Floor Statements

Mr. President, on Tuesday, October 6, I introduced S. 1756, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act.

To appreciate the need for this bill, consider the case of a hard- working Iowan named Jack Gross. Mr. Gross gave the prime of his life, a quarter century of loyal service, to one company. How did that company reward him for his dedication and hard work? It brazenly demoted him and other employees over the age of 50, and gave their jobs to a younger employee.

Expressly to prevent this kind of discrimination, over 40 years ago Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, ADEA. The ADEA, which made it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of age, was modeled on and used the same language as title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, sex, national origin and religion.

When Mr. Gross sought to enforce his rights, a jury of Iowans heard the facts and found that his employer discriminated against him because of age. That jury awarded him almost $47,000 in lost compensation.

The case was ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court. This past June, in Gross v. FBL Financial, Inc., five Justices rewrote the rules-- indeed, effectively rewrote the law--and ruled against Mr. Gross and other older workers. In doing so, the Court made it harder for those with legitimate age discrimination claims to prevail under the ADEA.

For decades, the law was clear. In 1989, in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Court ruled that if a plaintiff seeking relief under title VII of the Civil Rights Act demonstrated that discrimination was a ``motivating'' or ``substantial'' factor behind the employer's action, the burden shifted to the employer to show it would have taken the same action regardless of the plaintiff's membership in a protecting class. As part of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Congress formally codified the ``motivating factor'' standard with respect to title VII.

Because the Age Discrimination in Employment Act uses the same language as title VII, was modeled off it, and had been interpreted consistent with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, courts correctly and consistently held that a victim bringing suit under the ADEA need only show that membership in a protected class was a ``motivating factor'' in an employer's action--the same standard for plaintiffs claiming discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin. If an employee showed that age was one factor in an employment decision, the burden was on the employer to show it had acted for a legitimate reason other than age.

In Gross, the Court--addressing a question on which it did not grant certiorari--tore up this settled decades old standard. In its place, the Court applied an entirely new standard that makes it prohibitively difficult for a victim to prove age discrimination. According to the Court, a victim of age discrimination bears the full burden of proving that age was not only a motivating factor but the decisive factor.

This extremely high burden radically undermines older workers' ability to hold employers accountable. Bear in mind that unlawful discrimination is often difficult to detect. Obviously, those who discriminate do not often admit they are acting for discriminatory reasons. To the contrary, they go out of their way to conceal their true intent. Discrimination cases rarely involve a smoking gun.

The reality, however, is that while employers rarely post signs saying ``older workers need not apply,'' ageism in the workforce does indeed exist, as Mr. Gross and his colleagues learned the hard way. Indeed, according to an AARP study, 60 percent of older workers have reported that they or someone they know has faced age discrimination in the workplace.

Countless thousands of American workers who are not yet ready to voluntarily retire find themselves jobless or passed over for promotions because of age discrimination. Older workers often face ugly, baseless stereotypes: That they are not as productive as younger workers; that they cannot learn new skills; that they somehow have a lesser need for income to provide for their families.

These stereotypes--and the discrimination they feed--are wrong and immoral. This is also harmful to our economy, inasmuch as it deprives us of the skills and talents of millions of older workers.

The timing of the Court's decision is particularly troubling. As our economy continues to struggle, older workers are being hit particularly hard. According to the Department of Labor, there are 2 million unemployed workers over the age of 55. This is an all-time high since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began matching age and unemployment in 1948. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in 2008 nearly 25,000 age discrimination claims were filed, a 30-percent increase over 2007. Given the stereotypes that older workers face, it is no surprise that, on average they remain unemployed twice as long as all unemployed workers.

The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act reverses

the Court's decision and restores the law to what it was for decades. The bill makes clear that when an employee shows that discrimination was a ``motivating factor'' behind a decision, the burden is properly on the employer to show it complied with the law.

The act is modeled on part of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which passed the Senate 93-5. As under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, once a plaintiff establishes that age was a motivating factor, the burden shifts to the employer. If the employer establishes that the same decision would have been made regardless of discrimination, the employer remains liable, but remedies are limited.

Only the employer is in a position to know his or her own mind and offer an explanation as to why a decision that involves discrimination was actually motivated by legitimate reasons. By putting the entire burden on the worker to demonstrate the absence or insignificance of other factors, the Court in effect gave employers license to discriminate, so long as they do not actually say they are singling out an employee solely because of age.

Finally, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act makes clear that the ``motivating factor'' framework applies to all antidiscrimination and antiretaliation laws.

In Gross, Justice Thomas defended the Court's radical departure from well-established law by noting that the Court ``cannot ignore Congress' decision to amend title VII's relevant provisions but not make similar changes to the ADEA.'' In other words, the Court found that because Congress, in the Civil Rights Act, codified the ``motivating factor'' framework for title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but not for the ADEA, Congress somehow must have intended Price Waterhouse not to apply to any statute but title VII. This is a serious misreading of the intent of Congress.

Unfortunately, this reasoning in Gross has already had reverberations in other civil rights cases since many antidiscrimination and antiretaliation statutes utilize similar language as title VII and the ADEA. As the Seventh Circuit recently held, ``[Gross] holds that, unless a statute (such as the Civil Rights Act of 1991) provides otherwise, demonstrating but-for causation is part of the plaintiff's burden in all suits under federal law.''

The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, therefore makes clear that Congress is in no way questioning the ``motivating factor'' framework in other antidiscrimination and antiretaliation statutes.

The aim of this bill is very simple. It reiterates what Congress said 40 years ago when it passed the ADEA: When an employer makes an employment decision it is illegal for age to be a factor. A person should not be judged arbitrarily because he or she was born on or before a certain year, despite the fact that he or she still has the ability to contribute as much, or more, as the next person. This bill will help ensure that all our citizens have an opportunity commensurate with their abilities, for productive employment.

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

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the senior Senator from Arizona. The amendment by Senator McCain singles out one instance of congressionally directed funding that I had included in the bill now before us, fiscal year 2010 Interior appropriations. The Senator claims this earmark, which provides $200,000 in funding for repair and renovation of the historic Des Moines Art Center, is somehow inappropriate and should be removed from the bill. Well, it comes as no surprise that I strenuously disagree.

First of all, as a constitutional matter, I take issue with the premise underlying the Senator's amendment--the idea that Congress has no business directing the expenditure of Federal moneys to earmarks, that there is something inherently wrong or evil in this traditional practice, and that only the executive branch should determine where Federal moneys are spent. Well, I beg to differ.

