Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes: Myself, McCaskill, Feinstein, Landrieu, Murray, Boxer, Stabenow, Klobuchar, and Lincoln.

Mr. President, I take the floor today as the dean of the Democratic women in the Senate. I say to my colleagues and to all who are watching: We women are mad as hell, and we don't want to take it anymore. We are mad that in this institution, when all is said and done, more gets said than gets done.

We are here today, united as Democratic women, to be a voice, a voice for change. We have a checklist for change we think we can do before this Congress adjourns.

These are issues that focus on the big picture of what our country is facing, but they also focus on the impact these issues have on families. We look at macroissues that affect the world and the macaroni-and-cheese issues that affect families.

In order to get things done, women have checklists in their daily lives--whether it is to get the laundry done or pick the kids up from school. We have a checklist on what we want to do in terms of a legislative agenda. This is not about gender; it is about an agenda. We invite the good men of the Senate to join us, and we hope that people from the other side will join us. We want to work to bring about change, and we start with wanting to end the gridlock.

Look at these issues for which we stand. We want to provide equal pay for equal work, good jobs that stay in the United States, we want to make health care affordable, we want to take care of our military families and veterans. If they fought over there, they should have a safety net back here. We also want to restore America's credibility in the world, protect our environment. We are looking out for gas, and we are looking out for groceries. We want to make sure there is another FEMA. And, along the way, we protect the family checkbook. We want to make sure we get rid of the boondoggles that are eating up our Federal budget.

For me, I am the leadoff. But every woman here has an issue to which she will be speaking. What do I want to speak to? I want to speak to equal pay for equal work.

Members might recall a few weeks ago we brought legislation to the floor to correct the gap in wage discrimination law. We lost that, but I said when the vote was over: The issue is not gone. I called upon the women to put their lipstick on, square their shoulders, suit up, and fight for an American revolution. This is why we are here today. This is another salvo.

Many people think, wage discrimination, didn't we solve that? No. Wage discrimination still exists. Women are earning just 77 cents for every dollar our male counterparts make. We can see this now in the famous Ledbetter v. Goodyear case. Lilly Ledbetter, a hard-working woman, challenged the system. She didn't find out until years later that she was being paid less than her male counterparts. She took it to the EEOC. The corporation fought her every step of the way. It ended up in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court made an outrageous decision. They said she waited too long to file her complaint. The Court also said she didn't do it in time.

We think it is about time we change the law. What we want to do is bring back the Lilly Ledbetter legislation called the Fair Pay Restoration Act. We want to bring it back up for a vote because equal pay for equal work is about fairness. It is about justice. It is about respect. It is going to close the loophole on the so-called statute of limitations on when one can file a wage discrimination case. We believe the current practice has been a good one, but we disagree with the Supreme Court.

We are going to bring it back up for a vote. We ask our colleagues to join us. We don't want our agenda to die in parliamentary entanglements. What we want to do is untangle this law and make sure women get equal pay and experience it in their personal checkbook, and we have to change the Federal lawbook.

We are ready. We are suited up. We have signed up. Join with us. We know the Presiding Officer is one of the great guys in the Senate who supports us. Before we go out at the end of this session, let's bring about change. Let's make America proud of their Congress. Let's turn the page.

I yield the floor to my new but very able and experienced colleague from Missouri, who has been fighting boondoggles in that Federal checkbook.

Madam President, before the Senator leaves the floor-- and we know our good friends, Senators Stabenow and Klobuchar, are here who will speak. We know gas prices are a woman's issue. If anything is driving up groceries and family bills, it is gas.

This whole issue today of lifting the ban on drilling--is the Senator from California aware that there are currently 68 million acres of land, Federal land, on which the oil companies have a lease, and if they wanted to drill, they could drill?

Does the Senator share my frustration--and I believe the American people's frustration--that the President is trying to change the subject rather than change the policies, particularly the policies where he could, by Executive order, deal with price gouging of the consumer as well as the casino-like speculation that is going on?

So if people really want their gas prices lowered today, they should just e-mail the President and say: Don't change the subject, change the policies. Get rid of price gouging and get rid of the speculation. You can do it by Executive order.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Good morning, Mr. President.

Today I take the floor as the chairperson of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science of the Appropriations Committee.

We bring to the Senate for its consideration an element within the domestic spending that I urge my colleagues to support. It provides critical funding to protect America from threats abroad and those threats here at home and to invest in America's future. There are those that meet compelling human needs right here in the United States of America. They also deal with the incompetency of the Bush administration to truly estimate the cost of the war.

Today I am asking for support because in protecting America this subcommittee adds funds to the FBI. We add $313 million for the Department of Justice, for both the FBI and DEA and the work they need to do in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

Once again, we have underestimated greatly the cost of this war. But we are not going to neglect our duty. This subcommittee provides $23 million to the Drug Enforcement Agency to fight narcoterrorism in Afghanistan, to fight the poppy trade that funds terrorism. Athough the cost was underestimated, we are going to make sure we are going to do our duty to put those DEA agents next to the Afghan leadership to fight this narcoterrorism.

