January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S557 

(A) caregiver education; 

(B) promoting proper nutrition, increasing 

physical activity, and reducing tobacco use; 

(C) education and awareness programs for 

health care providers; 

(D) prevention of secondary complications; 

(E) home- and community-based interventions; 

(F) coordinating services and removing 

barriers that prevent full participation and 

integration into the community; and 

(G) recognizing the unique needs of underserved populations. 

(c) GRANTS.—The Secretary may award 

grants in accordance with the following: 

(1) To State and local health and disability 

agencies for the purpose of— 

(A) establishing a population-based database that may be used for longitudinal and 

other research on paralysis and other disabling conditions; 

(B) developing comprehensive paralysis 

and other physical disability action plans 

and activities focused on the items listed in 

subsection (b)(4); 

(C) assisting State-based programs in establishing and implementing partnerships 

and collaborations that maximize the input 

and support of people with paralysis and 

other physical disabilities and their constituent organizations; 

(D) coordinating paralysis and physical 

disability activities with existing Statebased disability and health programs; 

(E) providing education and training opportunities and programs for health professionals and allied caregivers; and 

(F) developing, testing, evaluating, and 

replicating effective intervention programs 

to maintain or improve health and quality of 

life. 

(2) To private health and disability organizations for the purpose of— 

(A) disseminating information to the public; 

(B) improving access to services for persons living with paralysis and other physical 

disabilities and their caregivers; 

(C) testing model intervention programs to 

improve health and quality of life; and 

(D) coordinating existing services with 

State-based disability and health programs. 

(d) COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary shall ensure that activities under this 

section are coordinated as appropriate by the 

agencies of the Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

For the purpose of carrying out this section, 

there is authorized to be appropriated 

$25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 

through 2011. 

TITLE XV—SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 

FACILITIES AUTHORIZATION 

SEC. 15101. LABORATORY AND SUPPORT SPACE, 

EDGEWATER, MARYLAND. 

(a) AUTHORITY TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT.—The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution is authorized to design 

and construct laboratory and support space 

to accommodate the Mathias Laboratory at 

the Smithsonian Environmental Research 

Center in Edgewater, Maryland. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

There is authorized to be appropriated to 

carry out this section a total of $41,000,000 

for fiscal years 2009 through 2011. Such sums 

shall remain available until expended. 

SEC. 15102. LABORATORY SPACE, GAMBOA, PANAMA. 

(a) AUTHORITY TO CONSTRUCT.—The Board 

of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution is 

authorized to construct laboratory space to 

accommodate the terrestrial research program of the Smithsonian tropical research 

institute in Gamboa, Panama. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

There is authorized to be appropriated to 

carry out this section a total of $14,000,000 

for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Such sums shall 

remain available until expended. 

SEC. 15103. CONSTRUCTION OF GREENHOUSE FACILITY. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Board of Regents of 

the Smithsonian Institution is authorized to 

construct a greenhouse facility at its museum support facility in Suitland, Maryland, 

to maintain the horticultural operations of, 

and preserve the orchid collection held in 

trust by, the Smithsonian Institution. 

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

There is authorized to be appropriated 

$12,000,000 to carry out this section. Such 

sums shall remain available until expended. 

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I 

move to reconsider the vote. 

Mrs. LINCOLN. I move to lay that 

motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

f 

LILLY LEDBETTER FAIR PAY ACT 

OF 2009—MOTION TO PROCEED 

CLOTURE MOTION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, there is 4 minutes 

equally divided between Senators MIKULSKI and ENZI. 

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, 

the Senate is not in order. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. 

The Senator from Maryland is recognized. 

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I 

rise to urge my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to vote for the legislation 

that is pending, which is the cloture 

motion on the motion to proceed to the 

Lilly Ledbetter Act. The reason we are 

advocating cloture on the motion to 

proceed is that we do not have to filibuster this bill because we guarantee 

an open process, that Senators will be 

able to offer amendments. We will be 

able to debate with civility and comity, arrive at good ideas, consider all 

good ideas and so on, so we do not need 

to filibuster. Second, we do not need to 

delay. We need to vote for the motion 

to proceed because that is what the 

American people are telling us to do. 

