Floor Statements

Madam President, I am prepared to offer my amendment to the Ledbetter Act, the Mikulski bill. To proceed, I need to know if that is the order of business.

Madam President, I had been working with Senator Mikulski and the majority leader about moving to Senator Mikulski's bill and my amendment, which is pending, and I had offered to allow Senator Voinovich to speak on that. If the Senator has something to intervene, I would be happy to try to accommodate, but this is the pending business.

Madam President, I would like to ask the Senator from Vermont, without relinquishing my right to the floor, if there is something he would like to do that would be short, and then we could go back to the business of the Ledbetter bill. I am happy to try to accommodate him.

I would be happy to yield.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me ask the Senator from Ohio, whom I promised 12 minutes, whether he would be able to wait 7 minutes for Senator Leahy, after which I would turn the floor over to him before I discuss my own amendment?

Madam President, let me ask whether I could propose this: I move that the Senator from Vermont be allowed 7 minutes on whatever subject he chooses, after which the Senator from Ohio would have 12 minutes, after which I would have the floor to speak on my amendment.

Mr. President, I appreciate very much the remarks of the Senator from Ohio who has much the same feeling about this I do. He wants to protect the employee who has known discrimination but also knowing that a business or small business needs to know what the liability might be and, hopefully, correct it if the notification is given in a timely way.

So I would look forward to talking about my amendment. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside in order for Senator Specter to be able to offer amendments, after which then Senator Mikulski will have the floor. Then when we get back to my amendment, I would like to debate my amendment.

Mr. President, I think that is a good plan. I appreciate the accommodation of the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, is the pending legislation my substitute for the Mikulski bill?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Hutchison substitute be laid on the table and be the pending business.

Mr. President, it was my understanding that when Senator Specter laid aside my amendment, we would return to my amendment, my substitute, after his two amendments had been offered. That was what we intended and that is what I was trying to restore.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska for her support of my amendment.

I wish to lay out my amendment one more time, and then the long- suffering and ever-patient Senator from Maryland will have the chance to rebut. She has been so wonderful about making sure everyone got a chance to speak and knowing we would still be here to debate this amendment, and then setting a time agreement for the vote tomorrow, when the leaders have made that decision.

This is such an important issue. As the Senator from Alaska has said, and really everyone has said, we all want to make sure we give every opportunity to a person who has faced discrimination in the workplace to be able to have a redress of that discrimination.

The law, as it is today, gives 6 months for a person to be able to go forward to the EEOC, and then later to the courts, to say there has been an act of discrimination. Now, most of the time it is easy for an employee to know when a cause of action occurs. If it is age discrimination and someone has been demoted; if it is a firing, of course; any lessening of duties or responsibilities, that is a signal that perhaps there is some discrimination of some kind--whether it be based on age or gender or whatever might be alleged.

The harder issue is pay, there is no question because most people do not talk about what they make around the water cooler or in the break room. Most people hold that close because there are many factors that go into pay. Because of that, it is harder to do the fair thing. That is what I am trying to do with my amendment, to make sure there is a fair opportunity for an employee to have the right of redress and also a fair opportunity for the person in business to know if there is a liability or a mistake.

If the Mikulski bill passes, one would be able to sit on a claim because it would not matter if the person should have known of the alleged discrimination. They can pick their time, and it could be months, years, decades after a discrimination has occurred. This is a

problem because the employer has to be able to have an opportunity to mount a legitimate defense with records that would be kept, with witnesses who would come forward, with memories that would be fresh, to give the employer the right to know what the liability is and be able to have witnesses or the person who is accused there to make the other side of the case.

In pay discrimination, what we are doing in my substitute is basically setting a standard that will be uniform across the country, in all courts. It is what the Supreme Court has said should be the test. In some districts, the court will say: Well, let's hear from the employee why she did not know or why he did not know. If the court says: Well, I think that is reasonable--maybe there is a policy in the company that if you talk about your salary, that is grounds for firing. Now, that would be a very strong presumption for the employee that maybe they were in the dark. So we want that employee to have the right to say there is no way I could have known. There was a policy against it. But we need to have that standard across the board in every district. Some courts will do it, but not every court will do it, which is why my substitute amendment is needed, because we need every employee to have the ability to make the case that person could not have known.

Now, the distinguished assistant majority leader said that puts the employee with the burden of proof. Well, the employee is the plaintiff. The plaintiff always has the burden of proof in our legal system. We would certainly--if it were something that would make a difference to the Senator from Maryland or the Senator from Illinois; if it would make a difference that we would establish a rebuttable presumption that would favor the employee but be allowed to be rebutted by the employer--we could talk about that, and I would be open to that suggestion.

But the plaintiff bringing the case in our system does have the burden of proof. What we want is to assure that responsibility is codified in the law, that it is codified so that person has the right, but also the responsibility to press a claim. This is the important part of the substitute that says we want the right of the employee to be able to say they did not know, and why, and give courts the chance to apply a standard that would be set for everyone in this country to have the right to press the claim if they did not know.

On the other hand, the reason we have statutes of limitations--and we have had since the beginning of law in this country, and in other civil law countries--is that the defendant does have a right to be able to make the defense and be able to anticipate what the liability might be. A small business that has a person come forward who has a claim from 10 years ago, and they did not know the employer did not know this right was accumulating and could result in a catastrophic effect on a small business--when if the employee, when he or she suspected, brought forward this claim, perhaps it could be settled right then and there so everyone wins.

So I hope we can work on this bill so we do give fairness to both sides in a legal case. We wish to have the right of the employee to come forward when that person knew or should have known within 6 months of that right accruing; and we need to have the right for the business to be able to have evidence, records, witnesses, and fresh memories to mount an effective case in defense if they are going to rebut the charge. That is one part of the substitute.

The other part is, I think, also very important; and that is that in the bill before us there is a major change in common law and in tort law that has also been a part of our legal system and our case law since the beginning of law in our country and in other countries that have the types of laws we do; and that is that a tort accrues a right to the person who is offended or damaged or hurt by another action. It does not accrue to another person who is affected by or might be considered affected by this claim.

Now, there are exceptions to that. But in the main, it is, I think, essential, if we are going to have a statute of limitations that goes beyond the act itself--and in this case it would be 6 months, which is the law today--that it accrue to the person actually injured, the employee, and not some other person on behalf of the person who did not bring the case.

Under the Mikulski bill, the Ledbetter Act, a new right has been given to a person who may not be the person with the injury. So it could be a case where the person dies after working at a place of employment, a business. The person dies, and within 6 months of that person's last paycheck and subsequent death, some other person--an heir, a child, a mother, a father--could bring a case, which the person who has allegedly been discriminated against chose not to bring or did not bring. In such an absurd case, possible under the Ledbetter bill, you do not even have the person discriminated against to testify. I think this is a very big hole in the concept of fair play that our legal system tries to provide. By saying ``other affected parties,'' I think we have opened up a whole new right and possible class of plaintiffs that has not been contemplated before and could achieve an inequitable result.

