Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize National Foster Care Month, an effort to raise awareness about our responsibility to support the more than half a million children across the Nation who are living in foster care. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the dedicated adoptive parents who provide these vulnerable youth with the permanent families they deserve. Having a family is vitally important to foster youth like JoJo Carbonell, from my home State of California. When she was in school, JoJo had to ask her teacher to excuse her from the assignment to make a family tree because she didn't know any of her relatives except her birth mother and her sisters. For JoJo, one of the most important reasons that she is now successful and stable is her foster parent, Sue Crowley. From Sue, JoJo learned the importance of family and began to develop heartfelt traditions she will carry with her forever. As JoJo grew older, she and Sue decided to become a permanent family through adoption. I am proud of California's success in finalizing more than 66,500 adoptions of children from foster care between 2000 and 2006, but sadly many foster youth are never united with a permanent, stable family. For Priscilla Davis, who ``aged out'' after spending 3 years at nine different placements in California's foster care system, having a family would mean having someone she could call if she is having a problem; having a family would mean there is someone to catch her if she makes a mistake; having a family would mean someone to call if something wonderful happens. Unfortunately, Priscilla is one of about 4,000 foster youth in California, and more than 20,000 youth nationwide who emancipate, or ``age out'' of foster care every year without ever finding a permanent family or establishing a relationship with an adult who will love, support, and guide them. A recent report by Kids Are Waiting and the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative found that while the total number of children in foster care has declined, the number of young people aging out of foster care has increased 41 percent since 1998. Last year, I introduced the Foster Care Continuing Opportunities Act, S. 1512, which would extend Federal funding to those States that try to provide services that help foster youth transition to adulthood. Right now, the future for foster youth when they are emancipated is often bleak. In California, about 65 percent of emancipated youth face homelessness, less than 3 percent go to college, and 51 percent are unemployed. While extending support for these services at a Federal level could make an extraordinary difference in the success of these youth in transitioning to adulthood, the best way for us to ensure these youth find the families they deserve is to reauthorize the Federal Adoption Incentive Program. The Adoption Incentive Program encourages States to find foster children like JoJo and Priscilla permanent homes through adoption, with an emphasis on finding adoptive homes for special needs children and foster children over the age of 9. This important program must be renewed before it expires on September 30 this year. I urge my colleagues to celebrate National Foster Care Month by supporting these important efforts to ensure that the Federal Government meets its responsibility to care for these youth--not just their future, but the future of our Nation depends on it.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 100th anniversary of the city of Burlingame, located in San Mateo County, CA. The city of Burlingame was incorporated into the State of California on June 6, 1908. This year, we celebrate its centennial anniversary. Also known as the ``City of Trees'' because of its 18,000 public trees, the city of Burlingame has fascinated and charmed visitors for decades. Situated in eastern San Mateo County near San Francisco Bay, Burlingame is named after diplomat Anson Burlingame, the former U.S. Minister to China who stopped in the bay area on his way to China in 1866 and purchased 1,043 acres in what is currently Burlingame and Hillsborough. In the mid-1860s, a railroad line was built down the Peninsula, with many wealthy San Franciscans building secondary homes south of San Francisco. When the great earthquake devastated much of San Francisco in 1906, many people looking to escape the dangers and hardships of the city also moved south, this time permanently. In 1894, the Burlingame Train Station was built to service the Burlingame Country Club, which was founded in 1893. This station, which was financed largely by country club members, was built to resemble the style of California's missions. Today, the Burlingame Train Station is on the National Register of Historic Places and has also been designated a State historic landmark. For 100 years, the city of Burlingame has not only served as a historical wonderland for those visiting the city but a place to call home for its more than 28,000 residents. I commend Burlingame for maintaining the natural beauty and historical significance of this fine city. The city of Burlingame's vision and commitment to protecting its small piece of California history should be commended. I congratulate the city of Burlingame for its hard work on this special occasion and I look forward to future generations having the opportunity to visit and enjoy this unique city for another 100 years.