Much is talked about economic stimulus, but if you want to help women, 

let’s start paying them equal pay for 

equal or comparable work. That is 

what the Lilly Ledbetter bill will ensure. It will restore the law to the way 

it was before the Supreme Court decision on Ledbetter v. Goodyear. 

One of the objections to the bill is 

that the Ledbetter bill will trigger lawsuits. Nothing could be further from 

the truth because it did not trigger, 

open-ended, millions of lawsuits before 

the Supreme Court decision. 

We need to act. It is great to talk 

about a stimulus bill, but the real 

stimulus is paying people for what they 

do. Madam President, you should 

know. 

This is a very serious bill. I know 

what my colleagues are talking about 

is important, but women are waiting 

for us to act, so Senators, if they could 

wait a minute, we could move ahead. 

The Supreme Court rule is that a pay 

discrimination lawsuit must be filed 

with the EEOC within 180 days of the 

initial decision to pay her less than 

men performing similar acts. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time 

of the Senator has expired. 

The Senator from Wyoming is recognized. 

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I have 

spent my 12 years in the Senate trying 

to work across the aisle, trying to get 

things to happen around here. I found 

the way things happen is, if they go 

through the whole process— 

Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to the Senator, 

I am not done. I have not completed 

my statement. 

Mr. ENZI. I think the Senator’s time 

expired. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time had expired. 

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, 

first of all, I, of course, want to proceed 

in the spirit of comity. I lost my time 

because this place was so noisy. I 

couldn’t talk because everybody else 

was talking. Frankly, I will be happy 

for my colleague to speak, but I am 

going to ask unanimous consent for an 

additional 4 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? 

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, reserving the right to object, our side would 

like the additional 4 minutes, then, as 

well. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection? The Senator from Maryland 

has asked for an additional 4 minutes. 

Is there objection to that request? 

The Senator from Texas is recognized. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, 

can we amend the request to allow 

both sides to have an equal amount of 

added time? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is 

the request. Is there objection to both 

sides receiving a total of 6 minutes on 

this matter. 

Mr. CORKER. Reserving the right to 

object, what will happen to floor time 

thereafter? Where many of us have 

time to talk about TARP later on, will 

we still have that time set aside prior 

to the TARP vote at 4:30? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. This will 

take an additional 8 minutes from the 

time that is allocated for the TARP 

discussion, prior to the vote that is 

scheduled at 4:30. 

Mr. VITTER. I object. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. 

Several Senators addressed the 

Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has the floor at the 

current time. 

Ms. MIKULSKI. May I ask the Senator from Wyoming for the ability to 

ask a unanimous consent request. I do 

not want to drag out the debate, but I 

would like to make a few points. What 

I would like to be able to do, with your 

concurrence, is just ask for 2 minutes 

and just have a little bit of say, but 

you have your 4 minutes. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S558 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 15, 2009 

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Senator 

from Maryland get an additional 2 minutes and I have 4 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection to each side receiving a total 

of 4 minutes, an additional 4 minutes 

from the original? It is the total of an 

additional 4 minutes on the debate on 

this matter. Hearing no objection, the 

Senator from Maryland is recognized 

for an additional 2 minutes and the 

Senator from Wyoming will receive 4 

minutes at the conclusion of the Senator’s remarks. 

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator 

from Wyoming. That is the way we will 

proceed on this bill. 

Madam President, we want to be able 

to proceed to this bill. I assure my colleagues we will have ample debate to 

consider any and all amendments, but I 

wish to be very clear that it is time to 

pass the Lilly Ledbetter bill itself. It is 

very important that we make sure we 

keep the courthouse door open for people to be able to file their claims where 

they believe wage discrimination exists. 

Wage discrimination not only affects 

women, but it affects all who are discriminated against, and it is often minorities. We want to be sure we keep 

the courthouse door open. What we do 

is simply restore the law as it existed 

before the recent Supreme Court decision so that we make sure the statute 

of limitations runs from the date of the 

actual payment of a discriminatory 

wage, not just from the time of hiring. 

That means employees can sue employers based on each discriminatory act. 

I will be yielding the floor, but before 

I do I am going to say once again—this 

Senate is not in order. It has been very 

disturbing and disrupting to stand up 

for something for which we have all 

been fighting so hard. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming. 

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank 

the Senator from Maryland for her concern and her effort on the bill she has 

put together. I am going to express my 

strong support for S. 166, which is the 

Hutchison alternative. It is our understanding that if we are allowed to proceed, there will be an open amendment 

process. I guess I am being asked by 

the leader to allow that to happen 

once, so that we can see whether it is 

actually going to happen. But I still 

wish to register my objection to the 

process we appear to be going through. 

I worked for 12 years to make this a 

more agreeable body, to work across 

the aisle. 

We have moved, the HELP Committee—Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions Committee—from being the 

most contentious committee to being 

the most productive committee. 

This bill should have gone through 

the committee process. We solve a lot 

of things, we shorten the debate on the 

floor, and we eliminate the need for all 

of these cloture motions which result 

in hours and hours of time with no productivity. I think the American people 

want the productivity, and the reasoning that comes from the committee 

process that winds up with a very good 

product. We can have that on the labor 

issues, but they have to go through 

committees. 

I yield the remainder of my time to 

the Senator from Texas. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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. 

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, 

the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Wyoming and all on the 

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

Mr. LEAHY. Madam Presdient, 

today, the Judiciary Committee is conducting the confirmation hearing of 

Mr. Eric Holder to be the next Attorney General of the United States. One 

of the Justice Department’s essential 

roles in our Federal system of government is to protect the civil rights of all 

Americans, including those that prohibit discrimination. The Bush administration’s erosion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s 

long held interpretation of our discrimination laws has created a new obstacle for victims of pay discrimination to receive justice. The Justice Department has advocated a position that 

has set back the progress we had made 

toward eliminating workplace discrimination. This was a mistake. Unfortunately, five Justices on the Supreme Court adopted the Justice Department’s erroneous interpretation of 

congressional intent. That decision necessitates our action here today. We 

must pass legislation so that employers are not rewarded for deceiving 

workers about their illegal conduct. 

Equal pay for equal work should be a 

given in this country. 

I expect we will hear from some opponents of the bill that somehow this legislation will encourage workers who 

are being paid less as a result of discrimination to delay filing suit for 

equal pay. This argument defies logic. 

Anyone who heard Lilly Ledbetter’s 

testimony last year before either the 

Senate Judiciary Committee or the 

Senate Heath, Education, Labor and 

Pensions Committee knows that Ms. 

Ledbetter, like other victims of pay 

discrimination, have no incentive to 

delay filing suit. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter, 

their employers now have a great incentive to delay revealing their discriminatory conduct—blanket immunity. The reality is that many employers do not allow their employees to 

learn how their compensation compares to their coworkers. Workers like 

Ms. Ledbetter and their families are 

the ones hurt by reduced paychecks, 

not their corporate employers. These 

victims have the burden of proving the 

discrimination occurred and that evidentiary task is only made more difficult as time goes on. The bipartisan 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 

2009 does not disturb the protections 

built into existing law for employers 

such as limiting back pay in most 

cases to 2 years. The legislation does 

not eliminate the existing statute of 

limitations. Instead, it reinstates the 

interpretation of when the 180 day time 

limit begins to run. In this way it allows workers who are continuing to be 

short-changed to challenge that ongoing discrimination when the employer 

conceals its initial discriminatory pay 

decision. 