So I hope very much that people will look at my substitute and try to get to the same end Senator Mikulski and I both want, by trying to shape the legislation so that it keeps the fairness in the process for a person who claims a discrimination and a person in the business that has hired this person to have a fair right for a defense. That should be our goal. I think my substitute does achieve that balance. I hope very much we can work this into a bill that all of us can support for people who have certainly known discrimination, as I have, and for people who want to make sure their children and grandchildren don't face discrimination, as well as for those who wish to make sure we don't discriminate against that small business owner who is all of a sudden, after 10 or 15 years, maybe looking at a liability that they didn't know about, couldn't prepare for because they don't know about it; maybe it is a mistake and maybe it could be corrected if we keep that statute of limitations that would say a person knew or should have known can have 6 months to file a claim so there can be an equitable, judicial remedy for this potential claim.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I was going to engage in a discussion with the Senator from Maryland. I see the Senator from Minnesota is in the Chamber. Is it OK to proceed?

Madam President, I wish to talk about a couple of points that were made by the Senator from Maryland.

First, I want to say how much I appreciate her talking about how much we have done together in the Senate for women. We have made significant legislation that has improved the lives of women. She mentioned many of the bills we cosponsored.

The other one I want on the record, because I think it is so important for the homemakers of our country, is the homemaker IRA, which was the Hutchison-Mikulski bill that allows stay-at-home spouses, those who work inside the home, to put aside the same amount for retirement security that will accrue without being taxed as someone who works outside the home, which was not the case before Senator Mikulski and I passed our bill. It is one of the singular achievements, I think, in helping especially women who usually go in and out of the workplace to save, without being taxed every year, in a retirement account the same amount as if they work outside the home.

We have worked together, and I know we will work together on many other issues. And I hope we will end up working together on this issue because we do have the same goal, and that is to provide a fair legal process for people to have the right to sue for discrimination and the employer that is accused to have the right of defense.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the report of the Heritage Foundation that was mentioned earlier.

Madam President, it is very important that we have the whole legal memorandum on the Ledbetter Act and my substitute amendment. I want to read a couple of paragraphs from it. The Heritage Foundation report says:

Another option was proposed in the last Congress--

My bill--

as the ``Title VII Fairness Act.'' This legislation would

maintain the current limitations period but augment it with a

``discovery rule'' so that the period begins running only

when the employee reasonably suspects, or should reasonably

suspect, that he or she has been discriminated against. This

approach has the benefit of encouraging employees to

investigate and take action on worthwhile claims, while

keeping many stale claims out of court. Some courts, however,

might twist the looser rule to allow stale claims brought by

sympathetic plaintiffs, such as Lilly

Ledbetter, who learned about the possible discrimination

fully six years before filing a charge. It would also

undermine, somewhat, the clear bright-line rule that a hard

statute of limitations provides. Nonetheless, this approach

would provide far more certainty, and prove far less

disruptive, than eliminating the limitations period.

Which the underlying bill does. I added for emphasis those last words.

It goes on to say:

Far beyond reversing the result of a single Supreme Court

decision--one that, viewed fairly, was consistent with

precedent and fairly represented Congress's intentions--the

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would open the door to a flood

of lawsuits, some frivolous, that employers would find

difficult or impossible to defend against, no matter their

ultimate merit. Rather than help employees, the bill could

end up hurting them by reducing wages and job opportunities--

at a time when unemployment is rising and many are nervous

about their job prospects. Instead, Congress should recognize

that statutes of limitations serve many important and

legitimate purposes and reject proposals that would allow

litigants to evade them.

The full reading of this legal memorandum by the Heritage Foundation, I think, makes the case for my substitute as the right approach, giving more rights to the plaintiff but not eliminating or discriminating against the business to defend itself.

Let me make two points. My amendment codifies the employee's right to establish what he or she didn't know. It is so necessary that we have this right, and it is necessary to know when the person should have known and make that part of the record. Otherwise, it would allow a person to knowingly sit on a claim, to run up the amount that might be added to the discriminatory act in punitive damages. That should not be a part of our legal system.

There is one other point I want to make about the Supreme Court case that the Mikulski bill will overturn.

The Supreme Court separated a discriminatory pay policy from a single discriminatory act. That was their intention. It is the law today, and it would be the law under my substitute, that if there is a policy of discriminatory pay, every paycheck would be a discriminatory act. So it would continue if it were a policy. That is the law, and it should be the law, and it will be the law if my substitute is adopted.

What the Supreme Court did in the Ledbetter case was say when it is a single act of discrimination, not one that is discriminatory in policy, that should have a statute of limitations. But perhaps we could have a reasonable rebuttable presumption that the person should have known, and when the person brings the claim, that person can establish: I could not have known because we weren't allowed to talk about our pay. That could be a reason the court would say is legitimate, and it would uphold the statute of limitations.

The Senator from Pennsylvania was here earlier. He has several amendments. The Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, has an amendment. I think we can make this a good bill that everyone will think is fair, that will give more rights to the plaintiff but does not keep the defense from having a fair chance to defend the business. And I believe that is the right approach.

I hope we can pass my substitute. I hope we can continue to work on this bill so that everyone will feel good about voting for it and our businesses won't be subject to a lawsuit 10 years after an act is alleged to have occurred and have a bill run up, when maybe if we have a statute of limitations that is reasonable and you have the ability to bring it, it could even be settled right then and there so that the employer is not going to have a big expense that might even close the business and lay off more people, which is not a result any of us would want. So I hope we can write the law carefully to avoid that eventuality.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I know the Senator from Rhode Island wants to speak. I will take a minute and say a couple of things.

We are going to codify a right that is not in the law today. It is sometimes applied by judges and sometimes not. We do clarify so that there is fairness for the employee as well as for the small business owner to know if something is occurring.

Our standard is, should have known, and that is what the person can show, that they had no way to know that a discrimination was occurring. We are clarifying and trying to make it more fair and more clear and more uniform across all the districts in our country.

That is our goal, and I do hope we will be able to have this amendment that will make it a law that is better for employees who might have been discriminated against, but also give the fair right to an employer not to have a right sat on and built up so that it becomes something that could hurt the small business and be unexpected.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, can we amend the request to allow both sides to have an equal amount of added time?

I thank the Senator from Wyoming.

I think it is very important that we deal with this issue on the promise that I will be able to offer my substitute because I believe it is a substitute that gives the right for an aggrieved employee to bring an action within a timeframe that is reasonable for the business to be able to plan.

I am a person who has known discrimination. I am also a former small business owner, and I know the importance of knowing what your liabilities are and having clarity. That is why in the law, in every cause of action, we do have statutes of limitation.

I look forward to debating with my colleague and friend, the Senator from Maryland, to try to come to the right conclusion on a bipartisan basis. I am going to vote for cloture on the promise that we will have an open debate on this issue and try to come to a conclusion.

The Senator from Wyoming makes a good point. For the future, I hope we will listen to what he is saying. Committees work around here. Committees are where you can do markups, where we work in a bipartisan way to make legislation better. We cannot write bills on the Senate floor. In the future, I hope all of us will work toward allowing the committee process to work. Today, we are going to take a leap of faith that we will have the amendments and that we will come to a good conclusion on this bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, my amendment, which I offer along with Senators Voinovich, Martinez, Grassley, Enzi, Corker, Alexander, Cornyn, Burr, Murkowski, and Thune, is a substitute for the underlying bill that is before us, S. 181. I hope we will, now that we have taken up the bill, fully discuss and hopefully have some amendments that will make the Fair Pay Act a bill that will serve all of the needs of our country. Paramount is the right of an employee to have redress, if that employee is experiencing discrimination. We also need to make sure that our small businesses and medium-sized businesses know what their underlying liabilities might be. That is part of business planning.