Then, at the same time, we are going to have FBI agents in the war zone gathering intelligence on terrorists, dealing with IEDs and some of the forensic issues there, and we have provided money for them to be able to do this. Once again, they underestimated what it would take because there is very important work the FBI needs to do so our military is freed up in fighting the war. We fight the war against those who are trying to kill us with IEDs.

But while we are doing that, and we are trying to keep Afghanistan and Iraq safe, we added to this bill money for people here at home. What we did was we added $50 million to the U.S. Marshals' funds to catch fugitive sex offenders who threaten the safety of our children and our communities--$50 million more, which was authorized under the Adam Walsh legislation, the bill to be able to fund the Marshals Service to go after those sexual offenders for we know who they are, we know what they have done, and we know they are loose in our society. It is the Marshals Service that has both the authority and the know-how to do that. If we want to make the streets safe abroad, I certainly want to protect the children of the United States of America against these sexual predators.

Then, we also added, at the request of over 55 Senators, on a bipartisan basis, $490 million for Byrne formula grants for State and local police. We know there is a spike in violent crime all over the United States of America. The best way to fight violent crime is to make sure our local law enforcement has the tools they need to do their job. Therefore, we want the streets of Boston and Baltimore and Tuscaloosa to be as safe as we are fighting to make the streets safe in Afghanistan.

We are also working to deal with disaster recovery. In some States there are fishery disasters, such as in the gulf region, in New England, and the Pacific Northwest with its salmon constraints. We have added money to deal with the fisheries disaster. We also added a particular item for Byrne grants for the gulf region to address and deal with violent crime.

We are trying to deal with the fact that our own American citizens are facing disasters that so adversely affect either public safety or their very livelihoods.

Then, last but not at all least, we clean up the administration's mess. The census is on the verge of a boondoggle. There has been a technical meltdown in their ability to do the census. The so-called handheld devices that were going to be used to do the census in a new and data-driven way have not worked out. Who knows? The Secretary of Commerce is investigating it. But I am telling you now, it is going to cost $2 billion to fix it--$2 billion as in ``Barb,'' not $2 million as in ``Mikulski.'' So we are going to clean up the mess of the administration. In this supplemental, we put a downpayment of $210 million so we meet our constitutional responsibility to do this. I regret that the incompetency--the failure to stand sentry on taking the census, when they had 10 years to get ready for it, is indeed frustrating.

Then we come to another issue on prisons. Because of the inadequate budget request from the President, we are facing a violent undercurrent in prisons and terrible understaffing. We add the money, though the administration would not request it through its OMB. But all of the people who work at Justice who deal with this say this is a dire emergency, not to protect the prison but to protect the prison workers from dealing with this.

Then, also, what we did add was money for science, particularly for the space program, because when Columbia went down, they took the money for return-to-flight from other agencies. This returns it so we can keep our NASA on track.

That is what the CJS Subcommittee did, and I think we have done a good job. We tried to act to meet the needs in fighting the global war against terrorism. We dealt with the incompetency of underestimating the cost to these agencies because of the war. We are dealing with the incompetencies of either poor budget requests or the census boondoggle.

I think we have done a good job. I am asking my colleagues to support this legislation because if you want to protect our streets--if we need to help our people with their own disasters, and meet our constitutional responsibilities--you want to vote for my part from my subcommittee.

The other part that is in this bill, which will come at a later time, is that for which in the full Appropriations markup I offered an amendment to extend current law on something called H-2B. That is a seasonal guest worker program that has helped coastal States with being able to hire people, as well as the hospitality industry.

My amendment was a very simple amendment. All it did was extend current law that expired September 30. There was no new law. We broke no new ground. We created no new legislative framework. We created no new rights or privileges. It did three things. It lifted--it essentially gave a waiver on the cap of 66,000 people who currently come in.

What does all this mean in plain English? It means we were doing three things: first, protecting American borders; second, protecting American jobs; and third, rewarding the people who go by the rules. We protected American borders because we had a system that worked. People came, they worked, they went back home. Second, it protected American jobs because it was seasonal employment in industries that, in my State, particularly in the seafood industry, keeps businesses going that have been around for over 100 years. Then it rewarded the good guys, those people who are American employers who want to go by the rules--did not want to hire illegal aliens. But now we are going to poke them in the eye. It also rewarded the Latinos who came from Mexico--and I met with the madras down in my own State who often come from the same villages every year and return home.

Well, my amendment extended law. I know that my colleague--there will be a colleague who will raise the point of order today, and my amendment will

go down because it is not germane. I just wish to say this: It might not be germane, but it is relevant. Maybe it is not technically germane, but it is relevant because we are doing legislation to deal with the supplemental on compelling needs that our people face. That is why I want to get the sexual predators off the street.

I asked for 3 additional minutes. I am about to lose thousands of jobs because of this point of order.

I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.

Mr. President, I am not going to speak long.

The handwriting is on the wall, but the handwriting essentially says this: If you go by the rules, you are going to lose out.