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize National Arson Awareness Week, May 4-10, and its theme for 2008: ``Toy- like Lighters Playing with Fire.'' The major goal of National Arson Awareness Week is to promote national recognition, awareness and understanding of the arson problem in the United States. By creating a new theme each year, the National Arson Awareness Week encourages local communities to come together and promote a different aspect of arson awareness information. Intentionally set fires are a leading cause of fire deaths and a frequent cause of financial losses in the United States. The theme for this year's Arson Awareness Week, ``Toy-like Lighters--Playing with Fire,'' focuses public attention on the dangers of toy-like or novelty lighters in the hands of children. Novelty lighters are frequently mistaken by children for play toys, some complete with visual effects, flashing lights and musical sounds. Such cases of mistaken identity often carry devastating consequences. National Arson Awareness Week greatly benefits communities in California and across the Nation, as it highlights awareness of the dangers posed by arson-related issues throughout local communities. I commend the local fire departments and localities that have worked to promote awareness of the dangers posed by toy-like and novelty lighters through the National Arson Awareness Week of 2008.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 50th anniversary of the San Francisco Giants in San Francisco, CA. After relocating from New York to San Francisco, San Francisco Giants pitcher Ruben Gomez threw the historic first pitch from the mound at Seals Stadium in San Francisco on April 15, 1958 and 23,448 enthusiastic fans watched the Giants defeat the Brooklyn Dodgers 8-0 on that special day 50 years ago. San Francisco was now home to a part of our national pastime. After two seasons at Seals Stadium, the Giants moved to Candlestick Park in 1960. Home to the Giants for 40 seasons, Candlestick Park is located on the San Francisco Bay and carried the reputation for being one of the coldest, windiest, and foggiest ball parks in all the country. Despite these less than favorable playing conditions, Candlestick Park stood strong on one of the most frightening days in San Francisco history: October 17, 1989. Candlestick Park was packed with 62,000 fans before Game 3 of the 1989 Bay Bridge Series between the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland Athletics, when the 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake struck. Thankfully, Candlestick Park withstood the trembler and no one in attendance was injured. In 2000, the Giants left Candlestick Park and relocated to the brand new Pacific Bell Park in downtown San Francisco. Now known as AT&T Park, the classically designed ballpark offers picturesque views of the city and bay. Today, the home of the San Francisco Giants is widely regarded as one of America's most beautiful stadiums. In their first 50 years in San Francisco, the Giants have been a model of excellence on the field. In addition to capturing three National League pennants, several members of the National Baseball Hall of Fame have donned the trademark orange and black colors of the Giants: Willie Mays, Juan Marichal, Orlando Cepeda, Gaylord Perry and Willie McCovey. The San Francisco Giants have been a great source of entertainment and pride to their legion of loyal fans over the past half century. In addition to their achievements on the field, the San Francisco Giants baseball club is also committed to serving their community through a variety of community service programs. From the Giants Community Fund, which supports summer baseball leagues for low-income children throughout northern California, to the ``Read to Win'' program which encourages children to keep reading throughout the summer months, the San Francisco Giants baseball club is actively assisting baseball fans and their families throughout northern California. I congratulate the San Francisco Giants on their many accomplishments over the past 50 years in San Francisco. I send my best wishes for their next 50 years.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, please join me as we celebrate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month this May. Asian Pacific American Heritage Month was originally established as Asian Pacific American Heritage Week in 1977 by a congressional resolution. In 1992, Congress expanded the week into a month to recognize the countless contributions that Asian Pacific Islander Americans have made to our country. The month of May is significant to the Asian and Pacific Islander American, APIA, community because it coincides with two important milestones in APIA history: the arrival of the first Japanese immigrants to the U.S., in May of 1843, and the contributions of Chinese workers toward building the transcontinental railroad, which was completed in May of 1869. The APIA community is one of the fastest growing populations in the United States. With nearly 15 million residents and growing, APIAs contribute greatly to every aspect of life in America, just as they have throughout our history. This year's Asian Pacific American Heritage Month theme is ``Leadership, Diversity, Harmony--Gateway to Success.'' As the Senator from California, which has 5 million APIA residents, I am working hard to address the many issues of importance to the APIA community, such as human rights, immigration reform, education, and health care. As the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, I have been working on issues such as peace and stability in East Asia and the Pacific, human rights issues, environmental protection, and the economy. I hope you visit my Asian Pacific American Heritage Month web feature to learn more about how the APIA community has shaped our Nation's history. I hope that you will find this information useful and that you will celebrate the rich diversity that is America's greatest strength.