The Constitution, article I, section, 9, expressly gives Congress the power of the purse. The executive branch can't spend one nickel unless this Congress gives it the authority to do so. Over the centuries, over the last couple hundred years, we have given to the executive branch the authority to make budgets, spend money on different things through all the different departments and agencies, but if Congress wanted to, we could take it all back. We could take it all back because the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to spend money.

What is more, compared to executive branch individuals, Members of Congress have a much better understanding of where and how Federal funds can be spent most effectively in their respective districts and States, and that is certainly the case with the earmark in question.

I assume the Senator from Arizona doesn't know a lot about the Des Moines Art Center. Well, let me explain it for the Record. The Des Moines Art Center encompasses three nationally significant buildings, two of which have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places since 2004. One of these buildings was designed by the famous architect, Eliel Saarinen, and another by the world renowned I.M. Pei. These buildings are architectural gems but, unfortunately, they have suffered from deterioration over the years.

So I secured the modest funding in this earmark--$200,000--for the specific purpose of replacing windows that were causing inconsistent temperatures and high condensation, resulting in damage to the building's plaster, the wood paneling, and the floors. There is nothing the least bit wasteful or frivolous about these renovations. In fact, they will create jobs and put people to work.

I also wish to point out that this funding is awarded through an authorized program called Save America's Treasures. This program was established within the National Park Service to protect:

America's threatened cultural treasures, including historic

structures, collections, works of art, maps and journals that

document and illuminate the history and culture of the United

States.

Money for the program is awarded both competitively through grants and through congressionally designated funding.

Over the years, the Save America's Treasures Program has helped to protect many important buildings and artifacts across our country. There is no question that the Des Moines Art Center is both worthy and in urgent need of this modest funding. The buildings of the center, as I said, are architectural masterpieces. They contribute mightily to making Iowa's capital city a livable, attractive urban center with a lively cultural scene.

Bear in mind that the Des Moines Art Center is a cultural institution in the State of Iowa, drawing hundreds of thousands of visitors not only from Iowa but from around the United States and from all over the world every year. In the last 12 months, the center has served nearly half a million people. School kids from all over our State come into Des Moines in buses from their schools out in the countryside, out in the small districts, to go to the art center to see these magnificent, wonderful works of art and the buildings themselves.

I wish to emphasize that in terms of fundraising for renovations and operations, the art center and the Des Moines community are more than pulling their own weight. The center currently is in the midst of a $34 million fundraising campaign. However, only $7.5 million of that is for capital and building improvement. The remaining $26.5 million is for the center's operating endowment. That allows the art center to be free and open to the entire community all year-round. Moreover, the $200,000 in Federal funds will leverage $1.9 million in public and private challenge grants--not a bad leveraging of Federal dollars.

The fact is, the Des Moines Art Center is struggling to meet its fundraising targets in any and all ways possible, including in relatively modest increments. The center has received $275,000 from Polk County--that is the county encompassing our capital city of Des Moines. They received $25,000 from the city of Des Moines. At this point, the center has exhausted their private fundraising options. So the $200,000 grant from the Federal Government, along with the additional $1.9 million that it will leverage, is critical to meeting the center's goal of renovation.

I appreciate this opportunity to share with our colleagues my reasons for including this earmark in the bill before us. I am proud of this congressionally directed funding. It would go to a worthy and urgent public purpose.

I believe the effort by Senator McCain to remove this money from the bill is misguided, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the McCain amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the period of morning business be extended to 2:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, as I look around this Chamber, I see men and women of remarkable talents and abilities. I also have a strong sense, we all do, that there is a tremendous void now in our midst. A very special Senator, a very special friend, a Member who played a unique role within this body for nearly a half century is no longer with us.

We have had many glowing and richly earned tributes to Senator Ted Kennedy over these last couple of weeks. He was not only the most accomplished and effective Senator of the last 50 years, he was truly one of the towering figures in the entire history of the Senate. Yet for all his accomplishments, for all the historic bills he authored and shepherded into law, for all the titanic battles he fought, I will remember Ted Kennedy first and foremost as just a good and decent human being.

I remember his extraordinary generosity, his courage, his passion, his capacity for friendship and caring, and, of course, that great sense of humor. I remember one time I was in my office and we had a phone conversation. It was about a disagreement we had. It was right at St. Patrick's Day so we were having this discussion on the phone and tempers got a little heated. I think I was holding the phone out about like this. He probably was too. I think our voices got raised to a very high decibel level, sort of yelling at each other, and pretty soon we just hung up on each other.

I felt very badly; I know he did too. So several hours later, when I came on the Senate floor and I saw Ted at his desk, I went up to him, I pulled up a chair next to him. He would get that kind of pixie smile on his face, have a twinkle in his eye.

I said: Ted, I'm sorry about that conversation we had. I should not have lost my temper as I did. I said: My staff is a little concerned about our relationship.

He sort of got that great smile and chuckled. Well, he said, forget about it. I just told my staff that is just the way two Irish men celebrate St. Patrick's Day.

That is just the way he was. He could disarm you immediately and you would move on. He had a great disarming sense of humor.

Ted came from a remarkable family--so many tough breaks, so many triumphs, so many contributions to our Nation--both in war and in peace. Ted and his siblings were born into great wealth. They could have lived lives of luxury and leisure, but they chose instead to devote themselves to public service. They devoted themselves to making the world a better place for others, especially those in the shadows of life.

There are so many things I could focus on this morning in my brief remarks, but I want to focus on just one aspect of Ted Kennedy: all that he did to improve the lives of people with disabilities in our country. I thought about this: With the death of Eunice Kennedy Shriver on August 11, and all she did to found the Special Olympics now being carried on by her son Tim, then the death of Ted on August 25, people with disabilities in this country lost two great champions.

Their sister Rosemary lived her entire life with a severe intellectual disability. The entire Kennedy family is well acquainted with the joys and struggles of those with disabilities. Those of us who were in the church in Boston at the funeral--and those probably watching on television--heard the very eloquent speech by Teddy Jr. about his battle with cancer at a young age, losing his leg and his confronting his disabilities, and how Ted helped him get through that.

In 1975, Senator Kennedy helped to pass what is now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act--IDEA. In 1978 he passed legislation expanding the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Commission to protect people from discrimination on the basis of disability. In 1980 he introduced the Civil Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act, protecting the rights of people in government institutions, including the elderly and people with intellectual and mental disabilities.

Nineteen years ago he was one of my most important leaders and partners in passing the Americans with Disabilities Act--1990. I will never forget, after I had been in the Senate for 2 years, Republicans were in charge, and then in 1986 Democrats came back, took charge, and Senator Kennedy wanted me on his education and health committee. I sort of played a little hard to get.

I said: Well, maybe, but I am really interested in disability issues. He knew about that. He knew about my work on some of the stuff I had done in the House before I came here, especially for people with hearing problems. I said I would like to come on his committee, but I said I would be interested in working on disability issues.

He got back to me and said: Tell you what, I have the Disability Policy Subcommittee and you can chair it.

I am a freshman Senator. He didn't have to do that for me. I was astounded at his great generosity. So I have always appreciated that. He had already had this great, extensive record on disability issues. Yet he let me take the lead. Then when the Americans with Disabilities Act came up, he could have taken that himself. He was the chairman of the committee.

As I said, he had this long history of championing the causes of people with disabilities. Yet he knew how passionately I felt about it, and he let me author the bill. He let me take it on the floor. He let me be the floor manager of it and put my name on it. He didn't have to do that. He was the chairman. He could have had his name on it. He could have floor-managed it. But he let me do it in spite of the fact that I was just a freshman Senator.

He was an indispensable leader in bringing disparate groups together to get the Americans with Disabilities Act passed. I will never forget that great act of generosity on his part in letting me take the lead.

Ted always insisted that our focus should be not on disability but on ability; that people with disabilities must be fully included in our American family. Americans with disabilities had no

better friend, no tougher fighter, no more relentless champion than Ted Kennedy.

Yesterday I accepted the chairmanship of the Senate HELP Committee, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. It is a great honor and a great challenge and, I must add, somewhat daunting to carry on the legacy of Senator Ted Kennedy. He dedicated his life to making our economy work for all Americans, to secure a quality education for every child and, of course, securing quality, affordable health care for every citizen as a right and not a privilege.

In the Democratic cloakroom, there is a page from the Cape Cod Times with a wonderful picture of Ted and a quote from him. Here is the quote:

Since I was a boy I have known the joy of sailing the

waters of Cape Cod and for all my years in public life I have

believed that America must sail toward the shores of liberty

and justice for all. There is no end to that journey, only

the next great voyage.

We have heard many eloquent tributes to Senator Kennedy. But the tribute that would matter most for him would be for his colleagues to come together, on a bipartisan basis, to pass a strong, comprehensive health reform bill this year.

It is time for us to sail ahead on this next great voyage to a better and more just and more caring America. So as we sadly contemplate the empty desk draped in black, we say farewell to a beloved colleague. He is no longer with us, but his work continues. His spirit is here. And as he said, the cause endures.

May Ted Kennedy rest in peace. But may we not rest until we have completed the cause of his life, the cause he fought for until his last breath, ensuring quality, affordable health care for every American.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that April Saylor and Elyse Kamps of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts, in introducing the IDEA Full Funding Act. The aim of this legislation is to ensure, at long last, that Congress makes good on a commitment it made more than three decades ago when we passed what is now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. At that time, in 1975, we told children with disabilities, their families, schools, and States that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the extra cost of special education. We have never lived up to that commitment and only recently came close because of the one-time investment through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

As we introduce this bill, our children are beginning another school year. Some are meeting new teachers and going to new classrooms. Some are starting at a completely new school with new opportunities for success and new challenges. Yet we are still shortchanging children with disabilities and their educational opportunities.

We tell our children all the time to keep their promises, to live up to their commitments, to do as they say they are going to do. We teach them that if they fail to do so, other people can be hurt. Well, that is what Congress has done by failing to appropriately fund IDEA: We have hurt school children all

across America. We have pitted children with disabilities against other children for a limited pool of school funds. We have put parents in the position of not demanding services that their child with a disability truly needs, because they have been told that the services cost too much and other children would suffer. We have hurt school districts, which are forced, in effect, to rob Peter to pay Paul in order to provide services to students with disabilities. We have also hurt local taxpayers, who are obliged to pay higher property taxes and other local taxes in order to pay for IDEA services because the Federal Government has reneged on its commitment.

I was pleased that we were able to increase funding for the IDEA grants to States program as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act this year to $22.8 billion. That represents 34 percent of the additional funding needed to support special education. However, the Recovery Act is a one-time investment designed to address a crisis caused by the recession that could have resulted in the loss of thousands of teachers and programs students need to be successful. Without the Recovery Act, IDEA grants are currently funded at around 17 percent of the cost of special education programs. So we have a long way to go to reach the 40 percent level. But it is time to do so. It is time for the Federal Government to make good on its promise to students with disabilities in this country.

The IDEA Full Funding Act is pretty straightforward. It authorizes increasing amounts of mandatory funding in 6 year increments that, in addition to the discretionary funding allocated through the Appropriations Committee, will finally meet the Federal Government's commitment to educating children with disabilities.

This bill is a win-win-win for the American people. Students with disabilities will get the education services that they need in order to achieve and succeed. School districts will be able to provide these services without cutting into their general education budgets. Local property tax payers will get relief.

Full funding of IDEA is not a partisan issue. We all share an interest in ensuring that children with disabilities get an appropriate education, and that local school districts do not have to slash their general education budgets in order to pay for special education. We all share a sense of responsibility to make good on the promise Congress made to fully fund its promised share of special education costs.

In the 3 decades since Congress passed IDEA, and in the 8 years since we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we have dramatically increased opportunities for students with disabilities. Likewise, we are holding local systems accountable in unprecedented ways. It is time for us in Congress also to be held accountable. It is time for us to make good on our promise to fully fund IDEA. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Kansas, Senator Roberts, in introducing the IDEA Full Funding Act. The aim of this legislation is to ensure, at long last, that Congress makes good on a commitment it made more than three decades ago when we passed what is now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. At that time, in 1975, we told children with disabilities, their families, schools, and States that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of the extra cost of special education. We have never lived up to that commitment and only recently came close because of the one-time investment through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

As we introduce this bill, our children are beginning another school year. Some are meeting new teachers and going to new classrooms. Some are starting at a completely new school with new opportunities for success and new challenges. Yet we are still shortchanging children with disabilities and their educational opportunities.

We tell our children all the time to keep their promises, to live up to their commitments, to do as they say they are going to do. We teach them that if they fail to do so, other people can be hurt. Well, that is what Congress has done by failing to appropriately fund IDEA: We have hurt school children all

across America. We have pitted children with disabilities against other children for a limited pool of school funds. We have put parents in the position of not demanding services that their child with a disability truly needs, because they have been told that the services cost too much and other children would suffer. We have hurt school districts, which are forced, in effect, to rob Peter to pay Paul in order to provide services to students with disabilities. We have also hurt local taxpayers, who are obliged to pay higher property taxes and other local taxes in order to pay for IDEA services because the Federal Government has reneged on its commitment.

