Floor Statements

Mr. President, I support the aim and intent of the Kyl amendment that prohibits any omnibus funding being spent on new contracts with companies that do business with Iran's energy sector. Iran's energy resources provide massive amounts of petro-dollars to this regime.

In 2008 alone, Iran made over $65 billion in profits from exporting oil. Make no mistake where these dollars are spent--these profits directly contribute to Iran's ability to arm, train, and fund Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups that seek to do Israel, the United States, and our allies harm.

Although I support the intent of the Kyl amendment, I oppose it today because it is legislating in an appropriations bill and it would further delay the delivery of $2.48 billion in urgently needed security assistance to Israel which is contained in the bill.

Tough, targeted, and enforceable sanctions against Iran must be implemented. I look forward to working on a comprehensive Iran sanctions policy with the Obama administration this Congress.

Mr. President, as chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, I rise today to clarify for the Senate the sponsorship of three congressionally designated projects, recipient name of one congressionally directed project, and locations of three congressionally designated projects included in the Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany H.R. 1105, the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Specifically:

Senator Bill Nelson should be listed as having requested funding for the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, RAINN, Washington, DC, for national anti-sexual assault programs funded through the Department of Justice;

Senator Ben Nelson should not be listed as having requested funding for the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network, RAINN, Washington, DC, for national anti-sexual assault programs funded through the Department of Justice;

Senators Ben Nelson and Crapo should not be listed as having requested funding for the National Police Athletic League, Jupiter, FL, for National Police Athletic League Programs funded through the Department of Justice;

``Union Springs YMCA'' should be listed as ``Union Springs Recreation Program'', Union Springs, AL, for youth mentoring and juvenile justice programs funded through the Department of Justice;

Location of the Citizenship Trust at American Village should be listed as Montevallo, AL, for youth mentoring and juvenile justice programs funded through the Department of Justice;

Location of the Scottsboro Police Department should be listed as Florence, AL, for the Scottsboro Police Department funded through the Department of Justice; and

Location of the Alabama 4-H Foundation should be listed as Columbiana, AL, for juvenile justice prevention programs funded through the Department of Justice.

Mr. President, I know the Senate is on a tight timeframe because there will be a joint session of Congress to welcome the Prime Minister of England, our greatest ally.

I rise today as the chairperson of the Appropriations Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee and to lay out for our colleagues what is in this appropriation and why it is needed and what compelling human needs it meets.

No. 1, why do we have to do this since we passed the stimulus? Actually, we should have done this before the stimulus. We should have done it in October. Why didn't we? We didn't do it in October because we were facing a hostile White House and an OMB Director who was hostile to the very agencies this funds. We didn't want to send this appropriations to the Bush White House because all we would have faced was one more back-and-forth parliamentary quagmire.

This appropriation keeps the U.S. Government going. What my subcommittee does is fund those agencies that are critical and crucial to the economic growth of the United States of America, that will protect the communities of the United States, and will also work to protect our planet. In terms of economic growth, this is the subcommittee that funds all science agencies with the extension of the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy. It comes up with the new ideas. It follows the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences about how we can rise above the gathering storm to be competitive today and be able to be competitive tomorrow. In English, and in the diners around Maryland, that would mean jobs today and tomorrow. It is in basic research that we come up with the new ideas that lead to the new products, that lead to the new jobs.

That is what this CJS funds. At the same time, it funds the Patent Office. Our colleagues on the Judiciary committee will be giving us a new framework for the protection of patents. That is a geek word that means if you invent it, we are going to protect you, and you will be able to harvest the benefits of your new idea. We are going to protect intellectual property because it is right now, in the knowledge-driven economy, the property of choice to be protected.

This subcommittee funds research, innovation, the development of technology. It also funds the Department of Justice--gosh, a Department of Justice that even remembers what the name means. I am so excited about working with our new Attorney General.

In addition to the work of the Justice Department, it funds local law enforcement through cops on the beat and Byrne grants, and our national Federal law enforcement agencies--the FBI, Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms, and the Marshal Service.

So if you want to know, why should we support the CJS? If you want jobs today and tomorrow, you want to vote for this appropriation. If you want to keep neighborhoods safe, you want to vote for this appropriation. If you want the marshals going after sexual predators so there are no more Adam Walshes, vote for this bill. If you want to protect violence against women, victims of domestic violence, and have the shelters and community interventions, you want to vote for this bill. If you are so proud of the great genius of the United States of America and its entrepreneurship that comes up with these new ideas, these new products, you want to vote for this bill because you want a Patent Office where you don't want to stand in line for years to be able to protect your ideas so they are not stolen or hijacked or pirated around the world. You want to vote for this bill. If you want to protect our planet--global warming is a real threat, from the standpoint of our Director of National Intelligence, who says global warming could destabilize populations, and it is a national security issue. It is not only about protecting the polar bears; it is also about protecting the Port of Baltimore, Chesapeake Bay, our coastline, and those around the world. If you want to protect the planet and our homeland, you want to vote for this bill.

In summary, these are the top 10 reasons to support CJS in the 2009 omnibus bill:

I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.

I am tired of the naysayers who come up with these quirky little congressionally designated projects and make them a subject of ridicule. Our country, our ship of state, right now is leaking. We can right that ship and President Obama is righting that ship. This CJS bill is the right tool to be able to do that.

What are the consequences of not passing this bill? I will tell you right now. Let's go to law enforcement. If we do not pass this bill and we put it on something called a continuing resolution, that is essentially keeping it barely afloat. The FBI will get a half billion dollars less to run their agency for this year. If Director Mueller were here, he would say this means 650 fewer FBI special agents. It means less analysts and other people fighting crime on U.S. soil. It means we cannot hire 100 new FBI specialists in forensic accounting to go after the mortgage fraud people. Remember them--the scammers, the bums? We would not be able to do that.

Let's talk about drug enforcement. There will be $52 million less for DEA. What are some of the biggest threats facing us right now? Let's talk about Mexico. Mexico is on the verge of a state of siege because of the drug cartels that are running rampant. If you watch the news and listen to the Ambassador of Mexico and to their compelling issues down there--look at what was on ``60 Minutes,'' where the drug cartels are roaming streets with assault rifles, shooting police chiefs, shooting elected officials, kidnapping--that is on our border. We need the DEA. Then there are the narcotraffickers in Colombia--in that long, steadfast fight where we are making progress. Then there is Afghanistan, which provides 85 percent of the world's poppy. We are going to send thousands of more troops into Afghanistan.

I am not too excited about that part, but that is a debate for another time. But what is going on in Afghanistan? They are growing poppy like Iowa grows corn. It is an enormous drug crop. What does the money from that do? First, it corrupts Government and elected officials. It corrupts the judiciary. It has a corrupting influence. So we are going to send American troops to fight and die for something that could be bordering on a narcostate?

I say, before we send in more marines, let's send in more DEA agents to work with the Karzai government to do something about the growth of poppy and the funding of the Taliban. Let's send in DEA agents. Under this, we are going to have a hiring freeze. Agents would have to take furloughs. But that is OK, that is just in law enforcement.

Let's talk about the national space agency, NASA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. If we don't do this appropriation, NASA will be funded close to a half billion dollars below what is in the omnibus. This would be a major setback to developing a reliable transportation system to continue our human space flights. We are already going to go dark in space, where we are going to rely on the Russians to get us up to our very own space station. But what this could mean is the loss of several thousand jobs in Florida, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Utah, and Louisiana. If we don't pass this by the end of March, layoff notices will begin. Aren't we for jobs today and jobs tomorrow? Aren't we for building rocket ships and spaceships? We have to pass this bill.

Then when we look at NOAA. We all love the weather reports. We rely upon them for early warnings of tornadoes and hurricanes and, at the same time, to be able to give us traffic. Weather reports don't come from the Weather Channel. The Weather Channel gets its information from the weather services provided by our Government at NOAA. We ought to rename it the ``National Oceans Atmospheric and Weather Administration.'' Right now, they are weathering their own storm. If this continuing resolution hits them, it means more layoffs. We won't be able to develop the right technology to predict and give the early warnings that are so important to our people.

Then I wish to talk about education. Through the National Science Foundation, and other science agencies in here, we work to promote education, to get our young people excited and participating in science and technology, so that they want to come into these exciting new possible careers, where they are going to come up with new ideas and inventions. This makes a major downpayment so we can coordinate with our new Secretary of Education and our President, who is such a strong advocate of this.

If you wish to have a country that is meeting the day-to-day needs of our own people, yet looking ahead to the long-range needs of our country, you want to vote for this appropriation. You want to vote for the subcommittee portion of this appropriation. The other reason, for those who are concerned about the issue of bipartisanship, is we developed this jointly and collegially and civilly with my colleague from Alabama, Senator Richard Shelby. This bill has his endorsement and it will have his vote. Senator Shelby and I have worked together for many years, and we believe that good people can find common ground, find an accessible center in the rough and tumble of politics that enables us to come before the Senate with a bipartisan approach to the Commerce, Justice, Science bill.

I want to thank Senator Shelby and his staff for their cooperation and collegiality in crafting the CJS portion of the bill we are considering.

The CJS Subcommittee's top priority is keeping Americans safe from terrorism and violent crime. To that end, our bill provides $26.1 billion for the Justice Department, which is $3 billion above the previous President's budget request. We fund the FBI our domestic counterterrorism agency with mission of dismantling terror cells and weapons of mass destruction on U.S. soil at $7.3 billion, which is $155 million above the previous President's budget request.

The CJS bill is the major Federal funding source for our State and local police departments. The previous President's budget request proposed dramatic cuts totaling $2 billion to State and local grant funding. We reject those cuts and instead provide a total of $3.2 billion to support our thin blue line.

Among those funds, the CJS bill provides $550 million for COPS grants, which pay for gear and technology--such as bulletproof vests and crime scene analysis--to keep our cops safe, and to help them catch criminals. We also have $546 million for Byrne-justice assistance grants, a formula-based program that is the main Federal funding tool for State and local police operations, which was zeroed out by the previous administration. For juvenile justice and delinquency prevention mentoring and antigang programs we provide $374 million, which is $189 million more than that the previous President request. Lastly, we provide $415 million to prevent violence against women, which is the highest level ever allocated for Violence Against Women Act programs.

In addition to helping our State and locals keep our communities safe, the CJS bill funds our major Federal law enforcement agencies. We provide $1.9 billion for the DEA to fight international narcoterrorists and drug kingpins. There is also $1.1 billion for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, to combat violent gun crime and gangs and investigate arson.

The CJS bill contains $954 million for the Marshals Service to apprehend fugitive sex offenders and other violent criminals. We included $1.8 billion for our U.S. Attorneys to prosecute gang leaders, gun traffickers and drug dealers. Lastly, we provide $6.2 billion for management and construction of Federal prisons to ensure our Federal prisons are safe and secure.

These agencies are the backbone of our criminal justice system. They enforce our laws, catch criminals and keep our communities safe.

Most importantly, this bill protects the most vulnerable among us: our children. We provide over $234 million to keep our kids safe from predators and violence.

The CJS includes $5 million to hire 20 new U.S. marshals to track down and arrest fugitive sex offenders, $47 million for the FBI Innocent Images program to catch deviants who use the Internet to prey on children, $5 million to hire 25 new assistant U.S. Attorneys to prosecute sex offenders, $70 million

for state and local law enforcement efforts to find and apprehend child predators, and $16 million for grants to school districts to keep kids safe at school.