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, 5 years ago today, President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in front of a banner that said ``Mission Accomplished'' and he told the Nation that major combat operations ended in Iraq. Those were his words. Now, listening to the radio reports today, I hear that the President's Press Secretary, Dana Perino, said we all--all of America--misunderstood. He didn't really mean the mission in Iraq was accomplished; he was just talking about the fact that the particular aircraft carrier on which he landed, that they had done their mission and that was accomplished. I don't even know how to react to that. It is beneath the dignity of a White House Press Secretary to reach in that fashion. I will tell you why. I read the speech the President made in its entirety, and I don't see one thing that talks about a mission accomplished by the USS Abraham Lincoln, the carrier--not one word, not one thing. I thought to myself: What would that be like? I thought: Maybe it is as if the Presiding Officer or I were giving a speech on health care, and behind us we had a big banner and the speech was televised and it said: Health care for all. Health care for all. We gave a speech, and then a few days later someone who saw the speech said: Senator, I am really annoyed about your speech. You said health care for all. I already have my health care. I don't like your system. Leave me out of it. And I responded in this way: I didn't mean anyone outside this room. I only meant the people I was speaking to in the room--even though I had a sign that said: Health Care For All. So please, please, let's not make matters worse by distorting the truth any more than it has already been distorted from day one of this national nightmare. What else did the President say on that aircraft carrier that day 5 years ago today? He said: Other nations in history have fought in foreign lands and remain to occupy and exploit. Americans following a battle-- Listen: Americans following a battle want nothing more than to return home. Americans following a battle want nothing more than to return home. He said: That is your direction tonight. Five years ago, the President said we won the battle; it is time to go home. Where are we 5 years later? I just heard 48 deaths last month, which is the highest in 6 months. Since that day 5 years ago, 3,922 troops have died in Iraq, including 796 either from or based in California, and almost 30,000 have been wounded. We have spent more than a half billion dollars, and there is no end in sight. When the President made his declaration, the price of oil was $26 per barrel. It now stands at $113 per barrel. Remember, the oil was supposed to pay for the war. Remember. Don't forget, the oil was supposed to pay for the war. That is what the administration told us. The words, ``Mission Accomplished,'' no matter how somebody tries to torture it, have come to symbolize the dishonesty and the incompetence that took our Nation into an ill-advised war of choice--a war with a price in terms of lives and treasure and our Nation's standing in the world only grows higher and higher and higher with each passing day. We cannot afford it. We recognize the words, ``Mission Accomplished,'' as part of a sad and familiar pattern, another verse in the same song from the people who warned us the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud. Remember when Secretary Rice said the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud, even as they knew it wasn't true. They assured us we would be greeted as liberators. They swore we would be turning the corner and that the insurgency was in its last throes. Then they said, when we asked why isn't this war over: Well, we need to train enough Iraqis, and when they stand up, we will stand down. We have spent so much training the Iraqis--I want to make sure I am right on this--$20 billion we have spent training over 400,000 Iraqis. I asked General Petraeus: How many al-Qaida are there? He said: Very few left, a few thousand maybe--not even. I asked General Petraeus: How many insurgents are there? He said: In the thousands. We have trained over 400,000 Iraqi soldiers, but our troops are still dying instead of playing a support role as they should. I wish to talk about the money that we, the taxpayers, are spending. We are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. That is $2.5 billion a week. That is $357 million a day. Now, remember, this is all borrowed money and the cost of this is going right to the debt that our grandchildren and their children will have on their backs. The President's policy is being paid for on a credit card, and we are sticking future generations with the bill. That is irresponsible and immoral. We don't have a plan to get out of Iraq 5 years after ``Mission Accomplished.'' Everybody says this war cannot be won through military means; it has to be won through political means. Yet we sit back, and the Government in Iraq makes very little progress, and they know, because of this President and this administration, they don't have a price to pay for not being effective. They don't pay a price for that, for not solving this politically. They don't pay any price because we are going to be there, and the blood and treasure of this country is on the line. The President says: Iran and al-Qaida are our biggest enemies. The President of Iraq holds hands with Ahmadinejad of Iran. They kiss each other on the cheek. We spend this money, we lose these lives, our President says Iran is our biggest enemy alongside al-Qaida, and we just keep on sending the money to a government that embraces Iran. Now, I don't care how you figure this out, it doesn't add up to me. For less than the cost of 3 months in Iraq, we could enroll every eligible child in the Nation in the Head Start Program for a year. For 3 months in Iraq, that is what we could do for our children, and we know the waiting list is long. For 2 weeks in Iraq we could provide health insurance for 6 million uninsured children for a whole year. The list goes on. For 7 days in Iraq we could enroll 2.5 million kids in afterschool programs. For 6 weeks in Iraq we could ensure full interoperability of all of our communications systems. We are not protected in America because we don't give our emergency workers the interoperability they need. For the cost of 6 weeks in Iraq we could do that. Oh, no. For 3 weeks in Iraq we could extend the renewable energy production tax credit for 4 years and see jobs from solar and wind and geothermal energy. We could extend 13 additional weeks of unemployment insurance in this recession for 1 month in Iraq. The list goes on. We have given so much on this 5-year anniversary. It is time for a change in this country. We need to tell the Iraqis we will stand behind them, but we are not going to stand in front of them, and we are not going to continue to pay these enormous costs. Our country cannot afford it. I thank you, and I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 2 minutes in favor of bringing this bill forward.

Mrs. BOXER. I am very pleased that Senator Rockefeller, Senator Baucus, and their ranking members of the subcommittees and the full committee, the Chairs of Finance and Commerce have worked together to bring us to this moment where we can reauthorize the FAA bill. It has reached the time. I was very pleased that Senator Hutchison mentioned the Passenger Bill of Rights that I was so pleased to author along with Senator Olympia Snowe. I was so pleased to have the support of so many on the committee. I wanted to remind everyone, it is important that we move forward on this bill. There are so many things we have to consider now. We see what is happening with our air service. When it works right, it is terrific. Myself, today, it all worked right. I had to take two planes to get here all the way from California. It was smooth. But there are times when it is not smooth. We all know that. But what we want to make sure of is that passengers are treated fairly, and without the heavy-handed Federal Government in everything. We make sure that the system works. That led me to author the Passenger Bill of Rights. Kate Hanni was one of the people who got trapped on a plane for, I do not remember if it was 8 or 10 hours with her two little boys. There was no food for them. There were overflowing restrooms. It was a nightmare. People could not access their medicines. They were not allowed to, and certainly people did not have an option to get off the plane. And this happened over and over again. I think we have all had experiences like that or we know someone who did. There is no excuse for this. People have to have adequate water, adequate food, and be able to use a clean restroom and get access to their medicines. It seems to me that ought to be a basic rule of the airlines. It is not. And that is why we wrote this Passenger Bill of Rights, and the committee supported it in the underlying bill, and people will be granted those what I consider very minimum rights. We think we are going to offer a perfecting amendment, because at this point what happens is, we put in there a 3-hour rule. That is the maximum time on the runway, with certain exceptions: safety, weather, other things. But we say: If an airline does not agree to a 3-hour rule, 3 hours of people trapped in the aircraft on a runway, that they have to submit an alternative to the FAA; but we do not require that the FAA sign off on it. So we may want to strengthen that. I would alert colleagues. I hope they support us. I know I have no time remaining. I hope we will give this a strong ``yea'' vote. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to offer my support for S. 1315, the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. This is a tremendously important piece of legislation, and I commend Senator Akaka and the Veterans' Affairs Committee for their work. This bill says to the men and women who have served and suffered horrible injuries and paid the price of war, ``We have not forgotten you. You and your families deserve the respect and care of a grateful Nation, and we will do all that we can to see to it that you live lives of dignity.'' Among other things, this legislation enhances life insurance benefits to disabled servicemembers, improves benefits for veterans who need to renovate their homes to accommodate their injuries, and increases education benefits so our veterans will have an easier time going back to school and getting good jobs when they finish military service. But just as important as taking care of our newest generation of veterans, this bill also takes care of some of the oldest veterans who were a part of the ``greatest generation.'' In 1941, President Roosevelt issued an order that directed the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines to fight alongside our Armed Forces, as he was authorized to do under the Philippine Independence Act of 1934. Some 250,000 Filipinos would swear allegiance to the United States of America in the months before and the days after Pearl Harbor. Under our flag, they went on to fight and die on the same battlefields as U.S. troops. They gathered intelligence, organized a guerilla resistance against the Japanese invasion of their island home, and assisted in rescue operations of American prisoners of war. When the fighting stopped, the members of the Filipino Army were to have been eligible for full veterans' benefits, just like American veterans. In October of 1945 GEN Omar Bradley, who at the time was the head of the Veterans' Administration, affirmed that the Filipino soldiers would be treated no differently and were to receive all the benefits that they rightly deserved. Unfortunately, the Rescission Act of 1946 changed all that. It stated that the Filipinos who fought alongside Americans had not performed ``active service'' and that they had no standing or claim to any ``rights, privileges, or benefits.'' Mr. President, there are now only about 18,000 of these heroic Filipinos left. About 13,000 of them are still in the Philippines, where they have waited over 60 years for the United States Government to provide the benefits they were promised and are owed for serving our Nation and defending the cause of freedom. That is what this legislation does. It also extends the benefits available to all U.S. servicemembers to the 5,000 Filipino veterans living here in the United States. Unfortunately, for the past 9 months, the other side of the aisle has balked at allowing this legislation to come up for a vote. I am