Opponents of the Fair Pay Restoration Act will no doubt raise even more 

absurd reasons for opposing equal pay 

for equal work. They will no doubt 

claim that somehow trial lawyers will 

benefit. The reality is that the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision could 

actually lead to more litigation because workers will feel the need to file 

premature claims so that time does not 

run out. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that this legislation 

‘‘would not establish a new cause of action for claims of pay discrimination’’ 

and ‘‘would not significantly affect the 

number of filings with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’’ or 

with the Federal courts. 

Congress passed title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act to protect employees 

against discrimination with respect to 

compensation because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin but the Supreme Court’s 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
January 15, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S559 

Ledbetter decision goes against both 

the spirit and clear intent of title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act. It also sends 

the message to employers that wage 

discrimination cannot be punished as 

long as it is kept under wraps. At a 

time when one-third of private sector 

employers have rules prohibiting employees from discussing their pay with 

each other, the Court’s decision ignores 

a reality of the workplace—pay discrimination is often intentionally concealed. 

As the executive director of the U.S. 

Women’s Chamber of Commerce recently noted, ‘‘The Fair Pay Restoration Act rewards those who play fair— 

including women business owners—unlike the Supreme Court’s decision, 

which seems to give an unfair advantage to those who skirt the rules.’’ This 

legislation will encourage all corporations to treat their employees fairly. 

Unfortunately, this bipartisan civil 

rights legislation was filibustered in 

the last Congress. Considering how 

deeply the recent economic downturn 

has affected American families, we 

cannot afford another filibuster of this 

common sense legislation. I am pleased 

to join Senators MIKULSKI, SNOWE, 

KENNEDY and others in pressing for the 

immediate passage of the Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act of 

2009. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented 

under rule XXII, the Chair directs the 

clerk to read the motion. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

CLOTURE MOTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move 

to bring to a close debate on the motion to 

proceed to Calendar No. 14, S. 181, the Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. 

Jim Webb, Benjamin L. Cardin, Richard 

Durbin, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Jeff Bingaman, Mary L. 

Landrieu, Tom Harkin, Hillary 

Rodham Clinton, Charles E. Schumer, 

Sheldon Whitehouse, Christopher J. 

Dodd, Maria Cantwell, Debbie 

Stabenow, Patty Murray, Bernard 

Sanders, Barbara A. Mikulski, Harry 

Reid. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 

call is waived. The question is, Is it the 

sense of the Senate that debate on the 

motion to proceed to S. 181, the Lilly 

Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, shall be 

brought to a close? The yeas and nays 

are mandatory under the rule. This is a 

10-minute vote. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the 

Senator from Ohio (Mr. BROWN) and the 

Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) are necessarily absent. 

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is 

necessarily absent: the Senator from 

Kentucky (Mr. BUNNING). 

Further, if present and voting, the 

Senator from Kentucky (Mr. BUNNING) 

would have voted ‘‘nay.’’ 

The yeas and nays resulted—yeas 72, 

nays 23, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 4 Leg.] 

YEAS—72 

Akaka 

Alexander 

Baucus 

Bayh 

Begich 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Boxer 

Burr 

Byrd 

Cantwell 

Cardin 

Carper 

Casey 

Clinton 

Collins 

Conrad 

Corker 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Durbin 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hagan 

Harkin 

Hutchison 

Inouye 

Johnson 

Kerry 

Klobuchar 

Kohl 

Landrieu 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lincoln 

Martinez 

McCain 

McCaskill 

McConnell 

Menendez 

Merkley 

Mikulski 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nelson (FL) 

Nelson (NE) 

Pryor 

Reed 

Reid 

Rockefeller 

Salazar 

Sanders 

Schumer 

Shaheen 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stabenow 

Tester 

Udall (CO) 

Udall (NM) 

Voinovich 

Warner 

Webb 

Whitehouse 

Wicker 

Wyden 

NAYS—23 

Barrasso 

Brownback 

Chambliss 

Coburn 

Cochran 

Cornyn 

Crapo 

DeMint 

Ensign 

Enzi 

Graham 

Hatch 

Inhofe 

Isakson 

Johanns 

Kyl 

Lugar 

Risch 

Roberts 

Sessions 

Shelby 

Thune 

Vitter 

NOT VOTING—3 

Brown Bunning Kennedy 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this 

vote, the yeas are 72, the nays are 23. 

Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. 

f 

DISAPPROVAL OF OBLIGATIONS 

UNDER THE EMERGENCY ECONOMIC STABILIZATION ACT OF 

2008 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate will proceed to consideration of S.J. Res. 5, 

which the clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 5) relating to 

the disapproval of obligations under the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 

2008. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the time until 4:30 

shall be equally divided and controlled. 

The Senator from South Dakota. 

Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that the following be the speakers 

on the Republican side—that no Republican Senator be recognized for more 

than 10 minutes, and that any remaining time be allocated to Senator 

VITTER: Senators DEMINT, SESSIONS, 

CORKER, ENZI for up to 5 minutes, 

BROWNBACK, INHOFE, GREGG, KYL, 

SHELBY, BOND for up to 5 minutes, and 

HUTCHISON for up to 2 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from Oregon. 

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask 

unanimous consent to speak as in 

morning business and have that time 

charged to our side as part of the 

TARP legislation. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

OREGON PUBLIC LANDS

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the 

outdoors is a great passion for the people of Oregon, and it is truly a good 

day for Oregonians. The Omnibus Public Land Management Act contains 

protection for a number of our special 

places, our treasures; in the case of 

Mount Hood, an Oregon icon that is revered by our people. 

I serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. I know how important these public lands bills are. The fact is, they are 

of special benefit from a moral perspective. What we are doing is guaranteeing that these beautiful lands can be 

passed on to future generations. But 

they also help fuel our economic engine. The reality is, the protection for 

the great outdoors boosts our effort to 

promote recreation which is increasingly a major source of employment. 

I want to take a few minutes to discuss the five pieces of wilderness legislation I was heavily involved in. Many 

other Oregonians were as well, countless Oregonians. I also give special 

thanks to Senator Gordon Smith who 

contributed mightily to this effort, 

working with me on this legislation 

and this package for many years. 

The legislation passed includes seven 

key bills I sponsored. The five that add 

wilderness include: the Lewis and 

Clark Mount Hood Wilderness Act of 

2007; the Copper Salmon Wilderness 

Act; the Cascade Siskiyou National 

Monument Voluntary and Equitable 

Grazing Conflict Resolution Act; the 

Oregon Badlands Wilderness Act of 

2008; and the Spring Basin Wilderness 

Act of 2008. 

The Lewis and Clark Mount Hood 

Wilderness Act has been the product of 

years and years of work to protect a 

cherished State treasure. More people 

take pictures of Mount Hood than any 

other landmark in our State. That is 

saying something, because Oregon has 

a lot of breathtaking nature to photograph. 

Mount Hood is not just a symbol of 

our State. It is a monument to the 

deep connection our people have to 

their land. This bill is a triumph of environmental protection that wouldn’t 

have been possible without an effort to 

build a Statewide consensus bringing 

together thousands of constituent community groups and elected officials 

who said: We are going to keep fighting 

for this until Mount Hood gets this 

added measure of protection. 

Our legislation builds on the existing 

Mount Hood wilderness, adds more 

Wild and Scenic rivers, and creates a 

recreation area to allow diverse opportunities for recreation. We protect, 

under the bill, the lower elevation forests surrounding Mount Hood and our 

special Columbia River Gorge. The protected areas include scenic vistas, almost 127,000 acres of Wilderness and, in 

tribute to the great river-dependent 

journey of Lewis and Clark, the addition of 79 miles on 9 free-flowing 

stretches of river to the National Wild 

and Scenic River system. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE