Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 22, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 22, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``What States are Doing to Keep us Healthy'' on Thursday, January 22, 2009. The hearing will commence at 10 a.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, January 22, 2009 at 10 a.m.

Before the Senator from Ohio speaks as agreed upon, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his compelling remarks and steadfast support for women generally and certainly for his longstanding advocacy that women should be paid equal pay for equal or comparable work. Thank you very much.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. We wish to follow the recommendations of our mutual leadership, which was to debate the Hutchison substitute tonight but to get as many amendments laid down tonight as we can. The Senator from Pennsylvania has two amendments he wants to offer. So I agree with the plan of laying aside the Hutchison substitute, having the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, offer his amendment, and at such time we will return to our robust debate on the Hutchison substitute and, hopefully, we can get a regular order going back and forth.

Reserving the right to object.

I believe that clarifies it. I concur. I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Maryland for such time as he may consume. He has been a longstanding advocate for women. He is a current member of the Judiciary Committee. He was the Speaker of the House in Maryland. He was a member of the House of Representatives, and now is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is a real leader and I think we can look forward to a thoughtful presentation.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his eloquent and persuasive argument.

I rise to debate with my colleague from Texas her amendment. Before I go into the Hutchison substitute amendment, I wish to clear up two misconceptions. The first misconception is that there have been no hearings on this bill; somehow or another this is a fast-track, jerry- rigged, gerrymandered process. That couldn't be further from the truth.

In 2008, we held two hearings on Ledbetter, one in January of 2008-- just about this time--in the Senate Health, Education and Labor Committee, which was a very active committee. Second, we also held a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee to get the extensive legal commentary. That hearing was held on September 23. There are those who would say, But that was the last Congress. Well, that was last year, but the relevant facts are the same. So there have been extensive hearings in the Senate and in the House. I believe we are following a framework for getting views through the regular process.

Now, our new President, President Barack Obama, has said very clearly that he wants to create jobs in this country. If you don't have a job, you get a chance to get one, and if you do have a job, you get a chance to hold on to it. Additionally, he said that if you have a job or you are going to get a job, you will not face wage discrimination in the United States of America. That is why he wants not only in his first 100 days, but in his first 10 days, to pass legislation that closes a loophole on wage discrimination.

That takes me to the second misconception. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which I am the lead sponsor of--but I wish to acknowledge the role of Senator Kennedy as the lead sponsor, and I am carrying this responsibility as a member of the committee. Now, the second misconception is that somehow or another the Fair Pay Act only deals with wage discrimination affecting women. Oh, no. It deals with wage discrimination affecting all people. So if you are discriminated against in your paycheck because of your race, ethnicity, religion, natural origin, or gender, this legislation will protect you. This loophole was created by the Supreme Court, and I will elaborate on that as well.

So we followed hearings. This bill, as part of President Obama's hope for America, makes sure that when you get a job or you keep your job, you will never be discriminated against in your wages. So I wanted to clear up those two misconceptions.

Now I wish to go to the Hutchison substitute. First, I wish to acknowledge the Senator from Texas, my truly very good friend, for her long-standing advocacy for women. We have worked together on a bipartisan basis for women. Her advocacy has been steadfast. She has been of particular help. We have worked together on the women's health agenda. We have mammogram standards in this country because of the Hutchison-Mikulski amendment. We have helped with breast cancer research funding because we have worked together, and I could give example after example.

I also wish to acknowledge that the Senator from Texas herself was discriminated against in the workplace. Maybe later on in the debate she will share her own very compelling personal story. So I wish to acknowledge that.

I also wish to acknowledge that we--the women of the Senate--can disagree, which she and I do tonight, without being disagreeable. There is no doubt that the Senator from Texas and I agree that we do not want wage discrimination against women. Where we disagree is not on the goal but on the means. She has her substitute, and I have, which I think is the superior framework, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. I wish to be clear that in this new Senate, we can offer amendments, we can have our shared goals, and we can do it in a way that is not prickly or rancorous and so on. So I wish to be able to say that. Although I disagree with her, my bill--the Kennedy-Mikulski bill--which has 54 cosponsors, simply restores the law before the Supreme Court decision. It is a legal standard that nine separate decisions in front of courts of appeal agreed with.

Let me elaborate. The Hutchison amendment acknowledges that the Supreme Court Ledbetter decision is unfair and it has closed the courthouse door for legitimate claimants. Unfortunately, Senator Hutchison's effort to fix Ledbetter's problem is flawed. I think it is a well-intentioned but misguided attempt. Her amendment will not fix the problem caused by the Ledbetter decision. In fact, review of her amendment leaves the core of the Ledbetter's harsh ruling intact, creating only a very narrow and vague exception. Moreover, the exception creates significant legal hurdles for those workers who try to take advantage of it.

In the Ledbetter decision, the Supreme Court said an employee must challenge pay discrimination within 180 days of the employer's initial decision to discriminate or the employee will be forever barred from enforcing her rights. This decision gave employers a free pass to continue discrimination. By keeping in place the heart of the Ledbetter decision, the Hutchison amendment would allow such injustice to continue.

The Senator from Texas says her amendment would bring balance to our antidiscrimination laws, but in reality it imposes a very unreasonable standard on workers--a standard that would be almost impossible for someone to meet.

Under the Hutchison framework, a worker would have to prove not only that she did not know she was being discriminated against but also she ``should not have been expected to have had enough information to support a reasonable suspicion of discrimination.''

How can workers prove what someone else expects of them? How does a worker prove a negative, that she didn't suspect that something in the workplace wasn't quite right? And--again quoting the Hutchison recommendation--what is a ``reasonable suspicion of discrimination''? That phrase, ``reasonable suspicion of discrimination,'' is vague, and fuzzy, and I am concerned would even add to the already legal burdens. There is no similar standard in any other discrimination law.

Workers would have to prove they could meet this vague standard before they could even raise their allegations of discrimination. This means time and resources spent on what workers knew and when they knew it instead of on the conduct of unscrupulous employers.

Even conservative commentators are worried about the Hutchison amendment. Andrew Grossman of the Heritage Foundation noted that the Hutchison amendment would fail to provide the certainty of a hard statute of limitations.

By contrast, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would restore a bright line for determining the timeliness of pay discrimination claims. We know employers and workers can understand this rule and live with it because it was the law of the land in most of the country for decades prior to the Ledbetter decision. Our bill would simply put the law back to what it was before the Supreme Court upended the law.

Although Senator Hutchison claims her amendment would protect employers from unreasonable lawsuits, it could cause an explosion in the number of lawsuits. If this amendment was adopted, workers would feel compelled to file claims quickly for fear that they would miss their statute of limitations. So the only way you can protect yourself is to file a claim because you might have a reasonable suspicion. Given the way women are treated in the workplace, you could have a reasonable suspicion every time you walk in somewhere. Workers have to run to the EEOC even if the only evidence of discrimination is rumor or speculation. This could create a very nasty and hostile work environment. Without any guidance of what constitutes a ``reasonable expectation'' or a ``reasonable suspicion'' of discrimination, workers will file a tremendous number of claims. That is just what we don't want to do. We want to return to the law.

