S418 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

shine in that office because of her 

sound judgement, keen intellect, sharp 

wit, infectious charm, and powerful 

commitment to making this world a 

better place. 

I congratulate Senator CLINTON on 

her new position and wish her the best 

of luck and success. These are troubled 

times and she will have a most difficult 

job in the years ahead. Speaking at her 

graduation at Wellesley College, HILLARY CLINTON declared that, ‘‘the challenge now is to practice politics as the 

art of making what appears to be impossible, possible.’’ 

I say go to it Secretary of State-designate CLINTON. If anyone can make 

‘‘what appears to be impossible, possible,’’ Secretary of State HILLARY

RODHAM CLINTON can and will. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President. I have 

known HILLARY CLINTON for many 

years, but for the past 8 years I have 

had the pleasure of working with her as 

a colleague in the U.S. Senate. 

People on all points of the political 

spectrum agree that Senator CLINTON

is one of the brightest, most highly accomplished U.S. Senators. 

Born in the hometown of our President-elect—Chicago—HILLARY CLINTON

graduated from Wellesley College, 

where she was the first student in the 

school’s history to deliver her own 

commencement address—not a Governor, a U.S. Senator, dean, or the university president. 

She then attended Yale Law School, 

where she met her future husband and 

our future President, Bill Clinton. 

After law school, she worked for the 

Children’s Defense Fund and served as 

a member of the Watergate inquiry 

staff in the House of Representatives. 

When the Clintons moved to Arkansas, HILLARY became a successful attorney in private practice and served 

as the State’s First Lady. 

We all know that she was a remarkable First Lady, leading the way on 

health care reform, helping create the 

State Children’s Health Insurance Program, as well as the Violence Against 

Women Act. 

We also know that she was not just a 

leader for domestic policy, but also became an admired and effective diplomat throughout the world, especially 

in her call for human rights. 

When Senator CLINTON came to the 

Senate 8 years ago, some expected her 

to have trouble fitting in. Those concerns quickly disappeared—she was a 

natural. She has proven in her time 

here to be exceptionally adept at the 

give-and-take of the legislative process. 

As a result, in just 8 years, she has 

left an indelible mark, especially 

through her seats on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, 

the Environment and Public Works 

Committee, the Special Committee on 

Aging and the Armed Services Committee. 

As with Senator BIDEN, the departure 

of Senator CLINTON is bittersweet. She 

brought a wealth of knowledge, skill 

and wisdom here, and she will be sorely 

missed. 

But after the last 8 years—with so 

much work ahead to repair our country’s once-lofty stature in the world, I 

can think of no one better suited for 

the challenges ahead than the Senator 

from New York, HILLARY CLINTON, our 

next Secretary of State. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas. 

f 

LILLY LEDBETTER ACT 

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I, too, 

would like to congratulate Senator 

CLINTON on her nomination to be Secretary of State; and, alas, there is 

other work left to do in the Senate, as 

the Senator from Maryland alluded to, 

the Lilly Ledbetter Act, for which we 

will be voting on cloture in a minute. 

So I have a few words I would like to 

add specifically on that topic. 

We will be voting for the so-called 

Lilly Ledbetter Act, and I think it is 

important to reflect a little bit on 

what that bill would actually do because, honestly, I think it has been 

characterized as a bill that will protect 

women’s rights, which as a father of 

two daughters I am all in favor of not 

just cracking the glass ceiling but 

breaking it altogether. 

But, actually, this bill, has a much 

broader impact and perhaps unintended 

by those who believe it is only about 

protecting women’s rights. Indeed, 

what the Lilly Ledbetter Act would do 

is eliminate the statute of limitations. 

That sounds like an arcane topic for 

lawyers that only lawyers could love, 

but basically what it would do in the 

case of Ms. Ledbetter—who had waited 

almost two decades before she raised 

her discrimination claim, long after 

the principal witness who could have 

testified in opposition to that claim 

had died—indeed, the purpose of the 

statute of limitations, as the lawyers 

in this body well know, is to be fair 

both to the plaintiff who brings the 

claim and to the defendant who has to 

defend against that claim, to make 

sure the documents and the memories 

and, indeed, the very existence of those 

who might be able to give testimony 

can be preserved so the jury can make 

a good decision. But, indeed, if you 

wait 20 years before you assert your 

rights, and after the principal witness 

who could testify in opposition to your 

claim has died, that is not exactly fair 

either. 

So, Senator HUTCHISON, my distinguished senior Senator from Texas, 

will have an alternative which I hope 

will be offered. I expect it will be offered as an alternative and substitute, 

which I believe is fair to both those 

who bring a claim of discrimination 

and those who have to defend against 

it. 

Indeed, I mentioned a moment ago I 

am the father of two daughters, now 27 

and 26. Many small businesses that are 

created in America today are headed 

up by women. Indeed, we need to make 

sure those small businesses have some 

certainty, have some rules they can 

rely on in terms of knowing when they 

are likely going to be sued. 

I think the Ledbetter Act could more 

appropriately be called a trial lawyer 

bailout because, of course, it is premised on the idea that one can slumber 

on their rights and never have to assert 

them and, indeed, fight an uneven fight 

because those who have to defend 

against them can no longer defend 

against them because the witnesses are 

no longer available. 

Indeed, at a time when this country 

is in a recession, I think it is appropriate to point out that no country has 

ever sued its way out of a recession. 

Yet the bill that comes to the floor on 

which we are called upon to vote—the 

very second bill that is presented to 

this Senate in the midst of this economic crisis—is one that would effectively, as I said, eliminate the statute 

of limitations in employment litigation so trial lawyers can bring multimillion-dollar lawsuits over decadesold workplace disputes. 

There are many good policy reasons, 

as I mentioned, why it is important to 

have those statutes of limitations, but 

it is particularly true in employment 

cases where a person’s subjective intent can be the decisive issue that the 

factfinder has to decide, where memories of the past can be colored by decades of subsequent workplace experience. 

Another important policy behind the 

statute of limitations is called repose. 

That is a fancy word that represents 

the idea that people should be allowed 

to move on with their lives without the 

constant fear of being sued for something that happened 20 years previously. 

Again, during times of economic uncertainty, the Ledbetter bill would create not more certainty but more uncertainty. As I suggested earlier, small 

businesses would suddenly be exposed 

to new liability for acts that may have 

occurred years or decades ago, even if 

those acts occurred under a previous 

ownership before the current management was even in place. 

There will be no way for small businesses and large businesses alike to 

quantify this risk because there is no 

way to know which of the employees 

may have had a secret grievance they 

have been harboring for many years 

just waiting for the opportunity to 

present the claim at a time when it 

cannot be adequately defended. 

Worst yet, this bill would actually 

encourage plaintiffs and their lawyers 

to strategically lie in wait, delaying 

their employment lawsuits for years 

while damages accumulate. 

Now, this does not help anybody except for perhaps the lawyers and the 

clients who can take advantage of this 

one-sided equation. Why sue promptly 

and limit your damages to a few 

months of back wages when you can 

wait 5 years and sue for 5 years of back 

wages? This can be especially rewarding to a plaintiff who strategically sues 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S419 

when you consider that during that 5 

years, the plaintiff can diligently be 

preparing a lawsuit while the defendant is ignorant about the very grievance itself, perhaps, and memories and 

records fade. 

So I think it is important, as we go 

into this bill, that it be characterized 

as the Trojan horse that it is. This is 

just the beginning. If you eliminate the 

statute of limitations in employment 

discrimination claims, why not eliminate the statute of limitations in other 

claims: medical malpractice, any other 

business disputes, and the like? It is 

just not fair, and it is not right. We 

should not allow this bill to be represented as a blow for women’s equality and women’s rights because it simply is much broader and has much 

more of a broader implication than 

that. 

I am convinced this bill is actually a 

solution in search of a problem because 

it is worth noting that in fiscal year 

2007, a total of 82,000-plus people timely 

filed complaints of employment discrimination with the EEOC. It is important to ask what prevented Ms. 

Ledbetter from doing exactly the same 

thing, from filing her complaint at the 

time she knew that perhaps she had a 

grievance that could be presented to 

the employer. 

So I thank you, Mr. President, for 

the opportunity to speak briefly on the 

bill. Assuming cloture is adopted, I 

hope we will be taking up Senator 

HUTCHISON’s alternative, which I think 

strikes the fair balance for which I 

would hope we would all strive, protecting the rights of both those who 

are victims of discrimination and the 

companies that have to defend against 

those claims. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

f 

CONCLUSION OF MORNING 

BUSINESS 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Morning business is closed. 

f 

DESIGNATING CERTAIN LAND AS 

COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL 

WILDERNESS PRESERVATION 

SYSTEM 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 

Senate shall resume consideration of S. 

22, which the clerk will report by title. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

A bill (S. 22) to designate certain land as 

components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of 

the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes. 