I am proud to report that the CJS bill follows the framework of the America COMPETES Act and makes investments to improve America's competitiveness.

The bill provides $819 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which includes $65 million for the new Technology Innovation Program and $110 million for the manufacturing extension partnership, MEP. This is important funding to develop new technologies and new products and make American manufacturers more competitive.

We also provide $6.5 billion for the NSF, including $845 million dedicated for education. These funds focus on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and will develop our next generation of scientists and engineers.

For the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, we provide $4.4 billion, including: $945 million for our weather service to predict and warn us about severe weather, and $758 million for our fisheries service to protect our marine resources.

The bill also provides $17.8 billion for NASA, which is $200 million more than the previous President's budget request. We meet our obligations to fully fund the space shuttle at $3 billion, the space station at $2 billion, and the next generation space vehicle at $3.1 billion this year.

Finally, the CJS bill supports an innovation friendly government by providing full funding at $2 billion for the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, to reduce backlogs of patent applications and protect our intellectual property; and $430 million for the International Trade Administration to enforce our trade laws.

The CJS bill also makes important investments in America's future. We provide $240 million for economic development grants--$140 million more than requested by the previous administration--to help communities create jobs and opportunity. We also provide $20 million for public television infrastructure grants.

The CJS bill funds the science we use to monitor and predict changes in our weather and climate, and make policy decisions on actions we should take to save our planet. In fact, the CJS bill funds 85 percent of all Federal climate change science.

Specifically, we provide $1.4 billion for NASA Earth science for satellite missions that tell us how much pollution is in our atmosphere, our rainforests and ice sheets are shifting, and the height and chemistry of our oceans are changing. Funding for Earth science includes $150 million for new NASA earth science missions, which is $50 million above the previous President's request. This funding is recommended by the National Academy of Science to measure our ice sheets, climate, and atmosphere so we can better predict changes to our planet.

We provide $606 million for NASA science into how the sun affects the Earth. This helps predict and warn about events like solar flares that can knock out our communications and power grids.

The CJS has $966 million for NOAA weather satellites, which are important early warning tools. If we can better predict and warn when tornadoes and hurricanes are coming, we can save lives and save money. We provide $74 million to restore critical climate sensors that had been deleted from our next generation polar satellites because of cost overruns. We also include $420 million for NOAA research to help us better understand our oceans and atmosphere and how they interact and change.

Finally, the CJS bill continues to emphasize congressional oversight, accountability and fiscal stewardship.

We meet our constitutional obligations for a timely and accurate Census by providing $3.1 million for the 2010 Census. This will keep the Census on track, despite the previous administration's mismanagement of an information technology contract.

The CJS Subcommittee continues its oversight role by cracking down on cost overruns or mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. The bill insists on discipline and vigorous oversight by requiring each agency to notify the committee when costs of projects grow by more than 10 percent, thereby creating an early warning system.

We also require that inspectors general conduct random audits of grant funding to ensure compliance.

Finally, the bill complies fully with legislative transparency and accountability rules.

Again, I want to thank Senator Shelby and his staff--Art Cameron, Goodloe Sutton, Allen Cutler and Augusta Wilson--for their cooperation and collegiality.

The CJS bill meets the day to day needs of our constituents by keeping them safe from terrorism and violent crime. It looks out for the long-term needs of our Nation by making investments in America's physical and intellectual infrastructure to create and sustain jobs for today and jobs for tomorrow.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support it.

Amendment No. 608

Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment No. 608 offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. Simply put, this amendment is a solution in search of a problem. The CJS portion of the omnibus does provide funds for the Department of Justice to solve civil right cold cases. This amendment is a distraction.

Before I speak about why I oppose this amendment, however, we must first talk about Emmett Till.

Emmett Till was a 14-year-old African-American boy from Chicago who was murdered in Money, MS, on August 28, 1955. He was dragged from his uncle's home and shot in the head. His body was dumped in the Tallahatchie River, tied to a 70-pound cotton gin with barb wire, and found 3 days later by fishermen. Emmett's mother demanded an open casket to show the world the brutality of his murder.

The murder of Emmett Till was a key event igniting the civil rights movement. Emmett's two killers never served a day in jail for their heinous crime. An all-White jury acquitted them in 67 minutes. The killers later admitted to murdering Emmett Till, but could not be prosecuted for the crime because they had already been found innocent by a jury.

In May 2004, 49 years after the murder, the Department of Justice reopened the case to finally determine if anyone else was involved in the killing. The FBI exhumed Emmett Till's body and performed an autopsy. Two years later, the FBI determined no one else was involved and officially closed the case.

On October 7, 2008, President Bush signed a law named after Emmett Till. The purpose of the legislation is to make sure Justice Department has the necessary resources to investigate civil rights cold cases.

Cold cases are extremely difficult to solve. Investigators run into many dead ends, as witnesses are hard to find and evidence can be easily misplaced, mishandled or destroyed. Additionally, investigations use up a lot of time and money resources.

However, solving these cases is important. This is about more than just bringing killers to justice. Solving these cases is about letting victims' families get on with their lives, about moving beyond racial hatred, and reconciliation.

I want to be clear I support funding for investigating cold cases. That is why I fought hard to make sure there is money in the Federal checkbook for fiscal year 2009 to support the Emmett Till law. The CJS portion of the omnibus provides the Department of Justice with the resources it needs to investigate civil rights cold cases.

To boost resources for civil rights cold case investigations, the CJS bill provide $123 million for the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, which is $7 million more than 2008, and charged with heading up the investigation and enforcement responsibilities set forth in the Emmett Till bill. We include $151 million for funding to reduce enormous backlog of untested DNA evidence. There is a backlog of 500,000 unsolved cases with untested DNA evidence sitting in evidence lockers today.

So that State and local law enforcement have the means to carry out their roles in investigating civil rights cold cases, we provide $30 million for competitive funds for State and local government to investigate and prosecute civil rights violations. There is also $25

million for competitive grants to State and locals to reduce forensic evidence backlogs.

The CJS bill provides $9.8 million for the Justice Department's Community Relations Service to train local law enforcement how to mediate racial tensions in communities. We also have $75.6 million for the inspector general at Department of Justice, which is $5 million more than 2008. Under the Emmett Till law, the Inspector General has the authority to investigate missing children cold cases.

In addition to cold case investigations, the CJS bill provides robust funding to enforce our Nation's civil rights laws. It includes $1.84 billion, which is $88 million more than 2008, for the U.S. attorneys office at Department of Justice. These are the attorneys who investigate and prosecute civil rights violations. The bill also has $9 million for the Commission on Civil Rights, which is responsible for making agencies are complying with Federal civil rights laws and raising public awareness on civil rights. Lastly, we include $343 million for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, whose mission is to end workplace discrimination. This is $14.8 million above 2008 and will help reduce the current backlog of EEOC cases.

I urge my colleagues to oppose amendment No. 608 and support the omnibus. The omnibus gives Department of Justice the resources it needs to investigate civil rights cold cases and enforce our country's civil rights laws.

I have a letter from Attorney General Eric Holder stating his support for the goals of the Emmett Till Act. Attorney General Holder is committed to the goals of the Emmett Till Act, and this letter gives his personal commitment to continuing to use funding to pursue these serious crimes.

If the Senate does not pass the omnibus, the Department of Justice will be forced to operate at 2008 levels. This means we will have to lay off investigators and prosecutors, and civil rights enforcement and investigations will be compromised.

For all these reasons, I urge a ``NO'' vote on this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I referred be printed in the Record.

It is time to move the appropriations. We have to make sure our Government can function so our economy can function.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise in support of the DC Voting Rights Act. I rise from a new seat, a new chair in the Senate. My desk is now moved to the center aisle. I rise from this desk for the very first time to speak about a new opportunity to expand democracy. That is what the DC Voting Rights Act is--it is about democracy, about fairness, and about empowerment.

The DC Voting Rights Act simply gives the District Representative full voting rights in the U.S. House of Representatives. I also want to point out to my colleagues that this is not only about the District of Columbia, but this is also about Utah. What this legislation does, in a sense of fairness and parity, is grant a seat to the District of Columbia and an additional seat to Utah. What we are doing is trying to adjust, without amending the Constitution, wrongs that need to be righted. The DC Voting Rights Act gives the District Representative full voting rights in the House of Representatives.

Right now, the District of Columbia is represented--and I might add very ably--by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, a distinguished public servant. She is called a Delegate to Congress. We call her Congresswoman. When she moves around her great area, she is also called that. What is she allowed to do? One, she is able to have a voice. That is important. So the people of DC do have a voice. But in Congress, a voice also usually means a vote. That is where it doesn't work the way we think it should. She is able to vote in her committee, but she is not able to vote on the House floor. We think that is wrong. We think she should have a voice and we think she should have a vote.

The residents of the District of Columbia are the only residents in a democratic country in the capital city who do not have a vote in determining the fate and direction of the Nation.

What we have essentially done is disempower the over 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia. Yet we do not disempower them when we call them to serve for war. The District of Columbia, through its National Guard, has served ably and willingly. Yet even though they go to fight for the entire United States of America and they are sent to war by the Congress of the United States, they have no voice, no vote in the direction of their own country. This is not right.

DC residents go by the same rules and laws as the United States of America. They pay taxes. They pay, by the way, Federal taxes because they see themselves as part of the Federal Government. But the Federal Government does not see that they have full representation. I wish sometime we could have those DC residents who fought in wars in the balconies. They fought through the National Guard, and they fought through the regular military. They have fought and they have died, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. But when they come home, they are treated like second-class citizens. I don't think that is right.

I also happen to believe if you pay taxes--there was a famous patriot who said: If you pay taxes, you should have representation. If it was good enough for Patrick Henry and Patrick Kennedy, it should be good for us. If you pay taxes to the Federal Government, your representative should have a vote in the Congress of the United States. That is what we want to do today.

When we think about all the major issues that are debated in Congress--the economy, health care, education, the direction of our national security--these issues affect the residents of the District of Columbia the same way they affect Maryland or Virginia or Texas or Alabama or North Carolina. Yet the DC residents do not have a vote on these issues.

How would you feel, Madam President, if you did not have anyone representing you on those issues or if your Congresspeople could have a voice but not a vote? I think the District of Columbia deserves this, and they have been waiting a very long time. The District of Columbia has been waiting for this for 200 years.

Last year when we tried, we fell three votes short. But we are in a new day in Washington, and I hope this new day will be new democracy, the expansion of democracy. We love to expand democracy around the world. Let's expand democracy to the District of Columbia.

The District of Columbia has been made the target of congressional pet projects. We often shove ideas at them. We undo what they often want to pass for themselves. We think they should be able to have a vote to exercise the direction both for themselves and for the Nation.

Currently, DC residents are represented by a delegate. This would give full voting power in the House of Representatives. It would give Utah one additional representative. This solution is fair, it is nonpartisan, and it will enfranchise 600,000 District of Columbia residents and also enfranchise the State of Utah to have one additional representative that they barely missed in a census that was flawed in many ways.