The Senator has the right to offer his point of order, but I am just telling my colleagues this: We are losing this battle on the seasonal guest worker program, not because of law but because of ideology, both from the extreme right and because of the left. So when my amendment falls, it is not about Barbara Mikulski's amendment falling. When that amendment falls, we will hear thousands of jobs falling where we actually had an immigration program that worked and rewarded people who went by the rules. That is it.

So that is the way it is going to be today. I look forward to the votes. I wish to congratulate the Senator for the way she has organized this bill and Senator Byrd for the great job he did.

Mr. President, I yield the floor, but I am pretty worked up today.

Mr. President, I wish to publicly commend and congratulate Colonel Kenneth O. McCreedy, U.S. Army, upon his retirement after 28 years of military service. I have come to know and respect Colonel McCreedy over the last 3 years, while he served as the installation commander of Fort Meade, MD. His tenure as the installation commander was highlighted by his constant civic engagement with the Fort Meade military and civilian community. During this time he signed the first Army Community Covenant in Maryland, solidifying support for servicemembers and their families.

Colonel McCreedy was proactive in working with surrounding counties to prepare them for the growth challenges of BRAC 2005. Placing a heavy emphasis on strong community engagement, he worked closely with the Anne Arundel County School Board to secure the International Baccalaureate Program and Homeland Security Signature Program for Meade High School. Colonel McCreedy spearheaded the first two Meade Alliance Education Summits that focused on working with school boards and colleges to develop programs and initiatives to prepare today's students for future careers in the Federal Government. I am extremely grateful for the outstanding leadership and keen sense of community service that Colonel McCreedy has brought to the servicemembers, families, and civilian employees of Fort Meade.

Commissioned as a military intelligence officer, Colonel McCreedy first served at Fort Riley, KS as the S2 and Scout Platoon Leader of 3- 37 Armor and assistant S2 of the 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. After completing the Post-Graduate Intelligence Program at the Defense Intelligence College and Spanish instruction at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA, Colonel McCreedy was assigned to the U.S. Southern Command in Panama as a country analyst in the J2. Following Operation JUST CAUSE, he was assigned to Fort Hood, TX, where he was a G2 Operations Officer in the Third Corps, commanded a CI/IPW Company in the 163rd Military Intelligence Battalion, and served as the S3 Plans Officer for the 504th Military Intelligence Brigade.

After attending school at Fort Leavenworth, KS, Colonel McCreedy served in Germany as the V Corps G2 Plans Officer, S3 of the 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion, and S3 of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade. He then served as a member of the Commander's Initiatives Group while on duty in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina. Returning from Europe in 1999, he served as a Fellow at the National Security Agency at Fort Meade, prior to his assignment to Fort Gordon, GA, as commander of the 201st Military Intelligence Battalion. He next was appointed professor of military science at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. After attending the Army War College, Colonel McCreedy worked in the Force Transformation Office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Colonel McCreedy holds a bachelor's degree in history from Washington and Lee University, master's and doctorate degrees in history from the University of California, Berkeley, a Master of Military Art and Science from the Army Command and Staff College, and a Master of Strategic Studies from the Army War College. He is a graduate of both the Army's School of Advanced Military Studies and the Advanced Strategic Art Program.

Among his awards and decorations, Colonel McCreedy has earned the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, and the NATO Medal.

Mr. President, the Army, the State of Maryland, and the Nation are lucky to have had the service of such a great soldier. He will be sorely missed. Best wishes to Colonel McCreedy and his family.

Mr. President. This month we are celebrating one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century--the founding of the modern State of Israel.

The story of Israel is unique. A people forced into exile, who endured centuries of persecution, rebuilt their ancient homeland. They forged a nation where they could practice their ancient faith and traditions. They created an open and free democratic society. And always, they offer a home to Jewish immigrants from around the world.

The founding of Israel followed the most incomprehensible and evil event of the 20th century, when the Nazis--with the complicity of so many others--sought to exterminate a people. The survivors of the Holocaust helped to build modern Israel. Never again will the Jewish people be dependent on anyone else for their security.

At first Israelis envisioned an agrarian society. But today, Israel is a center for technology and science. American scientists and engineers are working as partners with Israelis to develop the innovations of the future. Our great Federal Laboratories, like the National Institutes of Health, are now working with Israeli scientists on a cure for cancer and other deadly diseases. Together America and Israel are working toward a future that is safer, stronger, and smarter.

America's relationship with Israel is also unique. We share common goals, values, and interests. We stand by each other in good times and bad.

Israel has had to endure many wars and live in constant readiness for battle. They live with the constant threat of terrorism. Yet the people of Israel are strong and resolute. They are committed to building a safer and more peaceful future.

On this anniversary, all friends of Israel should recommit ourselves to ensuring the survivability and viability of the State of Israel, now and forever. Our friendship is based on shared values, shared interests, and strategic necessity. My support for Israel is unabashed and unwavering. I will continue to be a voice for Israel and a vote for Israel in the United States Senate.

Mr. President, I salute the people of Israel as they celebrate 60 years of independence, and I look forward to a future of peace, prosperity, and friendship.

Mr. President I wish today to applaud the passage of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation that prohibits health insurance companies and employers from discriminating against individuals based on their genetic information. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend Hadassah for their relentless advocacy over the past 11 years on this important civil rights issue. Hadassah is a founding member of the Coalition on Genetic Fairness and has been a leader fighting to outlaw genetic discrimination.

As a Senator from Maryland, the home of the National Institutes of Health and cutting edge companies like Celera Genomic, genetic testing and its implications for Marylanders and all Americans is especially important to me. This bill provides necessary protections so that people will take advantage of the potential that genetic testing can offer, without losing their job or their health insurance. Montgomery County in Maryland was the first county in the Nation to pass genetic nondiscrimination legislation. It has been a longer road for Congress. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act was the first bill passed out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee in this Congress. I sit on the HELP Committee and we have worked on this bill since 1996. We have conducted five hearings on genetic discrimination and this bill has passed out of our committee three times. The Senate unanimously passed this bill in 2003 and 2005. It is time that this bill is signed into law.

Thirty years ago, the idea of mapping the entire human genome seemed liked science fiction. But we now have a map of it. Fifteen years ago, the thought of testing individuals for a genetic predisposition to an illness seemed decades away, but here we are in 2008 with the technology and knowledge to do that. Someone with a genetic predisposition for a disease could begin preventive measures in diet and lifestyle, years before symptoms even appear.

But with this new technology comes responsibility--the responsibility to protect the people that these theologies seek to help. What good is knowing that you have a genetic predisposition for diabetes if you lose your health insurance because of it? How does knowing that you may be more

likely to develop breast cancer help if you can't get a job because of this information? Individuals should also have the information they need to make informed decisions about whether to get a genetic test.

A person must not be denied insurance coverage or employment based on their predictive genetic information. That is why I support this strong, enforceable genetic nondiscrimination legislation that establishes meaningful remedies for individuals and their families-- remedies which act as powerful disincentives for insurance providers and employers to discriminate. I am proud the Senate has acted to help ensure that individuals can choose to get genetic tests that could help save or prolong their lives, without fear of discrimination in the workplace or by health insurance providers. We need to make sure the information from genetic testing reaches its true potential: that a woman can be screened for a genetic predisposition to breast cancer or a man can be screened for his risk for a heart attack without fear of their health insurance premiums rising or losing their jobs.

Again, I want to thank Hadassah for all of their hard work on preventing genetic discrimination and I also want to thank Senator Snowe for her leadership on this bill.

Mr. President, I take this opportunity to thank the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, for his leadership on this issue and for the way his staff worked with the women in the Senate to overcome what we thought was a flagrant abuse of power.

In May of last year, the Supreme Court issued a decision called the Ledbetter case that was basically sexist and biased. It didn't reflect the spirit of the civil rights law on discrimination. It didn't reflect the reality of the workplace or the reality of women's lives. The Supreme Court overturned the opinions that had been given by the appellate court, by precedent, by history, and so on.

What did the Supreme Court say? That it was OK to discriminate, unless you knew 180 days from the time you were discriminated against and brought an action or brought this to the attention of your employer. Well, it just doesn't work that way. Anyone who knows the reality of the workplace knows that you don't know if you are being discriminated against.

What is the reality of the workplace? You can talk about sex at the water cooler, you can talk about religion by your computer, you can talk politics in the lunchroom, but if you open your mouth about your pay and whether you have gotten a raise, you are in trouble. If a woman begins to go and ask: Hey, George, what do you get paid, mum's the word.

If, then, Bill gets a raise, the guys are sitting around at the ball game downing a few beers and they say: Hey, George, you have done a great job, we are going to give you a promotion, how do you know about this? The only way you know about it is over time.

What we are doing in this legislation, led by Senator Kennedy--we have a bipartisan bill--is to right the Supreme Court decision. We are doing this at the urging of Justice Ginsburg. The Supreme Court decision was so bad that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the Supreme Court, took the unusual step of reading her dissent from the bench, and she said:

In our view the Court does not comprehend or is indifferent

to the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay

discrimination.

She said this needed to be fixed by Congress, and Congress has a remedy we are voting on today.

I was appalled to read that not only was the Supreme Court decision bad, but now the President has issued a veto threat. He said this bill is going to ``impede justice.'' That is baloney. This bill doesn't impede justice, it restores justice. It reinstates a fair rule for both workers and employers. He said it is going to mess up the process. This bill does not slow down the process, it gives people a way of getting into the process if you can't bring a claim in more than 6 months after you have been hired.

President Bush also says he wants to veto this because this bill would eliminate the statute of limitation in wage discrimination cases. That is not true. This bill does not change the 180-day time limit. It only changes when the clock starts to run. The bill restarts the clock with each time you get a paycheck that discriminates, so each time you get a paycheck that discriminates, the 180-day clock starts to run again. This is critical. How many people, as I said, know the salary of their coworkers? If you are hired at an equal rate with your male counterpart but he gets a raise in a few months and you don't, what should you do?