They say the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is only going to cause an explosion of lawsuits, but it didn't before the Supreme Court decision. In fact, we now know the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would not cause an increase in lawsuits because it gives the workers the time they need to consider how they have been treated and try to work out solutions with employers before they get into filing complaints and also lawsuits.

You don't have to take my word for this. History proves it. The rule that workers can file claims within 180 days of receiving a discriminatory paycheck did not encourage any unreasonable number of lawsuits in the decade before the Ledbetter Supreme Court decision.

We turned to CBO, again, a pretty cut-and-dry, button-down crowd. They said this bill would not increase claims filed with the EEOC or lawsuits filed in court, meaning the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, not the Hutchison amendment.

The best evidence the Hutchison amendment does not solve the problems caused by the Ledbetter decision is that the amendment would not have helped Lilly Ledbetter herself. Isn't that something. Under the Hutchison framework, this amendment would have tipped the scales of justice against her in favor of her law-breaking employer because it is virtually impossible to meet the reasonable expectation of a reasonable suspicion standard. Ms. Ledbetter would have been forced to spend all of her time and all of her money trying to prove that she had no reason to suspect discrimination before the EEOC or the courts could have even considered Goodyear's illegal and unfair treatment of her. Discrimination claimants face enough difficult hurdles. Brave workers, such as Lilly Ledbetter, do not need more disincentives to stand up for themselves and their rights.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a bipartisan solution. It responds to the basic injustice of the Supreme Court Ledbetter v. Goodyear decision. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Hutchison amendment and vote for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I know the Senator from Minnesota wishes to speak, and I also know the Senator from New Jersey is here. I believe we are going to turn next to the Senator from New Jersey.

Madam President, while the Senator from New Jersey, who just arrived, is still organizing, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, we are awaiting the arrival of the distinguished ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee because he wishes to offer an amendment this evening. We wish to accommodate him. The Senator from Wyoming has been the soul of civility on this issue and has helped us to move the bill thus far. But it is our intention to ask all speakers to come now because the Senator from Texas and I would like to be able to conclude this debate for this evening--not to conclude the debate, but for this evening--around 7. I am not making a unanimous consent request, I just wish to put a few things out there.

While we are waiting for the arrival of our colleague from Wyoming, I would like to have printed in the Record an excellent monograph put out by the National Women's Law Center on the Hutchison amendment. It is a very lawyer-like paper, but it is also done in plain English. That outlines some of the real issues the Hutchison substitute could present.

I ask unanimous consent that this paper in its entirety be printed in the Record.

Just to give a few highlights, they advise us that the Hutchison bill allows clear pay discrimination to continue without a remedy. That is why we are doing this Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in the beginning. They make that point because they say:

The Hutchison bill prevents employees from challenging

discrimination to which they continue to be subject. [It]

perpetuates the basic problem created by the Ledbetter

decision.

That is what I argued earlier in the evening.

Under the bill, employers are left without any remedy

against present and continuing pay discrimination if they do

not file a government complaint within 180 days of the first

day when they ``have or should be expected to have'' enough

information to suspect discrimination.

One of the main arguments, the differences we have with our colleague from Texas, is the should have, we should have, we should have known-- how should you have known?

When you go into a workplace, one of the few things that is not discussed is pay. I commented in an earlier debate, you can talk about anything in the workplace. You can talk about religion at the water cooler. You can talk about politics at the Xerox machine. But you cannot talk about pay. This could have, should have--we don't want to have a framework where everyone who has been discriminated against by our culture and by our practice in the

workplace goes into a new job with a chip on their shoulder. We are going to presume people are fair-minded. That is the way most people show up every day. This Hutchison amendment, could have, would have, should have, I think is going to create a nightmare. It is going to do exactly what the Senator doesn't want. I think it is going to generate more lawsuits and not only more lawsuits but more lawyers arguing about could have or should have suspected.

The Hutchison bill permits employers to escape

accountability for continuing pay discrimination. Like the

Ledbetter decision, the Hutchison substitute immunizes an

employer from any challenge to pay discrimination, even where

the employer continues to profit from it. Under the Hutchison

bill, an employer is off the hook for, and can continue to

gain a windfall from, continued pay discrimination. . . .

You know, when you discriminate, you don't usually just discriminate against one person in the company. It is usually more than one--others. Again, we are back to this would have, should have, could have.

The Hutchison bill deprives employees of the chance to

assess the extent of the discrimination and work voluntarily

with their employers to address any disparities.

[It] forces employees to forfeit their claims if they take

the time to work out disputes amicably.

That is exactly what we want. We want to be able to work out disputes amicably, to go to maybe some alternative dispute resolution mechanism, have time to find out the facts: What is the situation? Particularly because pay disparity may start small and grow over time. Employees may want to give their employers the benefit of the doubt hoping the employers will voluntarily remedy that gap or may want to work actively with the employer to resolve the dispute. This is especially true for employees new on the job. The Hutchison amendment denies employees this opportunity, forcing them from the get-go to file adversarial Government complaints immediately upon suspecting discrimination or risk losing the right to any relief.

Now, not only is this bad law, it is bad policy, and it is going to be bad budget. I chair the Appropriations Committee which funds the EEOC. Under the administration that left town, they were revenue starved. They have a tremendous backlog right this minute of a variety of discrimination cases. Some were wages, some dealing with gender or race or ethnicity or religion. Many of those workers really feel under siege with the workload they are going to carry. Under the Hutchison amendment, as soon as you walk into your workplace and you have a whiff, a rumor, gossip, or, oh, gee, wonder what is going on, then you have to run right to the EEOC and file a complaint.

I do not think that is good common sense. It sure is not good money sense from the strain it is going to put already on an overburdened EEOC. I think we are headed in the wrong direction.

This Hutchison bill creates burdensome and expensive, time-consuming distractions from the fundamental issue of whether an employee has been subject to pay discrimination. I fear that the Hutchison bill will increase the number of lawsuits filed against employers, and it is going to result in very protracted and very expensive minitrials in those cases that are brought.

We want to get into making sure we end wage discrimination. This bill will result in confusion for the courts and for employers. This bill rejects the bright-line familiar rule in effect before the Ledbetter decision in favor of a standard that raises numerous thorny legal and factual issues.

I like the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which is my bill, and also is sponsored by 54 other Members of the Senate which simply restores the familiar role for assessing the timeliness of discrimination claims that prevailed in virtually every court in this country prior to the Ledbetter decision. The Hutchison bill creates an entirely new legal regime.

The bill raises innumerable questions, including when an employee could have been found to have a ``reasonable suspicion of discrimination.''

Madam President, I have more arguments to make, but at the end of the day, why is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act so excellent? Well, the bill from the viewpoint that I am advocating and the legislation that I am sponsoring would give employees the time to evaluate their suspicions of discrimination and work toward solutions with their employers, including voluntarily.

It would ensure that employers are held accountable for continued discrimination and, most of all, it would provide certainty in assessing the timeliness of pay discrimination claims and restore the law before the outrageous Supreme Court decision.