Pending: 

Reid amendment No. 15, to change the enactment date. 

Reid amendment No. 16 (to Reid amendment No. 15), of a perfecting nature. 

Motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

with instructions to report back forthwith, 

with Reid amendment No. 17, to change the 

enactment date. 

Reid amendment No. 18 (to the instructions of the motion to commit), of a perfecting nature. 

Reid amendment No. 19 (to Reid amendment No. 18), of a perfecting nature. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order—the 

majority leader is recognized. 

Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a 

quorum. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 

quorum call be rescinded. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Under the previous order, there shall 

be 10 minutes of debate equally divided 

and controlled between the Senator 

from New Mexico, Mr. BINGAMAN, and 

the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. 

COBURN, or their designees. 

The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as I 

understand it, we now have 10 minutes 

equally divided to complete debate on 

S. 22, and then there will be a vote on 

passage. Is that correct? 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, in 

just a few minutes, the Senate will 

vote on S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land 

Management Act. The vote will culminate years of work on more than 160 

bills that are included in this package 

and represents a major achievement for 

the protection of our Nation’s natural, 

cultural, and historic resources. Taken 

collectively, I believe the package represents the most significant conservation legislation passed by the Senate in 

many years. 

In addition, it will finally resolve 

three very important, very complex 

water rights settlements in three different States ending, literally, decades 

of litigation and controversy. 

AMENDMENTS NOS. 23 AND 24, EN BLOC

Before concluding, I wish to take 

care of a few administrative matters. 

The unanimous consent agreement for 

the bill today allows for the adoption 

of managers’ amendments if they have 

been cleared by the managers and leaders on both sides. We have two such 

amendments which are at the desk. I 

understand they have been cleared by 

all my colleagues. These amendments 

make a number of technical, clerical, 

and clarifying corrections. 

At this time I ask unanimous consent to call up those two amendments 

and have them considered and adopted 

en bloc, as provided for in the unanimous consent agreement. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Under the previous order, the pending amendments are withdrawn. 

The clerk will report the managers’ 

amendments en bloc. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. BINGAMAN], for himself and Ms. MURKOWSKI, proposes amendments en bloc numbered 23 and 

24. 

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed 

with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. 

MCCASKILL). Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

The amendments are as follows: 

AMENDMENT NO. 23

On page 976, strike lines 8 through 25. 

On page 977, line 1, strike ‘‘(6)’’ and insert 

‘‘(5)’’. 

On page 977, line 3, insert ‘‘and’’ after 

‘‘interactions;’’. 

On page 977, line 4, strike ‘‘(7)’’ and insert 

‘‘(6)’’. 

On page 977, line 5, strike ‘‘(6)’’ and insert 

‘‘(5)’’. 

On page 977, line 8, strike ‘‘scales;’’ and insert ‘‘scales.’’. 

On page 977, strike lines 9 through 17. 

On page 1275, strike lines 3 through 6. 

AMENDMENT NO. 24

Beginning on page 305, strike line 9 and all 

that follows through page 349, line 21. 

On page 526, line 2, strike ‘‘2’’ and insert 

‘‘5’’. 

On page 526, line 7, strike ‘‘5’’ and insert 

‘‘2’’. 

On page 974, line 19, insert ‘‘the Secretary 

of the Army, acting through’’ before ‘‘the 

Chief’’. 

On page 1188, line 19, strike ‘‘or’’ and insert 

‘‘of’’. 

Beginning on page 1271, strike line 3 and 

all that follows through page 1273, line 22, 

and insert the following: 

Section 107(a) 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, the amendments are agreed 

to. 

The amendments (Nos. 23 and 24) 

were agreed to. 

COLORADO RIVER BASIN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, 

the Senate is now considering the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 

2009, S. 22, a bill that contains a number of important water resource initiatives. Given the ongoing need to work 

closely with the states on water resource issues, I believe it important as 

chairman of the Energy and Natural 

Resources Committee for myself, and 

the new ranking member of the Committee, to acknowledge the hard work 

of representatives from the Colorado 

River Basin States of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, Nevada, and California, in reaching agreement regarding certain provisions in 

title X, subtitle B of S. 22, which contains the Northwestern New Mexico 

Rural Water Projects Act, hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Act’’. 

On August 27, 2008, the Governors’ 

representatives on Colorado River Operations sent a letter to me and Senator DOMENICI, then the ranking member of the committee, requesting certain modifications to the Northwestern 

New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act. 

These modifications, which were subsequently incorporated, reflect the joint 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE