how do we turn this country around? empower the people. [applause] i am powerfully optimistic and hopeful because of each of you.

the answers are not going to come from washington. re is nothing new under the sun. we are we are right now is early like the late 1970's. you had jimmy carter in the white house and you had the same failed economic policy. out-of-control spending and taxes and regulation. producing the exact same misery and stagnation. you had the same reckless foreign policy and the same naïveté making the world a much more dangerous place. we sawoss this country, a grassroots movement of millions of men and women who came together and became the reagan revolution. that did not come from washington. washington despised ronald reagan. it came from the american people. the reason i am optimistic it is, i am blessed to have the opportunity serving the senate

to travel across the country. at the same thing is happening all over this country. -- men andwaking up women who have never been involved in politics are looking up saying, what is happening to this country? we're losing our freedom. we're losing the future for our kids and grandkids. let's get back. let's get back to the free market principle. let's get back to the constitutional liberties that this nation was built on. [applause] i'm spending my time, not focused on washington, not trying to convince washington of anything because they are not listening. ist i'm trying to do instead help energize and mobilize the american people. all of you who said you had cell phones before, if you are willing to come together and join a grassroots army, i would

ask each of you with your cell phones to text the word "growth" to the number 33733. 33733, text the word "growth." we will not turn the country we are able to energize and mobilize millions of americans to hold washington accountable. i don't know if your member the movie, the usual suspects. where they talk about the greatest trick the devil ever played. to convince the world he did not exist. lie that the media tries to play is to convince us that the american people don't believe in the values this country was built on. it is simply not true. democrats, ifto

you listen to the media, although i repeat myself -- [laughter] [applause] they will tell you there is no hope. they will tell you we cannot turn this around. they will tell you that you can't stop obama care. they will tell you that kathleen sibelius resigning is a result of obama care's success. true, i hope every democrat will follow her path and resign as well. [applause] you want to see the power of the grassroots?

last summer and last fall, millions of americans rose up and said they don't want the disaster. we don't want the suffering that is coming from obama care. , so many millions of americans say that we elevated the debate. where are we right now as a result of your efforts? at hispresident obama is lowest approval rating is ever been in six years in office. [applause] today, obama care is at its lowest approval rating it has ever been since the day it was signed into law. [applause] you want to know where the country is? it is often a good barometer to look at the late-night comics. said, "so,jay leno president obama tol called me ad

said, if you like your job, you can keep it." [laughter] [applause] a couple of weeks later, jay went back to the same theme. ,, holidays are coming up, thanksgiving -- the first thanksgiving, the pilgrims said to the indians, if you like your land, you can keep it." [laughter] [applause] let me tell you something. as a result of the men and women in this room and as the result of millions of men and women standing up and saying obama care is a disaster, it is not working, it is hurting millions of americans, i am convinced we are going to repeal every single word of obama care. [applause]

it will not come from washington. it will come from each of you. new hampshire is the live free or die state. still, and forever. [applause] texas, that is a sentiment we can relate to. let me tell you something that my father has said many times. "i saw freedom taken away and cuba. i will die before he let it happen again in this country." [applause]

that is why we are here. that is why you are here. to keep spreading the message of freedom to your friends and family and neighbors. , together,y to say let's come together and get back to the free market principle and get back to the constitutional liberty. get back to the incredible america offers.a ♪ i am humbled and thrilled to stand with each and every one of you as we work together to bring america and work together to restore that shining city on a hill that is the united states of america. thank you and god bless you! [applause] friend, if you do not already know him, governor mike huckabee. [applause] >> thank you very much.

thank you, cliff. thank you all for being here today. i appreciate it. i realize i am what they call the parking lot bigger. that means that i am the guy on the program at the end so those of you are really in a hurry to get to the parking lot are able to do so. so i am totally aware that. thank you for staying. i truly was afraid it would come to an empty room. you see i have heard me speak before and i would not stay. i will tell you now. i'm so happy you are. this has been quite a day. i left new york. taped my show, that hopefully will get out in time to watch tonight. i said, hopefully you will go watch that tonight. there you go. [applause] in addition to that, i had a real frightening thing happened today. i lost my iphone. and that is scary. how much stuff that you got on

your phone? a lot. your contacts, e-mails. i panicked. then i realized exactly what i could do. i called the nsa. they told me exactly where was. -- where it was. they were able to restore my e-mails, voicemails, everything. good to go, folks. all set. several years ago during my tenure as governor i was participating in what was an annual event, reading week. i would go to in elementary school and read to the students. and i was going to the georgia elementary school in springdale read to theing to first-graders, but before that i had a science fair to attend at the local junior high and then over to elementary school for the reading. the science fair ran late, so by the time i got to the ellen driscoll, the principal was standing at the door wringing your hands. we have been waiting. the kids are ready for you. so they grabbed me and rushed me down the hall.

took me into the first-rate class. and they had it all setup up. the kids were on the floor seated filmore style. for those of you old enough to know what that means. they were all seated. and i go and they put me in one of those first-rate -- first grade chair. they hand me the book. i thought, i do not want to walk in here and be so abrupt and not have a little time to connect with them. so i thought, let me at least warm them up a little. it was near halloween, so i said, anyone of you want to tell me what you're going to be for halloween? talk.ery kid wanted to so i call on somebody. they would answer. give me some wonderful thing about the cost of. and then somebody else. there was one little girl in the front. i noticed she was just like this. you know how there are some kids, and they're not like this. this.

she was so intense. i thought, she cannot keep that energy up. so i called on everybody but her. look, i just wanted to see, could she do it? sure enough there she never lost the intensity. i called on the all the other kids and finally, i said, yes, sweetheart. did you want to tell you something? with that kind of enthusiasm she probably wanted to say i want you to know my mother thinks you're the best governor we ever had and she voted for you. in my mind, that is what i was thinking. i later found out the little girl's name was ashley. i said, what would you like to say? as serious as she could, she said, governor, we are already late for lunch. thinking, this kid does not ear that the r governor of the state is parked in one of these little chairs. and of all those goals in the entire state, i picked hers to come read to her.

no, it was wednesday, and it was corndog day at georgia elementary. and the only thing she was interested in was making sure she got to the cafeteria before the corndog scott called. my staff made fun of me for months over that. but i've often thought about it and here's what it taught me. that little girl going to school that day did not think whole lot other than she wanted to get to the cafeteria on time so her corndog would still be warm. wish left there thinking i that every kid in america would only have to worry about the warmth of their corndog. i wish the biggest worry that kid will ever have in her life is getting to the cafeteria on time. but the harsh reality? i'm afraid that there are a lot of kids in america that will have to worry a whole lot more than about the temperature of the corndogs. if we are not careful, and i say

this from the depths of my heart, the things that that little girl will worry about will be far worse than my having to worry about the duck and cover days of the early 1960's when we thought the russians were going to come and drop a bomb on us. the fact is, we are worried today not just about what someone externally will do to us . i have never been so worried in my life about what my own government is already doing to me and doing to the little girls who are sitting in an elementary school. [applpausause] of theirle lose sight landmarks, and if you've ever tried to follow your gps and you lose the signal, you do not have a waypoint anymore. what happens? you're lost. dayse are way past the when we pulled over and asked someone for directions. and ask women pull over for directions anymore.

men never have. gps does not work, we are utterly disoriented and lost, because we have lost the landmarks. we have nothing with which to navigate. m concerned about is that we are rapidly losing the very landmarks of the liberty in this country that has been the hallmark of what we have once the mostwas important thing for a little girl like ashley and her first grade class. the land marks of our country -- pretty simple once. our founders when they declared their independence from the mother country. i want you to think about what they did. what absolutely audacious behavior was it that made them pull the muskets off their mantels and take on the strength of the most well- equipped, well-trained and well financed army in the world of his time and decide that a bunch of merchants and politicians,

preachers and farmers could take musketsarmy with their that were better designed for hunting varmints than it was for challenging king george's and credit will force? -- incredible force? but what they believed was that living their lives free, living in liberty and having their children, being able to say what they wanted to say, to think what they wanted to think, to live the way they wanted to live, where they wanted to live and to do what they wanted to do was more valuable than life itself, and they were willing to put everything on the line. everything. her own blood on the line. to be free. that's who we are! that's what this country is all about in its origins. when they broke away, they made the statement. we hold these truths to be self-evident. so obvious that we should not have to state them, but they did anyway.

and thank god they did. are createdus equal and endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. those landmarks, we have lost our country. and i tell you today, i am a whole lot more worried about losing the landmarks than i am about ashley getting her corndog. today, federal agents are pointing rifles and american citizens in an escalation of a standoff over a man who for 20 years has graced his cattle on some land the state owns. i'm not here to jump in on the middle of whether cliven bundy ought to pay the state or pay anybody for the chance for his cows to eat grass. here is what i suggest -- that

there is something incredibly wrong when the government believes that some blades of grass that a cow is eating is thean egregious affront to government, that we would literally put a gun in a citizens face and threatened to shoot him over it. here is what i would have to ask -- [applause] is this government more eatingted in some cows grass and nevada then they are as to why brian terry was murdered with guns that are government provided by drug dealers in mexico? can somebody help me understand that? is this government more concerned about a few hundred head of cattle grazing on some land than they are as to why for

americans were murdered in benghazi and nobody answered the phone at 3:00 in the morning? the threats and affronts to our liberty today are so incredibly sprite -- frightening. university, a speaker that was invited to receive an honorary degree, a speaker who was named by time magazine as one of the most 100 and one to people in the world for her stance against radical islam and the horrible treatment of women, including female genital noodle asia and -- g enital mutilation. you would think that they would like that. a few people complained and brandeis. they disinvited the speaker and made fools of themselves. fools of themselves. the unitedbe that in

states of america the idea of freedom of speech meant that we wanted more people to come to public square to express an opinion. today, like things that we have seen in brandeis, with the idea that -- her seat on the drop box board is being challenged because somebody does not like the fact that she had the same position on the war in iraq that hillary clinton did. pushed outmozilla of his position because he had the same position in 2008 on proposition 8 in california that hillary clinton had, that bill clinton had, that joe biden claimed to have. do we want an america in which instead of having free speech we simply have a few forms of speech that are carefully protected by the radical left, and if you do not agree with them, it is not just that they want to put their voices to be louder. they want to shut yours down.

freedom of speech in this country. that for which those men grabbed those muskets off the mantle. meanver -- did not ever that we would have fewer voices. it was not that we could not dissent, it was that we could. whether you agree with the opinions are not. -- or not. gosh, i am beginning to think there is more freedom in north korea sometimes than there is in the united states. when i go to the airport i have to get in the surrender position. people but hands all over me. and i have to provide photo i.d. in a couple of different forms and prove that i am really not going to terrorize the airplane. want to go vote, i do not need it thing. all i got to do is show up and i can give them anybody's name and that is ok. but again, the president reminded us yesterday, there is no voter fraud. i just like to show up in the

white house and say i would like to look around. you have an appointment? no, and i do not have a photo id, either. i figured if i can vote without one, i ought to be able to come in there and look around without one, too. the landmarks of our liberty ought to be protected, celebrated, and this should not be an ideological issue. who agreesot one with very many things the left foot out, but i think they ought to be able to express their opinions. it gives me a great deal more confidence and comfort in my own. when i hear there's i realize, my gosh, my sounds a whole lot better than the. i love it when they talk. . but the fact is they do not love it when we talk.they do not want us to talk . you know why? because when the lights turn on, roaches, theyhe

run for cover. that's why. [applause] today our freedoms are threatened by government agencies like the criminal enterprise formally known as the internal revenue service that operates with a heavy-handed, unbelievable power that is able to crush any citizen, any organization. the one type of entity in america where you are guilty until you prove yourself not to be guilty. basic system of jurisprudence which says you are innocent until somebody else with the burden of proof proves beyond a reasonable doubt that you're guilty. one of the reasons i'm such a strong supporter of the fair tax is because once and for all it would rid us of the irs and it would make it that the irs and the entire federal government would have nothing to do with

what i earn. they would not know. and it is none of their business. only when i spend the money should they be able to get anything from it. not when i earn it. they should not be penalizing productivity. our founders would be shocked if they came back today to see what has happened, because they never intended the federal government would get very big. they were so intent on that. that they wrote amendments to the constitution just to make sure we got it right. and every one of the bill of it diddid one thing -- nothing, not one thing at all prohibit what a citizen can do. in every one of the bill of rights, is limited what the government could give. do.ould today, we as citizens are being curtailed by the bill of rights, told we cannot do when that was never the intent. the bill of rights tells the government what is restrictions

are. if there was any doubt about it, the 10th amendment was written to say if it is not expressly written in the constitution than it is none of the business of the federal government. it is the job of the states, the role of states and the right of the states and the federal government should not keep their hands -- should keep their hands off it. if it is the one thing that could bring the government-backed is moving the power back to the states and counties and cities. we have far more federal government that we were ever expected or ever believed to have needed. and the cost is staggering. f debt.illion od because we are paying enormous amounts of money that it is not the federal government's job to do in the first place here this is why devolving power makes much sense. and speaking of power, let's be very clear. one of the things we're going to have to correct with young people growing up and frankly with a whole lot of adults who passedt -- must not have

civics, in this country we have three branches of government and all of them are equal to each other. the executive, the legislati v ve, and the judicial. where in our constitution did we get the notion that the judicial branch is somehow superior to branches two when two are government are stronger than any one of the other, and all of the branches are equal and if there is a week one according to people like jefferson, they said it would've been the judicial branch because it was the one not elected, not able to be reined in? robedidea that nine black- justices are the ultimate authority in america is not a truly constitutional american thought. [applause] justices ared the

not the final authority. folks, let's are from base in american history. history. american the final authority is the people of america. the authority and the power of america ultimately lies with we, the people, not the executive, legislative, or the judicial branch. and th tyranny of judiciary supremacye is something that must be challenged or else we will lose this country because we will be governed not by our elected representatives, not by an elected president and the executive branch, but by unelected, rogue justices who believe that somehow they have more power than all the people and that those who they sent to actually represent them and lead them. when i was running for president in 2008, one of the people that i met was here in manchester. not far from where we are. it was at a machine shop.

as i went there i was making talk in toward the machine shop. when it was all over, i will never forget a gentleman who came up to me, he worked at the shop. he said, governor, can i talk to you? of course. ask you a i need to question. i do not understand. my daughter is in grad school at cornell. grad school is $50,000 a year for her. my immediate reaction was, thank you god that my daughter does not want to go to grad school at cornell, for a lot of reasons. "i i wanted her to get a better education than i ever had. i wanted to do better." which is the dream of every american. took theid, so i second shift. i am working two shifts, 16 hours a day. and i figured if i work twice as hard, work twice as many hours, i will make twice as many-- as much money. the first time i got my

paycheck, it was barely a little bit more than the one shift. i cannot understand. then i found a because i was working that many more hours in making that money i went into a new tax bracket. and the government was taking most of what i was making in the second shift. and he said, can you explain that to me? i said, yes, sir, i can. i said, you have got a government that forgot that it's s job is to serve you, not to have you serve it. and sir -- [applause] truth is, the way we have so screwed this country up, if you would like to get your daughter some help, here's what you can do. instead of going and working two shifts, quit both of them. pop popcornch espn, and enjoy some snacks. then your daughter will qualify for all kinds of subsidies and assistance from all the rest of us, and she will be able to go for close to free.

any looked at me and said, that does not make any sense. and i said, no, sir. it does not. that is why hope you will go outke -- and vote and vote the idiots who would come up with policy like that. thank you very much. god journal, democrat and republican strategist join us for a look ahead to the midterm elections. we also will examine the latest developments in the ukraine. and they look at congressional salaries and other benefits members receive. kelly.st is ishington journal live -- live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. tomorrow and newsmakers, we

will be joined by bob goodlatte of virginia. he joins us to talk about proposals to change the nsa surveillance program, as well as oversight of the justice department. newsmakers at 10:00 a.m. in 6:00 p.m. eastern. the weekly addresses, president obama talks about equal pay for women and legislative proposals in congress. >> hi, everybody. earlier this week was equal pay day. it marks the extra time the average woman has to work into a new year to earn what a man earned the year before. you see, the average woman who works full-time in america earns less than a man - even when she's in the same profession and has the same education.

that's wrong. in 2014, it's an embarrassment. women deserve equal pay for equal work. this is an economic issue that affects all of us. women make up about half our workforce. and more and more, they're our families' main breadwinners. so it's good for everyone when women are paid fairly. that's why, this week, i took action to prohibit more businesses from punishing workers who discuss their salaries - because more pay transparency makes it easier to spot pay discrimination. and i hope more business leaders will take up this cause. but equal pay is just one part of an economic agenda for women. most lower-wage workers in america are women. so i've taken executive action to require federal contractors to pay their federally-funded employees at least ten dollars and ten cents an hour. i ordered a review of our nation's overtime rules, to give more workers the chance to earn the overtime pay they deserve.