This is what Lilly Ledbetter found. She was a faithful employee at the Goodyear Company, Over time and with great risk she had to fight in her workplace, she had to fight in her courtroom.

Now it is time to fight for Lilly Ledbetter and the 150 million women in her position. The CBS poll on women says the No. 1 issue they face is equal pay for equal or comparable work. If in fact this is not a problem, why does every woman in every poll make this a No. 1 issue?

I ask that we make it a No. 1 issue in the Senate. We are now on a vote, as we faced with Anita Hill. I have a terrible feeling that tonight the Senate will not get it, but the women will get it and we are going to start a revolution as Abigail Adams asked us to do.

First, I believe in this matter the Senate would be out of touch with the American people. The American people want fairness, they want justice, and they believe women should be paid equal pay for equal or comparable work.

I also believe, though, there is opposition to the bill because people make profits off of discrimination. If you pay women less, you make more.

Also I believe when they talk about when the law was passed--the workplace has changed. There are now more women in the workplace than there were when the original laws were passed. But as the Senator from Washington State said, my gosh, this adds up to real money. You know, 20 cents an hour that we make less than the guy next to us--unless we are in the Senate; we do have equal pay here--this, over a lifetime, adds up to over a quarter of a million or a million dollars. When we look at its impact on Social Security, it is tremendous. Then if we look at its impact on a 401(k), if you have one, it adds up.

I believe discrimination is profitable, but I think it is time that justice is done.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

I am happy to do that.

Madam President, I am deeply disappointed about the fact that we did not get the necessary votes to move the Fair Pay Restoration Act forward. We fell three votes short of what we needed to do to get the job done. This fight for equal pay for equal comparable work, however, will go on.

As the senior woman in the Senate, I take the floor tonight to say we will fight on. This was the first step forward. It will not be the only step we will take. But what we will not tolerate is another step backward.

We are going to continue to bring this fight. We will look for opportunities to bring this legislation back to the Senate floor. What is it we want to do? It is to end discrimination against women in their personal paychecks. In order to end that, we need to change the lawbooks so they can experience fairness in their personal checkbook.

This is the year 2008. You would think that in the year 2008, on the 40th anniversary of the passage of so many historic civil rights bills, we would finally have legislation that would guarantee fairness in terms of pay.

So we regret we didn't get the votes, but we will move on. Many people have been mesmerized by the John Adams miniseries. I like John Adams, but I really liked Abigail. While John Adams was down in Philadelphia with Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and a bunch of the other guys writing the Declaration of Independence and laying the groundwork for the Constitution and inventing America, Abigail Adams wrote her husband from the farm--while raising the four children and keeping the family going. She said: As you write those documents, do not forget the ladies, for we will foment a revolution of our own.

I stand here today to say: Do not forget the ladies because we will foment a revolution of our own. I was here in 1992 when we didn't get it on Anita Hill. I am here in 2008 when we didn't get it in pay equity.

In 1992, we had a revolution that went on. We got six new women in the Senate. There are now 16 of us. The majority of us voted for this bill. I am telling you we are ready for an ``Abigail Adams'' effort here. If they don't want to put us in the lawbooks so we can have fairness in the checkbooks, we will do a revolution. What do I mean by that? We will take it out to the voting booths. We will go on the Internet. We are going to go on TV, on the blogs. And we are going to tell everybody about this ignominious vote that occurred. When we tell it, we are going to say: Call to arms, women of America, put your lipstick on, square your shoulders, suit up, we have a hell of a fight coming, but, boy, are we ready. The revolution starts tonight.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, thank you very much. I too wish to speak as in morning business.

All over America today, people are celebrating Earth Day. But we, the women of the Senate, have another day we are commemorating, it is called Pay Equity Day. That means women should get paid equal pay for equal or comparable work.

You are going see the women of the Senate dressed in red today. We are going to be on the Senate floor, we are going to be in our committees, and we are going to be doing our job. But we wear the color red with solidarity for women all over who say: We are red in the face because of the way women have been treated in terms of our pay.

Right now, in the year 2008, women still make less money per hour than men for the same or comparable job. If that was not hard enough about the business practices, we actually have a Supreme Court that agreed with discrimination.

So today we come to the floor with legislation that has been developed, on a bipartisan basis, to reverse a Supreme Court decision called the Ledbetter decision.

You have to hear this. Last May, the Supreme Court made an outrageous decision that said women cannot get equal pay for equal work if they do not do it within the first 180 days that a discrimination occurs. The decision was sexist, it was biased, and it did not understand the reality of women's lives or the reality of the workplace.

Their decision was a step backward for women, and it hit women right in the pocketbook. It violates the American concept of fairness and justice and equal treatment under the law.

Let me tell you about Lilly Ledbetter, who brought the case to the Supreme Court. I met her in the HELP Committee--the Health, Education, Labor Committee--when we were listening to the testimony about it. I listened to her story. This is a woman

now who is beyond middle-age, who has worked 19 years for the Goodyear Corporation.