I have certainly been a person who has known discrimination. I want everyone who believes they have a cause of action to have that right.

I have also been a business owner. I know how important it is that our businesses know what their potential liabilities are. That is why statutes of limitation were put into the laws of the country, so that one could have a defense, so that there would be timely filings of claims, so that there would be witnesses who would have the memory or the records or the documents to defend against a claim.

My substitute amendment allows the person who is aggrieved, when that person knows or should have known that there was discrimination, to have 180 days, approximately 6 months, to file that claim so that there will be records, there will be notice, and there will be the ability for a defense and for the person to have the fair trial with the people who would be relevant to her or his case.

To do that, we have to have that time limit that the Supreme Court has said is a reasonable time limit, if it is 6 months after the person knew or should have known. We are putting back in or we are actually codifying for all of the districts of the country that standard.

It is also important that we have the ability for that person to get into court, because that is the person who has the grievance. It is that person who should be testifying rather than someone who might have had an effect but is not the person who knows if they believe they were discriminated against. These are the things that my amendment addresses.

We are not going to debate, although I know the distinguished Senator from Maryland is going to rebut, but I hope to have the time for us to fully debate this amendment when we take it up and when all of our Members are here.

There will be Members on my side who want to speak, I am sure Members on her side who want to speak, so I wanted to lay the amendment down so everyone is on notice and has the document and can read the amendment. Then I look forward to discussing it when the majority leader decides we will take this bill up, hopefully, next week.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. Presdient, I have really enjoyed working with John Sununu.

John Sununu grew up in Salem, NH, and is one of eight children. He was first introduced to public service at a young age, when his mother served as chairman of the local school board.

John attended public schools, graduated from Salem High School, and received bachelor's and master's degrees in Mechanical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

John also earned a master's degree in business administration from the Harvard Graduate School of Business.

John Sununu first ran for public office in 1996, winning election in New Hampshire's 1st District and serving 3 terms in the U.S. House.

In 2002, John defeated both an incumbent Senator and the sitting Governor to become the youngest Member of the U.S. Senate.

As a Senator, John distinguished himself as an innovative legislator, bringing his extensive background in science, engineering, and small business to his work in Washington.

Senator Sununu has been a staunch advocate for low taxes, smarter regulation, and civil liberties.

Since he is still a young man at the age of 44, I suspect that we will be hearing a lot more from John Sununu in the years to come.

I wish him well in his future endeavors.

Gordon Smith

Mr. President, Gordon Smith has served the people of Oregon extremely well.

Before coming to the U.S. Senate, he served as director of the family owned Smith frozen foods company in Weston, OR, where he created jobs and spurred economic growth.

Gordon Smith entered politics with his election to the Oregon State Senate in 1992, and he became president of that body in 1995.

Since winning election to the U.S. Senate in 1996, Senator Smith has worked with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle on critical issues.

Senator Smith chaired the Special Committee on Aging, and he also served on the following Senate committees: Commerce, Science and Transportation, Energy and Natural Resources, Finance, and Indian Affairs.

Senator Smith has also courageously led the effort to educate Americans on ways to prevent the tragedy of suicide of young men and women.

In 2004, I was so proud when President Bush signed the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, authorizing $82 million for suicide prevention and awareness programs at colleges.

Because of his business experience, he was a Senate leader on issues and regulations that impede economic growth.

Senator Smith also distinguished himself by championing rural Oregonians, including the many farmers and ranchers throughout the mountains and lake areas of his beautiful State.

I thank Gordon Smith for his dedication and service, and I wish him well.

Ted Stevens

Mr. Presdient, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska has served in the U.S. Senate for 40 years, and is the longest-serving Republican Senator in history.

On a personal note, I have enjoyed working with Senator Stevens, and it has been a true privilege to collaborate with him on some of the most important issues facing our great Nation--including energy, health care, and national defense.

Senator Stevens' service to the United States didn't begin when he stepped inside this chamber. Rather, his service began decades earlier--during some of the most harrowing days of World War Two.

Senator Stevens was part of the Greatest Generation who fought and won that global struggle for freedom--flying a C-47 in the China Burma India Theater.

Incredibly, over 1,000 of Senator Stevens' fellow airmen died ``flying the hump'' and elsewhere in the Chinese Burma India Theater--a sobering reminder of the high price of freedom.

For his heroic efforts, Senator Stevens later received two Distinguished Flying Crosses and two Air Medals, as well as the Yuan Hai medal awarded by the Republic of China.

After the war, Senator Stevens completed his education at UCLA and Harvard Law School, and then moved to Alaska, which was then a U.S. territory.

In the city of Fairbanks, Senator Stevens practiced law for several years, until he came to Washington, DC, to serve in the Eisenhower administration, and also to lobby for Alaska's admittance into the Union--a mission that succeeded in 1959.

When Senator Stevens returned to Alaska, he ran for--and won a seat in the Alaska House of Representatives, and later became House majority leader.

Then, in December 1968, Governor Walter J. Hickel appointed him to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate.

In 1970, the voters of Alaska ratified that choice by electing Senator Stevens to finish that term in a special election, and then re- electing him six more times.

Senator Stevens' achievements are legendary in this chamber-- including chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Commerce Committee and President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate--from January 2003 to January 2007.

For his many decades of service, Senator Stevens has received and accepted numerous honors--including having the Anchorage International Airport named after him.

Back in 1993, when I first arrived in the U.S. Senate, I was one of only seven female Senators, and if the Senate was a men's club, then the Appropriations Committee was its inner sanctum.

There was not a single woman on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, but that is where I wanted to serve.

I explained to Senator Stevens--who was then the ranking member of the committee--that Texas has more Army soldiers than any other State, more Air Force airmen and women stationed in Texas than any other State, and our defense industry builds everything from fighter aircraft to Army trucks to artillery systems to sophisticated electronics equipment for the Pentagon.

Therefore, I hoped to be able to serve on that committee.

After some careful thought, Senator Stevens agreed, and welcomed me to the Committee.

Senator Stevens has been known to show dramatic performances on the Senate floor, keeping wandering eyes focused on the urgent issues that need to be addressed.

One day, during a mark-up in the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, who chaired the committee at the time, grew very animated and laid down the law.

When a frustrated senior Senator told Senator Stevens that ``there was no reason to lose your temper,'' Senator Stevens glared back and responded, ``I never lose my temper. I always know exactly where I left it.''

Senator Stevens acknowledges his quick temper; but those who know him see the other side--a compassionate heart.

I will never forget when a group of protestors gathered outside of the Appropriations Committee conference to demand increased funding for breast cancer research.

One particularly agitated advocate got in Senator Stevens' face and said, ``If men were dying of breast cancer, you wouldn't think twice about increasing the funding.''

Needless to say, those words made quite an impact on Senator Stevens, but probably not what this advocate anticipated.

When Senator Stevens walked back into the conference, he repeated the charge and then looked around at his mostly male colleagues.

He knew that at least 6 of them suffered from prostate cancer.

He also noticed that the bill they were considering didn't fund prostate cancer research.

But thanks to the excellent suggestion of the woman in the hallway, he became an advocate for breast cancer research and prostate cancer research. Senator Stevens became a leader on these issues.

He has been a champion of a strong national defense and of the men and women who serve in the military.

I wish him and his family the best.

Mr. President, are we on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act or is this morning business?