thanks to the affordable care act, tens of millions of women are now guaranteed free preventive care like mammograms and contraceptive care, and the days when you could be charged more just for being a woman are over for good. across the country, we're bringing americans together to help us make sure that a woman can have a baby without sacrificing her job, or take a day off to care for a sick child or parent without hitting hardship. it's time to do away with workplace policies that belong in a "mad men" episode, and give every woman the opportunity she deserves. here's the problem, though. on issues that would benefit millions of women, republicans in congress have blocked progress at every turn. just this week, senate republicans blocked the paycheck fairness act, commonsense legislation that would help more women win equal pay for equal work. house republicans won't vote to raise the minimum wage or extend unemployment insurance for women out of work through no fault of

their own. the budget they passed this week would force deep cuts to investments that overwhelmingly benefit women and children - like medicaid, food stamps, and college grants. and of course, they're trying to repeal the affordable care act for the fiftieth or so time, which would take away vital benefits and protections from millions of women. i'm going to keep fighting to make sure that doesn't happen. because we do better when our economy grows for everybody, not just a few. and when women succeed, america succeeds. thanks, and have a great weekend. >> there was plenty of talk in washington this week about equal pay. the thing is - it was just that -- more talk. as a woman who worked at mcdonald's to get through college. as the mom of two young daughters and as the elected representative of thousands of hardworking women, i have always supported equal pay for equal work. and if a woman is being paid less than a man because of

gender discrimination, that is both wrong and against the law. the protections provided to women and others in the equal pay act must be enforced to make certain there is no pay disparity because of discrimination. but for women across america, it's not just about equal pay. it's about achieving a better life. and the republicans are acting on solutions to make that happen. solutions that will empower women and eliminate barriers they face to better jobs, better paychecks, and better lives. unfortunately, the president's economy is doing exactly the opposite. the unemployment rate for women rose last month - meanwhile, growth is slow and wages are stagnant. washington overreaches so much that employers have little choice but to lower wages rather than increase them - to reduce hiring rather than expand.

this has to change. so instead of politicizing women, let's celebrate the extraordinarily positive role they play in our economy - and focus on how we can further expand that role. women make up 47 percent of our workforce - so let's improve job training and help connect out-of-work americans with the skills they need. women are the nation's leading consumers - so let's have a real all-of-the-above energy policy that helps lower bills on everything from gas to groceries. they make the majority of health care decisions for their families - so let's make reforms that lower costs and preserve peace of mind in retirement. they are starting two out of three small businesses - so let's rein in red tape and start overhauling the tax code to support our innovators and manufacturers. and women juggle life, work, and

everything in between - so let's give workers the option of using their overtime toward paid time off if that's what they'd rather have. the house has acted on each of these ideas as part of republicans' long-term plan for jobs and growth. we hope the president and his party's leaders in the senate will consider them. in the weeks ahead, republicans will act on more solutions to help americans from all walks of life - young and old, white collar and blue collar, women and men. because we are all in this together. we all want our children to have every opportunity to succeed, to be able to work hard and turn their dreams into reality. that is the gap we should all be focused on closing. let's rise to these responsibilities, and let's work together to leave a better, stronger america than the one we found. thank you for listening.

>> there is no question that congress routinely does not speak the truth to the american public. it is not just about inaccuracies in terms of what the affordable care act would do. it is the absence of speaking the truth about where we are. >> where are we? at a standard of living the same as what we had in 1998. family,ave, her unfunded obligations and sure debt of $1.1 million per family. so weeeds to be spoken can build the context for the tough things that will come. deskiggest progress with problem with congress is the denial of reality. you can still be a good person and deny reality. we all have flaws. we all the night -- deny reality

in some sense. the fact is we have not had the leadership in this country for a long time -- i'm talking presidential and congressional -- that would tell the truth to the american you can debate what caused it. i will have my idea of what caused it. for hisor tom coburn reason to retire at the end of this session. sunday night at 8 p.m. on c-span's "q&a." -- the women's policy research. peter from the university of economicsnd an professor for that organization. thank you very much. how payussion is amongst the genders -- a lot of pay on political terms this week. we want to talk about the

economics of it as well. caphere a pay amongst the genders? guest: there certainly is. women who work full-time only make $.77 for every dollar an average man makes. includesr discrimination in pay for the kind of jobs that women do. $.77?how do we get to the guest: that is collected by the government. by the household service. they bring people up around tax time and ask, how much did you make last year? $.77 figure is the median. .he midpoint host: as far as the pay gap, doesn't exist? guest: i can't deny those

statistics. how much of it is discrimination? what do we do about it? there are a lot of reasons for the pay gap. one is that women traditionally go into areas that don't pay as well. for example, even if you take what looks like a homogeneous group of business school graduates working in the defense industry, you may see a gender gap even if you adjust for all of the measured factors like a business degree, years of experience, which jobs they are in. if the women tend to be in human resources management or personnel departments and the finance,to be in finance pays better, whether you are a man or a woman. a lot of this is changing. young women tend to have college degrees more than men.

into thoseo go more areas than they used to. there was a big bill if there was a woman in the room in 1950's as an undergraduate. lots of women in the room. they're doing quantitative stuff. they are very good at that. it is changing the way. those things are mitigated. the areas where men are paid more because the work is outdoors or grimey, that we can continues to be a small part of the economy. the average home income has declined by a little bit. women have done much better than context.at there are still problems. the real area of dispute between the right and the left is what is the best way to go about dealing with it?

with solutionsup that would be harmful to the overall economy. host: what do you think about these other mitigating circumstances? i agree on most of them. one issue i would say is that women becoming human resource managers and men more likely to be operations managers -- there is quite a lot of detail to research to show that people are generally steered in one direction and not given the opportunities. women don't get the projects to profile themselves at the same level. i do agree, it is not a one-shot solution. it is discrimination and social conditioning. there is no quick fix. host: things other than discrimination -- how do you counter that?