I was pleased that we were able to increase funding for the IDEA grants to States program as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act this year to $22.8 billion. That represents 34 percent of the additional funding needed to support special education. However, the Recovery Act is a one-time investment designed to address a crisis caused by the recession that could have resulted in the loss of thousands of teachers and programs students need to be successful. Without the Recovery Act, IDEA grants are currently funded at around 17 percent of the cost of special education programs. So we have a long way to go to reach the 40 percent level. But it is time to do so. It is time for the Federal Government to make good on its promise to students with disabilities in this country.

The IDEA Full Funding Act is pretty straightforward. It authorizes increasing amounts of mandatory funding in 6 year increments that, in addition to the discretionary funding allocated through the Appropriations Committee, will finally meet the Federal Government's commitment to educating children with disabilities.

This bill is a win-win-win for the American people. Students with disabilities will get the education services that they need in order to achieve and succeed. School districts will be able to provide these services without cutting into their general education budgets. Local property tax payers will get relief.

Full funding of IDEA is not a partisan issue. We all share an interest in ensuring that children with disabilities get an appropriate education, and that local school districts do not have to slash their general education budgets in order to pay for special education. We all share a sense of responsibility to make good on the promise Congress made to fully fund its promised share of special education costs.

In the 3 decades since Congress passed IDEA, and in the 8 years since we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we have dramatically increased opportunities for students with disabilities. Likewise, we are holding local systems accountable in unprecedented ways. It is time for us in Congress also to be held accountable. It is time for us to make good on our promise to fully fund IDEA. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam President, I am proud to support the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Sotomayor's story is proof of the central American promise: that any person, by sheer force of their talent, can rise from the humblest background to one of the highest offices in this country. Born to a Puerto Rican family, Judge Sotomayor grew up in public housing in the South Bronx. Her father, a tool-and-die worker with a third grade education, died when she was nine years old. Due to her mother's struggle and sacrifice, and Judge Sotomayor's tremendous ability and perseverance, she graduated valedictorian of her high school in New York, then graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University.

She went on to earn her law degree from Yale Law School, where she was editor of the Yale Law Journal. After law school, Judge Sotomayor served as an assistant district attorney in New York County for 5 years and then entered private practice as a corporate litigator. For the past 17 years, she has served as a Federal district and appellate court judge.

Given her experiences and career, there is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor is immensely qualified to serve on our Nation's highest Court. What is clear from her 17-year judicial career, from my meeting with her, and from her confirmation hearing is that she is an unbiased, mainstream judge with a deep commitment to the rule of law and constitutional values. She has an exemplary record during her tenure on the bench, and every independent analysis has made clear that she is a judge who faithfully applies the law.

Given her record, I am saddened that many Republicans have chosen to grossly distort her record, and have spent so much time focusing on a few out-of-context quotes and less than a handful of decisions. Putting rhetoric aside, she has participated in nearly 3,000 decisions and authored approximately 400 opinions. Her 17-year record overwhelmingly demonstrates that she is anything but a ``judicial activist.''

Considering her outstanding intellect, credentials and judicial record, there simply is no doubt Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed. However, for me, there is another, equally important, consideration. I also firmly believe that Judge Sotomayor will be an important and needed voice on the Court to ensure proper effect is given to our most important statutes, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, the Civil Rights Act, and the Age Discrimination Employment Act, ADEA, so all Americans receive the fullest protections of the law.

This is illustrated in an area of the law that I care deeply about-- disabilities rights. Unfortunately, as many in Congress know, the Rehnquist Court repeatedly misread the ADA, ignored the intent of Congress and narrowed the scope of individuals deemed eligible for protection under the ADA. The result of these decisions was to eliminate protection for countless thousands of Americans with disabilities. These flawed, harmful decisions were reversed last year when Congress unanimously enacted the ADA Amendments Act.

The contrast between the Rehnquist Court and Judge Sotomayor is stark. In Bartlett v. New York State Board of Bar Examiners, Marilyn Bartlett had a Ph.D. in educational administration and a law degree from Vermont Law School. She was also diagnosed with a disability that affected her reading speed and fluency. After completing law school, Ms. Bartlett worked as an associate and received excellent reviews. However, when she took the bar exam, she was denied accommodation for her reading impairment, such as extra time and permission to record her essays on tape. She failed the exam. The bar claimed that she did not have a disability because the examiners did not believe she was limited in the major life activities of reading or working.

Judge Sotomayor, however, ruled for Ms. Bartlett, holding that a student with learning disabilities was entitled to an accommodation while taking the bar exam. Understanding the true purposes of the ADA, she noted:

For those of us for whom words sing, sentences paint

pictures, and paragraphs create panoramic views of the world,

the inability to identify and process words with ease would

be crippling. Plaintiff, an obviously intelligent, highly

articulate individual reads slowly, haltingly, and

laboriously. She simply does not read in the manner of an

average person. I reject the basic premise of defendants'

experts that a learning disability in reading can be

identified solely by a person's inability to decode, i.e.,

identify words, as measured by standardized tests, and I

accept instead the basic premise of plaintiff's experts that

a learning disability in reading has to be identified in the

context of an individual's total processing difficulties.

As the Congressional Research Service noted, ``She anticipated the legislative discussions surrounding the ADA Amendments Act by finding the use of self accommodations did not mean that the plaintiff was not an individual with a disability.''

The contrast between Judge Sotomayor's approach to judging--with her respect for congressional intent and for long-standing precedent--and the current Court's activism is likewise illustrated by their respective treatment of so called ``mixed motive'' discrimination cases.

In June of this year, the Supreme Court decided Gross v. FBL Financial, Inc. In a case involving an Iowan, Jack Gross, the Court made it harder for those with legitimate age discrimination claims to prevail under the ADEA. In doing so, it reversed a well established, 20-year-old standard, consistent with that under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that a plaintiff need only show that membership in a protected class was a ``motivating factor'' in an employer's action. Instead, the Court held that a plaintiff alleging age discrimination must prove that an employment action would not have been taken against him or her ``but for'' age. In other words, the plaintiff must now prove that age discrimination was not a cause or a motivating factor, but must prove that it was the exclusive cause of an adverse employment action. Proving ``but for'' cause is extremely difficult and will greatly limit potentially meritorious suits involving discrimination Congress sought to prevent.

In doing so, the Court did not even address the question it granted certiorari on. As Justice Stevens noted in dissent, ``I disagree not only with the Court's interpretation of the statute, but also with its decision to engage in unnecessary lawmaking. The Court is unconcerned that the question it chooses to answer has not been briefed by the parties or uninterested amici curie. Its failure to consider the views of the United States, which represents the agency charged with administering the [Age Discrimination Employment Act], is especially irresponsible.''

The contrast with Judge Sotomayor is telling. In Parker v. Columbia Pictures, she addressed the very same question in the disabilities context--whether a plaintiff need show discrimination was a ``motivating factor'' or ``but-for'' cause under the ADA. In contrast to Justice Thomas's opinion in Gross, she carefully analyzed the statutory language, intent of Congress and precedents and noted that ``Congress intended the statute . . . to cover situations in which discrimination on the basis of disability is one factor, but not the only factor, motivating an adverse employment action.''

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has transformed the legal landscape regarding the ability of Congress to protect our most vulnerable citizens. In fact, since 1995, the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have struck down 38 acts of Congress. Until then, the Court had struck down an average of one statute every 2 years.

For example, in University of Alabama v. Garrett, a case I personally attended, the Court limited the rights of people with disabilities. In doing so, it ignored numerous congressional hearings and a task force which collected evidence through 63 public forums around the country attended by more than 7,000 persons. In United States v. Morrison and Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, the Court completely ignored extensive congressional fact-finding and struck down parts of the Violence Against Women's Act and Age Discrimination Employment Act, respectively. In June, in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder, the Court suggested it was poised to strike down the Voting Rights Act, disregarding expansive congressional fact-finding, including 21 hearings and 16,000 pages of testimony.

Given the current Court's repeated disregard for Congress and for our efforts to expansively protect American citizens from discrimination, I believe it is imperative that the next Justice

be someone who respects precedent, strives to apply congressional intent and purpose, and understands the importance of this Nation's landmark civil rights protections. Based on her long judicial record, I am confident Judge Sotomayor is precisely that type of jurist.

Confirmation of Judge Sotomayor will be historic. She clearly has the intellect, experience and judgment to be an outstanding Justice. I am proud to support her nomination.

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

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: What is the order of business right now?

Thirty-minute time limit on?

Mr. President, I have an amendment. I believe it is at the desk. If not, I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, the Car Allowance Rebate Program, or the cash for clunkers as everyone knows it, has been very popular with the American people, there is no doubt about it, the way it has been used. It has been a shot in the arm for the auto industry and our dealers at a very critical time. But I believe the program should be strengthened, and I think we should seize this supplemental time as an opportunity to do just that.

When this program was first authorized last year and we put this into effect, at that time I made the observation, which I will repeat here today, that, why would we want to give $4,500 to the President of the United States, who makes $400,000 a year, so he can buy a new car? Why would we want to give a Member of the Senate, who makes $172,000 a year, $4,500 to buy a new car? Quite frankly, we can afford to buy a new car.

But how about the rest of the American people out there, those who are making $30,000 a year, just above the minimum wage or $35,000 a year or $40,000 a year? How about them? What do they get out of this? Well, they can get $4,500 to buy a new car too. Someone who is making $35,000 a year probably does not have health insurance either. They probably have some old clunker made back in the 1990s or 1980s they are still driving that they are paying a lot for because it is a gas guzzler and they are paying a lot to get it repaired because they cannot afford to buy a new car. If you give them $4,500, many still cannot buy a new car.

So I argued at that time, when we did this, that we ought to put an income limit on it. That way, if you put an income limit on it, then the amount of money we are appropriating--that is what we are doing, by the way, spending taxpayers' money; we are putting this money out there--then that amount of money goes to a smaller subset of people, those who are low and moderate income. If you do that, then you can afford to give them a little bit more money. So someone making $35,000, $30,000, $40,000 a year might be able to get not $4,500 but maybe $7,500, maybe $8,000. Someone in that income category, then, could go out and buy a new car because they could get a loan, say, if they are buying a $16,000 or $17,000 car, and that is what new cars are selling for, at least some of the more modest automobiles. Some of the more modest automobiles cost around $14,000, $16,000, $17,000. So if they got more money, that means they could get a loan for 50 percent of the price. They probably could not get a loan for 75 percent or 80 percent of the price because they simply do not have that much credit. But they could get a loan for maybe half of the price of a car because, obviously, when they drove it away, the value of the car would still be more than that.

So I argued at the time that is what we should do with this money, and that is what I do again with this amendment. This amendment just basically says it limits the income, restricting the participation to individuals with an adjusted gross income of less than $50,000 and families with an adjusted

gross income of less than $75,000. So if you have an adjusted gross income as a single person of less than $50,000, you can participate; if you are a family, with less than $75,000 in adjusted gross income, you can participate.

Again, what I don't have in this amendment is increasing the amount of money.

So that is the thrust of this amendment. I know the program has been very successful. The first $1 billion was rapidly exhausted. I assume the second $2 billion we are going to be voting on would do the same. To my way of thinking, let's get a couple of bangs for the buck. Let's not only stimulate our economy by getting a lot of those cars off the lot and giving a shot in the arm to the auto industry, but let's help some people who really need some help: lower income, moderate-income individuals, and families who, even if you give them $4,500, can't afford to buy that new car. So, to me, that is what we ought to do. We ought to ensure that we get the maximum economic stimulus for every dollar we spend.

If we are going to give a lot of money to people who make $150,000 or $200,000 a year, or whatever--there is no income limit on the bill now--I am not certain that is a lot of economic stimulus. I might like it. I could probably take my car--I forget what year my car is, early 2000--I could take it in and get a new car, and I would get $4,500. But is that fair? Is that fair to someone of my status who makes--let's face it, I make $172,000 a year. Is it fair that I should get $4,500 to go out and buy a new car? I just don't think that is fair. I don't think it is right. But I think it would be right for someone making less than $50,000 a year because they are the ones who need the help. They need some economic stimulus also.

The higher the income of the person, the more likely they are to buy a new car without the rebate and in many cases would do that. Maybe it would not happen this month. But it may very well happen in the months to come.

By only providing money to those who are less likely to buy a car without the government benefit, we have a more efficient use of government dollars.

For the modest income family with an old gas guzzler, they are paying more for gas, they are paying more for repairs because they can afford to repair the car but they can't afford to get a new car, so they are stuck. They really need the help. I always thought cash for clunkers was a great idea--I still do, if it was targeted--if it was targeted and you gave lower and moderate-income people enough money to go out and do this.

So I think the $1 billion before, and now the $2 billion--so $3 billion--I think could have been much better spent by targeting it to low-income people and giving them the economic stimulus they need, so they will be saving money because they will be spending less on gas and they will be saving money because they are spending less on car repairs.

People of modest means are the most likely to have a vehicle that is really old, that is really a gas guzzler. Again, in the absence of an incentive, they are going to stick with their old vehicle because they simply can't afford a new car. A $4,500 rebate obviously provides a powerful incentive. We have seen that. It works.

I don't have any demographics. I don't have any data on who purchased these cars in regard to their income levels because there is no income guidelines on this, we don't really know who walked into the showrooms and bought these cars. We do know about half the cars were foreign cars. We do know that. Almost half were U.S. big three company cars. We do know that. But we just don't know what the incomes were, the economic status of the individuals or families who came in and purchased this new car.

I will say that I have on a few occasions talked to individuals I know who are of modest income means to ask them if they were taking advantage of this, and in just a few instances that I have been able to tap into this--by no means is this any kind of a poll that would be accurate, but in just the few cases where I have asked, people have said: Well, you know, $4,500 is nice, but I don't have the rest of it. Quite frankly, my credit is not very good because I am up to here with credit cards, and I am not certain I can get the money together to buy that car. So, again, that is just a couple of instances. I wouldn't say that is generally true, but it gives me an indication there are a lot of people out there who would like to have a new car, who would like to have the wherewithal to do it but even with $4,500 would not be able to.

So, again, that is what my amendment is. It is very simple. It just says right now that $50,000 per person, $75,000 per family. So think about it.

Right now, an executive with a $1 million salary and a 10-year-old gas-guzzling second car--perhaps a Cadillac; that is their second car or their third car--they can walk right into the showroom and purchase a brand new Cadillac that gets an additional 8 miles per gallon. That executive making a million-dollar salary, we will give them a $4,500 gift from the Federal Government.

Is this what we want to do? I don't think so. I just don't think it is a wise use of the limited funding we have. It probably will stimulate the economy; sure. I have no doubt about that. But is it stimulating the economy for lower income people whom I think we also ought to be stimulating in terms of their economic situation too?

So, again, that is the essence of the amendment. I think the program works. It is good, but it should be appropriately targeted to Americans of modest incomes and modest means. They tend to drive older vehicles. They need those cars to get to work, to take their kids to afterschool activities, to get to the doctors, and if they live in rural areas such as Iowa and places like that, they depend on that car for their life. So I think it makes good sense to offer a car purchase rebate. I am not opposed to the program. I think it works. But I just think it ought to be better targeted.

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

Mr. President, it has been brought to my attention that there is a mistake in drafting part of this amendment. Quite frankly, it does read that a voucher may only be issued under the program to an individual ``who filed a return of Federal income tax for taxable year beginning in 2008.''

There are some low-income people who don't file income tax returns, so there is a little bit of a problem in the drafting. I still remain committed to somehow working this out. It now looks as though even some people who make just over the minimum wage would not be allowed to go in, and those are the people I am trying to get to more than anybody else, those who are making a very low income but probably don't file an income tax return because they are low income.

I believe there are ways of getting over this. But the way the amendment is drafted, it can only go to an individual who filed a Federal income tax

return. That raises some troubling questions. I am also told that, under the agreement we have now, I cannot offer another amendment. In other words, amendments are now limited. I have a problem, because it is not what I intended to do. It is a drafting error. I apologize for that. I will continue to try to work on it and see if I can do something at some point. I remain committed to having an income cap on this program.

With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside my amendment and that we move on to other amendments. We will bring this amendment up later. I ask unanimous consent that the time we have be reserved and that we come back to this amendment after the others have been disposed of.

Madam President, I have an amendment to my amendment that I send to the desk. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to make a modification to my amendment.

Madam President, in good faith last year, I tried to get this in the bill and it didn't work. I tried it again with this amendment. I was informed there was a problem with it, which I recognized. I tried to again in good faith offer a modification to it. My friend from Michigan is right; it does require some determinations by the Secretary which probably would take some time. I am not certain that is all that much of a reason to not allow it.

I still believe there should be an income cap. But the way the amendment is now drafted, quite frankly, I couldn't even support it because it didn't do what I originally wanted to do. There was an error in drafting. I tried to amend it. I can't seem to get the job done because of the time constraint. There was an action on my amendment; therefore under the rules, I have to have consent to get it modified. I have heard an objection to that. Since I can't get----

Since I can't get it done, since I can't modify it, I move to table my own amendment.

Well, I will not have any time left.

Madam President, I move to table my amendment.

Mr. President, today is the 100th birthday of a very special Iowan and a wonderful friend, Ethel Schwengel. One century ago today, Ethel was born on her parents' family farm near Purdin, MO. This is a bit premature, but I should also note that we are on the cusp of yet another remarkable milestone. On August 15, Ethel and her family will celebrate the 78th anniversary of her marriage to the late Frederic Schwengel, who represented Iowa in the United States House of Representatives from 1955 to 1965 and from 1967 to 1973.

The Schwengels married in Unionville, MO, in 1931, and moved to Davenport, IA, in 1937. There, Ethel worked as an educator, and was active in many civic organizations, including Girl Scouts and the YWCA.

When her husband served in the Iowa House of Representatives from 1944 to 1954, and later during his long service in the U.S. House, Ethel became a respected and beloved presence in her own right.

Ethel was always actively engaged in her husband's campaigns. Meanwhile, on the home front, she was a strong stabilizing influence in the Schwengel household during his inevitably frequent absences. She was a tireless and gracious hostess, often responding to last-minute calls from her husband to set additional places at the table for colleagues and visitors.

During their years in the Nation's Capital, the Schwengels hosted ``Washington Week'' for an Iowa State University professor and two of his students, one of whom was a very young and green Tom Harkin. I will never forget their kindness and hospitality during that very eventful week.

Ethel joined in her husband's passion for collecting antiques as well as Abraham Lincoln memorabilia, which she displayed beautifully in the Schwengel house. Another highlight of their home was the Ethel's garden, which featured her prized tomatoes and Fred's beloved rhubarb-- and little bit of Iowa right in suburban Washington. Ethel was especially proud of her dazzling display of azaleas each spring.

Across more than six decades of marriage, Ethel and Fred Schwengel were blessed with a large extended family. They raised two children, Frank and Dorothy. Moreover, immediately after marrying, their household became home to Fred's brother Forrest and sister Helene. Later, Fred's widowed mother joined the household, as did Ethel's mother.

Following the Second World War, the Schwengels opened their home in Davenport to 11 displaced persons from Poland, helping them to learn English, find jobs, and become U.S. citizens.

In 1966, their grandson, Robert Schwengel, joined the household. When he left for college in 1979, it was the first time in 48 years of marriage that Ethel and Fred Schwengel were without extended family members in their home.

After Congressman Schwengel retired in 1973, he and Ethel continued to make their home in Arlington, VA. Mr. Schwengel helped to found the U.S. Capitol Historical Society in 1962, and headed that organization as its president until his death in 1993. Ethel remains a strong champion of the Historical Society and a member of its Honorary Board of Trustees. Their grandson, Dr. Robert Schwengel of Providence, RI, is a member of the society's active Board of Trustees, and their son-in- law, Neale Cosby, is its treasurer as well as a trustee.

Since that summer many years ago, when the Schwengels took me into their home for a very memorable ``Washington Week,'' Ethel has been a very dear friend.

I am pleased to note that, for the big celebration today, she will be joined by family members and friends at her current residence in Arlington. In addition, there will be a reunion picnic on Saturday at her daughter and son-in-law's home at Mason Neck, VA. Ethel will be joined at these celebrations by her sister, Florence, age 98; her children and their spouses; five grandsons and spouses; nine great grandchildren; one niece; two nephews; and four great nephews. Clearly, this is a woman of great wealth--the kind of wealth that really matters.

I congratulate Ethel Schwengel on this great milestone. She has brought light into the lives of so many of us in Iowa and here in the Washington area. One hundred years since its birth, that light continues to shine with a very special radiance.

Happy birthday, Ethel!

Mr. President, our national energy situation continues to deteriorate. Volatile petroleum and gasoline prices threaten our economy, and our oil imports are responsible for an incredibly large wealth transfer

from America to global oil producers. Our most immediate and visible energy challenge is our dependence on petroleum-derived fuels for transportation, but we also face the need to reduce the greenhouse gases that result principally from fossil fuel production and use. Because our global warming challenge is fundamentally linked to our energy systems, their resolution has a common strategy--to transform our energy sector to one far less dependent on fossil fuels and far more reliant on energy efficiency and domestic renewable energy supplies. This energy transformation strategy also represents a crucial economic recovery and development opportunity because millions of jobs will be created as we carry out this strategy.

Americans recognize the magnitude and the urgency of our energy challenges. They rightfully expect us to adopt policies to move this energy transition forward. In particular, we need to reduce dependence on oil in transportation, and we have broad agreement on two fundamental approaches--increasing efficiency of vehicles and increasing use of alternative fuels. We mandated more efficient vehicles by passing the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, EISA. That bill also mandates a brisk expansion of biofuels production under the renewable fuels standard. However, we also need to expand the number of vehicles that can use these alternative fuels and the number of filling stations selling these biofuels.

Today I am joined by my esteemed colleague, Senator Lugar of Indiana, in introducing the Consumer Fuels and Vehicles Choice Act of 2009. This bill will expand the number of alternative fuel automobiles at a rapid pace while not imposing undue production cost challenges for our auto manufacturers. It calls for 50 percent of all automobiles manufactured for sale in the United States to be dual-fuel automobiles by 2011. It increases that to 90 percent of all automobiles manufactured for U.S. sales by 2013. These requirements are reasonable because it is known that gasoline automobiles require relatively minor changes in fuel system designs to be able to use blends of gasoline and ethanol which qualify them for dual fuel designation.

This bill also requires that major fuel distributors install blender pumps in increasing numbers of the retail fueling stations carrying their brand name. These blender pumps will be capable of dispensing ethanol and gasoline blends ranging from 0 percent ethanol to 85 percent ethanol. This flexibility in blend choice is expected to be attractive to consumers, including those who want to use regular gasoline for non-automotive engines. This bill also authorizes grants of up to 50 percent of the cost for installing blender pumps and tanks and other infrastructure needed for selling ethanol fuel blends.

Mr. President, the requirements established and assistance authorized in this bill will ensure that the number of dual fuel automobiles and the availability of ethanol fuel blends are expanding apace with the expansion of ethanol production and use in our national fuel supply over the next 15 years and beyond. Taken together, our increasing production of biofuels, our incentives for installation of alternative fuel infrastructure, and this automobile requirement will provide Americans the option of choosing clean, domestically produced fuels for their personal transportation needs in the future. These steps represent critical components in the transition of our energy systems away from fossil and imported fuels toward the benefits of greater reliance on sustainable domestic fuel sources.

Today I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in taking action to boost the transition to a cleaner, more resilient, and more secure energy economy. I urge their support for this bill and its rapid enactment.

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

Mr. President, our national energy situation continues to deteriorate. Volatile petroleum and gasoline prices threaten our economy, and our oil imports are responsible for an incredibly large wealth transfer

from America to global oil producers. Our most immediate and visible energy challenge is our dependence on petroleum-derived fuels for transportation, but we also face the need to reduce the greenhouse gases that result principally from fossil fuel production and use. Because our global warming challenge is fundamentally linked to our energy systems, their resolution has a common strategy--to transform our energy sector to one far less dependent on fossil fuels and far more reliant on energy efficiency and domestic renewable energy supplies. This energy transformation strategy also represents a crucial economic recovery and development opportunity because millions of jobs will be created as we carry out this strategy.

Americans recognize the magnitude and the urgency of our energy challenges. They rightfully expect us to adopt policies to move this energy transition forward. In particular, we need to reduce dependence on oil in transportation, and we have broad agreement on two fundamental approaches--increasing efficiency of vehicles and increasing use of alternative fuels. We mandated more efficient vehicles by passing the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, EISA. That bill also mandates a brisk expansion of biofuels production under the renewable fuels standard. However, we also need to expand the number of vehicles that can use these alternative fuels and the number of filling stations selling these biofuels.

Today I am joined by my esteemed colleague, Senator Lugar of Indiana, in introducing the Consumer Fuels and Vehicles Choice Act of 2009. This bill will expand the number of alternative fuel automobiles at a rapid pace while not imposing undue production cost challenges for our auto manufacturers. It calls for 50 percent of all automobiles manufactured for sale in the United States to be dual-fuel automobiles by 2011. It increases that to 90 percent of all automobiles manufactured for U.S. sales by 2013. These requirements are reasonable because it is known that gasoline automobiles require relatively minor changes in fuel system designs to be able to use blends of gasoline and ethanol which qualify them for dual fuel designation.