Mr. President, tomorrow, it is my understanding we will be--or sometime in the next period of a day or so, I think--we will be on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. A number of my colleagues have spoken on the floor today about it, and I wish to talk about that bill because I want there to be a full record before we go forward to vote on a cloture motion on that act.

I am a woman who has experienced gender discrimination. I have experienced it firsthand. I know how hard it can be to deal with for a woman, or any person who has been discriminated against for any reason in the workplace. I am pleased we are going to address this issue. I think it is very important that we have all of the considerations around this bill as we go forward so that we do not have unintended consequences.

I have been a small business owner. I know the importance of clarity, of knowing if you have made a mistake or a potential mistake, or if you are accused of making a mistake and the liability that might go along with that. I think it is important that we recognize this is not just a woman's issue, it is an issue for every person, whether it is age discrimination or some other kind of discrimination that might be used against a person in the workplace.

We want to have fair pay in our country. That is something I think all of us can agree is very important for America, but this bill should be fully vetted. One of the problems I have with it is the process. We have not ever gone to committee with this bill. In our committees, as they have functioned in the past, we have been able to have numerous amendments, we have been able to hear from all sides of an issue, and generally, in committees, when a bill is coming out, there has been much work done on it and it is a much better bill before it hits the floor. I think everyone with any experience in this body can see the difference between a bill that has not gone through committee, not had the proper input, not had the hearings, not had the debate in the markup, versus a bill we try to write on the floor with 100 people who may or may not know all of the businesses or women or ethnic groups that might have a say that is important to hear on an issue such as this.

We had a cloture vote on this bill last Congress, and in the intervening months we could have had a committee hearing, we could have had witnesses come forward on both sides, but we didn't. Senator Enzi has made a very strong point--because he is the ranking member on the relevant committee--that their committee has acted in a very bipartisan way, when he was chairman or when he has been ranking member. There has been cooperation. This could be a bill that would get 100 votes in this body. But that is not the bill that is going to come before us.

I have introduced a substitute--I introduced it last year and I have introduced it again this year--with cosponsors Enzi, Voinovich, Alexander, Cornyn, Burr, and Murkowski, because we want a responsible approach to address employment discrimination. I hope we will be able to have amendments on this bill. I am told the majority leader has agreed that we will, and our Republican leader has said he wants to work with the majority leader to assure that we do have some reasonable number of amendments that might make this a better bill that we could all support and know that it will make fairness in the workplace better.

The bill that will be before us is a bill that I think has not been fully explained. The supporters say the legislation will restore the state of employment discrimination law to the place where it rested before the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter. In fact, it was said on the floor here earlier that we should overturn the Supreme Court ruling. This statement has largely gone unchallenged, but in truth this bill does more than what the supporters are suggesting. The practical effect is to eliminate any meaningful statute of limitations on the validity of claims, meaning that employees could sue on alleged discrimination that occurred years ago, even decades ago.

The bill accomplishes this by treating every paycheck as a new trigger to start a new filing period. The result of this would basically do two things: One is if a discriminatory act occurs, the employer would be liable for that action indefinitely. They could be sued for it any time as long as the employee continues to receive the paychecks. It wouldn't matter that the passage of a significant amount of time, perhaps decades, could make it virtually impossible for the business to expect this legal expense and prepare for it and impossible to offer a defense or to learn what happened. In Lilly Ledbetter's own case so much time had passed between the actual act of discrimination that was alleged and the filing of the claim that the supervisor who was accused of the past discrimination was deceased. There was no one there who could have testified that there had been some motivation or no motivation. There was no ability because the person had long since left the company and was deceased.

In addition, I think for fairness to all sides, there has to be a time in which a claim is brought or lapses. In almost every area of the law--I cannot remember that there is any other area--claims become invalid after a period of time. That provides certainty. That is essential to our justice system. Witnesses have to be available with a reasonable amount of recordkeeping or records or some way to ask questions of a person who is accused of some wrongdoing. I think it is so important that in our justice system we have the ability for a fair trial--for the person who is claiming a discrimination and the person who is defending against that discrimination to have the right to make a case. That is what our justice system has protected through statutes of limitations or having a time period in which you must make a claim or that right lapses.

Another problem with the bill is the addition of three words, which sound kind of innocuous, I guess. According to the bill, it is not only the person who is discriminated against who has the right for a claim, but a third party who claims to be affected by that discrimination. With such broad language, you are opening the field to innumerable lawsuits. Wouldn't it be irrational to have a law in which an heir of a deceased person could potentially have the ability to file a suit, saying that, as a third party, they are affected by a discrimination?

I think we are going down a very treacherous road here. I think if we had a committee hearing and the ability to go to markup, this could be a good bill, because I definitely want to make sure that we have fair pay for all of the people in our country. I have heard from many small and mid-sized businesses around the country, saying they are not opposed to giving workers a fair shake, but they oppose this bill because they are concerned about the catastrophic increase in legal costs resulting from an undisciplined system that allows liability to continue indefinitely.

The explosion of litigation from allegations possibly many years old could be an enormous strain on a small or mid-sized business, and could actually result in reduced employment. Certainly at this particular time, when we know we should be creating jobs in America, we should not be creating more burdens on the businesses that are providing jobs.

The bill I have introduced goes beyond simply providing additional time for workers to file claims. It would have the consequence of allowing a person to file if they knew or should have known of the act of discrimination, and they would have the 180 days to do that. It would make it a uniform codified law that everyone in America would be treated the same. Some districts in America do say that you have a burden to show you didn't know if there was a discrimination and that is why you are bringing the case beyond the 180 days. But if you knew or should have known, then you can say, I couldn't possibly have known, and the judge can make the determination if your claim is reasonable. That is what we would codify, that an employee would have the opportunity to say they were not aware, nor could they have been aware, that there was a discrimination.

Now, if you are fired or demoted, that is clearly a triggering action in which you should know that there might be discrimination. If you believe you have been unjustly demoted or fired, as an employee, you are then on notice that a discriminatory act has been taken against you. Then it is a harder case for the employee to say they needed more than 180 days. But the area where we want them to conserve the employee's ability to file a lawsuit is in pay discrimination, because often it is difficult for the employee to know that maybe they were not getting what their coworker was getting. So I think my bill, which I hope to be able to offer as a substitute amendment, would be a fair way to say to the employee, if they feel they have been discriminated against because of their gender or their age, they will have the ability to come forward and say, it is within the 6 months that I have learned of my discrimination. Or here is why I couldn't know of that discrimination, and either way, they would have the ability to have that decided by the judge or the EEOC.

I think that is a reasonable approach so that the business will know what their range of liability potentially is, which every small or mid- sized business needs to know. We want to make sure there is a fairness for the defense and fairness for the plaintiff in these cases. We want to make sure we have a reasonable standard, and I think my bill provides that. It provides more leeway and a standard which everyone would know is the same across our country.

I think the underlying bill is flawed in that it gives third parties who are

not the person who is discriminated against a right of action. I think that opens the door much too wide and offers the potential for abuse if the person who actually had the discrimination might not have wanted to bring a case or felt discriminated against--but to give a third party the right to sue and claim they are affected I think is going way beyond our concept of discrimination. Second, I do think it is very important that we have a standard here that is the standard throughout our justice system and that is you need to bring a case in a timely way, for the rights of everyone--for defendants as well as the memories of people who would want to be making the case that there is a discriminatory act.

I want fair pay. I want to eliminate discrimination in our workplace. I want people to have the right to sue. I want there to be a reasonable time in which they can do this, and I think that is what the bill that I hope to be able to offer as a substitute will do. Mine is the Title VII Fairness Act, which has been introduced with cosponsors. I think if we can write this bill in a way that can bring fairness to all sides. It would not overburden businesses with undefendable lawsuits and would give more leeway to the people who have discovered that they were discriminated against and need more time to bring a case, that, in fact, would be the best result for our country.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak. I certainly will have the opportunity to speak, I hope, again when I am able to offer my amendment. I hope the Senate will function going into the future, where we have committee hearings, committee markups on bills so we can have the maximum input to go forward and have good legislation and not legislation that has unintended consequences that would hurt the workplace and the rights of people in our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to permanently correct an injustice in the tax code that has harmed citizens in many States of this great Nation.

State and local governments have various alternatives for raising revenue. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and others use a combination of the two. The citizens who pay State and local income taxes have been able to offset some of their federal income taxes by receiving a deduction for those State and local income taxes. Before 1986, taxpayers also had the ability to deduct their sales taxes.

The philosophy behind these deductions is simple: people should not have to pay taxes on their taxes. The money that people must give to one level of government should not also be taxed by another level of government.

Unfortunately, citizens of some States were treated differently after 1986 when the deduction for State and local sales taxes was eliminated. This discriminated against those living in States, such as my home State of Texas, with no income taxes. It is important to remember the lack of an income tax does not mean citizens in these States do not pay State taxes; revenues are simply collected differently.

It is unfair to give citizens from some States a deduction for the revenue they provide their State and local governments, while not doing the same for citizens from other States. Federal tax law should not treat people differently on the basis of State residence and differing tax collection methods, and it should not provide an incentive for States to establish income taxes over sales taxes.

This discrepancy has a significant impact on Texas. According to the Texas Comptroller, extending the deduction would save Texans a projected $1.2 billion a year, or an average of $520 per filer claiming the deduction. The Texas Comptroller also estimates continuing the deduction is associated with 15,700 to 25,700 Texas jobs and $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion in gross State product.

Recognizing the inequity in the tax code, Congress reinstated the sales tax deduction in 2004 and authorized it for 2 years. In 2006 Congress extended the sales tax deduction for an additional 2 years. Last year, Congress extended the deduction for 2 more years. Unfortunately, the deduction is only in effect through 2009, and we must act to prevent the inequity from returning.

The legislation I am offering today will fix this problem for good by making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent. This will permanently end the discrimination suffered by my fellow Texans and citizens of other States who do not have the option of an income tax deduction.

This legislation is about reestablishing equity to the tax code and defending the important principle of eliminating taxes on taxes. I hope my fellow Senators will support this effort and pass this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, anti-family provision in the tax code. One of my highest priorities in the United States Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden.

We have made important strides to eliminate this unfair tax and provide marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15 percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. Before these provisions were changed, 42 percent of married couples paid an average penalty of $1,400.

Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as married couples use the money they now save to put food on the table and clothes on their children, a tax increase looms in the future. Since the 2001 tax relief bill was restricted, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect through 2010. In 2011, marriage will again be a taxable event and a significant number of married couples will again pay more in taxes unless we act decisively. Given the challenges many families face in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform.

The benefits of marriage are well established, yet, without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates these children are also less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence.

We should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. The bill I am offering would make marriage penalty relief permanent, because marriage should not be a taxable event. I call on the Senate to finish the job we started and make marriage penalty relief permanent today.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to permanently correct an injustice in the tax code that has harmed citizens in many States of this great Nation.

State and local governments have various alternatives for raising revenue. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and others use a combination of the two. The citizens who pay State and local income taxes have been able to offset some of their federal income taxes by receiving a deduction for those State and local income taxes. Before 1986, taxpayers also had the ability to deduct their sales taxes.

The philosophy behind these deductions is simple: people should not have to pay taxes on their taxes. The money that people must give to one level of government should not also be taxed by another level of government.

Unfortunately, citizens of some States were treated differently after 1986 when the deduction for State and local sales taxes was eliminated. This discriminated against those living in States, such as my home State of Texas, with no income taxes. It is important to remember the lack of an income tax does not mean citizens in these States do not pay State taxes; revenues are simply collected differently.

It is unfair to give citizens from some States a deduction for the revenue they provide their State and local governments, while not doing the same for citizens from other States. Federal tax law should not treat people differently on the basis of State residence and differing tax collection methods, and it should not provide an incentive for States to establish income taxes over sales taxes.

This discrepancy has a significant impact on Texas. According to the Texas Comptroller, extending the deduction would save Texans a projected $1.2 billion a year, or an average of $520 per filer claiming the deduction. The Texas Comptroller also estimates continuing the deduction is associated with 15,700 to 25,700 Texas jobs and $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion in gross State product.

Recognizing the inequity in the tax code, Congress reinstated the sales tax deduction in 2004 and authorized it for 2 years. In 2006 Congress extended the sales tax deduction for an additional 2 years. Last year, Congress extended the deduction for 2 more years. Unfortunately, the deduction is only in effect through 2009, and we must act to prevent the inequity from returning.

The legislation I am offering today will fix this problem for good by making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent. This will permanently end the discrimination suffered by my fellow Texans and citizens of other States who do not have the option of an income tax deduction.

This legislation is about reestablishing equity to the tax code and defending the important principle of eliminating taxes on taxes. I hope my fellow Senators will support this effort and pass this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to provide permanent tax relief from the marriage penalty--the most egregious, anti-family provision in the tax code. One of my highest priorities in the United States Senate has been to relieve American taxpayers of this punitive burden.

We have made important strides to eliminate this unfair tax and provide marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and enlarging the 15 percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice that of single filers. Before these provisions were changed, 42 percent of married couples paid an average penalty of $1,400.

Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, but it may be fleeting. Even as married couples use the money they now save to put food on the table and clothes on their children, a tax increase looms in the future. Since the 2001 tax relief bill was restricted, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect through 2010. In 2011, marriage will again be a taxable event and a significant number of married couples will again pay more in taxes unless we act decisively. Given the challenges many families face in making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this important reform.

The benefits of marriage are well established, yet, without marriage penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to suffer from child abuse. Research indicates these children are also less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence.

We should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. The bill I am offering would make marriage penalty relief permanent, because marriage should not be a taxable event. I call on the Senate to finish the job we started and make marriage penalty relief permanent today.

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

Mr. President, even before she came to the U.S. Senate, Elizabeth Dole was already a trailblazer and one of the most accomplished women in American history.

At a time when women who attended prestigious colleges and universities were rare, Senator Dole received an undergraduate degree from Duke University, as well as two degrees from Harvard University: a master's degree in education and government, and a law degree. She was one of only 24 women in her Harvard Law School class of 550.

She then began a public service career that paved the way for millions of women who have admired and followed her.

After serving as the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Consumer Affairs in the Nixon administration, Elizabeth Dole was appointed as a member of the Federal Trade Commission.

From 1981-83, she served in the Reagan administration as assistant to the President for Public Liaison.

From 1983-87, she served as Secretary of Transportation, the first woman to hold that position.

She joined the administration of President George H.W. Bush as Secretary of Labor from 1989-90.

From 1991-98, Elizabeth Dole was the President of the American Red Cross, the world's largest humanitarian organization.

Finally, in 2002, she won election to the U.S. Senate from North Carolina.

As the senior Senator from the Tar Heel State, Elizabeth Dole has fought for lower taxes, choice in Social Security, and comprehensive energy reform.

Senator Dole, and her wonderful husband, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, have made a tremendous impact on American history.

I will miss working with Senator Elizabeth Dole, and I wish her all the best.

Gordon Smith

Gordon Smith has served the people of Oregon extremely well.

Before coming to the U.S. Senate, he served as director of the family-owned Smith frozen foods company in Weston, Oregon, where he created jobs and spurred economic growth.

Gordon Smith entered politics with his election to the Oregon State Senate in 1992, and he became president of that body in 1995.

Since winning election to the U.S. Senate in 1996, Senator Smith has worked with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle on critical issues.

Senator Smith chaired the Special Committee on Aging, and he also served on the following Senate committees: Commerce, Science and Transportation, Energy and Natural Resources, Finance, and Indian Affairs.

Senator Smith has also courageously used family tragedy as a way to educate and encourage Americans on a very important subject: suicide prevention for young men and women.

In 2004, I was so proud when President Bush signed the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, authorizing $82 million for suicide-prevention and awareness programs at colleges.

Senator Smith also distinguished himself by championing rural Oregonians, including the many farmers and ranchers throughout the mountains and lake areas of his beautiful State.

I thank Gordon Smith for his dedication and service, and I wish him well.

Mr. President, I have really enjoyed working with John Sununu.

John Sununu grew up in Salem, NH, and is one of eight children. He was first introduced to public service at a young age, when his mother served as chairman of the local school board.

John attended public schools, graduated from Salem High School, and received bachelor's and master's degrees in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

John also earned a master's degree in business administration from the Harvard Graduate School of Business.

John Sununu first ran for public office in 1996, winning election in New Hampshire's 1st District and serving three terms in the U.S. House.

In 2002, John defeated both an incumbent Senator and an incumbent Governor to become the youngest member of the U.S. Senate.

As a Senator, John distinguished himself as an innovative legislator, bringing his extensive background in science, engineering, and small business to his work in Washington.

Senator Sununu has been a staunch advocate for low taxes, smarter regulation, and civil liberties.

Senator Sununu is also a man of heart.

I will never forget that in July 2005, to show solidarity with Senator Specter, who had lost his hair due to chemotherapy, Senator Sununu shaved his head.

Since he is still a young man at the age of 44, I suspect that we will be hearing a lot more from John Sununu in the years to come.

I wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about my great friend, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who has served in the U.S. Senate for 40 years and is the longest-serving Republican Senator in history.

On a personal note, I have always enjoyed working with Senator Stevens, and it has been a true privilege to collaborate with him on some of the most important issues facing our great Nation--including energy, health care, and national defense.

Senator Stevens' service to the United States didn't begin when he stepped inside this Chamber. Rather, his service began decades earlier--during some of the most harrowing days of World War II.

Senator Stevens was part of the Greatest Generation who fought and won that global struggle for freedom--flying a C-47 in the China-Burma- India theater.

Incredibly, over 1,000 of Senator Stevens' fellow airmen died ``flying the hump'' and elsewhere in the China-Burma-India theater--a sobering reminder of the high price of freedom.

For his heroic efforts, Senator Stevens later received two Distinguished Flying Crosses and two Air Medals, as well as the Yuan Hai medal awarded by the Republic of China.

After the war, Senator Stevens completed his education at UCLA and Harvard Law School, and then moved to Alaska, which was then a U.S. territory.

In the city of Fairbanks, Senator Stevens practiced law for several years, until he came to Washington, DC to serve in the Eisenhower administration, and also to lobby for Alaska's admittance into the Union--a mission that succeeded in 1959.

When Senator Stevens returned to Alaska, he ran for--and won--a seat in the Alaska House of Representatives, and later became House Majority Leader.

Then, in December 1968, Governor Walter J. Hickel appointed him to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate.

In 1970, the voters of Alaska ratified that choice by electing Senator Stevens to finish that term in a special election, and then re- electing him six more times, always by overwhelming margins.

Senator Stevens' achievements are legendary in this Chamber-- including (but not limited to) Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate--putting him third in line for the Presidency from January 2003 to January 2007.

For his many decades of service, Senator Stevens has received and accepted numerous honors--including having the Anchorage International Airport named after him.

Our entire country has been enriched and improved by his hard work, dedication, and leadership.

I say this, not as a distant observer, but as an up-close witness to his achievements.

Back in 1993, when I first arrived in the U.S. Senate, I was one of only seven female Senators, and if the Senate was a men's club, then the Appropriations Committee was its inner sanctum.

There was not a single woman on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, but that's where I wanted to serve.

I explained to Senator Stevens--who was then the ranking member of the committee--that Texas has more Army soldiers than any other State, more Air Force Airmen and women stationed in Texas than any other State, and our defense industry builds everything from fighter aircraft to Army trucks to artillery systems to sophisticated electronics equipment for the Pentagon.

Therefore, it was absolutely essential that a Senator from Texas serve on that committee.

After some careful thought, Senator Stevens agreed and welcomed me to the committee. And since that time, he has been a valuable mentor to me--not to mention a passionate advocate for Alaska and America.

And when I say passion, I really do mean passion.

Senator Stevens has been known to show dramatic performances on the Senate floor, keeping wandering eyes focused on the urgent issues that need to be addressed.

One day, during a mark-up in the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, who chaired the committee at the time, grew very animated and laid down the law.

When a frustrated senior Senator told Senator Stevens that ``there was no reason to lose your temper,'' Senator Stevens glared back and responded, ``I never lose my temper. I always know exactly where I left it.''

But if Senator Stevens has a temper, he also has a compassionate heart.

I will never forget when a group of protestors gathered outside of the Appropriations Committee conference to demand increased funding for breast cancer research.

One particularly agitated advocate got in Senator Stevens' face and said, ``If men were dying of breast cancer, you wouldn't think twice about increasing the funding.''

Needless to say, those words made quite an impact on Senator Stevens, but probably not what this advocate anticipated.

When Senator Stevens walked back into the conference, he repeated the charge and then looked around at his mostly male colleagues.

He knew that at least six of them suffered from prostate cancer.

He also noticed that the bill they were considering didn't fund prostate cancer research.

But thanks to the excellent suggestion of the woman in the hallway, he was going to advocate breast cancer research and prostate cancer research. Senator Stevens was determined to become a leader on these issues, and over time, that is certainly what he's become.

I congratulate Senator Stevens on all that he's accomplished for Alaska and America, and I wish him well in his retirement.

Mr. President, I so appreciate hearing the many stories that Ted Stevens has generated in this body. He has been a friend to everyone who has served all of the time with him. People say: Ted took care of Alaska. Ted did take care of Alaska. But from my standpoint, what I saw is that Ted made sure that every State was taken care of, that every Senator's priorities were met, if at all possible. He

took care of the military. He took care of upgrading the military bases because, of course, he served in the military. And he wanted more than anything for our military people to have the quality of life they deserved. So I see him as someone who has been what people say is so rare in this city, and that is a true friend.

It has been mentioned a couple of times that he has a gruff exterior. When I see pictures of him in the newspaper and he is looking like this, it is not the Ted Stevens we know. It is not the person who has endeared himself to our colleagues for years and years and years in the Senate. That is his manner, but I always said behind his back: He is all bark and no bite. He is the most loyal friend and the person you could go to when you needed advice, as I know his great colleague from Alaska, Senator Murkowski, has done many times, as have I, but also when you needed help.