I stand today as a friend and neighbor to the people of the District of Columbia. We in Maryland live next door

to the District. Many of the constituents I represent, the sons and daughters live in Maryland, the moms and dads continue to live in the District of Columbia. I know their fierce devotion to this country, the fact that they are proud to be residents of the Capital of the United States of America. They love doing their duty by participating in their community, by paying their taxes, and going to war, if necessary. But they believe participation and taxation should have representation. I believe like they do; we should give it to them and give it to them this week in this Senate. The time is now.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, I rise today to clarify for the U.S. Senate the sponsorship of six congressionally designated projects included in the Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany H.R. 1105, the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Specifically:

Senators Mark Warner and Webb should be listed as having requested funding for the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Glouchester, VA, for the Virginia Trawl Survey funded through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;

Senator Murray should be listed as having requested funding for the city of Vancouver, WA, for a new records management system funded through the Department of Justice;

Senator Cantwell should not be listed as having requested funding for the city of Vancouver, WA, for a new records management system funded through the Department of Justice;

Senators Reid, Ensign, Reed, Schumer, Sessions, Smith, Voinovich, Whitehouse, Wyden, Bennett, Biden, Hatch, Kennedy, Kerry, Landrieu, Lautenberg and Leahy should be listed as having requested funding for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Reno, Nevada, for the Child Abuse Training Programs for Judicial Personnel: Victims Act Model Courts Project, funded through the Department of Justice;

Senators Kohl, Leahy, Reed, Crapo and Whitehouse should be the only Senators listed as having requested funding for the National Crime Prevention Council, Arlington, Virginia, funded through the Department of Justice; and

Senator Murray should be listed as having requested funding for the Safe Streets Campaign, Tacoma, WA, for the Pierce County Regional Gang Prevention Initiative funded through the Department of Justice.

I thank the Senator from Vermont working with me to restore funding for this important program. We have worked together in the fight to turn back the cuts made by the previous administration to Federal resources that assist State and local communities in fighting violent crime. I know all too well the importance of the COPS Hiring Program and share your concerns about the effect of the economic downturn on our neighborhoods. We need to make sure those on the blue line have a full team to combat increased crime in communities. My subcommittee recognizes that need, which is why we put $3.5 billion total for State and local law enforcement activities. This includes $1 billion for COPS hiring grants, for which we waived the salary cap for hiring or rehiring career law enforcement officers and civilian public safety personnel.

The Senator from Minnesota is right that this is an issue in Maryland, as well as nationwide. As the economic recovery package moves to conference, we will work to ensure mechanisms are in place for this critical program to be quickly and effectively implemented and accessible to those in need of assistance.

I would say to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that is what we intend.

That is correct as well. The funding I included in the CJS portion of economic recovery package for crime victim compensation programs will be in addition to their annual VOCA grants, and will not be deducted from their annual VOCA grants.

Madam President, is there a time limit on the speaking time at this time?

Madam President, thank you very much. Then I will get right to it. I have a lot to say in support of this bill.

Let me start off by saying we have inherited a terrible mess, but the Senate is taking a major step forward to turn the country around by passing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

By standing with President Obama, we stand for America, to create jobs for people who have lost them and to help those who have jobs keep them.

This bill is about jobs, jobs, jobs. Through the rough and tumble of the legislative process, I do believe the Senate has found a sensible center. I compliment all of both sides of the aisle who chose to work with each other to accomplish this.

This bill balances spending on the public investments and targeted tax credits that create jobs without exacerbating the Federal deficit.

There is much to commend us about the spending bill. The focus on physical infrastructure is absolutely crucial to my own State of Maryland. If one takes something that is not very jazzy to talk about, such as sewers and water grants, I can only bring to the Senate's attention that this stimulus would bring $123 million to Maryland for these projects. But if Governor O'Malley were here, he would say: Thank God. If the people of Montgomery County, Prince Georges County, and Baltimore city were here, they would say: Cheers.

Over the weekend, we had a terrible water main break in Maryland, in Baltimore. It went through Madison Street, near one of our most famous Catholic Churches. That church runs a school by the Jesuits, which focuses on giving a Jesuit prep school education practically free to poor boys, helping them to find their way. It closed not because of a lack of funds but because of a water break.

Iggy's, one of our most delicious pizza parlors, was flooded with water not with business because of the water main break.

Most recently, a big water main break occurred on River Road in Montgomery County. There was a dashing rescue by the brave people, first responders, of the Montgomery County rescue team, snatching people from waters that cascaded through like it was a Maryland ``Niagara Falls.'' We have the money and the will to pay for the daring rescue, but we want to fix essentially what was a tsunami, a local tsunami in Montgomery County. Every time we do this, you have to have jobs for the people who will actually build the water and sewer programs.

I could take you on a tour throughout Maryland. But what we are doing is creating jobs, improving the environment and public safety and public health. I could go item after item on these spending issues. Education would be one of the others which is very important.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act creates jobs by investing in our infrastructure. It fixes aging physical infrastructure, like roads, bridges, and water systems.

Water mains are aging. Roadways are turning into rivers. Small businesses have to shut their doors. Hospitals can't take care of the sick.

A recent water main break in Baltimore closed St. Ignatius, a school that provides a Jesuit education for poor kids. It closed Iggy's pizza parlor, a local Baltimore landmark. It was shut down after the water main break. The owner is not sure when he can reopen his doors.

The stimulus provides $123 million for Maryland water and sewer projects. The formula funding to the States is to make low-interest loans to localities and utilities. This means local governments won't have to raise rates or cut services.

But not all jobs require a shovel to be ready to go. Some need microscopes and telescopes. High-tech jobs like maritime charting help keep Maryland's economy afloat.

There is $80 million to update nautical charts. There is a backlog of 20,000 square miles. Some nautical charts for the bay have not been updated in decades. The channels have changed naturally. So have the boats that go down the channels. Ships are bigger and weigh more.

We need accurate charts to make sure boats don't run aground, halting the flow of goods in Baltimore Harbor. It could cause an environmental mess and costly clean-up. Maryland can't afford a maritime accident.

It makes major investments in education so families and local school districts can help special needs children.

By giving money to the Governor to fill budget gaps in State aid, Prince George's County won't have to consolidate 12 schools, increase class size, or cut 900 positions in central administration.

By providing funding for Early Head Start, officials in Baltimore City can start serving the 95 percent--7,600--of low-income infants who are eligible but do not receive nutritional, health, and education services due to a lack of funding.

By providing a surge in title I dollars, Carroll County won't have to cut 33 teaching positions that otherwise would be slashed because of tight budgets.

It provides a social safety net that helps distressed families. It helps with food stamps and nutrition for seniors. It supports Meals on Wheels so seniors stay in their communities and age in place. Last year, Meals on Wheels of Maryland delivered 780,000 meals to almost 3,000 seniors.

Putting food in people's mouths, about 317,000 Marylanders rely on food stamps each month.

It expands Medicaid so States can continue to cover those already on Medicaid and expand the program to cover new individuals. About 854,000 children and adults rely on Medicaid in Maryland. For families of three who make about $52,000 this means elderly won't get dropped from nursing homes and children will have health care.

It invests in the techno infrastructure, like broadband to expand small businesses. Rural Maryland will be able to sell agricultural products or crafts and antiques on e-Bay, running e-based businesses out of their homes. Or if they lose a job, they can look for a new job online. And telecommuting is an option, so they may not have to move to a city to be near a good job.

And it has targeted tax breaks to help families and small businesses, like expanding the child tax credit, helping at least 100,000 poor children in Maryland. It eases the ability to qualify for the refundable child tax credit, and provides up to an additional $2,000 for a family with two children making less than $30,000.

Last week we learned that 598,000 people lost their jobs in January. This bill is a victory for America. This bill stimulates the economy today and lays the groundwork for a stronger economy tomorrow.

In addition to what was done the other night and what will pass in this stimulus--and I intend to vote for this stimulus--I am so heartened my automobile amendment is included in this bill. It makes interest payments on car loans and State sales or excise car tax deductible for new cars that would be purchased this year.

What does it do? It actually gets people in the showroom. It does what Senator Hutchison talked about. I got 71 votes: 41 Democrats and 30 Republicans. What does it do? It saves jobs because it gets people in the showroom to buy a car; and that means for the people who sell the car, for the auto mechanic who fixes it, for the manufacturer who makes it, and, most of all, for the consumers. They get a chance to buy a car that will be far more fuel efficient and also lower carbon. Now, that is what both sides of the aisle have talked about.

My amendment makes interest payments on car loans and State sales/ excise car tax deductible for new cars purchased from November 12, 2008 to December 31, 2009.

How does this amendment help our economy? It saves jobs. If the domestic auto industry goes bankrupt, the U.S. would lose 3 million jobs, in manufacturing, repairs and service, car dealerships, and science and engineering. It helps consumers. A family would save about $1,553 on a $25,000 car, such as a Dodge minivan. Cars are most families' biggest purchases after their homes. It supports States and local governments. States rely on car excise taxes for their infrastructure projects. More car sales means more revenue for struggling State and local governments.

It is urgently needed. To reach viability, the Big Three need U.S. new car sales to be at 13 million a year at a minimum. Sales in December were more than 20 percent below that minimum--10.3 million a year. This is the only proposal that will stimulate demand up the supply chain so that the Big Three's restructuring plans will work.

Who would qualify for this tax deduction? Families who make less than $250,000; $125,000 for individuals. The deduction is ``above-the- line''--meaning it can be taken advantage of by itemizers and nonitemizers. It only applies on cars that are less than $49,500.

I have a statement from someone whom I never thought I would be in alignment with, the economist Martin Feldstein. He is on the conservative side, and everybody knows you kind of cover me blue. He says what we should focus on is providing incentives to households and businesses to increase current spending. Why not a tax credit to households to purchase cars or other consumer durables?

I will quote from his article, dated Thursday, January 29, 2009, in the Washington Post:

As a conservative economist, I might be expected to oppose

a stimulus plan. In fact, on this page in October, I declared

my support for a stimulus. But the fiscal package now before

Congress needs to be thoroughly revised. In its current form,

it does too little to raise national spending and employment.

It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a

month, or even two, if that's what it takes to produce a much

better bill. We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake.

Start with the tax side. The plan is to give a tax cut of

$500 a year for two years to each employed person. That's not

a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience shows

that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is

largely saved or used to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent

of last year's tax rebates led to additional spending.

The proposed business tax cuts are also likely to do little

to increase business investment and employment. The extended

loss ``carrybacks'' are primarily lump-sum payments to

selected companies. The bonus depreciation plan would do

little to raise capital spending in the current environment

of weak demand because the tax benefits in the early years

would be recaptured later.

Instead, the tax changes should focus on providing

incentives to households and businesses to increase current

spending. Why not a temporary refundable tax credit to

households that purchase cars or other major consumer

durables, analogous to the investment tax credit for

businesses? Or a temporary tax credit for home improvements?

In that way, the same total tax reduction could produce much

more spending and employment.

My time has expired. Madam President, I ask for 2 minutes to conclude.

All I say is this: I thank the Chair for allowing me to offer the amendment. But if you want a car at your house, call the White House or call the House of Representatives. The problem now is not the idea but it is the politics. Let's get the White House on our side. Let's get the House of Representatives on this side. Flood not the streets but flood them with the phone calls. Call these numbers. Let's get America rolling again.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that is needed by small and seasonal businesses all over the nation. In 2005 I introduced and the Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation to keep these small and seasonal businesses alive. For many years they have relied on the H-2B visa program to meet these needs, but this year they can't get the temporary labor they need because they have been shut out of the H-2B visa program. That program lets them hire temporary foreign workers when no American workers are available.

So today, I join with my colleague Senator Specter to introduce legislation that provides a quick and temporary fix to the H-2B problem. The Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2009 will help these employers by extending the H-2B returning worker exemption for three years. It does not raise the cap and keeps the limit at 66,000. I urge my colleagues to work with us to pass this legislation quickly to save these businesses and the thousands of American jobs they provide.

Many in this body know about the H-2B crisis--a real crisis to thousands of small and seasonal businesses who face a shortage of workers as they approach their seasons. These small businesses count on the H-2B visa program to keep their businesses afloat. But this year, because the cap was reached so early in the year, many of these businesses will be unable to get the seasonal workers that they need to survive.

Hitting the cap so early will have a great impact on Maryland. We have a lot of summer seasonal businesses in Maryland on the Eastern Shore, in Ocean City or working the Chesapeake Bay. Many of our businesses use the program year after year. They hire all the American workers they can find, but they need additional help to meet seasonal demands. Because the cap will be reached so early this year summer employers face a disadvantage. They can't use the program, so they can't meet their seasonal needs and many will be forced to limit services, lay-off permanent U.S. workers or, worse yet, close their doors.

These are family businesses and small businesses in small communities in Maryland. If the business suffers the whole community suffers. For seafood companies like J.M. Clayton, what they do is more than a business, it's a way of life. Started over a century ago and run by the great grandsons of the founder, J.M. Clayton works the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, supplying crabs, crabmeat and other seafood, including Maryland's famous oysters, to restaurants, markets, and wholesalers all over the nation. It is the oldest working crab processing plant in the world and by employing 70 H-2B workers the company can retain over 50 full time American workers.

But its not just seafood companies that have a long history on the Eastern Shore. It's companies like S.E.W. Friel Cannery, which began its business over 100 years ago when there were 300 canneries on the Eastern Shore. But now those others are gone and Friel's is the last corn cannery left. Ten years ago, when the cannery could not find local workers, it turned to the new H-2B visa Program. It has used the program every year since, and many workers are repeat users who come each year and then go home after the season. What's important is that having this help each year has not only allowed the company to maintain its American workforce, but it has paved the way for local workers to return to the cannery.

Now these employers can't just turn to the H-2B program whenever they want seasonal workers. First, employers must try to vigorously recruit U.S. workers. These businesses try to hire American workers--they would love to hire American workers. In fact, the H-2B program requires these businesses to prove that they have vigorously tried to recruit American workers. They have to advertise for American workers and give American workers a chance to apply. They have to prove to the Department of Labor that there are no U.S. workers available. Only after that are they allowed to fill seasonal vacancies with H-2B visa workers. The workers that they bring in often participate in the H-2B program year after year. They often work for the same companies. But they cannot and do not stay in the U.S. They return to their home countries, to their families and their U.S. employer must go through the whole visa process again the following year to get them back. That means an employer must prove again to the Department of Labor that they cannot get U.S. workers.

This legislative fix keeps that visa process in place. It's a short- term legislative fix to solve the immediate H-2B visa shortage. It does not take the place of comprehensive immigration reform.

This legislation is a temporary 3 year fix. It exempts returning seasonal workers from the cap. These are workers who have already successfully participated in the H-2B visa Program. They received a visa in one of the past 3 years and have returned home to their families after their seasonal employment with a U.S. company.

Everyone must still play by the rules. Employers must go through the whole visa process, prove they need the seasonal help and only after that are returning employees exempt from the cap. Employees must be those who have left the U.S. and are requesting a new H-2B visa to come back for another season. This new system rewards those who have played by the rules, worked hard and successfully participated in the program. The bill gives a helping hand to businesses by allowing them to retain workers who they have already trained to do their seasonal jobs.

This is a quick and simple fix. It lasts three years. And it does not get in the way of comprehensive immigration reform.

I worked with my colleagues to get a bill with strong bi-partisan support. A bill that would work.

This bill is realistic. It provides a temporary solution because immediate action is needed to help these small and seasonal businesses stay in business. Yes--we need to help them now. Their seasons start soon. If they don't get seasonal workers this year, there may not be any businesses around next year to help.

Every member of the Senate who has heard from their constituents-- whether they are seafood processors, landscapers, resorts, timber companies, fisheries, pool companies or carnivals--knows the urgency in their voices, knows the immediacy of the problem and knows that the Congress must act now to save these businesses. I urge my colleagues to join this effort, support the Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act, and push this Congress to fix the problem today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill that is needed by small and seasonal businesses all over the nation. In 2005 I introduced and the Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation to keep these small and seasonal businesses alive. For many years they have relied on the H-2B visa program to meet these needs, but this year they can't get the temporary labor they need because they have been shut out of the H-2B visa program. That program lets them hire temporary foreign workers when no American workers are available.

So today, I join with my colleague Senator Specter to introduce legislation that provides a quick and temporary fix to the H-2B problem. The Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2009 will help these employers by extending the H-2B returning worker exemption for three years. It does not raise the cap and keeps the limit at 66,000. I urge my colleagues to work with us to pass this legislation quickly to save these businesses and the thousands of American jobs they provide.

Many in this body know about the H-2B crisis--a real crisis to thousands of small and seasonal businesses who face a shortage of workers as they approach their seasons. These small businesses count on the H-2B visa program to keep their businesses afloat. But this year, because the cap was reached so early in the year, many of these businesses will be unable to get the seasonal workers that they need to survive.

Hitting the cap so early will have a great impact on Maryland. We have a lot of summer seasonal businesses in Maryland on the Eastern Shore, in Ocean City or working the Chesapeake Bay. Many of our businesses use the program year after year. They hire all the American workers they can find, but they need additional help to meet seasonal demands. Because the cap will be reached so early this year summer employers face a disadvantage. They can't use the program, so they can't meet their seasonal needs and many will be forced to limit services, lay-off permanent U.S. workers or, worse yet, close their doors.

These are family businesses and small businesses in small communities in Maryland. If the business suffers the whole community suffers. For seafood companies like J.M. Clayton, what they do is more than a business, it's a way of life. Started over a century ago and run by the great grandsons of the founder, J.M. Clayton works the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, supplying crabs, crabmeat and other seafood, including Maryland's famous oysters, to restaurants, markets, and wholesalers all over the nation. It is the oldest working crab processing plant in the world and by employing 70 H-2B workers the company can retain over 50 full time American workers.

But its not just seafood companies that have a long history on the Eastern Shore. It's companies like S.E.W. Friel Cannery, which began its business over 100 years ago when there were 300 canneries on the Eastern Shore. But now those others are gone and Friel's is the last corn cannery left. Ten years ago, when the cannery could not find local workers, it turned to the new H-2B visa Program. It has used the program every year since, and many workers are repeat users who come each year and then go home after the season. What's important is that having this help each year has not only allowed the company to maintain its American workforce, but it has paved the way for local workers to return to the cannery.

Now these employers can't just turn to the H-2B program whenever they want seasonal workers. First, employers must try to vigorously recruit U.S. workers. These businesses try to hire American workers--they would love to hire American workers. In fact, the H-2B program requires these businesses to prove that they have vigorously tried to recruit American workers. They have to advertise for American workers and give American workers a chance to apply. They have to prove to the Department of Labor that there are no U.S. workers available. Only after that are they allowed to fill seasonal vacancies with H-2B visa workers. The workers that they bring in often participate in the H-2B program year after year. They often work for the same companies. But they cannot and do not stay in the U.S. They return to their home countries, to their families and their U.S. employer must go through the whole visa process again the following year to get them back. That means an employer must prove again to the Department of Labor that they cannot get U.S. workers.

This legislative fix keeps that visa process in place. It's a short- term legislative fix to solve the immediate H-2B visa shortage. It does not take the place of comprehensive immigration reform.

This legislation is a temporary 3 year fix. It exempts returning seasonal workers from the cap. These are workers who have already successfully participated in the H-2B visa Program. They received a visa in one of the past 3 years and have returned home to their families after their seasonal employment with a U.S. company.

Everyone must still play by the rules. Employers must go through the whole visa process, prove they need the seasonal help and only after that are returning employees exempt from the cap. Employees must be those who have left the U.S. and are requesting a new H-2B visa to come back for another season. This new system rewards those who have played by the rules, worked hard and successfully participated in the program. The bill gives a helping hand to businesses by allowing them to retain workers who they have already trained to do their seasonal jobs.

This is a quick and simple fix. It lasts three years. And it does not get in the way of comprehensive immigration reform.

I worked with my colleagues to get a bill with strong bi-partisan support. A bill that would work.

This bill is realistic. It provides a temporary solution because immediate action is needed to help these small and seasonal businesses stay in business. Yes--we need to help them now. Their seasons start soon. If they don't get seasonal workers this year, there may not be any businesses around next year to help.

Every member of the Senate who has heard from their constituents-- whether they are seafood processors, landscapers, resorts, timber companies, fisheries, pool companies or carnivals--knows the urgency in their voices, knows the immediacy of the problem and knows that the Congress must act now to save these businesses. I urge my colleagues to join this effort, support the Save our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act, and push this Congress to fix the problem today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

My question is about the steel industry. As the Senator knows, I, along with him, tried to stand up for American steel. So the Senator means to say if a steelmaker moves production overseas at a very minimal rate, and then ships steel back, they are going to have a lower tax rate than the steel company that struggled, downsized, rightsized to try to stay in this country and manufacture steel?

Will the Senator agree that we are often chastised for ``Buy American'' amendments, but essentially what exists now is a ``Tax American'' situation, and the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota would remedy that situation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 104.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I call up amendment No. 140.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, to give a sense of process, I have an amendment that I think will contribute to both creating jobs and saving jobs in the American automobile industry. Before I explain my amendment, I wish to note that my remarks will take about 5 minutes. I ultimately will want to vote on this amendment later on today, when the leadership on both sides of the aisle agrees to a time in sequencing they choose. I know there will be opponents to my amendment, and I will return to debate at that time. But in the interest of comity, I will lay down my amendment, speak for 5 minutes to explain it, and then we can return to the discussion on the Coburn amendment.

Mr. President, I think we all agree that our economy is in shambles and that Congress needs to act and act very quickly. My amendment does what the President said he wanted to do, and what the other side of the aisle says it wants to do, or the other side of my amendment says they want to do. The Mikulski amendment is timely, targeted, and temporary, and it is focused on saving jobs and creating jobs in the automobile industry.

What does my amendment do? It does this. If you buy a passenger car, minivan or light truck within this year, you will get a tax deduction for your sales or excise tax and the interest on your car loan. It means a family could save approximately $1,500 on a $25,000 car purchase.

Now, what does this amendment mean and what does it do? This amendment is actually about creating jobs. Our automobile industry is languishing--from the people who make them, to the dealers who sell them, to the people who service them, to the back office people, and to the people who also provide the supplies.

My amendment is also cost-effective in terms of the Treasury. Not a nickel will be spent unless you go buy a car or a minivan or a light truck. So we are not throwing money out of a helicopter, and we are not putting money out there and hoping people will spend. We are giving money to banks hoping they will lend. Under the Mikulski amendment, it only happens if you walk into a dealership, buy an automobile, and then once you complete that purchase, take that deduction for the sales tax along with the interest.

Why is this good? First of all, for the consumer, it means they get a deal. It is a market incentive and gets them into the showroom to buy what they want. Second, it helps the environment because all new cars-- and this is going only to new cars--get greater fuel efficiency and have lower carbon emissions. It is also the only amendment that affects business up and down the chain in our own country. My amendment is not limited to only American cars but it is focused on cars made in the United States. So whether it is a Ford, a Chevy, a Chrysler, a Nissan or a Toyota, it qualifies for the Mikulski amendment.

No. 1, it helps manufacturing. If you buy a car, it means they have to be built. We are facing a crisis in the automobile industry. We can give all the bailouts we want, but unless people buy cars, the bailout will just become part of the bucket list. My amendment helps manufacturing, which means it also helps the dealerships. There are 20,000 new car dealerships in the United States, and they employ about a million people. I have met them in my own State. In many of the rural parts of my State, they are the major employer. They are also the major contributors to the United Way, to the rotary clubs, and to the athletic leagues. These are human beings who sell cars. They are the auto mechanics, with grease under their fingernails but patriotism in their hearts; they are the taxpayers who pay for the bailout of the banks, but they don't want a bailout, they want people to come in to buy their cars. My amendment also will help the consumer to have one more incentive to be able to buy these cars.

One of the auto mechanics said to me he had worked at a Chevy dealership for over 23 years. He said: Senator Barb, I have worked all my life, and I love to work on cars. I just love it. I love to fix them and I love to repair them, and I think I have done a good job at it. I am happy to think I have helped a lot of other people to be in safe, reliable vehicles, and all I want is to have a real job and a real income so that I can send my two kids to college.

I could elaborate on my amendment, but I know others also wish to speak on it, and I will reserve the right to come back and to further debate it. But if you want to help create jobs, save jobs, keep the automobile industry going, and get our economy back on its wheels, vote for the Mikulski automobile tax deduction amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry before the Senator from Kansas speaks. Under the unanimous consent agreement, whose time is now being used?

Did the Senator from California speak on my time as well?

How much time do I have remaining?

I yield the time to Senator Brownback to speak.

Mr. President, I was here when the Senator from California spoke. She didn't realize it was on my time, but the very gracious Senator from Mississippi has yielded me a few minutes of opposition time.

I think we all know the arguments, and I thank the Senator from Kansas for arguing because it shows that this amendment is a bipartisan amendment. What it does is actually create jobs or save jobs in the automobile industry.

The amendment is simple and it is targeted and it is timely. My amendment simply says if you buy a passenger car, minivan, or light truck between November of last year and December 31 of 2009, you will get a tax deduction for your State sales or excise tax and the interest on your loan. For the average consumer buying a vehicle of approximately $25,000, it would mean a $1,500 incentive.

Now, this is good for several reasons. First of all, No. 1, it really is prudent from a fiscal standpoint. The money does not leave the Federal checkbook or the Federal Treasury unless it goes to a person who has actually bought a vehicle. So no money is spent or put into the economy unless it is actually used in the economy to buy a car, minivan, or light truck.

It stimulates jobs because when you buy a car, it means, No. 1, somebody had to make it; No. 2, somebody had to sell it, service it, and process the paperwork to do it, and there had to be suppliers to also make sure that vehicle was fit for duty. We have in our automobile industry 3 million people who are dependent on it up and down the chain, from manufacturing to sales to maintenance.

In my own home State, let's take the automobile dealer. There are approximately 700 dealers, and there are close to 3,000 dealers nationwide. Each dealer employs about 50 people, again, from the people who sell them to the people who fix them. I have talked to people in my own State. The automobile dealers are, in some instances, the major employer in rural parts of my State. If you talk to someone such as the auto mechanic, as I did in Bethesda, and other automobile mechanics, they are proud of what they do. They fix those cars. They have them road-ready. They see it as helping the environment, making sure people are safe in their vehicles and getting value for their dollar. We want these small businesses to stay afloat.

That is why I think the Mikulski amendment is so specific. It only applies to the automobile industry.

No. 2, it is timely because it would immediately go into effect, and it is targeted and limited because it will only last until December 31, 2009. If you really want to get America back on its wheels again and really help America get rolling again, supporting the Mikulski amendment will go a long way to do that.

Now, there are those who say: How much will this cost the Treasury? I just wish to bring to their attention that doing nothing will cost our Treasury: more expenditures on unemployment; the possibility that one of our manufacturers could go bankrupt and throw this into pension guarantee,

which would be a disaster; and in our local communities, the heartbreak that would result from a shuttered dealership in a small town on the Eastern Shore or in western Maryland would really be devastating. It would hurt the consumer and hurt consumer confidence.

If you vote for the Mikulski amendment, supported by people on the other side of the aisle, I believe we can really get our economy going again.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I rise not for purposes of debate but to add a cosponsor to my amendment. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Webb, the Senator from Virginia, be listed as a cosponsor.

Mr. President, the time has now come to vote on the Mikulski amendment that gives a tax break to people who go buy a car on which they can take a tax deduction on their interest and on their sales tax. It actually creates jobs by having people buy a car, sell a car, service a car, and make a car.

Three million jobs are at stake in the automobile industry, and I urge the adoption of my amendment.

Mr. President, I move to waive the applicable sections of the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, today I wish to support the nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General of the United States. This is an historic nomination--Eric Holder is the first African-American to be nominated to serve as the country's chief law enforcement officer. This is a much needed nomination. The Department of Justice, DOJ, is on life support, plagued with politics and partisanship. Under the previous administration the Department of Justice authored torture memos, fired U.S. Attorneys for their political beliefs, funded pet projects, and spent taxpayer dollars on lavish conferences.

This country needs an Attorney General who will restore confidence and integrity to the Justice Department. We need an independent thinker who is not influenced by politics or fear and who is dedicated to rule of law--not rule of ideology. We need a leader to hold the Department accountable--one who will provide fiscal accountability and stewardship of taxpayer dollars and stand sentry against waste, fraud, and abuse. No more $5 Swedish meatballs.

I have three criteria for nominees to the executive branch: first, the nominee must possess competence; second, the nominee must have a commitment to the mission of the agency; and finally, the nominee must have the highest integrity. Eric Holder passes all of these tests with flying colors.

First, his competence cannot be questioned. He was the No. 2 at the Department of Justice under the Clinton administration; he was U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia; he was nominated by President Reagan and confirmed by the Senate to serve as a Superior Court judge for the District of Columbia; and he was a career prosecutor in DOJ's Public Integrity Section.

Second, he has shown an unwavering commitment to the Justice Department's mission to uphold the Constitution, fight corruption, prosecute criminals, and protect victims. He has fought throughout his career to make

sure our Nation's laws are applied fairly and that everyone gets a fair shake.

Third, Eric Holder possesses strong integrity. He has a history of fighting to root out corruption and prosecute criminals. He is the son of immigrants and has worked hard to get to where he is.

As chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the Justice Department, I want to make sure that the Department has what it needs to protect this country from predatory attacks by terrorists and predatory attacks in our neighborhood. I have fought to put dollars in the Federal checkbook to support the agency's efforts to combat terrorism and violent crime. I have fought to make sure that hard- working, dedicated individuals who are responsible for carrying out that mission have the resources they need.

The Justice Department needs an Attorney General who supports enforcing our country's laws, will protect the vulnerable, and will restore morale and confidence. I believe Eric Holder is just the right man for the job. For the past 8 years, the previous administration has ignored the Constitution, supported torture, denied basic access to courts for detainees, slashed funding for cops on the beat, and spied on innocent Americans. We need an Attorney General who will restore the rule of law and demand accountability for wrongdoing. We need an independent thinker--not a rubber stamp for the President.

Eric Holder is a heavyweight lawyer. He has vigorously prosecuted corrupt public officials from both parties. He put a mob boss behind bars for trying to bribe a juror. He is willing to take on the strong and powerful because he believes no one is above the law.

Yet the Department of Justice is not only responsible for upholding the Constitution. Part of its core mission is to protect the most vulnerable. As a social worker, I have seen firsthand the despicable crimes committed against children and know how important it is to hold these abusers accountable in order to keep our children safe. Now, new technology puts children at even greater risk. There are sophisticated cyber-predators posing as children on the Internet and are harder to catch. Eric Holder is a career prosecutor who has dedicated his life to protecting the public and getting criminals off the street. As the U.S. Attorney for D.C., Holder created the Domestic Violence Unit, which was a dedicated, one-stop shop for domestic violence survivors; he also spearheaded initiatives to protect children from abuse, sexual predators and cyber stalkers. I am confident that as Attorney General, the country's chief of police, he will protect our children and our neighborhoods from violent and heinous crimes.

Not only does the country need Holder, the Department of Justice does. A recent DOJ Inspector General report found one of the top ten management challenges at the Justice Department is to restore confidence at the Department. The mission of the Justice Department has been sidelined and politics--not evidence--has driven hiring and firing decisions. The prosecution of civil rights violations had dramatically dropped, while claims of workplace discrimination are on the rise. We need a leader to put the Department back on track and restore integrity and independent thinking. It is time to get back to doing business that is free from politics and ideology. Time to enforce our civil rights laws, prosecute financial corruption and cronyism, bolster local law enforcement to fight crime and protect the vulnerable. Eric Holder has served as the Deputy Attorney General at Justice and has experience managing and leading. He knows the challenges the Department faces. He will work with President Obama to restore the Department's reputation.

In conclusion, Eric Holder has spent his legal career protecting the public from dirty public officials, violent criminals and predators, scheming corporate greed. I know as Attorney General, Eric Holder will make sure the Justice Department is working for the American people-- not some political agenda. This is why I will vote to confirm Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General of the United States.

Under current law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, she is not able to recover any lost pay because a claimant has 180 days to file a claim from the time that the employer first decided to discriminate, i.e. she had to file by July 1, 2007.

Under S. 181 she would be able to recover lost wages for the previous 2 years from her January 15, 2009, paycheck. This is because every paycheck is considered an act of discrimination and a claimant has 180 days to file a claim for that act of discrimination, and go back 2 years in determining damages.

The claimant has the burden of proof.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are now in the 1 hour that has been determined to be equally divided to conclude the debate on the Hutchison amendment to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. It is the intention for us to be able to conclude the bill today, and we want to thank our colleagues for their cooperation in offering amendments, and we are willing to debate them.

We have heard much debate already--Mr. President, in our enthusiasm to move ahead, I neglected to say that we yield back our time in morning business.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. President. It was in my enthusiasm that I neglected a few parliamentary housekeeping tasks.

On April 23, when we had the vote in the Senate to vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, we lost it by two votes. On that day, I said we would continue our fight and that we needed to--we the women of America and the men who supported us--square our shoulders, suit up to fight for a new American revolution. I called upon the other women of America to put their lipstick on and be ready to go. Well, today is ``go day.'' And we are actively debating this amendment.

One of the arguments that is often made is that this Fair Pay Act we are advocating could trigger either needless and enormous volumes of lawsuits or it creates a shifting ball of the statute of limitations. Both of those criticisms are false.

First, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will not trigger more lawsuits. Because this bill the Democrats are advocating--and, oh, by the way, it is a bipartisan bill. We have over 54 cosponsors; Republicans are joining with us. It does not in any way trigger enormous lawsuits, because it simply restores the law, with greater clarity, that existed before the outrageous Supreme Court decision.

We were not flooded with volumes of lawsuits on wage discrimination. There was an orderly process that occurred.

The other is this floating statute of limitations argument. Well, that is a foggy term. But I tell you what is foggy is the Hutchison amendment.

Now, I so admire the gentlewoman from Texas. We have worked together, as I said, on many issues. I know her intentions are good, but her language is flawed. I should say, not her language, but the language of her amendment. It is foggy.

Let me go on to this a little bit. The amendment does not address the fundamental problem of the pay discrimination case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which created unreal and strict limitations for filing pay discrimination claims. It also fails to recognize that pay discrimination, unlike other kinds of discrimination, is repeated each time a worker receives an unfair paycheck.

I want to repeat that. The Hutchison amendment fails to recognize that pay or wage discrimination, unlike other forms of discrimination, is repeated each time someone receives an unfair paycheck. Instead, the Hutchison amendment creates a new confusing standard that requires workers to either be subject to the Ledbetter rule or prove they had no reasonable suspicion of discrimination when the employer first decided to pay them.

Well, you have to prove a negative. That is almost impossible. From the day you walk onto the job or the day your coworker who gets a raise, when the guys get it and the girls do not, you would have to be snooping around and creating a very hostile workplace, branded a troublemaker, because you were saying, well, you would have to every week say, well, what did you get paid, Mr. Udall? What did you get paid, Mr. Tester? What did you get paid?

Well, I know we get paid the same pay, and I know we are doing the same, equal work. But that is not true in the workplace. So we believe the Hutchison amendment actually creates more fog than solutions.

I want to continue the debate on this. I note that the gentlewoman from Texas has not come in, but I see the gentleman from South Carolina.

What I would recommend is kind of rotating back and forth every 5 minutes. That way everybody gets a chance to speak, everyone gets a chance to debate, and everyone will get a chance to vote at 11:30.

Mr. President, how much time remains in the debate?

Mr. President, I would like to comment on the arguments that have been made by the advocates for the Hutchison amendment. First, let me say this: If you are a business and you want to avoid a lawsuit, there is one clear remedy that does not require statutory action, and that is called give equal pay for equal or comparable work. If you don't want to end up in court, you don't want to end up at the EEOC, you don't want to end up with a tattered and tarred reputation, pay people equal pay. That is the way to avoid a lawsuit. Then you don't need a law.

But, no, there are those in our country who still think we are back in the 20th or 19th centuries, and we are not going to put up with it. We can talk about the 180-day rule and wage-setting decisions and so on. I am a pragmatic, pro-business, pro-fairness Senator. My grandmother ran a small bakery and was known as having the best doughnuts in Maryland--well, certainly in Baltimore. My father ran a small grocery store. We paid equal pay for equal work.

When we talk about small business, I know about small business.

I also know the Hutchison amendment would create more problems. For example, the discovery rule fails to hold employers fully accountable for ongoing discrimination. That is a very big deal. If workers suspect discrimination but delay filing the claim for fear of retaliation or hopes that things could be worked out without litigation, they should not be forced to suffer continued wage discrimination indefinitely. Wage discrimination continues with every new unfair paycheck. If harm is ongoing, the remedy should be as well, regardless of when a worker learned of it.

Doesn't this rule make things better for employers? No. The Hutchison amendment is very vague and foggy. The rule encourages premature claims which is going to increase litigation. Workers are going to feel compelled to file formal claims with the EEOC or take legal action for fear that they will be accused of delay. That is what the Supreme Court accused Lilly Ledbetter of. They didn't accuse Goodyear of discriminating in their paycheck. They accused Lilly Ledbetter of delay and Lilly Ledbetter lost out.

There is a new day coming, including on the Supreme Court. I can't wait for those votes. Workers will feel compelled, as I said, to file formal claims quickly.

The Hutchison amendment adopts an uncertain legal requirement that will increase litigation costs for workers and employers alike. It also creates an environment that is hostile. It means if you are a worker, you have to act on rumor or speculation. My gosh, this is like the French Revolution and letters of cachet, and it was rumored that they were not faithful to concepts of the Revolution. We can't have that in our workplace. We have to have a workplace that we are all in together. So the Hutchison amendment is well intentioned but deeply flawed in the very objective that it seeks to accomplish.

I hope we defeat the Hutchison amendment and move on with debating other amendments.

I also want to say to the Senator from Texas, if I may have her attention, we are going to have a vote, up or down, on her amendment. I will not move to table. I think she deserves a clear vote, the way we are talking about a new style of civility and openness and so on. At the conclusion, that would be the process, rather than going through a tabling motion. Is that agreeable with the Senator?

I yield the floor.

Withholding the right to object pending an inquiry, is it the Senator's purpose simply to call it up so we can consider it later today?

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas to speak on this issue. She has been an unabashed and----

Excuse me. The Senator from California. It is the big State, with big gals here.

The Senator from California has been such a longstanding and faithful advocate for those who have been left out and left behind and particularly an intrepid voice for women.

Mr. President, I control the time.

Mr. President, I now yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana, a very good friend on this issue.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on my side?

Mr. President, while we are working this out, I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time equally divided, while we establish our next steps forward.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are in the closing minutes of the debate on the Hutchison substitute. We know there is one more speaker besides the Senator from Mississippi. This is not going to be my last say for this bill, but I do wish to offer my concluding arguments on the Hutchison amendment.

First, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a Q&A on the question of the Hutchison amendment because when all is said and done, I wish for there to be a very clear record on congressional intent so we won't have the type of Supreme Court decisions that brought us here today.

So I ask unanimous consent to have a Q&A on the Hutchison amendment printed in the Record.

Now, let's get to the facts. The difference between the Hutchison alternative and the Lilly Ledbetter bill is this: The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restores the law to the way it was before the Supreme Court decision, Ledbetter v. Goodyear. The Hutchison alternative creates a whole new legal standard which regrettably is very vague and I am concerned will trigger a tremendous amount of lawsuits and further add to hostility and suspicion in the workplace. The issue of triggering more lawsuits as an argument for the Hutchison alternative is flawed because the Hutchison substitute will create confusion in the courts and for employers trying to interpret when employees should have known they were being discriminated against. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act establishes a legal framework that had been accepted by nine appellate courts and the EEOC, and it has been a standard that has stood essentially the test of time.

Let's go to the statute of limitations. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act says it is 180 days from the last unequal paycheck, not from the initial point of hiring or the initial point of a discriminatory pay raise. The Hutchison alternative goes 180 days from when employees have or should have been expected to have knowledge that they were being discriminated against. This ``expected to have'' is really what is so foggy. Also, as long as employers are discriminating, employees can get justice. Under the Hutchison alternative, employees have no remedy if the claim is not brought when they should have known. I don't know when you should have known.

Also, the Lilly Ledbetter Act gives workers a chance to figure out whether they are being discriminated against, approach the employer, and perhaps have an alternative dispute resolution on this before EEOC complaints, before going to court, and so on. I am concerned that the Hutchison amendment language ``should have known''--this ``should have known,'' where you would have to operate on rumor and speculation--will force many lawsuits as employees will sue before running out of time.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act also gives workers a chance to be able to resolve this. If an employer is currently paying women less than men, that is illegal. Under the Hutchison amendment, it forces employees to prove when they suspect discrimination. I have made that point over and over.

So in summary, I say to the private and nonprofit sector: If you don't want to be sued, don't discriminate. That is the best way to go. If you don't want to be sued, don't discriminate.

The other point I wish to make is that the Fair Pay Act doesn't only affect women, it affects anyone who might be discriminated against in wages. So that means yes for women, but this bill would cover you if you have been discriminated against on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, and the traditional forms

of discrimination that regrettably we have dealt with. So this bill is not a women-only bill. We women certainly wouldn't discriminate against other people.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act takes us to where we need to be to fully implement the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If we have a dream, I have one too: that we pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, we have now concluded the debate on the Hutchison amendment. It is time for change. It is time to turn the page rather than turn back the clock. It is time to defeat the Hutchison amendment and proceed with the bill. We have five pending amendments. We are fired up, and we are ready to go.

I yield back my time, and if the Senator does so, I will ask for the yeas and nays and then vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, for his cooperation in moving this bill on the floor. He has been a big help working with this side of the aisle and working with us and the respective leadership to line up these amendments so that we can actually offer them and discuss them, and we are going to be voting on them. I thank him for doing that.

Also, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming had a very content-rich presentation. He covered his amendments, the Specter amendments, and other comments. He even discussed the Hutchison amendment. What I am going to do is respond to sections 3 and 4 of the bill and his concerns about the words ``affected by.''

I oppose Senator Enzi's amendments to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Those amendments strike the words ``affected by'' from sections 3 and 4 of the bill. These amendments, I believe, are not necessary, and I am concerned that they could lead courts to mistakenly read this legislation in too narrow a framework.

The Senator from Wyoming argues that his amendments are necessary because the bill somehow expands the category of persons who may sue for discrimination under the civil rights laws referenced in the bill. His concern and his claim is that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would allow spouses and other relatives of the workers who suffer discrimination to file their own lawsuits, claiming that they have been affected by the discrimination of their relative.

I appreciate his concern. What we want, though, is to assure him, and I say to my colleagues that his concerns are not valid, that if you look at the legislation, this argument ignores the

plain language of the existing statutes and the actual language in the Ledbetter bill.

I am going to sound like a lawyer for a minute, but bear with me. The Ledbetter bill amends title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which outlaws job discrimination based on race, color, national origin, gender, and religion. The Ledbetter bill also amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 and applies those amendments also to the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 404 of the Rehabilitation Act.

These laws make crystal clear that the only persons who can file under the act are those who have suffered discrimination on the job or the Federal entities charged with enforcing the civil rights laws, not the relatives or friends of these workers.

I am going to make it crystal clear, I say unabashedly for legislative intent, that these laws make it crystal clear that the only persons who can file a suit under the act of discussion today are those who have suffered discrimination on the job or the Federal entities charged with enforcing these civil rights acts, not the relatives or friends of these workers. The citations are 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1); 29 U.S.C. 626(c)(1); 29 U.S.C. 791(g), 794(d); and 42 U.S.C. 12117(a).

I also wish to elaborate that the bill amends only the provisions of the respective statutes regarding timeliness of job discrimination suits and leaves unchanged current law regarding who may file a suit.

So the only thing we are dealing with is timeliness. Nothing in the Ledbetter bill would change the basic requirements that job discrimination suits under title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, or the Rehabilitation Act must be filed by the workers personally affected by workplace discrimination or by the Federal Government on their behalf.

In addition, for further clarification, the House Education and Labor Committee's report on this legislation states that the language in sections 3 and 4 of the bill is modeled on the text of section 112 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which was adopted with overwhelming support in both Chambers of Congress to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Lorance v. AT&T. I repeat that decision: Lorance v. AT&T Technologies.

The Lorance fix has been around for nearly two decades, and it has not expanded the category of persons who can sue for job discrimination. Our bill will not change who may file the suit under the civil rights law it amends.

Finally, the Enzi amendments should be rejected because omitting the words ``affected by'' from the bill might actually lead a court to conclude that we intend the fix adopted in this legislation to be more narrow than the Lorance fix. Although the Ledbetter bill uses the term ``affected by,'' where the Lorance fix used ``injured by,'' the House report makes clear that this is a distinction without a difference. This is a distinction without a difference. Accordingly, if we followed the Enzi amendment, if we remove ``affected by'' from the Ledbetter bill, we run the risk that the courts might erroneously read this legislation as less comprehensive than the parallel provision of the 1991 act.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendments offered by our colleague from Wyoming. In a nutshell, the Enzi amendment only fixes half the problem, it does not cover discrimination, it has a delayed impact on workers' wages, and we know that anyone would not be able to sue even though they were still affected by this job evaluation business.

I am going to say more about this, but my initial argument is to lay to rest the concern that persons other than the one who is actually discriminated against would have standing to file under this bill, and I think I have clarified that.

I note that Senator Specter is here and he has his amendments, and I also note that there are other Senators on the other side of the aisle who wish to speak. So for now, I will conclude my arguments, and I yield the floor so that we may proceed with other Members.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally divided.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining on my side?

Mr. President, I just wanted to say a few words.

First of all, let's go to the remarks that were made that, somehow or another, by passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, we are going to further undermine our economy and our ability to hire people. I find it surprising--first puzzling, then surprising--to say that the way we are going to get out of this economic mess is if we continue the status quo--or the stacking quo--which is that if you have discrimination in the workplace, don't pass the law to do greater clarification. I think that is a flawed argument.

First of all, women of America already subsidize our economy. And you know what. We are mad as hell, and we don't want to take it anymore. Everyone needs to hear that: We, the women of America, are mad as hell, and we don't want to take it anymore. Now, why do I say that? We are already paid 77 cents for every dollar that men make, so we are already subsidizing the economy in the workplace. Then when you go into the home, our work is often undervalued and it is certainly not compensated. So somehow or another women's work doesn't quite count in the same way.

Well, we want to be counted, and we want what we do to be counted. We want the world to know that if we are doing equal work, we want equal pay. We do not want to subsidize the economy. We don't want any subsidies. We want fairness, we want justice, we want the law on our side, and we want the courthouse doors open to us.

Now, if business thinks the only way they can succeed is by continuing these practices, then business has a lot of lessons to learn. And by God, when you look at what the banks did, you can certainly see that. If business doesn't want lawsuits, there is one clear, right way of avoiding a lawsuit: don't discriminate. If you are an employer and you are paying equal pay for equal or comparable work, you will not be sued, you will not be challenged, and you have no need to fear.

If you want to have some economic stimulus, give us that 23-cent raise--all those single mothers out there; as Senator Lincoln spoke about earlier, all those Norma Rays, all those Lilly Ledbetters, all those people who have lined up through the ages. So 23 cents might not sound like a lot, certainly in Washington where we give zillions to banks and they do not even say thank you. They don't even promise they will send out more or promise they will join with our President and work through this.

So we are very clear that we want to be paid equal pay for equal work, and we want it in our checkbooks. But we know we have to get to that by having the Ledbetter bill in the Federal lawbooks.

I can understand some of the fine points, the concerns raised by Senator Enzi. I think I have presented a sound legal argument that shows that the only thing we mean by the ``affected party'' is that person who is actually discriminated against, or if a Federal entity sues on their behalf. I think we have clarified it. But I believe we also need to be clear why we are doing this legislation. We are righting a wrong, we are addressing a grievance, and we are ensuring those fundamental principles of our society, which are fairness, equality, and justice.

Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor, and I yield back my time.

Did I yield back my time?

I said, did I yield back my time?

At that time I was unaware that Senator McCaskill was coming to the floor. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes for Senator McCaskill to be able to speak.

Mr. President, what is the regular order?

Mr. President, I yield back my time. I know Senator Specter is waiting. He is also dealing with the nomination of Mr. Holder. We would like to move Mr. Specter along.

I yield my 1 minute back, if the Republicans yield back their minute.

First, let me say to my good friend from Pennsylvania, one, I wish to thank you for your cooperation on this bill. I wish to thank you for your cosponsorship in a previous Congress. We hope we do have the Senator's support at the conclusion of the amendment process.

I wish to say to my friend the bill does not change the law on the topics he has raised. But in all fairness, he is a superior lawyer. I am not a lawyer. Rather than me responding, kind of shooting from the lip, I would like to have a proper colloquy with the Senator at such time that I know we are on firm ground so we can clearly establish the legislative intent.

Could I suggest the absence of a quorum while the Senator and I discuss this and see how we can proceed?

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, earlier, I asked for a quorum call while the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania and I had a discussion on what is the best way forward to clarify some of his questions on waivers, estoppels, and laches in this bill. We were looking, trying to have colloquies or amendments and so on. What we concluded was that the clearest way to do this so legislative intent is firmly established in the Record is for him to offer his amendments, present his arguments, and I would offer rebuttal to that on that matter.

He also raised another issue on striking the phrase ``other practices.'' I would like to now talk about both of those amendments, but sequence them.

First, I will discuss the Specter amendment on adding a rule of construction on the equitable defense of waiver, estoppel, and laches.

Mr. President, I strongly oppose Senator Specter's amendment to add a rule of construction to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act regarding employers' equitable defenses on just what I said--waivers, estoppels, and laches. This amendment is unnecessary and unfair. These are technical legal terms, and I am going to be very clear that the language is unnecessary because nothing in the bill changes the availability of these longstanding equitable defenses. Parties have been able to raise equitable claims in employment discrimination cases, and nothing in the pending legislation would change that. Courts will be able to decide equitable claims under the same circumstances as they do now. I am going to repeat that. Courts will be able to decide equitable claims under the same circumstances as they do now, regardless of whether this legislation is passed. The bill does not mention equitable doctrines, and nothing in its language could fairly be implied to suggest that parties may not raise equitable claims.

In enacting legislation, Congress does not normally list all the things the bill does or does not or could or could not do. Doing so here could give courts the mistaken impression that Congress intended courts to look more favorably on equitable defenses than they currently do, thereby putting a thumb on the scale in favor of employers who raise such arguments.

Adopting the Specter rule of construction could also lead courts to conclude that Congress wanted to prevent assertions of equitable claims in other contexts not addressed in the bill, such as challenges to promotion, termination, or other benefits decisions. That result would hurt both employers and employees.

Neither of those interpretations is intended in this bill. The purpose of this legislation is not to upset the longstanding balance that courts have established regarding these equitable defenses. As explained in the findings, the bill's purpose is to overturn the Ledbetter Court decision--a decision that had nothing to do with equitable defenses.

This amendment is also unfair because it is one-sided. It mentions only equitable doctrines raised as defenses by employers, but ignores the arguments workers may raise based on equitable doctrines. Plaintiffs have always had the ability to raise equitable claims such as waiver, equitable tolling, and estoppel. The Supreme Court ruled long ago that the time limit in job discrimination cases is subject to equitable doctrines, and this legislation does not upset that ruling. See Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 398, 1982. Courts have ruled that employees may raise claims of equitable tolling when they were excusably ignorant of their duty to file a discrimination claim by a particular date.

In addition, courts have held that employers are estopped from asserting that a worker's job discrimination claim is untimely if the employer's conduct reasonably can be concluded to have induced the employee to miss the filing deadline. For instance, when workers fail to timely file a charge of discrimination because their employer's misrepresentations caused them to believe they had waived their claims, the employer is estopped from arguing the charge was untimely. See Tyler v. Unocal Oil Co. of California, 304 F.3d 379, 5th Cir. 2002. Likewise, if the employer induces a worker to delay filing a charge by falsely stating that the employee was fired because his or her position would be eliminated, the employer may be estopped from complaining that the worker missed the filing deadline. See Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools Div., 927 F.2d 876, 5th Cir. 1991, holding that employer was estopped from arguing that worker's ADEA charge was untimely, where employer concealed facts and misled employee into believing he had been discharged because his position was being eliminated or combined with another position, and that he might be rehired.

Yet the Specter amendment ignores this history and does not say that equitable claims also may be raised by plaintiffs alleging discrimination. This could lead to the perverse result that courts would look less favorably on workers' equitable claims in pay discrimination cases than they do now. This legislation intends to restore workers' ability to fight unfair pay discrimination, and we must avoid erecting new hurdles by adopting an amendment that could undermine workers' arguments based on equitable doctrines.

For decades, the courts have been considering these and other equitable claims by plaintiffs in job discrimination cases, as well as equitable claims raised by defendants. We should do nothing in this legislation to upset the balance courts have established in this area.

So when we do have our votes, I will urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the amendment by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter.

Now, Mr. President, he also raises another issue related to ``other practices.'' I also strongly oppose that. I strongly oppose the amendment offered by Senator Specter to strike the words ``other practices'' from section 3 of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This amendment is unnecessary and would seriously undermine the bill's goal of protecting employees who, like Lilly Ledbetter, were denied a fair chance to challenge pay discrimination in the workplace.

This issue, too, involves a rather complex and detailed legal argument, complete with references and citations.

To summarize in somewhat plain English--because this issue is complicated, and the Senator from Pennsylvania has raised very important and solid questions, and I want to further clarify why we oppose the amendment--Senator Specter's proposal to eliminate the term ``other practices'' from section 3 of the bill would defeat our legislation's purpose of overturning the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618, 2007. Lilly Ledbetter, the

plaintiff in that case, was paid significantly less than her male colleagues. This difference in pay came about because Lilly's employer based her pay on a bad evaluation they gave her because she was a woman. Now, I am going to repeat that. The difference in pay came about because her employer based her pay on a bad evaluation, but the bad evaluation they gave her was because she was a woman. And this has been established. The discrimination continued every time Ms. Ledbetter received a paycheck, and the difference in pay between her and her male coworkers grew more severe over time. If you listen to her speak, you can see how it affected her pay, her pension, her 410(k), and her Social Security.

If we adopt the Specter amendment, this legislation will no longer cover situations like Ms. Ledbetter's, where a discriminatory difference in pay is tied to a practice like job evaluations that contributes to the employer's decision to set a worker's pay at a certain level. That result is simply unacceptable.

The rule we enact in this bill must be workable and it must accurately reflect how job discrimination occurs in the workplace. Ms. Ledbetter's case--and many others--show that salary determinations often rely on other discriminatory actions.

Unfair differences in pay may be brought about not only be discriminatory job evaluations, but also by discriminatory decisions to classify a job in a particular way, or by discriminatory assignments to a particular location. See, e.g., Parra v. Basha's, Inc., 536 F. 3d 975, 9th Cir. 2008, Latino workers were paid up to $6,000 less annually than other employees performing the same duties based on their assignment to a store location with a predominately Latino workforce; Moorehead v. UPS, 2008 WL 4951407, employer claimed that differences in starting salaries for men and women were due to its evaluation system.

Because the factors that contribute to pay scales are solely within employers' discretion, we must not adopt a rule that encourages employers to link pay setting decisions to other personnel actions, such as evaluations, in order to avoid the civil rights laws. That would create an unacceptable loophole in what is intended to be a comprehensive solution of the problems created by the Ledbetter case.

If we adopt the Specter amendment, we would only help some victims of pay discrimination--and leave countless workers such as Lilly Ledbetter without justice.

Senator Specter has said that his amendment is necessary because the bill, as drafted, is overbroad and could apply to discrete personnel decisions, like promotions and discharges. That's not true. The bill specifically says that it is addressing ``discrimination in compensation.'' That limiting language means that it already only covers such claims--nothing more, nothing less.

Mr. President, I am going to yield the floor in order to recognize our colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan.

Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, first, he certainly knows his women's history and today he is going to help us write new history. We thank him for recalling--although it is a melancholy thing to recall--how brutal the retaliation was against women. Every time we have had to stand up, whether to exercise our right to vote or as is the case now--the brutal retaliation that occurs in the workplace, often sexual harassment, further discrimination and so on, simply because we pursue being paid equal pay for equal work. So we thank the Senator from North Dakota for his eloquence.

Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kaufman of Delaware be added as a cosponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

I thank the Chair, and I note the absence of a quorum, with the time to be equally divided.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, an inquiry: Has all time expired on the debate on the Enzi-Specter amendments?

Mr. President, I call up the Specter amendment on ``other practices'' and move that it be tabled. The amendment that I wish to call up is amendment No. 26, Mr. Specter's amendment.

I call up the amendment.