certainly thankful that they have no problem with extending full benefits to Filipino veterans living here. But sadly they feel that $300 a month for a single person and $375 for a married person is too high a pension for someone who lives in the Philippines but fought for the United States 60 years ago and hasn't received a penny since. Instead they are insisting on no pension at all for these veterans. However, I am glad that we have now moved to the bill, and we can debate the merits of this vital legislation that will address the needs of those who have paid the price of war. Senator Inouye, who has so faithfully lead this effort for the past 16 years and knows what it means to have fought under our flag in World War II, recently stated, ``What happened 61 years ago was not right; it was shameful and disgraceful. . . . The legislation is about fairness and dignity--core American values. It is also about correcting an injustice that has stood for way too long.'' I could not agree more, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill and bring these well-deserved and urgently needed benefits to those veterans--both young and old--who have fought on our behalf.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity today to solemnly observe the 93rd anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian genocide was the first genocide of the 20th century. From 1915 until 1923, 1.5 million Armenians were brutally killed by the Ottoman Turks in a systematic effort to eradicate the Armenian people. There were unbearable acts of torture; men were separated from their families and murdered; women and children were put on a forced march across the Syrian desert without food or water. Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916, recalled: When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact . . . I am confident that the whole history of the human race contains no such horrible episode as this. The great massacres and persecutions of the past seem almost insignificant when compared to the sufferings of the Armenian race in 1915. Tragically, 1915 was just the beginning. We saw the horrors of genocide in World War II when Jews were subjected to systematic extermination at the hands of Adolf Hitler and his followers. Indeed, Hitler remarked at the outset of this unbridled evil, ``Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?'' Unfortunately, the phrase ``never again'' turned out to be a hollow slogan. In the later half of the last century, countries like Cambodia and Rwanda were ravaged while the world was silent. And even now, in this new century, Darfur is the latest place to experience such brutality and inhumanity as the world stands idly by, either incapable or unwilling to do what is necessary to stop the devastation and murder. Today, the Turkish Government denies what happened in the dying days of the Ottoman Empire and thus this scar on history cannot be healed until history is accurately spoken, written, and recalled. These are lessons that must be told and repeated to each and every generation. In order for democracy and human rights to flourish, we must not support efforts to rewrite and deny history. In the United States, we strive to make human rights a fundamental component of our democracy. It is long overdue for our Nation to demand that the truth be told. We must recognize the Armenian genocide in the name of democracy, fairness, and human rights. To that end, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of Senator Richard Durbin's S. Res. 106, calling on the President to accurately characterize the Armenian Genocide in his annual message around April 24 and to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide. It is important that we recognize the Armenian Genocide while its survivors are still with us to tell their stories. We must recognize the genocide for the survivors. We must recognize the genocide because it's the right thing to do. We must recognize the Armenian Genocide to help shed light on the darkness and move toward a more humane world.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, tomorrow we will have a vote to proceed-- --

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 6 minutes as in morning business.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank you all for indulging me. Fair Pay Act Tomorrow we will have a vote to proceed to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. Four of my Democratic female colleagues spoke on this earlier today--four or five. I wanted to add my voice to their voices because, as I stand on the floor of the Senate some 45 years after passage of the Equal Pay Act, it is unfortunate that workers throughout the Nation will suffer pay discrimination based on gender, race, religion, national origin, disability, and age. They still suffer this. We still have a long way to go on equal pay for equal work. It stuns some people to learn that women still earn 23 percent less than men, and the pay disparity is still so great that it takes a woman 16 months to earn what a man earns in 12 months. In 2006, an average college-educated woman working full time earned $15,000 less than a college-educated male. According to the American Association of University Women, working families lose $200 billion in income per year due to the wage gap. This is an important point because so many women now work. We know this. So families are struggling to make ends meet with higher gas prices, higher college tuition, higher food prices, higher health care, all of that. We know there is not an easy solution that will eliminate all pay discrimination, but the bill we hope to go to tomorrow, the Equal Pay Restoration Act, will ensure that when an employer discriminates based on gender or race or any other factor, the employee can take his or her case to court. There was a very bad decision that was made by the Supreme Court which reversed decades of legal precedent, and this was the Ledbetter decision. With its decision, the Court imposed a serious obstacle for equality, equal pay, by requiring workers to file a pay discrimination claim within 180 days of when their employer first starts discriminating. Now, that is an impossible standard to meet. You really do not know when that moment occurs. What was important about this decision is it threw out the law that had always worked well and would have protected people such as Lilly Ledbetter from discrimination. Her story is not unfamiliar to many female employees. She was a female, she was a manager at an Alabama Goodyear Tire plant when she discovered, after 19 years of service, that she was earning 20 to 40 percent less than her male counterparts for doing the exact same job. It took her a long time to ferret this information out. As Justice Ginsburg noted in her dissenting opinion, the pay discrepancy between Ledbetter and her 15 male counterparts was stark. In 1997, her last year of employment at Goodyear, after 19 years of service she earned $5,600 less than her lowest paid male coworkers, and she earned over $18,000 less than her highest paid male coworkers. Evidence submitted at her trial showed that Mrs. Ledbetter was denied raises, despite receiving performance awards, and in some cases female supervisors at the plant were paid less than the male employees they supervised. So when Ms. Ledbetter discovered this, she took Goodyear to court, and the jury awarded her full damages. But the company, Goodyear, appealed the jury's decision. In 2007 the Supreme Court made this very bad decision and said she could not sue for back pay despite--and with which they agreed--the overwhelming evidence that her employer had intentionally discriminated against her because of her gender. But, they said, it took Lilly Ledbetter longer than 6 months to determine she had been a victim of years of pay discrimination. So, in other words, because it took her more than 6 months to figure this out, she was denied any kind of help. It does take a significant amount of time in many cases for the truth to be known. Here in the Capitol, if you work for the Government, everybody's pay is on record. And you can see it; it is a public document. But in a private sector plant there may be no way to find out. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out: Compensation disparities are often hidden from sight for a number of reasons. Many employers do not publish their employees' salaries, and other employees are not anxious to discuss what they earn. So this controversial decision is having serious impacts. In the 10 months since the decision was handed down, the Ledbetter precedent has been cited 207 times by Federal district courts and courts of appeal. So it means, it seems to me from what I gather, from that statistic alone, many people are being denied equal treatment under the law: equal pay, equal treatment. So what does the bill do that we want to go to, we Democrats on Wednesday, tomorrow? It simply restores the law to what it was in almost every State in the country before the Ledbetter case was decided. It does so by helping to eliminate the unreasonable barrier created by the Supreme Court and allows workers to file a pay discrimination claim within 180 days of each discriminatory paycheck. That was the law before Ledbetter. The Ledbetter decision was a giant step backward in the fight for equal opportunity and equal rights. Goodyear engaged in chronic discrimination against female employees, but because of the Ledbetter decision, the Court must treat intentional ongoing pay discrimination as lawful conduct. Employers who can conceal their pay discrimination for 180 days can continue this practice, and there is no redress. We must ask ourselves: Is this the standard that Congress should be proud of? Is this the kind of standard that we should support, where somebody is treated in an unfair fashion, is paid less than somebody else simply because of their gender? It is not right. It seems to me, if we are going to have fairness and justice in America today, the least we can do is overturn the Ledbetter decision. Justice Ginsburg told us: ``Congress, the ball is in your court.'' That is why I am so pleased that Senator Reid is bringing this opportunity before us tomorrow. Today, as we reflect upon the importance of fairness and equity to our society with a celebration of Equal Pay Day, we must restore this important protection and return the law to its meaning. I hope tomorrow when we get a chance to move to this bill our colleagues will all vote aye because what is fair is fair and what is wrong is wrong. We need to fix this problem. Equal pay for equal work is a value that we should hold dear.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, we are ready.

Mrs. BOXER. All we want is an ``aye'' vote. Let's get this good bill passed. Let's unleash $1 billion worth of good, important projects into our communities and create tens of thousands of jobs. We appreciate we have come this far. We thank you. I yield to my colleague.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I wanted to have a minute before to explain the lay of the land.