I, too, have traveled with Ted Stevens and Danny Inouye because I was fortunate enough, with Ted's help, to get on the Defense Appropriations Committee. So we went to the garden spots of the world such as Bosnia, when the Serbs had been shooting from the hills, and when we went undercover with flight jackets, undercover of delivering 2,000 pounds of peas to the many refugees who were in Bosnia at the time. We came into the Sarajevo airport with our helmets on and our flight jackets. Of course, it was a war-torn city. We saw later, when we went there, the former Olympic fields that were burial grounds because they had no place else to put the people who had died in these terrible, tragic circumstances in Bosnia.

I went with Ted Stevens and Danny Inouye to Saudi Arabia where I was told later that it was actually discouraged that a woman would be in a delegation. But Ted Stevens said: No way was there ever going to be discrimination against a Senator. I was a part of that delegation. I went to our airbase there. I went and met with everyone we met with as a delegation. I spoke in my turn, just as every member of our delegation did, because Ted Stevens was always going to stand up for the right of every Senator to be a part of a foreign delegation.

I went to the farm bureau air show with Ted Stevens. There is nothing more joyous than Ted Stevens when he is in an air museum or at an air show. He is an aviator to his core. He asked all the questions. He knew most of the answers already because he knows airplanes and he knows aviation.

I know what this man has been through for the last few months. I know the toll it takes on himself and his family.

I am proud to stand with Ted Stevens because I value his friendship and all he has done for me in my term in the Senate and what he has done for Texas every time I have needed for Texas to be taken care of.

I will say two things in conclusion about Ted Stevens. His country has never called that he has not answered the call--from the military, to being in the Eisenhower administration, to fighting for Alaska to be a State, and then fighting to make Alaska a great State. It is a great State.

It would not be the State it is without your leadership, Ted.

But I want to say the most important thing I think you could say about anyone you know; that is, those who know him best love him most.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I thank my friends from the Appropriations Committee along with Commerce Committee Chairman Inouye for their leadership and agreement on this issue. In the absence of explicit authority and in response to the GAO determination, I join my colleagues in urging DOT to cease action on any current auction proposal.

I believe market based solutions should play a role in the future of our congested airports, but the path the Department has taken is shortsighted, untimely and according to the GAO, apparently illegal. Instead, the Department should further focus on mitigating delays through capacity enhancements at congested airports.

How much time is remaining on our side?

Mr. President, I would like to reserve that time and put it into the next bill coming forward, the Amtrak bill, so we would then have 16 minutes.

Mr. President, I wanted to make sure everyone knows we have 30 minutes allocated for Amtrak, and then the majority leader, Senator Reid, also intends to go back, before the vote starts, and use his leader time at his discretion.

I rise to talk about the Amtrak reauthorization bill which will be the first vote tonight. I start out by thanking my colleague, Senator Smith from Oregon, for all of the good work he has done on the rail safety portion of this bill; also Senator Lautenberg, the majority member who has worked so hard on the Amtrak portion; and Senators Inouye and Senator Stevens, the chairman and ranking member of our committee during most of the negotiations on this big, very important bill.

I think we have come to a very good position on Amtrak and on rail safety, and the legislation before us combines these two important bills that were written with separate subcommittees. I have worked on rail safety since I came to the Senate in 2004 when Union Pacific was going through a rash of accidents. The Department of Transportation initiated a compliance review at the request of myself and all the members of the Texas Congressional delegation.

The rail safety component of this legislation will reduce driver fatigue by ensuring that train employees receive adequate rest between shifts. The recent accident in California has led many to call for the implementation of new safety technologies on trains. Our legislation requires the Department of Transportation to develop a plan for implementation of positive train control systems on trains by the end of 2015.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very important bipartisan legislation.

Financial Bailout

Mr. President, the later votes we will take tonight are on another major piece of legislation. We have been hearing the debate on it all afternoon, really for the last 2 weeks. I want to start by saying that stabilizing our economy is the most important responsibility our Congress has right now. I did not vote for the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac bailout. I did not. I did not vote for that because I did not think there was enough taxpayer protection, nor were there limits on executive compensation packages.

When Secretary Paulson came before us last week and said he wanted to have the power to spend up to $700 billion, I would not have supported that package, because, again, there were not enough taxpayer protections, there were not enough limits on executive compensation, and there was not enough oversight.

But in my 15 years in the Senate, I have never seen a more bipartisan effort in Congress to sit down and come to a real conclusion for the good of our country, putting Republican and Democratic labels aside, to say: We know it is our responsibility to save the financial integrity of our country for every person who has a pension

fund, for every person who has a lifetime savings in a bank, for every person who has worked hard all their lives to buy their homes, and to want to be able to own that home and pay off their mortgage.

I am speaking for every person who has gone to the bank for a loan in the last 4 days, because they are being told there is no ability to loan right now. I am talking about a State that goes to the markets for municipal funding and does not get one bid despite a triple A rating. Do we have the option of sitting here and seeing this happen in our country and saying: You know, I do not like this part of that bill or that part of that bill, so I am going to vote no?

I do not say that any person voting no is not doing it because of their own convictions, but I am saying that from my standpoint, the people who have elected me to represent them in the Senate, I have worked in every way I could to get the taxpayer protections, to get the oversight of Congress, to have the board that would make a difference in maybe what could be done by the Treasury, the way they put together these packages, to make sure there is an upside for the taxpayer, which there is in this bill, that the taxpayers will have an ownership stake if there is an upside, and that it will pay down debt. It is not going anywhere else but paying down debt to start getting our fiscal house in order. Then the House put in a provision that I thought was very sound. After 5 years, if the Government is facing a loss in the program, the President will be required to submit a plan to determine how we recoup from the financial companies that have been benefited, whatever the loss might be to the taxpayer.

This legislation also increases the FDIC limits to protect those people who have their life savings in a bank, so they will not worry they might be wiped out when it is announced, when they wake up in the morning, that their bank has gone under.

There is very important tax policy in this bill that was added since the House turned down the bill, that was agreed to by the bipartisan working group, very important tax policies. It will give relief of the AMT to 23 million more low- and middle-income taxpayers in our country. AMT is eating up the ability for families to be able to save for their college education for their children.

It also extends the tax incentives that will spur energy production and innovation, wind energy, production tax credit, research and development tax credits, sales tax deductions for States that do not have an income tax.

It also includes help for our disaster areas, to give tax credits to developers who will help build low-income housing in the 29 Texas counties that still have not even been able to clean up their streets yet from Hurricane Ike.

We have added much to this bill from the original proposal. I agree with something the Senator from California said a few minutes ago: People think this is the same proffer that was made a week ago that had no oversight, no taxpayer protections, no upside for the taxpayer, no limits on executive compensation. That is not what we are talking up tonight. What we are talking up tonight does have improvements made by Congress, doing everything we can, that if this is passed and it is run right, the taxpayers will actually benefit, and we will start paying down the debt of our country.