Congress should reject the approach of the Hutchison bill and instead act expeditiously to enact the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Exhibit 1

[From the National Women's Law Center]

The Title VII ``Fairness'' Act, S. 3209, Allows Pay Discrimination To

Continue

On May 20, 2007, in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber

Co., the Supreme Court held that employees must file claims

with the government for compensation discrimination within

180 days of an employer's initial decision to discriminate or

be barred from future challenges--no matter how long the

discrimination has continued. The Court's decision upends

decades of prior precedent and is fundamentally unfair to

those subject to pay discrimination. Under the Ledbetter

rule, employees have no recourse--and employers have no

accountability--for continuing discrimination once 180 days

have passed from the initial pay decision.

In July, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to overturn the Ledbetter

ruling. The Act would restore the law that applied virtually

everywhere in the country before the Supreme Court's

decision--that each discriminatory paycheck constitutes an

act of discrimination that can be challenged. The Senate's

vote on a motion to advance the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act fell

just three votes short of passage in April of 2008.

In June, Senator Hutchison (together with other Senators

who voted against advancing the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act)

introduced S. 3209, an alternative titled the Title VII

Fairness Act. But unlike the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the

Hutchison bill fails to restore prior law or solve the

problems created by the Ledbetter decision; it instead

creates damaging new legal hurdles for people receiving

discriminatory pay to overcome. Indeed, the Hutchison bill

stands to set back basic anti-discrimination protections in

the workplace even beyond equal pay.

The Hutchison bill allows clear pay discrimination to

continue without a remedy.

The Hutchison bill prevents employees from challenging

discrimination to which they continue to be subject. The

Hutchison bill perpetuates the basic problem created by the

Ledbetter decision. Under the bill, employees are left

without any remedy against present, continuing pay

discrimination if they do not file a government complaint

within 180 days of the first day when they ``have or should

be expected to have'' enough information to suspect

discrimination.

The Hutchison bill permits employers to escape

accountability for continuing pay discrimination. Like the

Ledbetter decision, the Hutchison bill immunizes an employer

from any challenge to pay discrimination even where the

employer continues to profit from it. Under the Hutchison

bill, an employer is off the hook for, and can continue to

gain a windfall from, continued pay discrimination that is

not immediately challenged when the employee first ``should

have'' suspected it.

The Hutchison bill deprives employees of the chance to

assess the extent of the discrimination and work voluntarily

with their employers to address any disparities.

The Hutchison bill forces employees to forfeit their claims

if they take the time to work out disputes amicably.

Particularly because pay disparities may start small and grow

only over time, employees may want to give their employers

the benefit of the doubt, hoping that the employers will

voluntarily remedy the pay gap--or may want to work

actively with their employers to resolve the dispute over

time. This is especially true if an employee is new on the

job. But the Hutchison bill denies employees this

opportunity, forcing them to file adversarial government

complaints immediately upon suspecting discrimination or

risk losing the right to any relief.

The Hutchison bill denies employees adequate time to assess

the merits of their claims. Particularly because employees

subject to pay discrimination may be in an ongoing

relationship with an employer, they are likely to want to be

sure that they have meritorious claims before filing a

government challenge to their employers' practices. But the

Hutchison bill limits employees' ability to take the time

necessary to confirm their suspicions of discrimination or

act when the problem reaches serious proportions.

The Hutchison bill creates burdensome, expensive and time-

consuming distractions from the fundamental issue of whether

an employee has been subject to pay discrimination.

The Hutchison bill will increase the number of lawsuits

that are filed against employers. Employees who suspect

discrimination will be forced to file preemptive claims to

avoid forfeiting their rights. The Hutchison bill will thus

increase the amount of litigation that occurs.

The Hutchison bill will result in protracted and expensive

mini-trials in the cases that are brought. Employers and

employees will be forced to engage in costly battles before

even getting to the merits of a discrimination dispute--that

is, whether a pay decision was, in fact, based on sex, race,

disability or another prohibited ground. A court will have to

resolve multiple threshold issues, including what the

employee suspected about pay discrimination and when s/he

suspected it. On top of that, even if an employee in fact had

no suspicion of discrimination, she will have to prove that

her failure to suspect was reasonable. These time-consuming

battles will only add to the cost and burdensomeness of

litigation--and will increase the difficulty employees denied

equal pay will have in getting the wages they have earned.

The Hutchison bill will result in confusion in the courts

and for employers.

The Hutchison bill rejects the bright-line, familiar rule

in effect before the Ledbetter decision in favor of a

standard that raises numerous thorny legal and factual

issues. Unlike the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which simply

restores the familiar rule for assessing the timeliness of

pay discrimination claims that prevailed in virtually every

court in the country prior to the Ledbetter decision, the

Hutchison bill creates an entirely new legal regimen. The

bill raises innumerable questions, including when an employee

can be found to have a ``reasonable suspicion of

discrimination.''

The Hutchison bill will result in inconsistent standards

for employers in different parts of the country for years to

come. Because courts will likely reach different conclusions

on the many legal and factual questions raised by the bill,

employers in different parts of the country will likely be

subject to conflicting rules, making it difficult, if not

impossible, to understand their legal obligations. It will be

years, if not decades, before these questions are

authoritatively resolved by the Supreme Court.

The Hutchison bill could limit protections for employees in

contexts beyond pay discrimination.

The Hutchison bill is not restricted to pay discrimination.

The so-called Title VII Fairness Act applies to any unlawful

employment practice under the anti-discrimination laws. As a

result, it goes well beyond the targeted, restorative

approach of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

The Hutchison bill could have particularly troubling impact

on harassment claims. Under current law, employees can bring

harassment claims as long as any incident of ongoing

harassment occurs within 180 days prior to the complaint--

regardless of how many incidents have occurred previously. It

is predictable that some employers would use this bill's

broad scope to try to escape their responsibility for sexual

harassment and other types of discrimination.

The Hutchison bill responds to a purported ``problem'' that

is, in fact, wholly invented.

Employees have no incentive to delay filing pay

discrimination claims. Because employees typically cannot

afford to struggle without pay to which they are legally

entitled, it is simply a red herring to suggest that they

will delay filing pay discrimination for years, or even

decades. Furthermore, because Title VII has a two-year limit

on the back pay that any plaintiff can receive, that means

that if they delay they will lose compensation for all but

the last two years of pay discrimination they suffer.

Therefore, there is every incentive for an employee to file a

pay discrimination complaint as soon as reasonably possible.

It is the employer, not the employee, who benefits from any

delay.

Employers were satisfied with the rules in place before the

Ledbetter decision. Prior to the Ledbetter decision,

employers were not asking for a change to the longstanding

rules relating to the timeliness of pay discrimination claims

that the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act restores. There is no

evidence that the operation of the rule prejudiced employers

or resulted in the success of non-meritorious claims. In

fact, employers benefited from the certainty of the rule in

place before Ledbetter.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is the only bill that will

address the basic pay discrimination that Lilly Ledbetter,

and others like her, suffer.

The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is the only bill that would have

helped Lilly Ledbetter. Under the Hutchison bill, Lilly

Ledbetter--to whom a jury awarded more than $3 million in

damages for the egregious discrimination she endured--would

have been embroiled in protracted arguments about what she

knew about her workplace and when. A court would have had to

decide, for example, whether idle gossip and boasting by her

coworkers--who had harassed and lied to her in the past--were

sufficient to give Ms. Ledbetter a ``reasonable suspicion''

of discrimination. By contrast, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

creates a bright line rule that would ensure the timeliness

of claims like Ms. Ledbetter's, when the pay continues into

the present.

The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is the only bill that corrects

the problems with the Supreme Court opinion. Unlike the

Hutchison bill, the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would:

Give employees the time to evaluate their suspicions of

discrimination and work toward solutions with their

employers;

Ensure that employers are held accountable for continued

discrimination;

Provide certainty in assessing the timeliness of pay

discrimination claims;

Restore the law.

Congress should reject the approach of the Hutchison bill

and should instead act expeditiously to enact the Lilly

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the nomination of GEN Eric Shinseki for Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

I have three criteria that I use to evaluate all executive branch nominees: competence, integrity, and commitment to the core mission of the Department. Based on these criteria, I wholeheartedly support General Shinseki to be our next Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

In his 38-year Army career, which culminated at Chief of Staff of the Army, General Shinseki was always first and foremost an advocate for the soldiers--he was a soldier's general. As a veteran of combat in Vietnam, during which he suffered life threatening and life altering injuries, General Shinseki understands firsthand the obstacles our returning troops face. He knows what it is like to be made whole again in the military health care system. know General Shinseki will focus on transforming the Department of Veterans Affairs into an agency for the 21st century with the same fortitude and tenacity he has shown throughout his military career.

This is a critical time for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Historically high percentages of wounded soldiers are surviving their wounds. For this we should be thankful. However, many of them are grievously disabled with debilitating, visible wounds of war, or with equally debilitating wounds that do not bleed--like post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. Our veterans' health systems must be updated and adapted to care for this new generation. Our country has made a 50-year commitment to our wounded warriors to care for them. We must streamline the red-tape that prevents wounded warriors from receiving the care they need. We must shorten the months of waiting for the benefits claims process to unfold. We must better integrate the DOD and VA health care systems to create a single system with uniform rating processes and standards. We owe our veterans nothing less. General Shinseki is the right choice to lead the VA to a higher state of readiness to care for this new generation of veterans.

The Department of Veterans Affairs challenges don't end with our immediate obligations to our wounded veterans, but must persist in addressing our long-term promises to our veterans. This means maintaining affordable health care for our retired servicemembers. Making it responsive. Providing the best care. Ensuring our promises made are promises kept.

The Department of Veterans Affairs challenges also include aiding members with the transition into civilian life. I am proud of the recent steps we have taken in Congress to help veterans. Last year we passed the post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act to make badly needed updates to the G.I. bill. This legislation will provide educational benefits to help a new generation of veterans and servicemembers so they can better themselves through education, better their ability to serve our Nation as soldiers and citizens, and better provide for themselves an their families. I am also proud of the wounded warrior legislative provisions Congress passed in 2007. These provisions mandated a modernization the military health care system's approach to post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury care. I will look to General Shinseki not just to ensure the implementation of these groundbreaking legislative accomplishments is a priority, but also to identify meaningful and comprehensive steps to build on this foundation to ensure that our veterans health care system delivers the world class care our veterans have earned.

I look forward to working with GEN Eric Shinseki as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and have full confidence in his honesty, his integrity, and his ability to stand up for our veterans. The next Secretary of Veterans Affairs will face many challenges. I look forward to meeting those challenges with him as he leads the Veterans Affairs Department in this time of change.

Mr. President, I join with the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, in giving a tribute to our dear friend, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. How special it is today that, as she gave her farewell speech, we are literally within minutes on the brink of a vote to proceed to the Lilly Ledbetter bill. Senator Clinton has been a champion for women, a champion for the opportunity of women, and was the lead on introducing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. How terrific it is that as she gives her last speech on the Senate floor, we will be voting on something for which she has been a champion.

She has been a champion for women both here and around the country, for their economic security, their health security, and also for women around the world, both in her work as First Lady and here in the Senate, whether it was to make sure to work with our current administration to have access to education for Afghan girls, but also as First Lady with the women of the world to make sure, through her project, Vital Voices, women had those voices.

She has been a champion all of her career. Whether it was at the Legal Defense Fund, as First Lady, or now as a Senator of the United States, she has always made sure she has stood up for those who had no voice, and she has used her voice to speak for them. That is what we know she will continue to do.

But I think what we also admire about Senator Clinton is, she is not only at home with world leaders with whom she will certainly work in her new job but with community leaders as well.

She spoke eloquently about her challenge and Senator Schumer's challenge on that despicable and horrible day of 9/11. But I also want to talk just very quickly about September 10 because while we know Senator Clinton is a woman of great integrity, keen intellect, and is a can-do person, many do not realize the wonderful bipartisanship in which she has tried to engage in this body. So let me tell you as one of the women of the Senate where we were on September 10.

The night before that terrible day, we were at Senator Clinton's house, affectionately calling her Hillary. All of the women, on a bipartisan basis, were there because, guess what we were doing, Mr. President. We were throwing Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison a shower. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison had just adopted a child. We were so enthusiastic, and we, the women of the Senate, do what women do all over America, we threw Senator Kay a shower, and we gathered at Hillary's house. We had great food, a couple of drinks that made us feel even better. We told stories. We teased Kay. I volunteered to be Aunt Barb, and she knew I had many talents, but baby-sitting would not be one. We had such a wonderful time. But that was not the only time, as she has worked with all of us. But it shows the warmth and the way she goes about that.

We will always cherish where we were that night because it was special because the next day was so stunning. I could give many examples about it, but we know she has been a tenacious advocate for the people of New York, a leader on crucial issues, a respected colleague, and a dear friend. We are going to miss her, but we know as the Secretary of State she will be a new voice of America. And America does need a new voice.

Senator Clinton, we know you are going to get us back on track. You are going to work with President Obama to restore our national honor, to repair those friendships around the world which we desperately need. And as you have been in so many things, we know you will be unflinching on human rights and unflagging in strengthening America's alliances abroad. We will work together on those issues, and we know you will be a great Secretary of State. You have been a spectacular Senator, and it is because you are just simply a wonderful human being.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, the Senate is not in order.

Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to vote for the legislation that is pending, which is the cloture motion on the motion to proceed to the Lilly Ledbetter Act. The reason we are advocating cloture on the motion to proceed is that we do not have to filibuster this bill because we guarantee an open process, that Senators will be able to offer amendments. We will be able to debate with civility and comity, arrive at good ideas, consider all good ideas and so on, so we do not need to filibuster. Second, we do not need to delay. We need to vote for the motion to proceed because that is what the American people are telling us to do. Much is talked about economic stimulus, but if you want to help women, let's start paying them equal pay for equal or comparable work. That is what the Lilly Ledbetter bill will ensure. It will restore the law to the way it was before the Supreme Court decision on Ledbetter v. Goodyear.

One of the objections to the bill is that the Ledbetter bill will trigger lawsuits. Nothing could be further from the truth because it did not trigger, open-ended, millions of lawsuits before the Supreme Court decision.

We need to act. It is great to talk about a stimulus bill, but the real stimulus is paying people for what they do. Madam President, you should know.

This is a very serious bill. I know what my colleagues are talking about is important, but women are waiting for us to act, so Senators, if they could wait a minute, we could move ahead.

The Supreme Court rule is that a pay discrimination lawsuit must be filed with the EEOC within 180 days of the initial decision to pay her less than men performing similar acts.