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, for the interest of all Members, we have been working now since Monday to pass a technical corrections bill, which, it seems to me, should have been passed very quickly. It basically makes some corrections to the last big highway and transit bill so certain projects that have been held up for technical reasons can go forward, and others that weren't ready, pushed aside, and another can go forward. This will unleash about a billion dollars' worth of important programs for our Nation. These projects have been vetted, and they have been posted on the Web page of the committee, as we must do according to our new ethics rules. We are very pleased it looks like we might be able to wrap this up in the next few hours. As far as I am concerned, we are ready to vote. We have the Coburn amendment and the Boxer amendment, which deal with a real problem that occurred at some point during the SAFETEA-LU consideration years ago. We have corrected the problem in the bill. We want to now have some type of investigation to find out exactly what went wrong and if there were any crimes committed. There were two options. Senator Coburn is setting up a complicated select committee of the House and Senate. We believe strongly that it creates constitutional problems, and we think it might interfere with a Justice Department investigation. And then Senator Reid had recommended, I think a far better way to get at the problem, which is a Justice Department investigation. I have written an amendment to go along with that. We are hoping to vote on that and then, hopefully, get to a cloture vote and final passage. So that is the lay of the land, as best I see it. I wish I had more control over this at the moment. If I did, we would be voting in 5 minutes on the whole package. Until then, I will see you as soon as we have an agreement and, hopefully, we will get this matter done today. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments be in order to H.R. 1195, and that at 3:30 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to Boxer amendment No. 4539, and that the amendment be modified to be to amendment No. 4146; to be followed by a vote in relation to Coburn amendment No. 4538, and that Coburn amendment No. 4540 be withdrawn once this agreement is entered; that each of those two amendments be subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold, and that if neither achieves that threshold, then it be withdrawn; that if either or both achieve the 60-vote threshold, that it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that prior to each vote there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled in the usual form, and upon disposition of these listed amendments, the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Boxer substitute, amendment No. 4146; that if cloture is invoked on amendment No. 4146, then the substitute, as amended, if amended, be agreed to, the committee-reported substitute, as amended, be agreed to, and the bill then read a third time; and without further intervening action or debate the Senate proceed to vote on passage of H.R. 1195, as amended; that the cloture motion on the bill be withdrawn; provided further that after the first vote, all subsequent votes in the sequence be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, because we need to move this bill along. There are 500 important projects in it. I have colleagues who want to add more projects. I want to say, for the benefit of everyone, there are some very legitimate technical corrections that still need to be done. I have committed to my colleagues, both Democratic and Republican--I have spoken to Senator Lincoln, Senator Landrieu, Senator Ben Nelson, Senator Hutchison, only a few moments ago--that our committee, myself working with Senator Inhofe and our colleagues, is going to come up with a follow-on technical corrections bill with the time to ensure it is put together right. We do have some different ethics rules these days. We want to make sure we vet everything and everything is put up on the Web site. We have a number of very important technical corrections still to be done, but we are going to do it in the next 3 weeks in committee. We look forward to it. I read a very complex unanimous consent request, and I don't think anyone within the sound of my voice could possibly follow all of it. So I thought in plain English, for the good of myself as well as my colleagues, I would say where we are. We are going to have a couple of votes on the issue of Coconut Road, which is a real problem for us, and it has been straightened out in this bill. We fix the problem. But there are colleagues who want to have an investigation, and we have two alternatives. One is the Coburn amendment which sets up what I consider a very complicated special select committee with Members from both bodies. It will have public hearings. It will review things in public. It will do all of that. At the end of that time, what the committee will do is refer something to Justice, if they have found a problem. That is the whole point of the select committee. The problem is, if you read the Constitution, you see the debate clause. We believe, from our constitutional scholars on this side, that that whole committee will fall. It will not be able to do its job. The House has told us they don't see how Senators can investigate House Members and House Members can investigate Senate Members. We think the best way to go, Senator Reid and I and others, is to have the Justice Department get right in there. Ours is not a sense-of-the-Senate approach. We require the Justice Department to move forward. Instead of having a big Senate-House committee, with the press flashing pictures and all the rest, just get to it and ask Justice to investigate. We also worry, if there is a big committee--and there won't be, because the House won't accept it anyway--irony of all ironies, the Coconut Road fix will fall, because we fix it in this bill. If this bill falls because of this committee--because it is unconstitutional--there won't be a fix to Coconut Road. It is going to go back to the terrible change that somebody made in the dead of night. We don't want that to happen. I hope my colleagues will reject that approach and support the Boxer- Reid approach which I believe is straightforward. It makes sense. It gets right to the heart. If there is a crime, let's find out about it. On the McCain amendment, I actually was looking forward to debating it. I hope we will be able to, because there is a lot of dispute about how it would actually work in the real world. There is nothing in the McCain amendment that tells the oil companies they can't pocket the 18 cents that is going to come off. We have seen the oil companies. In California, in some places, we are over $4. This hurts our hearts. We see oil company profits soaring. If it