Senators Reid and McConnell, Senators Dodd and Judd Gregg, Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Frank, Congressman Boehner, Congressman Blunt, have been a bipartisan working group with the President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury, to attempt to do all that we laid out to the Secretary that we wanted to see in the legislation that was not there when he first came forward. He has bent over backwards to try to make sure that we have those protections in place. I urge my colleagues to remember they have been elected by the people of their State to make the tough decisions. They have been elected not to go on what would be their preference for one part of the bill that might not have gotten in. None of us would have written this exactly the way it is written. But we all did have the basic standards of taxpayer protection, giving the taxpayers an upside, of limiting executive compensation when somebody has run a financial institution into the ground, increasing the FDIC limits so that people who have their life savings in a bank will be able to know that is safe.

If anything, the Government of the United States of America ought to be able to stabilize its financial markets to show the world that we are the most stable and leading democracy in the world, and that we can get our house in order. I hope every one of us will think carefully about a tough vote, yes, but a vote that is right for the long term of our country.

If the program is done correctly, it provides every possibility for taxpayers to have an upside. It also provides every possibility that there will be the oversight that will make sure everything is done with transparency.

This isn't a $700 billion package. This is a $250 billion package with contingencies and strings, if we have to go beyond that, strings the President would have to agree to, strings Congress would have to agree to. That is a much more measured and responsible approach than what was presented by the Secretary early on--a $700 billion bailout. It is not that anymore. It is a responsible, bipartisan effort to stand up for the economy of the United States and for every banker and every small investor and every saver and every working person who depends on that stability and depends on their elected officials to do the right thing in the toughest of times. That is what we promised when every one of us ran for election. I hope we will deliver it tonight.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, is there time left on the majority side?

Mr. President, I want to reiterate something the Senator from California mentioned, and that is, the rail safety part of this bill is actually a bill that was negotiated separately from the Amtrak bill. We put them together because time was of the essence. After that terrible crash in California, I think it spurred us to be

able to put these together and go forward. The positive train control that will be required for every rail carrier by the year 2015 is going to also have a major impact on safety and stop the crashes that are preventable that we have seen in the past. So I think there are a number of rail safety issues that are so important here that can make a difference.

At this time, Mr. President, I wish to yield up to 2 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the rail safety and Amtrak authorization bill. This is a bill that I think will move forward a major alternative option for our passengers and for the mobility of our country--Amtrak.

Most people think of Amtrak as the Northeast corridor, and going from Boston all the way through New York and Washington and on down through Florida. That is a very important route. In fact, that route has more than 2,600 trains operating every day. So it is a major part of our transportation infrastructure in what is called the Northeast corridor.

However, we have a national system for Amtrak as well. It is a national system that goes, of course, down the east coast, as I mentioned, but it also goes down the west coast. It goes all the way up and down the west coast. It has lines that go across the top of our country, across the bottom of our country east to west, and right down the middle, what is called the Texas Eagle, which goes from Chicago, down through St. Louis, down into Texas, and across to San Antonio, where it meets the Sunset Limited, which goes from California to Florida.

So we have the skeleton of a national system. It is a system we must preserve. It is a system that has become more and more of an option as gasoline prices have increased. We saw how many people went to train use after 9/11, when the aviation industry was shut down. It is something we must support and keep.

Now we are increasing ridership every year. During fiscal year 2007, 25.8 million passengers, representing the fifth straight fiscal year of record ridership, boarded Amtrak. Ridership is up 7 percent more over this time last year, as people have gone to the trains because of the high gasoline prices.

This bill authorizes $2.6 billion annually over 5 years. It authorizes that amount. In Congress we authorize, and then the appropriations come later on an annual basis. And $2.6 billion would be the ceiling for the next 5 years for Amtrak. But to put this in perspective, when we are talking about alternatives in our transportation system, we have authorized, in SAFETEA-LU, the highway authorization bill, $40 billion. The FAA bill, introduced in this Congress, proposes to invest $17 billion annually in aviation. Last year we passed a Water Resources Development Act authorizing $23 billion over the next 2 years.

We are talking about $13 billion over 5 years--$2.6 billion each year, which is the very least of the authorizations of any of our transportation systems. If included with the number of passengers served by our aviation industry, in 2007, Amtrak would rank eighth in the number of passengers served, with a market share of right at 4 percent. There are nearly twice as many passengers on an Amtrak train as on a domestic airline flight.

So we have crafted a bill--and I have to tell you honestly, this is not my bill. Actually, it started with Trent Lott. Senator Lautenberg on the majority side now has continued to be a leader in this field. I support the bill Frank Lautenberg and Trent Lott negotiated because it is right for our country. I have always said, for me, Amtrak is national or nothing.

There was a time in this Congress when nobody ever talked national. They only talked about saving the Northeast corridor. Of course, that is the rail line that is owned by Amtrak. The other rail lines mostly are not separated, although I would like to see that changed. But we are using freight rail, and we are at the behest of the freight rail lines. So it is not as efficient. But it is very important we keep those relationships and work toward having the separate lines on those rail rights of way. Today, we are talking about a national system.

There was a time when we only talked about the Northeast corridor.

But many of us who are on the national lines, who have been supportive of the Northeast corridor, said: Wait a minute. We cannot create a stepchild in the rest of the country. If my taxpayers in Texas and Trent Lott's taxpayers--now Thad Cochran's and Roger Wicker's taxpayers--are subsidizing Amtrak in the Northeast corridor, we want to have a chance at the national system because it has so much potential to work with States and cities to use mass transit systems that feed into the national system, and it will help all of us with mobility. In fact, all of those who support the Northeast corridor have been very supportive also of the national system.

We have had a partnership in Congress for the last 10 years that I have been here to make sure we are making Amtrak financially responsible with the least amount of Federal help of any of the transportation modes. Highways are $40 billion a year. We are $2.6 billion a year. So we have a bill that has been crafted, I think, in the very most responsible way. I recommend it, and I appreciate very much the opportunity to take this bill as we have crafted it, with a lot of give and take, and recommend to the Congress and the Senate we pass it today.

Mr. President, I wish to yield up to 5 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from the Acting President pro tempore's home Commonwealth of Virginia, one who I have to say has been a longtime supporter of Amtrak and has been such a leader in this Congress. This is his last term in Congress. He has decided not to seek reelection. He is someone who has been a leader not only on Amtrak but certainly on our military affairs for our country, the man whom we call the squire, the senior Senator from Virginia.

I say to Senator Warner, thank you. It is my pleasure to have supported Amtrak from the day I walked in the door 15 years ago. I think the partnership between the Northeast corridor supporters of Amtrak and the rest of the country supporters has created a much stronger system. We are seeing that in the ridership. I think if we make the commitment to Amtrak we make to the other modes of transportation, it will be better for our whole country and give more options to the people of our country.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, I wish to say on that point, the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia has mentioned how important the Metro part of it is. I think he has represented so well the interests of all the people who live and work in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia.

It also applies, I would expand, to the visitors to our capital because the rail line on Amtrak that goes from Baltimore Airport to the District, our capital, and from Washington National Airport to our capital, has been so helped by having this kind of service from Amtrak at National Airport or Baltimore to be able to get on that train and come visit our capital. That is a mode of transportation that is used by the millions of visitors who come to visit our capital.

This is part of the mobility we provide to people who bring their families here. It is the most efficient and least costly way to get into the District to show children the opportunity to see our capital. I appreciate the senior Senator from Virginia pointing out that this is part of our responsibility.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 2 minutes for Senator DeMint. I overlooked his coming to the floor. It is my fault. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes and also to give the other side 2 additional minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter be given 2 minutes.