This bill also requires that major fuel distributors install blender pumps in increasing numbers of the retail fueling stations carrying their brand name. These blender pumps will be capable of dispensing ethanol and gasoline blends ranging from 0 percent ethanol to 85 percent ethanol. This flexibility in blend choice is expected to be attractive to consumers, including those who want to use regular gasoline for non-automotive engines. This bill also authorizes grants of up to 50 percent of the cost for installing blender pumps and tanks and other infrastructure needed for selling ethanol fuel blends.

Mr. President, the requirements established and assistance authorized in this bill will ensure that the number of dual fuel automobiles and the availability of ethanol fuel blends are expanding apace with the expansion of ethanol production and use in our national fuel supply over the next 15 years and beyond. Taken together, our increasing production of biofuels, our incentives for installation of alternative fuel infrastructure, and this automobile requirement will provide Americans the option of choosing clean, domestically produced fuels for their personal transportation needs in the future. These steps represent critical components in the transition of our energy systems away from fossil and imported fuels toward the benefits of greater reliance on sustainable domestic fuel sources.

Today I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in taking action to boost the transition to a cleaner, more resilient, and more secure energy economy. I urge their support for this bill and its rapid enactment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Patrick Hartley and Jacob Butcher of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

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

Mr. President, the Senate Agriculture appropriations bill contains $4.9 million to help public television stations meet the Federal mandate to provide over-the-air digital signals to rural areas, similar to last year's funding level. Rural public television stations throughout the country are at extreme disadvantage when faced with the task of converting their stations and vast network of translators from analog to digital transmission. Why? Because they are spread over a larger geographic area--private and some of the network stations--and they have a much smaller population base to draw upon when funding system improvements than their urban counterparts. Urban stations have a bigger population base.

To date, most rural stations have focused their resources on converting transmitters to meet the Federal mandate. The funding provided in this Agriculture appropriations bill will be critical to helping stations transmit their signals far enough to reach people in rural areas far from the transmitters. Generally, stations have these transmitters send a signal out over the airwaves, but in a large number of cases they need translators. They take the transmitter signal at a certain point and then they boost the power so they can send it further out. That was also true under the old analog system. Obviously, the analog translators would not work for digital, so we need digital translators. In most cases, for technical reasons, the digital translators cover less of an area, particularly in places that are hilly or mountainous, so additional translators are needed.

At present, we have millions of people living in rural America who simply cannot get the over-the-air digital signal. These funds are allocated on a peer-review process within the Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture. For example, in my State of Iowa, a large number of people in the Dubuque area are not receiving the Iowa public TV digital over-the-air signal now because of the lack of a digital translator which gets its signal from a Cedar Rapids-Waterloo transmitter. I understand also that the Oklahoma public television system received considerable funding through this program a few years ago. But many other State systems have very real needs that have not been met. Few public TV stations are able to acquire the needed funds to do this. In the current 2009 round, public TV stations requested about three times the available needed funding we have in the USDA program. While it is true that both the Department of Commerce and the Corporation for Public Television do provide equipment for public TV stations, it is also true that these funds are both inadequate to fully meet all the needs they are intended for, and they have not been providing significant funds for translators.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting provides about $36 million for public TV and radio stations for equipment. They have provided digital equipment, shifting analog libraries to digital, and power equipment. But they have not focused on digital translators. It is not their mission to focus on the special needs of rural areas such as the Rural Utilities Service must do. Even if they do in the future provide some funding for translators, the total we now need is going to be far more than the funds that will be available in the coming fiscal year. Even if they did have the funds, they asked for three times the amount of funding that we have in this bill to build these translators. The Department of Commerce also has a program which provides equipment, again not focused on translators. They provide equipment such as network operations equipment that allows stations to take signals from a national broadcast and send them out over their transmitters. They provide emergency funding when there is a local equipment failure but, again, they have a very limited amount of money for translators.

Again, there is a considerable need for additional funds for digital TV to reach rural America. The lack of a single translator can mean that 100,000 households are not able to get over-the-air digital signals. These funds are badly needed. I thank my friend from Oklahoma for letting me go first because I have to chair a hearing at 2:30. I wished to make these comments because I have real-time experience with these translators in my State in Dubuque. But there are other places in rural Iowa that are on the fringes of where the transmitters are, and they have to have these translators to get the signal out.

Again, one could say: Well, they charge the people. But there are not that many people. They deserve to have public television also. That is what this money was for, the $4.9 million, to help them get these translators. It is not only Iowa, any State that has a lot of rural area, especially if it is hilly or mountainous, needs translators. I am not an expert in this area whatsoever, but I know they cost money. I do know the need is there. All I can say is, they had asked for three times more than what we have in this bill. So if there are some other funds in Commerce or in the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, I rather doubt they will be able to anywhere meet the need that is out there, and they will be

back again next year asking for more money to get these translators built, as we switch from the analog to digital.

I, respectfully, request that the Senate oppose the Coburn amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, along with the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, for agreeing to work with me to secure in this bill an additional $3.4 million per year in conference, above the baseline funding level, for research addressing emerging animal disease threats at the National Animal Disease Center, NADC, in Ames, IA. NADC is a world class research facility that provides vital research to identify emerging animal diseases and develop effective methods to prevent and treat emerging threats to animal agriculture, our food supply and human health.

Over the past few years we have seen the emergence of a number of threats to the livestock industry in the United States such as the avian influenza and H1N1 virus. Not only do these diseases pose a threat to animal health, but they also represent a threat to human health. Work at NADC is vitally important to protecting animal and human health and improving the lives of millions of people worldwide.

Additional resources provided in this bill for ongoing research at NADC on emerging animal disease are vital to the livestock industry. In the early days of the H1N1 outbreak misinformation cost pork producers in the United States an estimated $7.2 million a day, even though H1N1 was never found in pigs in the United States. Developing additional capacity for vaccine discovery and rapid detection of emerging animal disease is important in protecting human health and animal agriculture.

I thank you again for working to provide this needed, continuing, research funding for emerging animal disease at NADC.

I thank my friend from Wisconsin for his hard work to ensure beginning farmers and minority farmers have adequate representation within USDA programs. The Senator is correct. The 2008 farm bill contains statutory language that establishes the Office of Advocacy and Outreach within the executive operations of the Department of Agriculture's organizational structure.

I would also like to stress the vital importance of USDA moving forward to establish this office as quickly as possible. It has now been more than a year since the farm bill was enacted into law and it is time for USDA to move forward in establishing the office so that it can begin to carry out its mission of ensuring that the needs of small and beginning farmers, as well as socially disadvantaged farmers, are effectively addressed by the Department of Agriculture throughout its various programs and activities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Liz Dunn and Erik Peterson of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

I ask unanimous consent that Becky Moylan and Maeshal Abid of my staff be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of today's session.