Systematically, she was underpaid from the day she walked in that door. Not only did she get less pay for the work that she did, but she did not get comparable raises when the men got theirs.

What does that mean? Not only did she have less earnings in her work, though she worked as hard, received excellent ratings, and was promoted, but it also now will show up in her pension; she will get less Social Security and she will get less pension. So remember, when discrimination begins, it is compounded over a lifetime.

Now, Lilly Ledbetter is a real American. She fought the system on her own time and with great risk. She fought the discrimination and took it to the Equal Opportunity Commission, took it to the courts, and then took it all the way up to the Supreme Court. Along the way, she had to raise her own money to do this, while the big corporate interests at Goodyear had fat-cat, billable-hours lawyers against her.

She faced sexual harassment in the workplace because she dared to speak up and speak out. Well, Lilly Ledbetter would not give up. If she was the only case in America, it would be wrong, but this is a persistent pattern in the workplace. And also it has now been approved by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court said: Someone cannot sue their employer over unequal pay if that person does not file suit within 180 days after the pay was established.

Once again, the Supreme Court does not get it. How many women know the salary of their coworkers, especially in the first 6 months on the job? The reality of the workplace is that often people are forbidden to talk about their salaries. What if you were hired at an equal rate with your male counterpart, but he gets a raise every few months and you do not? The Supreme Court decision was outrageous. It was so bad that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, God bless her, God bless Justice Ruth, she stood up and actually spoke from the bench to read her dissenting opinion.

That is unprecedented. Usually, they file it and let it go into the history books. But Justice Ginsburg wanted to put the world and this Congress on notice that we better act. Justice Ginsburg said in her dissenting opinion:

In our view, the court does not comprehend or is

indifferent to the insidious way in which women can be

victims of pay discrimination.

She encouraged the Congress to fix it, and we will fix it. We will. Unfortunately, wage discrimination exists. Woman now earn 77 percent for every dollar our male counterpart makes. Women of color even get paid less. African-American women get paid 68 cents for every dollar a White man makes. That is almost a 40-percent difference.

The Supreme Court decision will make it almost impossible for women workers to close this wage gap and to get the remedy they deserve, and what they should get, under our doctrine of fairness, is equal pay for equal or comparable work.

From the bench, Justice Ginsburg did call on the Congress for action. She said, ``Correct the mistake.''

Well, when Justice Ruth speaks, and by the way, do we not miss our Justice Sandra Day O'Connor? Justice Alito wrote the primary assenting opinion. They told us the Court made a mistake and the Congress could fix it. Well, fix it we will. We will be soon voting on the legislative process in the bill itself to right this wrong. We will be voting on legislation that will correct this mistake.

This legislation was authored by our great Galahad in the Senate, Senator Kennedy. He did it in consultation with we, the women in the Senate: Senator Clinton, myself, Senator Snowe, women on both sides of the aisle. He reached out to us. We reached out to the best legal thinking.

This bill will amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This bill will amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so the statute of limitations for an employee to file a wage discrimination suit runs from the date of the actual payment of the discriminatory wage, not from the hiring. So every time you get a paycheck, it will be an act of discrimination, which will reset the clock so you can file your case.

That means employees can sue employers based on each discriminating paycheck, and it does not limit the time a worker can get the remedy she deserves. This bill is about fairness, justice, and respect. Is it not time, is it not time? When we think about Lilly Ledbetter and all those wonderful women similar to her, a woman who worked for 19 years, she was not exactly sure when the disparity developed, she could not quite get to all that.

A jury found they had discriminated against her. They awarded her $400,000 in backpay. The Supreme Court took it away from her. Well, today, we are going to give it back to her. We are going to make sure she and her guts and her grit, in standing up for herself, has stood up for all women.

We who are the women of the Senate stand up as well, I believe also with the very good men who work with us. Men of quality never fear women who seek equality. We are doing that today. We believe in this country all people are created equal. We need to make sure it is in the Federal law books and in your personal checkbook.

All people are created equal in the Federal lawbook and in your personal checkbook. People should be judged by their skills, their competence, and by the job they do. Once you get that job because of your skills and talent, you should get equal pay for equal or comparable work.

Lilly Ledbetter was an honest and hard-working person for 19 years. She is entitled to every cent she worked for. Because Lilly Ledbetter stood up, we rise with her. We are going to correct the Supreme Court decision. We are going to pass this reform legislation that is called the Fair Pay Restoration Act. We ask the Presiding Officer to join with us today. For all of us who wear red, this is going to be a great victory.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am proud to rise in support of the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill expands much needed and long overdue benefits for the men and women in uniform who have served overseas in difficult and dangerous circumstances to keep America safe.

We must honor our U.S. soldiers who have died in the name of their country. These service men and women are America's true heroes and on this day we pay tribute to their courage and sacrifice by bringing this bill to the Senate floor. Some have given their lives for our country. All have given their time and dedication to ensure our country remains the land of the free and the home of the brave. We owe a special debt of gratitude to each and every one of them.