I say to the Senator, I am not done. I have not completed my statement.

Madam President, first of all, I, of course, want to proceed in the spirit of comity. I lost my time because this place was so noisy. I couldn't talk because everybody else was talking. Frankly, I will be happy for my colleague to speak, but I am going to ask unanimous consent for an additional 4 minutes.

May I ask the Senator from Wyoming for the ability to ask a unanimous consent request. I do not want to drag out the debate, but I would like to make a few points. What I would like to be able to do, with your concurrence, is just ask for 2 minutes and just have a little bit of say, but you have your 4 minutes.

I thank the Senator from Wyoming. That is the way we will proceed on this bill.

Madam President, we want to be able to proceed to this bill. I assure my colleagues we will have ample debate to consider any and all amendments, but I wish to be very clear that it is time to pass the Lilly Ledbetter bill itself. It is very important that we make sure we keep the courthouse door open for people to be able to file their claims where they believe wage discrimination exists.

Wage discrimination not only affects women, but it affects all who are discriminated against, and it is often minorities. We want to be sure we keep the courthouse door open. What we do is simply restore the law as it existed before the recent Supreme Court decision so that we make sure the statute of limitations runs from the date of the actual payment of a discriminatory wage, not just from the time of hiring. That means employees can sue employers based on each discriminatory act.

I will be yielding the floor, but before I do I am going to say once again--this Senate is not in order. It has been very disturbing and disrupting to stand up for something for which we have all been fighting so hard.

I yield the floor, but I am very frustrated about today.

Madam President, the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Wyoming and all on the other side of the aisle have the assurance of both myself and the Democratic leadership that those amendments will be offered, and we look forward to a spirited and enthusiastic debate in a quiet Chamber of the Senate.

Madam President, before I voted for the bailout I said, regrettably, a bailout is needed. I voted to get credit flowing again to the distressed homeowner, to families and to small businesses. I didn't vote to give the money to banks to enable them to continue their flawed policies, their hubris and their high handedness. And I didn't do it so they could be ungrateful, buy other banks, or give out dividends, and to take executives on spa treatments. I was mad as hell that the Wall Street Master of the Universe took us into a black hole. And I am mad as hell now that they didn't thank the taxpayer.

The Bush administration misled us about what they would do with the money. Now we're finding both they and the banks misused the funds, abused the taxpayer and squandered both the money and the opportunity. I said if we were going to have a bailout we needed three things, rescue, reform, and retribution. I said, no blank checks and no checks without balances, help homeowners, and guarantee no golden parachutes for the people who got us into this mess. Did the Bush administration listen? No. Paulson dodged and ducked, and the taxpayers got duped. Distressed homeowners were left in the lurch. Bernie Madoff is in his luxurious penthouse and homeowners are being foreclosed and evicted. What's wrong with this picture?

We have already given $350 billion to the big banks, who said they were going to lend it, and said they were going to have transparency. But instead, we have gotten hoarding, and resistance. Banks don't want to tell us what they are doing with our money. When I voted for the rescue plan, I thought I was voting for dealing with the credit crisis, and bringing the financial system to some form of stability. But what has happened is, instead of helping with jobs, we have been helping with banks.

The banks said we want taxpayer money and we want it our way or the highway. But thankfully, on Tuesday it's going to be a new day and a new way. Obama met with us this week on his economic agenda. We had a robust give and take. The number one priority we agreed upon is job creation. We need to make sure that for people who have jobs, they get to keep them and feel more economic security. And for people who are out of work, not only to provide a safety net on unemployment benefits, but create opportunities for returning to work or even new jobs. We need to give President Obama the tools he needs to get our economy going again. We shouldn't hold the misdeeds

of the Bush administration against him.

We need to work together. People don't want to talk about butting heads, they want to talk about kicking butt with the banks. And the President-elect and I agree on that. I see myself helping President- elect Obama kicking butt, to work with people who are in danger of losing their homes, not with a bailout but with a workout. The banks have to get off the bailout shtick, and start to get on the workout shtick with homeowners.

This week, the President-elect huddled with us, to talk about how his plan is different than the previous administration. We need vigilance and responsibility that's what President Obama has pledged. Three major areas that we will work with the Obama administration are number one, oversight and regulation. We will put real financial cops on the beat to make sure money goes where it is supposed to. Number two, a sweeping, comprehensive effort to address the foreclosure crisis, we will use TARP money to get to the root of the crisis, keep people in their homes, and save neighborhoods. Number three, get tough and insist on transparency. Banks cannot just take the money and run. The new plan will make them tell us what they are doing, no dividends, no giving money to banks to buy other banks, no golden parachutes, and no spa treatments.

I will vote for the additional TARP money. Not because I support the banks and Wall Street, but because I support our new President, and because I support giving him the tools to get our economy rolling again. But we need a major attitude adjustment. It is not only what we hear from the banks, it is what we do not hear from them. There is no sense of gratitude. There is no sense of gratitude that the waitress, the single mother, the farmer, the firefighter, is willing to help. There is no gratitude, no remorse, no promise to sin no more, no ``let's make amends.'' Instead, they pay themselves lavish salaries, bonuses and perks, like lavish spa retreats.

At $350 billion, I don't want to be a passive investor. Congress and the new President must tell Wall Street, ``You need to go to work and dig out of this mess. Help rescue the economy, not the Wall Street managers.'' Work for America, it is America that is paying your salaries. Give us your best thinking. Give us your energy. It is time to restore our economy and restore our national honor. So pull up your pants and your pantsuits, and go to work and let's rebuild this economy!

Madam President, I want to acknowledge that we will not be debating this amendment this evening. Senator Hutchison has laid down her substitute. What I am so excited about is that we are actually going to be debating the Lilly Ledbetter Act and also amendments and substitutes therein.

I know the Senator from Texas has a plane she is going to try to make; otherwise, we would have had a more amplified debate tonight. But I am so excited this moment has finally come, that we are actually going to debate what is the most effective way we can end wage discrimination in our country and keep the courthouse door open to legitimate claimants.

I am also excited that, once again, the Senate will return to a regular order. What do I mean by ``a regular order''? We are actually going to bring up bills. We are not going to get lost in some quagmire of parliamentary procedure where we entangle ourselves and strangle ourselves. This debate, that actually begins tonight, is the signal of a new day returning to some of the old ways the Senate operated, which was a regular order where we could offer amendments, debate amendments, and vote on amendments.

This is what doing legislation is all about. Before I actually, briefly, comment on the merits, to affirm the process: We said to our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we are going to give you the opportunity to offer amendments and to debate them. We are keeping that promise. In the way Hutchison and Mikulski are kicking it off now, we are showing we are keeping our promise.

Second, this affirms the way we, the women of the Senate, want to operate. Senator Hutchison and I agree on the goal: ending wage discrimination and keeping the courthouse door open. Senator Hutchison and I absolutely disagree on what is the best way to achieve that goal. I have our legislation. She has her substitute. But though we disagree, you will see on Wednesday, as we pick up an amplified discussion, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

It is time to return to civility. It is time to show that good manners produce good legislation. We look forward to a robust and amplified way of discussing this issue.