it's not discrimination directly. it is not two people doing the same job and being paid differently. that is part of it, but not all of it. we don't really know how much of those choices, women becoming social workers and men becoming engineers are tainted by discrimination. the teachers pull you in one direction. is it your parents saying this is more appropriate for you then that? maybe it is preferences. then the question is, is it partly discriminatory or does it reflect unequal values? host: there's two sets of issues there. the second set is, even among , they are going to earn more

doing certain activities than others because they are more difficult or more boring. there is nothing more boring than finance. witit would be incorrect to blame business for all that. shouldiages when women ar be earning more than men, they are less likely to work. in marriages where the women earn more money, there is a much much more divorce. we need to change values -- is it up to the government to say as to come out the same? so we will start regulating

people's choices. the one who goes to work and she has more education. we tend to lose some of our best women because of social pressures that are in the home, not in the workplace. if you are an ivy league lawyer and your husband is an ivy league lawyer and he gets a job on wall street, it's a lot easier to stay home and have children and exercise that preference. we tend to lose some women to the workplace for that reason. while maternity leave may be available to men, no matter how european we have become, american men are going to stay home -- they have a different personality. goingericans are always

to lag europeans by a generation or two on these things. host: we have to deal with --ues of laws in the books do they go far enough or are there other laws needed to address this issue of the pay gap? there was a lot of discussion about the paycheck fairness act. that is a comment to the equal pay act, which has been on the books since 1963. it has been illegal for a long time to pay unequally for the same work. is a weird part of the law where you're not allowed to discuss your pay. something like 60% of workers in the private sector either are forbidden to discuss their salaries or discouraged. it is a very strange law where you have the right to be paid

equally but you don't have the right to find out. have the right for your bicycle to not be stolen but don't have the right to find out who did it. the issue is to correct that to make it more transparent and easier to talk about pay. -- paysnd thing to do obviously important. people work to get paid. there is very little transparency about what happens inside companies in terms of equality or inequality. betweento say, we think 25-40% of the wage gap is discrimination. we only find out when there is all cases and we don't -- host: the senate turned back the effort this week. guest: there's two sets of issues with the paycheck fairness act. the first is, there were two aspects to it. the transparency issue, which the democrats are pushing very

hard it a more appealing part of the law. there is one side of me that says i am economist. like transparency and not secrecy. there is also the issue of privacy. the neighbors can look up and see what i earn. there is a reason for it. it is also discomforting. people would like to have right to see about pay. there is the issue of whether companies can -- they put all kinds of conditions on employees, like internet activity. my feeling is that, at the very least, if we work in the same place and she wants to tell me her salary and i want to tell her mind, that is our business. i would not say the company has

to publish everyone's salary. i want a happy medium before -- with privacy. the bill goes so much further. you have to publish the sellers, more or less. something else is that you have to pay men and women alike. that is absurd. you would have to pay everybody alike. that is how those things work. if you get in a situation where you do not pay everyone alike, you will have problems. host: let me get a response, then calls. guest: i need to finish. in the public schools, everyone gets paid the same. that has had negative consequences. guest: you can still pay evil according to performance -- pay people according to performance.

you just have to show it is objective. guest: you will have lawsuits about every performance review want to do that. you have to be a supervisor to understand the consequences. that does not mean we don't need to find remedies. the two sides are committed in opposite directions. host: let me get called. -- calls. if you want to add, dial the numbers. two guests joining us to talk inequality. ariane hegewisch and peter morici. david is up first from ohio. caller: good morning. ariane --

there are different things. with women, they have to go out of the workforce and come back in. then they go out and come back in. now, pay quality -- you cannot match that up. what do you think of that? guest: two things. first, yes, women have babies. that does not mean that we have to stay out and look after children. men want to share that. also, maybe it is a lesson to learn from germany and japan. if you make it so you can be independent as a woman, either by having kids or by working -- you can't do both. then a lot of women will not have kids anymore.

japan and germany have a terrible crisis because women who want to work and be educated and have a career are kind of forcefully dissuaded from having kids. you cannot combine work and career. there has to be a happy medium. we have to make it easier for families to have children. child care at the moment -- more and a lot of states than a year of college. we have to invest more in families to make it possible for everybody to work equally. guest: i think that part of what is going on here -- i don't want to accuse ariane of this. some of the advocates want to change the way america's society is structured. maybe men should spend as much

time as women with kids. i have a son at cornell. it does not cost a year at cornell for childcare. it does not. not even a year at the university of maryland, as an in-state resident. we can make the statistics come out that way if we want to. i have done it in washington. high-quality child care for two kids, you know that. second children in lower income families -- it does not pay to work. they stay home. to make a sweeping statement -- i do not know that i agree with that. it is up to people to decide how they want society structured. not to restructure society. it creates a enormous problems with measurement. suppose i do a study of women

with seven years of experience. but, in year 12, the women took five years off. and that was two years ago -- the man will be more productive. you lose so much in the practice of law. you also lose a lot in economics. it takes a long time to catch up. it will be difficult to comply with the law that requires you to prove. the burden of proof will be on the employer. it is basically saying that it will be difficult to pay everybody the same. we have public school wage structures. the privatet sector's conducting themselves as badly as the typical public school. think what we do is we

set economic incentives. families decide how they want to find themselves. entives.nc if a woman earns less, then she will stay home and the father will stay at work. then you filled in for future wage gaps. childcare is very expensive. for example, there was a study costw york state, it $20,000. cornell is about $40,000. $20,000 a year is very high. you want to have your kids to have quality childcare. if we set these incentives, we structure decisions.

you say, you stay home and earn this, do it. all the millennial generations, young men and young women want to share more equally. then they hit the workplace and hit discrimination. ways law firms, they all have wonderful paid parent leave policies. nobody takes it. no man takes it because it is the end of your career. you cannot just legislate. you need to set economic incentives to push things in the right direction. if you think they guy do, there should be equality. women and men should get the same. the wage gap hurts people lower down the income distribution. poverty.to

it leads to less earning for pensions. investment inan the next generation. in investments to kids --it invests into kids. caller: hello. i am from cincinnati. i want to give you a little history. i started working when i was 16. i lied about my age and got a job as a car hop. when i was 18 and out of high school, i got a job with kroger. i got married at 18 and had three children, continue to work. retired after 36 years of service. i was onlyred, entitled to 80% of my social

security because i was born e-mail -- female. that is morally wrong. i did not realize -- i am married to a strong man. men are so sensitive about wages. when wages come into a home, the home benefits. you get a nicer home, nicer car, better educated, nicer vacations. children get to where nicer clothes. husbands are not that soft. they are worried about paying the mortgage and the utility bills. there are many years when my husband and i worked. i made more money than him and he was never offended. he was always happy. host: what do you want the guests to address? host: -- in 2014, do women only receive 80% of social security benefits?

i paid in 100%. guest: i do not know that that is the law. it has to do with whether there are two incomes. whether you with collect on your husband or wife's earnings. we would have to get an expert, but i am skeptical. unfortunately, i do not know the details. i do know that there is something about the household and the highest earner. if we had been told, we could have read up on social security. host: next call patricia in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: hello. i would like to say two things, and be very brief. i love economics. what is she? is of the things in my mind

that you mentioned that women do not like to work. hold on, i never said that women do not like to work. please do not put that -- don't attribute that. host: let her finish her thought. it brings in more money to the house. host: go ahead. caller: you are saying as an economics professor, pay equally. what are the jobs? guest: the availability of jobs is a big issue. i do not think this has to do with the gender gap. republican andy, democratic, from reagan years to the time clinton left office --

we had both republicans and democrats. had two of the most successful presidents in the clinton and reagan in terms of getting programs in place. with these different views of the world, there were 3.4% ec onomic growth. since then, with bush and obama, it has grown up 1.9%. an idea of how little it may matter who is in the white house, the growth rate was equal -- 2.3%. in a world where things are working right, we can accomplish two percent productivity growth. that means unemployment grows each year. in some ways, it has. the adult participationr rate is way down. talk about discrimination.

6 adult men is unemployed with few prospects of finding a job. hundreds of thousands of college graduates are working as baristas. the availability of jobs is a big issue. it is much bigger than what we are talking about now. that is why we were brought here. host: is there a way to help? not only for women who have to work, help them keep the job and maintain a good salary -- is there structural changes that could help? guest: i think we have learned a lot. they have women and men. flexibility. at the moment, if you cannot or do not want to work a 60 hour

week -- a lot of occupations, you basically go to a much lower paid area. there are good firms saying what do we do? reduce the workload. you can work 40 hour weeks, but stay in your skilled area. you are a professional. try and get away from all or northithing. use the technology that is there and look at jobs. other areas for women and men -- are horrible practices. you do not know from day-to-day how many hours you will work. that is retail, restaurants. you may come in at 2:00 and they say you work until business slows down. you may earn four hours wages

one day -- one day you may have to stay 12 hours. if you have kids, it is difficult to do that. use technology to get more predictability. that is very important. other things -- there are studies on this. if you do not have paid leave. people are more likely to not come back when you have a kid. if you give 12 weeks, women come back. they keep their seniority. the company does not have to re-recruit. there are lots of things that employers can do. host: maybe the best way to go around is a mandate from government. guest: that is what we have right now de facto is followed terry. -- voluntary.

i can think of workplaces that need restructuring. academia has a pretty good reputation. especially when you look at tenure-track faculty, as opposed to part-timers. do not group us together. have six years to compile a record of full-time employment to make tenure. process to begin that between the age of 26 and 29. that is primate for educated women to have children. age for educated women to have children. we let people have time off and extend the period out. if you do that and you are strict. , then it still disadvantages women. s isking up the six year a lot of time. teaching is easy.

it is easy to become a good teacher, you just have to pay attention. do isat we have tended to turn a blind eye. we're giving it to men. then take time off as well. -- men take time off as well. we give people an excuse to take time off. a lot of the records look the same. a lot of women are getting tenure. we are leveling the playing field by becoming very liberal. let's talk about investment banking and law. if you want to make money, you go to the ivy league and you get a job on wall street. they're working 70 or 80 hours a week. if people work for 40 with less pay, they still will not be competitive. the people with 70 or 80 hours will be more experienced. they will be able to bring in new business. that is what really counts to be

a lawyer or an investment banker. treating these kids so harshly -- they adults, but i am 75. you have situations on wall street while people -- where people sleep on the can. that is absurd. we tend not to worry about employment practices. we say they are wealthy and they do not need our protection. that creates a bias towards women. how could you talk about competing with someone who has worked those hours? host: let me take a call, las vegas, nevada. republican line. caller: a couple of things. occupational deaths and hazards -- liberal arts degrees. i wonder if you calculated in the earnings of retirement.

women live five years longer. more working years. that is more income over a lifetime. that is quite a bit of money in the end. thank you. guest: the first issue about occupational hazards -- that is often brought up as an explanation for the wage gap. it is something like 4000 people per year die on the job. that is horrible and they are mostly men. they mostly work in low-paid occupations. they're not being paid for that. in terms of hazards, some of the most -- the occupations with the highest injuries is nursing, health care. jobs where women typically are.

osha is focused on improving working conditions. think about, lifting people, the things you have to clean up. it is not sweet and clean and easy. in terms of -- you are right, women have a longer life expectancy. i think it is one year, not five. but, that is why -- as a society, we need to provide for that. if you have a pension system or retirement system and women earn less than men, you make the problem worse. the wage gap will fix that. they will need less support and ken paper themselves. for themselves. guest: let's forget about people dying. unpleasant work --

it may be that a lot of the unpleasant work is at the low end of the wage scale. when we compare people at comparable levels of education, men tend to go into manufacturing and construction. women tend to go into health care and so forth. a lot of the people who say it is comparable -- spend time in a steel mill. all of a sudden, your back in the 17th century. you feel like you need a metal hat and a pick ax. it is dark and grimy. when women go into manufacturing, they are involved in work that is repetitive. men tend to get involved in heavy stuff. you have a natural segregation of men and women. societye be saying as a that the steel industry has to pay with the health care industry pays?

the productivity of the steel industry or the industry that makes heavy diesel , they can sell the product for so much more. if we paid health care workers fully paid people in engineering, they would not have health care workers. they could not afford them. guest: what jobs women do in manufacturing -- we need more enforcement and opening of areas. they actually are women who want to work in those jobs and do not get in. guest: we agree about that. they should get in. host: -- guest: same with construction. we just did a study of women in construction. the women there are doing very well. there are almost as many women in construction as lawyers.

before the recession, that was the case. it is a lot of women. the number of women who say that they experience daily harassment and income inequality is staggering. and you still make it? that is part of enforcement and we need the law. the other issue is -- in manufacturing, there is clean manufacturing. it is not quite as dirty and grimy anymore as it used to be. we have good technology to make it better. that is an area where we can do more to get over segregation. are just joining us, the economics of payee quality is our topic. two guests joining us. egwisch is with women's moriciresearch and peter

is an economics professor at the university of maryland. someone asked about pay and who makes what. is it easy for the irs to see if women are discriminated against? don't they record pay structures? guest: that is a good question. the national academy of sciences was commissioned to do a study of how the equal opportunity commission could collect better pay data and find out what happens inside companies. people say that the irs gets all of this data. they are absolutely confidential. also, data that the department of labor collected on what employers pay. people say you cannot do that. in terms of finding out who is paid what, there used to be established services.

companies would say how much they pay different people. they no longer conduct those. now you have to turn to glass door. they are kind of individual initiatives to share wages. you put up your wage and i tell you mine. on the internet. people exchange more. or occupational data is collected. au can look at how much money male engineer and woman engineer makes. not within companies. conduct every five years a census of manufacturing. that is 12% of the economy. our data does not give very deep. -- get very deep. you can get pretty fine information by industry. it is more in manufacturing than education. that is very problematic. that is one of the reasons there

is so much dispute about what is causing what. economists would like to have better information. any decent economist once the economy to operate efficiently and good decisions to be made. up in a very rough blue-collar neighborhood in new york city. a lot of the parents were immigrants. a lot of my classmates -- a significant number, in construction. second child in the sophomore class. they said you will have to get an education because you are too small to work in construction. i was before all of the hispanics got into construction. they're not big, burly people. if small his standing -- hispa nic males can do construction, then women can. we're not dealing with the jackhammers we had when i was a kid.

when i was a kid, they were using picks and shovels. there are things that women can do if they are inclined. we go back to cultural things. it is much easier to get a woman to go into the electronics factory then it is to get her to go into a diesel factory. maybe women are being denied. we also disagree about a lot of things. we share mutual respects. that is the product of education. we do not have -- it is easy to talk about changing the way the people would have opportunity and education. it is hard to legislate that. host: let me take a call from covington, georgia. democratic line. caller: two questions. this is a backdoor way for unions -- what will they do when companies turn in their paperwork? they will single out nonunion

companies in violation of these regulations. will doeople who go in ride a longs of the union members. it is just another way to be on them. my next question is -- they are talking about getting money from pell grants. $450 million was given to big bird. wouldn't that be better used for pell grants for women to get ahead? guest: so, first lady, unions -- firstly, unions. unionized women face less of a wage gap than nonunion women. that is because unions are not as effective where the wage gap is the biggest.

they are also about transparency and fairness and negotiating pay for everybody. i think unions are good for women. there's is quite a lot of proof that they are. where shouldsue is the act be used as a launching ground for unions. i am not sure how that would help unions. the law is set up to help individuals, already under the labor relations act. people are formally able to negotiate their pay. that has not really had unions advance. morenk that this act is neutral about unions. the second act --

the second question, should there be more financial support for pell grants? absolutely. i fully agree. and community colleges -- about half of the students have kids. most of them are women. particularly among black women and hispanic women. a lot of them have kids, work full time, and go to college. really, to give people more of a break to advance themselves would be fantastic. guest: i know the unions are strong supporters of the pay fairness act. i do not see this as advantage vantageing them. with regards to unions being good for women, i think it is important to recognize that unions are effective. what people do is classified.

not changey does among workers. all workers should earn the same amount of money who do the same task. inis knowledge to workers the same office and what is more productive because they focus better. unions -- when i was at the university of maine, the faculty was unionized. there were disparities in pay between men. forget about men and women. it does not lend itself to that. one of the reasons that unions are in decline is that more work falls into the category of it is hard to put people in categories and pay everyone the same. the fairness act would put everyone in the same category. it would create a lot of problems. withould get people

different levels of productivity earning the same amount of money. ants, welth -- pell gr need to look at what is happening with boys in america. we are placing more emphasis on children performing sooner. boys naturally mature later. the system discriminates against boys. ignoreople on the left the fact that boys are being given a tough time in high schools and colleges. that is one of the reason that 60% of college graduates are female. we know that in minority communities, where they are poor, the performance of boys is a particular problem. the results of a lot of women having children by the age of 25 -- not getting much child support or help. the father is being irresponsible and so forth.

it is a rough area to talk about. that is why god made tenure. rudy giuliani wanted to set up a high school for boys. hillary clinton came out of the subversively against it. -- vociferously against it. if we are going to say that women earn less money in the workforce and need special attention to make it right, that is fine. we ought to require my university and every other university -- to find a way to grant as many degrees for boys as they do to girls. i doubt that anybody in the academy would want that imposed on them. there are some of the most ardent advocates of this legislation that have never had to make a paycheck. if we're are going to start cap advocacy and fairness, then do it across the board.

host: matt in rome, texas. independent line. lot with whate a peter is saying. if you give the people the same pay and let them know it -- let them talk about that. there will be a lot of animosity doing,ple who are not who are perceived as not doing the same amount of work as their coworkers. there will be animosity. why do i have to work so hard when this guy over here is doing this? and vice versa for women. why should i work so hard when the sky is not pulling his notht? -- this guy is pulling his weight? are they talking about the starting pay or throughout the years? guest: it is every paycheck.

i should say that it does not mean that everybody needs to be paid the same. it just means that you cannot discriminate and how you decide what people are paid. that ifhat -- we know you talk to people who supervise, men tend to come up a lot and say i need more. women do not tend to do that so much. for a variety of reasons. you might get to a situation where a man gets $5,000 more per year than the woman. the percentage increase goes up and the gap widens, even though performance is not different. as with lily ledbetter -- of course she got very angry when she found out she was paid that much less. sometimes, anger may be justified.