I move to table, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all the following votes be limited to 10 minutes in the agreed-upon sequence.

Mr. President, the Senator from Pennsylvania is a great lawyer, but his amendment is not. It only fixes half the problem. It does not cover personnel actions that still result in discriminatory wages. It strikes other practices which include job evaluations and classifications.

If we drop ``other practices,'' we leave out Lilly Ledbetter from getting the justice she deserves and all like her. I understand the Specter amendment is now pending.

I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, the Enzi amendment is unnecessary. The ``affected by'' language is not vague. Our bill only applies to workers and their employers.

Other parts of title VII that our bill does not change make this clear. The ``affected'' language is patterned after the Civil Rights Act of 1991. It has been around for 17 years and no one has tried to interpret it to apply to grandparents, spouses, or children, or anyone else other than the worker.

I understand the Enzi amendment No. 28 is now pending. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I understand amendment 29 is now the pending business. I thank Senator Enzi for allowing us to dispose of his amendment through a voice vote. I move to table the Enzi amendment No. 29.

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Reed of Rhode Island be recognized for up to 5 minutes to speak on the bill; that following his remarks, the Senate resume consideration of the Isakson amendment No. 37, with up to 10 minutes equally divided between Senator Isakson and myself, or our designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time on the Isakson amendment, the Senate resume consideration of the DeMint amendment No. 31, with 20 minutes of debate, 10 minutes under the control of Senator DeMint or his designee, 5 minutes each under the control of Senator Mikulski, me, and Senator Alexander or our designees; that following the use or yielding back of time on the DeMint amendment, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments: DeMint No. 31, and Isakson No. 37; further, that no amendments be in order to the pending DeMint or Isakson amendments prior to the votes; and that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between the votes.

Madam President, I will yield the floor to Senator Reed. I

first thank Senator Harkin for managing the bill during the Lilly Ledbetter press conference. His devotion to this issue is well known.

Yes.

Amendment No. 37

Madam President, I oppose the Isakson amendment because it would create an arbitrary and unfair cutoff for who gets the benefit of this fair pay bill.

The Isakson amendment No. 37 would limit application of the bill to only claims that arise out of discrimination that takes place after the bill passes.

There is no principled reason for applying the bill only to future cases. The point of this bill is to correct a terrible wrong done to victims of pay discrimination. We should be seeking justice for as many people as possible.

Applying this bill to pending cases would not be an unfair surprise for employers. This bill restores the law to where it was the day before the Supreme Court decided the Ledbetter case. There is nothing new in this bill.

If this amendment passes, it would create a 20-month gap in the law. Let me repeat: If the Isakson amendment passes, it would create a 20- month gap in the law. Those workers who were unfortunate enough to have been discriminated against during that 20-month period would be treated worse than those who came before them and those who came after them. That is arbitrary, and it is unfair.

As we work on this wage discrimination bill, we cannot fix only part of the problem. We have not come this far to leave some victims out in the cold. Yet that is what I am concerned the Isakson amendment would do.

Madam President, I will urge the rejection of the Isakson amendment, and when it comes time to call up the vote, I will be making a motion to table. But I am not making that motion now.

Madam President, first I wish to say to my colleague from Georgia that I appreciate the tone of civility in which he has offered his amendment, and that has been characteristic of the whole day. I hope it signals a new tone.

Although I appreciate the tone, I still disagree with the amendment. The Lilly Ledbetter Act does not go back to the inception of the Civil Rights Act. It goes back only to the Supreme Court decision of May 28, 2007. So I continue to disagree with the Isakson amendment because I do believe it would create an arbitrary and unfair cutoff for those who would benefit from this bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, how much time do I have?

And how much time does the Senator from Georgia have?

I would just inquire if the Senator from Georgia wishes to yield back his time. I would be happy to cooperate and we could move to the DeMint amendment.

I thank him. I yield back the remainder of my time, and we can proceed to the DeMint amendment.

Amendment No. 31

Under the consent agreement, the Senator from Tennessee has 5 minutes of his own time, and then I will have 5 minutes of mine.

Madam President, I have a question for the Senator from Georgia. I just wish to clarify the sequence after we conclude our debate. Does the Isakson amendment come after the DeMint amendment? Is that his understanding?

I thank the Senator. That clarifies it. I have a question of Senator DeMint. Is the DeMint amendment to Lilly Ledbetter or are you amending another piece of legislation? Could you clarify what your amendment amends?

Does the DeMint amendment amend the Ledbetter bill or the National Labor Relations Act and the Railroad Act? The Ledbetter Act is the pending one.

But the consequences are--aren't you amending the National Labor Relations Act? The Ledbetter Act is strictly a wage discrimination bill.

I still have the floor. Madam President, I have the floor.

I had a question for Senator DeMint, and if the Senator will withhold, after I make my remarks, he can address the Chair.

The consequence of the DeMint amendment is that it amends the National Labor Relations Act. Let me tell my colleagues the consequences. First of all, let's go to the facts.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is about pay discrimination, about wage discrimination. That is what we have been debating on both sides of the aisle. The debate has been focused, it has been targeted, it has been precise and, I might add, quite civil. It has nothing to do with right-to-work laws. This is not the time nor the place to debate whether we should have a Federal right-to-work law. We need to restore the ability of victims of pay discrimination to pursue justice. If we want to have a debate on a Federal right-to-work law, then I suggest to the Senator from South Carolina that he offer his own bill, let's put it through the committee, and let's vote on it, but let's not bring right-to-work laws into the wage discrimination focus of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

So let's go now to the facts or the merits of the amendment being offered by Senator DeMint.

No. 1, it reverses decades of established labor law and addresses the issues that have nothing to do with the Fair Pay Act. The DeMint amendment undermines States abilities to choose what labor laws work best for them. That is the point made by the Senator from Tennessee. It would also impose right-to-work laws on workers who do not want them. Federal labor policy has been neutral on right-to-work issues for over 60 years. That means States are free to decide whether they want to impose right-to-work laws. The amendment would impose right-to-work laws on States that do not want them, and it would even impose such laws in the railroad and aviation industry, which has never been subjected to them.

We have debated this issue before. A bipartisan majority of Congress rejected this approach in the 104th Congress, which was in 1996. We had a vote on a similar amendment, and it was defeated 31 to 68. I hope we defeat the DeMint amendment today.

Let's stick strictly to the Lilly Ledbetter discussion. We have been having an excellent discussion all day long.

Again, I urge defeat of the DeMint amendment.

Madam President, how much time do I have remaining, and, of course, answer the questions of our colleagues as to time.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, how much time remains?

The Senator from South Carolina has how much time remaining?

I don't know whether the Senator wants to yield back his time or use the time for further debate.

Madam President, this amendment reverses decades of established labor law and addresses issues that have nothing to do with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. While the Senator from South Carolina debated right to work, I want to keep on fighting for the right to get equal pay for equal work.

I understand the DeMint amendment No. 31 is now the pending business. I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I object to the Isakson amendment. It would create an arbitrary and unfair cutoff for those who get the benefits of this bill. If the Isakson amendment is agreed to, it would create a 20-month gap in the law. Those workers who were unfortunate enough to have been discriminated against during that 20-month period would be treated worse than those who came before them or after them. It is arbitrary and it is unfair.

I understand that the Isakson amendment is now the pending business.

I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I want to be clear that I object to the Vitter amendment. I do it on both policy and procedural grounds.

First, on procedure, this amendment has nothing to do with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act focuses on wage discrimination. The Vitter amendment focuses on project labor agreements by Federal agencies. It deals with contracting. It deals with construction work. It does not deal with wages in that category.

The great thing about today is that we have not become locked in a debate on process. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the amendments they offered. They were focused. They were clear. It was primarily about wage discrimination.

When we look at the Vitter amendment, it would prohibit Federal dollars from being used for something called project labor agreements. These agreements, which contractors and labor organizations establish to set the terms of employment for large construction projects, benefit both the Government and workers. History has shown they produce high- quality jobs, high-quality work that is completed efficiently and effectively, on time, and meeting the bottom line of the bid.

When we talk about project labor agreements, it is not true that PLAs require union-only labor. Project labor agreements have been used for years to help construction companies run effectively and efficiently. State and local governments often use these agreements because they know they are going to get a good job at the price that has been bid. These agreements help keep costs predictable and under control. That is critical for large Federal projects.

It is also a preventive strategy. Often, they prevent labor disputes and assure a steady supply of high-quality workers.

Project labor agreements benefit workers and communities. Now more than ever, we need to be creating high-quality jobs. Project labor agreements ensure that wages and benefits and working conditions are simply fair. Instead of embracing these benefits, the Vitter amendment would prohibit the use of it.

Then there is another issue--executive authority. This would take away longstanding executive authority. It would tie the hands of a President. I certainly don't want to tie the hands of our new President, but I don't want to tie the hands of any President under the Executive authority to do PLAs. Our Nation's Executive has always had the authority over Federal contracting. There is no reason to shift the balance of power. That could result in all kinds of lawsuits, et cetera.

Senator Vitter says that project labor agreements restrict competition, but that is not true. Under President Clinton, both union and nonunion contractors were able to win bids. Nonunion workers were not excluded. All construction workers could work on projects governed by project labor agreements. That is what I am going to repeat: Project labor agreements do not require union-only labor. That is a myth. It has no basis in reality. It has no basis in statute.

I know the time is growing late. I also thank the Senator from Louisiana for agreeing to a time agreement. I think I have made the essence of our argument. I will reserve the remainder of my time for a wrap-up statement and some individuals I would like to acknowledge, some of the people who have worked so hard on this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be extended by 1 minute for the purpose of acknowledgment and thanking people.

Mr. President, I thank someone who is not with us tonight for his steadfast work on this bill, our beloved Senator Kennedy. We can't wait to have him back. I thank the distinguished ranking member, Senator Enzi, for his wonderful cooperation in enabling us to move this bill and to proceed with civility and focus and, I might add, timeliness. I thank all of my colleagues, Judiciary Committee as well as HELP Committee members. I thank the Kennedy staff who worked with me on doing this--Sharon Block, Portia Wu, and Charlotte Burrows--and my own staff: Ben Gruenbaum and Priya Ghosh Ahola.

I want to, then, proceed to the first bill the Senate will actually vote on since the inauguration of our new President. I think this debate shows we can change the tone. Let's keep that up.

I move to table the Vitter amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, today is a great day in the Senate. We have now overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill to correct an injustice that has been prevailing among people--women, minorities, and people with disabilities--in the area of wage discrimination.

What is so great about today is not only our overwhelming legislative victory, but we showed, No. 1, that we can change the tone. I thank Leader Reid for the leadership he provided in creating the legislative framework where we can move ahead with open debate.

Notice that we did this bill in a well-measured, well-modulated, well-paced way. There was no need for cloture motions. There was no need for parliamentary quagmires. What it showed, though, is there is a need for civility and cooperation. We, as Americans, have to know, given this economic situation, that we are all in it together. When we work together, we now know each and every one of us makes a difference. But when we truly work together, we can make change.

Today we changed the law, we changed direction, we change history, and I thank all my colleagues and all the staff who have made this possible.

I also wish to say a special thanks to Senator Ted Kennedy. I hope he is watching tonight because, Ted, we miss you. We know you are not on the floor; you are with us in spirit. There is more to be done. We cannot wait for you to be back. Let's go and get the job done.

America is counting on us to do the kinds of things we have done today and act the way we did, the way we got the business done.

vote explanation