were only the cost, they would be having the same profit and passing on the cost. But, no, their profits have gone up. We know about the CEO salaries and all the rest. There is nothing in the McCain amendment--I would love to talk to John about that--that would say to the oil companies: Don't use this as a moment to raise 18 cents. So where might we be? We might do this, and we would have to now go to the general fund. All taxpayers would have to pay for this. Let's be clear. There is no pay-for in the McCain amendment--none at all. It goes to the Treasury. Who puts money in the Treasury? My taxpayers, your taxpayers, all taxpayers. So taxpayers are now going to pay for this one way or the other. We take it away from the users and the taxpayers pay, and there is nothing in it that will ensure that the cost won't be nabbed and grabbed by the oil companies. Then they get the extra 18 cents, and we have blown a $9 billion hole in the Federal budget. It is amazing how my colleagues could say, it is a time of stress. We have to do this. We need to be a little bit more responsible. I am looking forward to this debate. I like to pay for things. Maybe I am old-fashioned. I am an old economics major. I think it is good to pay for things. I think we could figure out a way to pay for things. But to say nobody gets hurt when the tab in the McCain amendment is picked up by all taxpayers is faulty. We will have to make up that $9 billion. We Democrats think there is a way to do it. We see the profits of the oil companies. We say to the oil companies: Good for you, but there is a point at which, when Americans are suffering, you have to do a little bit more. I, for one, look forward to debating the McCain amendment soon. We will have that debate. But it isn't going to be on this bill. For that, I am grateful for this reason: We are bringing this to a close, and this package is in many ways a ministimulus. It will unleash $1 billion into the economy. It will unleash some of these projects that are so important for our people who got stuck for technical reasons or had to have minor changes for other reasons. This $1 billion, when it is unleashed, will create tens of thousands of good jobs, jobs building highways, bridges, transit systems. We are very happy, and we expect to have this vote at 3:30. We will have first the Boxer amendment, then the Coburn amendment, then a cloture vote, and then a vote on final passage. We should be doing very well. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Graham, Martinez, and Wicker be recognized for a total of up to 10 minutes and that following their remarks, Senator Kennedy be recognized for up to 20 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, before the majority leader leaves the floor, I thank him very much because he helped me enormously in this whole matter of an investigation. What we all want to do is get to the bottom of what happened with this Coconut Road situation, where it appears as if there may have been some activity that merits punishment. When we heard that Senator Coburn wanted to take on this issue, we welcomed that because we do believe we have a responsibility to regain the trust of our people. That is why under Senator Reid's leadership we passed the most far-reaching ethics reforms ever. I see my friend is in the chair. She is part of the new class of Senators who pushed very hard for that legislation. Therefore, when Senator Coburn came forward, we believed we certainly wanted to do something. But what Senator Reid, because he is a distinguished attorney, taught me is, there is a speech and debate clause in the Constitution, and this investigation with a select committee, House Members and Senate Members investigating each other and staff, could fall. Here is the point, before my friend leaves the floor. The irony of all ironies is, if, in fact, the Coburn solution were to be adopted today and it did go forward, although we think it will bring the whole bill down, it wouldn't. But let's say it is adopted. Nothing they do would really lead to anything until the end of their hearings. I call it kind of a circus atmosphere where colleagues would come, flashbulbs in everybody's face, and they take testimony. Nothing of consequence would occur, I say to my friend, until the end when they decide if there was something the Justice Department needed to look into. Why have all that hoopla when you can get to the heart of the matter, which is saying to the Department of Justice: We want you--and this will require them. It doesn't say you ``may,'' it says you ``shall'' look into this. If the bill did fall, here is the totally irony: The fix to Coconut Road would fall. In other words, in the technical corrections bill, we fix the problem. If this whole thing falls because of the Coburn amendment, then we go back to the real problem of somebody changing the route of this particular road or building, freeway, whatever it was that was going to increase somebody's property. That would be the worst of all worlds. I thank my leader for his help on this matter. He knows when I heard about this amendment, I said to him: Yes, we need to look into this, and he wanted to do it in the right way. He and his staff have been so helpful in getting us to this point where we have a very good alternative. I hope everybody votes for it.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank my colleague for bringing this issue to our attention. I think he knows that in the beginning there were some voices that said: Let's not deal with this. But we worked together, and we did come up eventually with a way to deal with it. I think some of our colleagues believe that where there is a constitutional issue and a precedent-setting issue here involving such a delicate matter, such a matter that could lead to a criminal investigation and punishment, we ought to have some type of consensus on it. But I share his concern. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute before we go to the regular order.