So we are going to debate Lilly Ledbetter and also the Hutchison substitute and other amendments. We will do it, if there is more tonight, and we will also do it tomorrow, if there are Senators who wish to offer it. I will be here. But we will be able to do it.

We strongly disagree with the Hutchison amendment. But rather than debate it, without her being here, I am going to reserve my remarks for when she is here, and we are going to show that good politics starts with good manners and a good process.

I thank the Republican leader for being so cooperative to help us set the stage for doing it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I am the leadoff speaker today in what will be a substantial conversation on the Fair Pay Restoration Act. It has been otherwise known in the community and in the media as the Lilly Ledbetter bill, which we hope to bring up for a vote tomorrow to advance this bill. What this legislation will do is to overturn the Supreme Court decision that essentially mitigated the ability to file lawsuits for equal pay for equal work.

Mr. President, I am not new to this bill, and neither are you. We counted you as one of our strong advocates when we had our vote last year on April 23.

The person who has been one of the leads in the Senate has been our very good colleague, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. As we know, Senator Clinton is about to assume other responsibilities. I have taken up this bill as the lead sponsor, along with many of the women in the Senate and the very good men. I thank Senator Clinton for her leadership and her advocacy on behalf of women and on behalf of civil rights and on behalf of fairness and justice. She has been a great advocate, and we are going to miss her.

I also thank Senator Kennedy and his staff, Senator Kennedy for his leadership in trying to right the wrong the Supreme Court decision created. Senator Kennedy has been a stalwart on this bill and is also one of the original sponsors of the remedy we are bringing before our colleagues today.

You might recall that in April we had our vote on the Lilly Ledbetter bill. You might recall it was a very intense and emotional debate. Most of the women of the Senate came on the floor. We were dressed in red because that was the color of the women's movement and Mrs. Ledbetter herself wore red. We lost that vote by essentially two votes. As everybody left the floor, they thought it was over. But I knew it was not over because we were not going to let it be over. We were going to continue the fight. I said to my colleagues then, when we lost the vote, we would come back and fight another day, and that day is here. We said very loudly, clearly, firmly, and resolutely that we wanted to be sure women receive equal pay for equal work, equal or comparable work. We wanted to change the law books so women would feel it in their checkbooks.

I reminded our colleagues, because there had been a fantastic miniseries about John Adams, that Abigail, one of our heroes, had written John when he was busy writing the Constitution--she was busy running the farm and keeping life going--and she said: John Adams, when you write that Constitution, remember the ladies because if you forget us, we will foment another rebellion.

I said on the floor on April 23 that we, in the spirit of Abigail Adams, were ready to foment another revolution if we were going to be denied the opportunity to pursue equal pay. I then said we were going to fight, and I asked the women of the Senate--I asked the women of the Senate and women all over the country--to suit up, get ready to fight. Put your lipstick on, and let's foment another revolution.

Wow, the revolution came, and it is more than I anticipated. The revolution came in one of the most dynamic primaries our country has ever seen. The revolution came when people said loudly and clearly, at every primary and every caucus across this country, that they wanted change. They chose a new standard-bearer in President-elect Barack Obama. In that, with Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, we have the leadership the American people want. In their leadership, working on a bipartisan basis in the Congress, we want to bring about change, and therefore one of the first bills we bring to the floor of the Senate is one that makes sure women have equal pay for equal or comparable work and they have access to the courts and appropriate legal process to be able to pursue their concerns and their complaints.

The revolution is here, and the votes are coming. We are going to vote tomorrow on cloture on the motion to proceed. Later on, we are going to have complete debate on the bill itself. We know there are colleagues who offer alternatives, but that is part of the revolution-- to have great ideas, engage where there are differences of opinion, and then, at the end of the day, have the votes. We are looking forward to this. It is a day long in coming.

This year, this new Congress and this new President bring us not only a new year, but it also has created a new economic reality. The economy is tanking, with no end in sight, retirement accounts are plummeting, home values are sinking, and unemployment is surging.

This is not news to women. Women who are in the workplace today know how hard it is to get and keep a job. What we also know is that in good times or bad times, women are discriminated against in terms of the pay they receive. Right now, today, in the 21st century America, women still earn only 76 cents an hour when men receive a dollar an hour. There are women who pursued remedies.

In May 2007, the Supreme Court made an outrageous decision. They said women cannot get equal pay for equal work unless they file a complaint 180 days from when the discrimination

began. Women do not always know when discrimination began. They meant from the very first day that you get a paycheck that discriminates against you, within 180 days, within 6 months, you are supposed to know that and file a complaint. We would love to be able to do that. But this decision does not reflect the reality of the workplace.

What is it that we know about the workplace? You can talk about anything in the workplace. Often, politics are discussed in the lunchroom; religion is talked about at the computer; sex is often discussed at the water cooler; but salary is never discussed. How many people really know the salary of their coworkers? Women do not go around asking men: How much are you paid, and pull out a little pad. They presume that if they are doing the job side by side with male coworkers, they are getting equal pay. They don't know that. Then what happens if the male counterpart gets a raise? The guys have been out at a ball game. They say: Don't worry, we will take care of you. But the women don't know that. You have to know it the day you get the paycheck and he gets the bigger one. How are you going to know that? Snooping? Men get raises and promotions, but women are often overlooked and undervalued.

What we saw in the Supreme Court decision was that it was a backward step for women and it violates the very concept of fairness and justice. The Supreme Court decision was so outrageous that our beloved and esteemed Justice Ginsburg took the unusual position of reading her dissent from the bench. Usually, Justices do not do that. She said in her dissenting opinion that the Court did not get it, that they do not understand the realities of the workplace that would prohibit women from knowing exactly when the discrimination started. She called upon Congress to fix it, and that is what this bill does. Our bill restores the original language that existed before Ledbetter.

Along the way, President Bush heard about our legislation. He threatened to veto it. On January 20, we will have a new President, and he will not only sign it, he campaigned with Lilly Ledbetter and made a promise to the American people. When President-elect Obama, who by then will have taken his oath of office and will be President Obama--this will probably be the very first piece of legislation he will sign. What a sweet day for women all over America. But we have a legislative road to go on.

A lot has been said about Lilly Ledbetter, but people are busy and they might not remember her whole story. What a gallant and courageous woman. She fought the system, and on her own time and with great risk, she took on the challenges of the workplace. She turned to the courts and began her fight. She fought two different times, once against sexual harassment and the other time against unequal pay. What you need to understand is when she began her fight to get equal pay, she was then sexually harassed because she followed her legal opportunities and rights. So she was doubly punished. She was punished in the workplace in her paycheck and she was punished in the workplace because she dared speak out.

Lilly Ledbetter did not work at some microbusiness. Lilly Ledbetter worked at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. She worked there for 19 years and by all accounts was an outstanding employee. She did not know when the disparity developed, whether it was on the first day she was hired or over the many years she was there. But she found out and took it to court. A jury found that Goodyear had discriminated against her and awarded her $400,000 in backpay. When they did, Goodyear then took this all the way up to the appellate court. Each time, this woman pursued her remedies, often at great risk and great financial and personal hardship. Finally, because Goodyear, every time she won, took it to a higher court--that is their prerogative. But you had little Lilly Ledbetter against this giant corporation, with tons of lawyers and tons of legal resources. Finally, they had the Supreme Court on their side, and the Supreme Court said someone cannot sue their employer over unequal pay if that person doesn't file the suit 180 days from the day the discrimination began.