Our Nation has a sacred commitment to honor the promises made to soldiers when they signed up to serve our country. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I fight hard each year to make sure promises made to our service men and women are promises kept. These promises include access to quality, affordable health care and a proper burial for our veterans.

That is why I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill provides an increase in burial benefits for the families of our wounded or disabled veterans, which I have been fighting for since 2001. This means that service-connected burial benefits will increase by $2,100 for a total of $4,100; non service-connected burial benefits will increase by $900 for a total of $1,200; and, plot allowances will increase by $445 for a total of $745. These benefits will increase annually to keep up with inflation.

I am also proud to support this bill because it takes an important step in recognizing the sacrifices made by our men and women of the National Guard and Reserve by expanding the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, outreach program. This program provides important information about benefits and services that veterans and their spouses, children and parents may be eligible for through the VA. By expanding this program we are ensuring that our citizen soldiers and their families have the resources and help they need to make a successful transition back to civilian life after answering our Nation's call.

This bill also recognizes the sacrifices of veterans who are suffering from the physical, permanent wounds of war. It expands eligibility for traumatic injury insurance and specially adapted housing benefits to veterans with severe burns. It also restores veteran status to Filipino veterans who served under United States command in World War II.

Whether fighting to defend democracy overseas or standing sentry on the home front, America's veterans have been there for us. We have a sacred commitment to honor all of the promises made to them when they signed up to fight for us. That's why I am fighting hard today and everyday in the U.S. Senate to ensure that the federal government maintains its commitment to veterans. Promises made must be promises kept.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in honor of World Social Work Day, I rise today to introduce the Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act. I am proud to sponsor this legislation that will improve the shortage of social workers as we move into an era of unprecedented healthcare and social service needs. Social workers play a critical role combating the social problems facing our Nation. We must have the workforce in place to make sure that our returning soldiers have access to mental health services, our elderly maintain their independence in the communities they live in, and abused children are placed in safe homes. This bill reinvests in social workers by providing grants to social workers, reviewing the current social workforce challenges, and determining how this shortage will affect the communities social workers serve. I am honored to introduce this bill named after two social visionaries, Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young. Dorothy Height, a pioneer of the civil rights movement, like me began her career as a case worker and continued to fight for social justice. Whitney Young, another trailblazer of the civil rights movement, also began his career transforming our social landscape as a social worker. He helped create President Johnson's War on Poverty and has served as President of the National Association of Social Workers. Congressman Towns introduced the companion bill in the House of Representatives last month.

As a social worker, I understand the critical role social workers place in the overall care of our populations. Social workers can be found in every facet of community life--in hospitals, mental health clinics, senior centers, and private agencies that serve individuals and families in need. Social workers are there to help struggling students, returning soldiers, and chronically ill. Oftentimes, social workers are the only available option for mental health care in rural and underserved urban areas. The number of adults over the age of 65 will double by the year 2030 and social workers will be at the forefront of providing compassionate care to this burgeoning community. Yet there will not be enough social workers to meet these needs. Today 30,000 social workers specialize in gerontology, but we will need 70,000 of these social workers by 2010. I want to make sure that when the aging tsunami hits us, we have the workforce in place to care for our aging family members, the Alzheimer patients, the disabled.

This bill is about reinvesting in social work. It provides grants that invest in social work education, research, and training. These grants will fund community based programs of excellence and provide scholarships to train the next generation of social workers. The bill also addresses how to recruit and retain new social workers, research the impact of social services, and foster ways to improve social workplace safety. This bill establishes a national coordination center that will allow social education, advocacy and research institutions to collaborate and work together. It will facilitate gathering and distributing social work research to make the most effective use of the information we have on how social work service can improve our social fabric. This bill also gives social work the attention is deserves. It creates a media campaign that will promote social work, and recognizes March as Social Work Awareness Month.

As a social worker, I have been on the frontlines of helping people cope with issues in their everyday lives. I started off fighting for abused children, making sure they were placed in safe homes. Today I am a social worker with power. I am proud to continue to fight every day for the long range

needs of the Nation, on the floor of the United States Senate and as the Chairwoman of the Aging Subcommittee of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

I believe that social work is full of great opportunities, both to serve and to lead. Social work is about putting our values into action. Social workers are our best and brightest, our most committed and compassionate. They are at the frontlines of providing care, often putting themselves in dangerous and violent situations. Social workers have the ability to provide psychological, emotional, and social support--quite simply, the ability to change lives. That is why we must reinvest in social work--we must recruit, retain and research. I think we can do better by our Nation's troops, seniors, and children, by making sure we have the social workforce in place to meet their needs. I'm fighting to make sure we do.

The Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act is strongly supported by the National Association of Social Workers and the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research. I want to thank Senators Stabenow, Smith, and Inouye for their cosponsorship of this bill.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in honor of World Social Work Day, I rise today to introduce the Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act. I am proud to sponsor this legislation that will improve the shortage of social workers as we move into an era of unprecedented healthcare and social service needs. Social workers play a critical role combating the social problems facing our Nation. We must have the workforce in place to make sure that our returning soldiers have access to mental health services, our elderly maintain their independence in the communities they live in, and abused children are placed in safe homes. This bill reinvests in social workers by providing grants to social workers, reviewing the current social workforce challenges, and determining how this shortage will affect the communities social workers serve. I am honored to introduce this bill named after two social visionaries, Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young. Dorothy Height, a pioneer of the civil rights movement, like me began her career as a case worker and continued to fight for social justice. Whitney Young, another trailblazer of the civil rights movement, also began his career transforming our social landscape as a social worker. He helped create President Johnson's War on Poverty and has served as President of the National Association of Social Workers. Congressman Towns introduced the companion bill in the House of Representatives last month.

As a social worker, I understand the critical role social workers place in the overall care of our populations. Social workers can be found in every facet of community life--in hospitals, mental health clinics, senior centers, and private agencies that serve individuals and families in need. Social workers are there to help struggling students, returning soldiers, and chronically ill. Oftentimes, social workers are the only available option for mental health care in rural and underserved urban areas. The number of adults over the age of 65 will double by the year 2030 and social workers will be at the forefront of providing compassionate care to this burgeoning community. Yet there will not be enough social workers to meet these needs. Today 30,000 social workers specialize in gerontology, but we will need 70,000 of these social workers by 2010. I want to make sure that when the aging tsunami hits us, we have the workforce in place to care for our aging family members, the Alzheimer patients, the disabled.

This bill is about reinvesting in social work. It provides grants that invest in social work education, research, and training. These grants will fund community based programs of excellence and provide scholarships to train the next generation of social workers. The bill also addresses how to recruit and retain new social workers, research the impact of social services, and foster ways to improve social workplace safety. This bill establishes a national coordination center that will allow social education, advocacy and research institutions to collaborate and work together. It will facilitate gathering and distributing social work research to make the most effective use of the information we have on how social work service can improve our social fabric. This bill also gives social work the attention is deserves. It creates a media campaign that will promote social work, and recognizes March as Social Work Awareness Month.

As a social worker, I have been on the frontlines of helping people cope with issues in their everyday lives. I started off fighting for abused children, making sure they were placed in safe homes. Today I am a social worker with power. I am proud to continue to fight every day for the long range

needs of the Nation, on the floor of the United States Senate and as the Chairwoman of the Aging Subcommittee of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

I believe that social work is full of great opportunities, both to serve and to lead. Social work is about putting our values into action. Social workers are our best and brightest, our most committed and compassionate. They are at the frontlines of providing care, often putting themselves in dangerous and violent situations. Social workers have the ability to provide psychological, emotional, and social support--quite simply, the ability to change lives. That is why we must reinvest in social work--we must recruit, retain and research. I think we can do better by our Nation's troops, seniors, and children, by making sure we have the social workforce in place to meet their needs. I'm fighting to make sure we do.

The Dorothy I. Height and Whitney M. Young, Jr. Social Work Reinvestment Act is strongly supported by the National Association of Social Workers and the Institute for the Advancement of Social Work Research. I want to thank Senators Stabenow, Smith, and Inouye for their cosponsorship of this bill.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I have a question exactly about not only those headlines but what people have asked me over the weekend. I want the Senator to know, first of all, we value his extensive experience in the real estate field--he was a well-known realtor in his own community-- and, of course, his ongoing method of civility in this body.

Here is my question: This is a $7,000 tax credit if you buy a foreclosed home in a neighborhood; is that correct?

Here is the question: There are two houses for sale. One is a foreclosed property and one is a regular homeowner ready to sell. The question I get from non-profits and people is: Is the tax credit going to depress by $7,000 the house that is not in foreclosure? In other words, that it acts as a damper on price, and if you are in good standing, you have a good mortgage but you are ready to sell for whatever reasons, you are putting your house on the market, and next to you is a foreclosed house and that is going to get a $7,000 tax break, they are saying: I am going to have to eat $7,000 to sell my house.

Can the Senator answer that question for me and for all who I think are puzzled about the possible unintended consequences of this tax break?

Stick with me.

Real-world situation. This house is foreclosed, which means it already is going on the market at a depressed value, OK? The consequence of a foreclosure is a melancholy event, not only for the person who is losing their home, but the community feels it could lose a neighborhood. I believe that is the gentleman's point, and it is also a great concern to me. But because the foreclosed house is already depressed, then a $7,000 tax credit comes in. The question is, for the non-foreclosed, I do not understand how the price of the non-foreclosed home is not dampened, and we, ourselves, are helping create a new bottom.

Well, first of all, I thank the Senator for explaining this. You can understand the origin of these questions. It is not only what I feel, but those working in our communities, those trying to sell homes, they all feel pretty much the same way. But I thank the Senator for answering that question, and we thank him for the expertise he brings to this debate.

Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended for 10 additional minutes.