being a manager means you have to manage people and their performance. sometimes it means telling them, sorry, you're not doing as well. you have to pull up your socks a bit more. the paycheck fairness check will not force employers to pay everybody else the same. it will not force employers to reveal their pay structure. human resource managers are specifically prohibited from discussing pay. it is only about your own pay. secondly, fairness -- when people know that there is unfairness, it affects their productivity also. the research is still out on what it would do to productivity if there was absolute transparency. guest: the problem with the paycheck fairness act, with regard to this issue, and the most salient problem --

if there is the difference in pay, the presumption will be because it is there on the basis of discrimination. you have to prove that it is not. as opposed to the burden of proof being -- as opposed to the employer saying, i was productive, i am paid less because i asked for a raise less often. we have to look at who is enforcing us. the people in the justice this dont who enforce have kind of a biased and they are difficult to live with. if they improved the bureaucracy and made it more handy, which is difficult to do -- we have a tainted judiciary. the english knew how to pick unbiased judges. we pick republicans and democrats and they make determinations and reliable ways.

the same things happens with government bureaucracies. problems.the kinds of it is the way the law is structured. the burden of proof is tough on employers. who is going to adjudicate this? why do we have immigration reform? nobody trusts president obama to enforce the border. we have to wait for the next president. host: charlie is the next call from florida. republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have been out of the workforce for 14 years now. i can only relate to back then and personal experience. heavyged a group of equipment. decided, loosely, that we wanted a female employee.

difficult to get applications for that type of position. finally we did. it was a disaster. that is one situation that we can talk about. another may not be meaningful. conversation of pay quality is political. it is kind of ridiculous. large companies, smart companies, pay people what they're worth. that has been true for many years. malescertainly true that make more money. would you pay a female football team the same amount as you would a male football team? heavy workloads like construction and plumbing and heavy manufacturing -- women just do not seem to want

to go into that field. guest: the color paint this as a political argument. guest: i think it is political. people are fed up with it. it is an economic issue for families. it is an economic issue for women. politicians pick up on it. it would not be a political issue if it was not something that politicians thought had a track with families. in terms of paying people what they are worth -- i wish. the issue is that we do find out, when this does not happen through law cases. they are very stressful for everyone involved. case going around about women and men working in large jewelry retail chains. the reason it is there is because when of the women found out that a newly hired man with

less experience than almost every one of the women working there, was being paid more per hour than the highest selling woman who had been there for 10 years. thattunately, we think nowadays this would not happen. but it still is happening. i fully agree with you. people should be paid what they're worth. unfortunately, it is not the case yet. guest: greater transparency would solve that particular problem. i think it is fair to say there is less of a problem today than there was 20 years ago. that brings me to the comment that the gentleman made about smart companies. employers with well-educated people do not do this sort of thing because the women are smarter. my son is dating. he is a law student at cornell and he is dating a law student at cornell. i do not think you could snooker

that young lady the way you could a sales clerk. wants totely, everyone reference lily ledbetter. they are referencing a world that does not exist today in the way it existed then. can we find situations? yes. we probably would have less cases if we had better transparency. then there is the issue of how far we want to go. there's a right to privacy. we want to go further than we do. economists like transparency. is it a political issue? this bill was written so that the democrats are not comfortable with that. independent,who is voted against it because he says it is unworkable. it was structured this way so that republicans and -- democrats could vote yes and republicans would vote no.

the republicans would have to stop it in the house and the president could spend the next two months campaigning. that does not serve your interest very well. the reality is, this president is probably paying for an earthquake --praying for and are quick at night so he can avoid reflection on obamacare and the lousy economy. basically women are being used right now, politically. by proposing a law that does not give them the things that they could get, geright now. and better remedies by proposing a draconian law. would you be happy to have a law that deals with the transparency issues alone? guest: that is what president obama did when he passed the regulation, which is something he could get through. for the private companies, they have to -- they have different transparency. guest: that is what he could do.

he probably would impose the city could. would you be happy to have a bill proposed? then you could win the transparency issue. guest: i would be happy if we at the transparency. we do need the other issues. we do need better data. guest: if you want the whole pie -- if you do not want to compromise, you know what you get? an empty plate for dessert. guest: i am happy to join steps. i think transparency is an important first step. pay data is also important. in effect, we do not know much about what is going on in companies. some of the issues on medication -- litigation -- i am not a lawyer. some of the way the law has been used and it is drawn up, dismiss some of the claims which, to me,

seemed to make perfect sense. it suggests that a major forming. i am not a lawyer, i am staying out of it. almost all other high income countries have this -- you can compare high stress jobs like call centers or dealing with clients who scream at you all the time. compare that to high stress male jobs. same occupation, same qualifications, same level of education. both jobs are high stress. at ahould be paid similar level. that is the next step to go. we are very willing to compromise. guest: i cannot imagine you being difficult at a call center. you have been so simple with me. if the intent was not to be

political, they would have broken this bill down. they would have set up the transparency thing. the administration is constantly looking for things where you can paint the republicans as the party of no. there is so little confidence in his integrity or enforcing the law as it is written. host: we have to wrap up. guest: there was a political agenda to get the republicans to vote no. so hillary can run on this in two years hence. that is unfortunate. women are being used by this process. instead of getting some of the remedies that they deserve. host: we have been joined for this last hour to talk about pay quality issues by two guests. you just heard from peter mori >> on the next washington

journal, a democratic and republican political strategist join us. we also will examine the latest developments in ukraine with the ambassador to nato kurt poker -- volker. and a look at the benefits -- washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >tomorrow newsmakers, we will be joined by house judiciary committee chairman bob goodlatte. he will talk about oversight of the justice department and attorney general eric holder. at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. eastern on c-span. edison was a plant scientist

as well as interest in the other sciences. the story is he knew it did not freeze in fort myers. a lot of the interest he had were based on his love of plants. 1920's, the united states was relying on foreign rubber. we were headed into war. they decided the plant material and the process should be done in this country. they were traveling all over the world, collecting plants. hundreds, thousands of people collecting plants. sending them back here. myers to his laboratory, to find a source of plant material that could produce effectively,ently, an