As we said earlier, the Supreme Court just didn't get it. How many people know the salary of their coworkers, especially in the first 6 months on the job? What if you are hired at an equal rate with your male counterpart but he gets a raise every few months and you don't? The decision was terrible. As I said, Justice Ginsburg said, ``In our view, the Court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the insidious way in which women can become victims of pay discrimination.'' She encouraged us to fix it.

As I said, women continue to earn 77 cents for every dollar. Women of color get paid even less. So Lilly Ledbetter is not an isolated incident.

Now, there is opposition to this bill because people make profits off of discrimination; if you pay women less, you make more. I mean, we are providing a subsidy to these businesses that discriminate.

Over a lifetime, it not only affects your current paycheck, but it affects your Social Security and your retirement in terms of lower lifetime earnings. The Supreme Court now even makes it harder for women workers to close this work gap.

I am going to have more to say about this, but I want to say that we now know the situation in the workplace, women are paid less generally. We want to be sure that if you are paid less specifically, you have an open courthouse door that will have an open mind to the fact that discrimination might exist. We want to have a fair playing field for you to file this complaint.

This bill will amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so that the time for an employee to file a wage discrimination suit runs from the date of the actual payment of a discriminatory wage, not from the time of hiring. That means that employees can sue employers based on discriminating paychecks. It does not limit the time a worker can seek the remedy.

I want to be clear, though, it does not change the statute of limitations. What it does is, under the Supreme Court decision you would have to file your complaint within 180 days of when you were hired. Here, you can file it within 180 days of your last paycheck when you found that discrimination, you believed discrimination existed. We are going to be debating this bill. I have many colleagues who want to speak on it. There are many in this Congress who have been very strong advocates, but our leading advocates are the two wonderful women from the State of Washington who I know are eager to speak. Both are on the floor, and the lead on this working with us in the Health and Education Committee is, of course, the senior Senator from the State of Washington, a part of our leadership team, the dynamic and intrepid Patty Murray. I yield the floor for her.

Mr. President, we will be turning to the Senator from Washington in a moment. I can't let the remarks that have been said not be clarified in terms of facts.

First, when this bill moves forward, there is an agreement between both leaders, the majority and the minority, that there will be amendments. In fact, one of the premier amendments will be offered by the Senator from Texas, who has an alternative view. She will have the opportunity to offer her amendment. As I understand, there is no restriction on amendments. Speaking for the Democratic leader, there is no intent on our side to fill the tree.

The debate is being led by the women in the Senate. Among ourselves, we have dinner once a month. We get together on a bipartisan basis. We have pledged among ourselves--and it is unofficial, not an oath--that we are going to be a zone of civility in this institution. The way we will debate will, first of all, always try to allow amendments. We will proceed with intellectual rigor, have our discussions based on fact. Yes, philosophy will enter in, but it will not be ideological. Nor do we intend in any way to be tart or demonize.

We have listened to two speakers on this issue, myself and Senator Murray. There has been no demagoguing. We spoke with passion because we know Lilly Ledbetter. We mourned for her when her husband passed away. We listened to stories of sexual harassment because she stood up for herself. But we are not in the demonizing business. I can assure my colleagues, this discussion will be debated by men as well as women. But the women of the Senate intend to have this be a model of civility. That is one thing.

The second thing is hearings. This is January 14. There have been no hearings on this bill in this session. But it is exactly the same bill voted on in the last Congress on which there were two hearings held: one in the HELP Committee on January 24, 2008, and the Judiciary Committee on September 23, 2008. It is the same hearings. We would have the same witnesses. We would bring in Lilly, et cetera. The differences of opinion on how to achieve the goal of ending discrimination, for example, between the Hutchison approach and the approach here will afford her ample time. We know our colleague, Senator Specter, has some flashing yellow lights about the bill. He, too, will offer his amendment. We know the lawyerly way in which he proceeds, and so on.

We are ready for debate and discussion. I don't think we have been inappropriate in the process. We held our hearings last year. We are going to offer wide latitude in the offering of amendments here. The whole mood is one that is upbeat and looking forward to spirited debate.

Having said that, I didn't know if my very civil colleague from Wyoming wanted to comment. I just wanted to have those particular facts on the record.

Mr. President, we would now like to turn to another strong advocate for ending discrimination, someone who has completed her first 2 years in the Senate and is part of that zone of civility to get the job done. We would like to hear from Senator Klobuchar.

Mr. President, we also want to be able to call upon one of our newest colleagues, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, from the State of New Hampshire. Though new to the Senate, she is certainly not new to the issue. She has been a strong advocate for fairness and justice and an advocate for ending discrimination her whole life and her whole career. She recently, of course, was Governor of New Hampshire, and now brings all that wealth of experience, know-how, and commitment to the Senate. This is not her first speech. It is her second speech. We are eagerly awaiting her words on this issue.

I thank the Senator very much. We look forward to her hard work and advocacy for people who have been left out, pushed out, redlined and sidelined.

This concludes for today the number of women who wished to speak on this legislation. Senator Boxer is chairing a hearing, and I could go through others. I believe Senator Clinton just finished her confirmation. No, just kidding, but it seems like that. So we are going to conclude this part of it. We will be on the floor tomorrow, when we have a vote on cloture on the motion to proceed, at which time we hope to be able to do that, so we can actually get down to the business next week of debating the amendments, as has been promised, and moving to final passage next week. We will be doing that after the inauguration of Barack Obama. I look forward to further discussion on this bill.

I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 14, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to consider the nomination of Gov. Thomas J. Vilsack, of Iowa, to be Secretary of Agriculture.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 14, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 14, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing on the nominations of Lisa P. Jackson to be Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Nancy Helen Sutley to be Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 14, 2009, at 2 p.m. to consider the nomination of Peter R. Orszag to be Director, Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 14, 2009, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the nomination of General Eric Shinseki to be Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The committee will meet in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 10 a.m.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for the transaction of morning business be extended until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, can we have order? I would like us to at least give the courtesy of listening to the Senator since we are not going to give her the courtesy of the vote.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor and congratulate the Frederick News-Post on its 125th anniversary. On October 15, 1883, a printing company in Frederick, MD, published the first edition of The News, an evening newspaper that reported about local happenings. In 1916, this printing company purchased another local paper, the Frederick Post, which it continued to offer in the mornings. After almost a century of circulating these two editions, the company chose to merge the two papers in 2002 and offer just a morning paper that included not only great local news stories but also important national coverage.

The Frederick News-Post circulates over 11 million papers a year and employs over 200 people. The company also includes FNP Printing & Publishing, a commercial printing venture as well as an Internet division called FNP Interactive. The Frederick News-Post is a vital part of the Frederick community, and I am so proud that this Maryland newspaper has been successful for the past 125 years. I hope that it continues to bring the news to families around the State for 125 more.

I wish to speak in morning business on the topic of the economic situation which the country faces and where we are.

I want to acknowledge that the Senator from Oklahoma has some interesting ideas, and I would like to know more about it because I am pretty frustrated about what has happened with the taxpayer rescue money we have gotten.

First, let me say, though, I am pretty frustrated with the Senate right now. I am frustrated that we are lame in this lameduck session. I was telling my constituents as I moved around Maryland, as is my habit and joy, that I have used this as a November work session--you know, get back to work. The election is over. We know who won. Now it is time to govern and govern with responsibility, to come back and go to work. So we come back, and here we are again whirling around with a lot of parliamentary quagmires. Can we bring it up? I object. No. We could be filibustered, et cetera. While we are fiddling and diddling to a parliamentary tune here, our economy is burning. And the question is, Do we burn the economic house down around us by inaction?

Now, you might not like this rescue plan or that rescue plan or what about the automobile. I am a champion of jobs in the automobile industry. I do not champion an industry, I champion the jobs in the industry. I do not believe this Congress understands what the automobile industry is. Yes, it is manufacturers, union and nonunion. Whether it is the big three in Detroit and the UAW or whether it is foreign logo cars being made in the Southern States of our country, the Toyotas in Texas and Kentucky, the Nissans in Tennessee and so on, we are talking about jobs. We are talking about people who make the cars, and then we are talking about dealers who sell them, service them, maintain them, and the support services. In many rural parts of my State, the automobile dealers are the biggest employers outside of the local school system and the local hospital. So I want to talk about jobs, and that is what I have been talking about.

But while we are talking about the rescue plan, what is shocking to me is the rigidity of the administration to help wrap up their time in the White House and their time to get our economy going, the fact that they are unwilling to look at the rescue package as a tool for saving jobs rather than saving banks.

Now, this is where I believe we have gotten ourselves off on the wrong track. When I voted for the rescue plan, I thought I was voting for dealing with the credit crisis and bringing the financial system to some form of stability. It was a little too trickle-down for me, but I thought, we are in a crisis, square your shoulders and get out there and do it. Well, what has happened is, instead of dealing with helping with jobs, we have been helping with banks. The bailout has been simply a handout to Wall Street banks. And you know what, they have made out like bandits. Them that got want even more and do not promise to do anything in return.

Let's review how we got there. We were facing Armageddon. We were concerned about the collapse of our financial system that America essentially helped create in terms of a financial system. We were talking about a frozen credit system that would affect big business and small business in our community. We were also concerned about the homeowner who was losing their home. Well, what did we do? We said: OK, we are going to make a public investment of $700 billion of taxpayers' money in the economy, through our Secretary of the Treasury. Now, who was this investor? Well, the taxpayers became investors.

You know, we use that term, ``taxpayers.'' What does it mean? Well, I

will tell you what it means to ``Senator Barb'' from Maryland. It means that single mother, that single mother who is trying to hold her family together, maybe in a job that pays $10 or $12 an hour, trying to keep her kids together, collect her child support, make sure she has an 8- year-old car still running and make sure those kids are in school to do something. She does not have a lot of money, and we take a chunk of it. What about the farmer and what about the waterman who right now is out in this cold weather trying to bring oysters to our Thanksgiving table? We are going to have a table of bounty; they have a table of trouble. But no, we are going to take their money and give it to Paulson to give it to AIG.

Let me finish describing the taxpayer, and I will come back to you.

What about the waitress--you know, somebody who carries, in that diner, big plates of food? And what does she end up with at the end of the day? A few tips, a bad back, varicose veins, and a government that is not on her side. That is where Paulson got the money from. OK. So that is where that $700 billion came from. Then I will talk about what he did with it.

I turn to my colleague.

Well, I will consider looking at his legislation, I assure him on the floor. I think we are in agreement with some of the principles you articulated earlier.

But let me go on with my speech and see if we can't find that sensible center, that common ground we both would like to perceive because when I say, What were the Congress and the American people promised for this astronomical sum of money we gave, we were promised by the Secretary of the Treasury, on behalf of the President of the United States, that the investment of the taxpayer would go to stabilizing the financial system, get credit flowing again in our communities, and get the economy rolling. What did we get? We got bait and switched from Paulson. Paulson changed his plan. He originally said he would use it to open credit and to also deal with the toxic mortgages. Now he is using it for money to buy ownership in banks and not asking anything in return. Paulson threw money at the banks with no strings attached. We have now spent close to $350 billion, and where are we? We are nowhere. The stock market is down and unemployment is up. Things have actually gotten worse. People continue to lose their homes. Now they are losing their life savings. And with our inaction on unemployment, they will lose their jobs.

So let's talk about them that got. Do you remember their greed? Do you remember their incompetence on Wall Street that got us into this economic Superfund site?

What did Wall Street say over the last several years to regulators and policymakers? Stay away. Get out of the way. It is our way or the highway. Having gotten buckets of bucks from the taxpayer, what does Wall Street say? Stay out of the way. Get out of the way. It is our way. And by the way, give us more, and let us keep our high pay.

Well, it is not only what we hear from them, it is what we don't hear from them. You know what is so shocking to me. After this money goes to the big banks, there is no sense of gratitude. There is no sense of gratitude that that waitress, that single mother, that farmer, that firefighter is willing to do this--no sense of gratitude. There is also no sense of remorse on how they got us into this terrible situation.

I know the Presiding Officer is a man of faith, as are our colleague from Oklahoma and myself. In my faith, when you have sinned, the way you get it right is you show remorse, you promise not to sin any more. You say: Let's make amends. How can I get it right?

Have we heard that out of them? I have read every paper, heard every conversation. There is not one bit of remorse. They swagger around and say: There are three Americas--North America, South America, and corporate America. They treat themselves like a free trade zone. Hello. Do they promise to sin no more? Do we see a sense in the passion for reform coming out of them, saying: Boy, did we screw up; we now want to get it right? No. Do they say: Let's make amends? And the way they want to say let's make amends would be to work with our economic people to get jobs, credit, and our economy rolling. No. So what, instead, do those who have gotten bailout money do? They give themselves lavish salaries, bonuses, big perks such as spa retreats and golf tournaments in the most luxurious places in the world. And we are told that in order for them to keep talent, they have to pay big bonuses or people will walk away. They say that in order to keep the big talent at the big banks, they have to give big bonuses. I want to say, if they want to go, it is OK by me. I am an investor. Not as a Senator, but as a taxpayer, Why would we want to hold on to them? They got us into this mess. So it is OK by me if they go. There are plenty of talented people ready to go to work for our country.

This is what ``Senator Barb'' wants to say to Wall Street: We do not want to be passive investors. We want to be active investors, not in a socialist form of government, picking winners and losers, but, by God, have a sense of reform. Cull out what is the best way to have sensible regulation. Come up with the great ideas to get our economy going and use the power and muscle of America's financial system. There is talent there to do that. If you need a lavish bonus to do this, then leave. Leave or get out of the way. There is a new sheriff coming to town, and I am part of that posse. There are not only young people but a lot of people who want to rebuild our country.

So I say to those on Wall Street who feel they can't work for less than $14 million a year, you now work for the United States of America. Once we started making that public investment in you, you now work for the United States. Work for the United States. Give us your best thinking. Give us your energy. Give us your ideas. What I want to say to them is: It is time to restore our economy, restore our national honor.

I say to those who are working in the economic system, pull up your pants and your pantsuits and start to go to work. Let's rebuild the economy.

I yield the floor.

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