Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate set aside the pending business and call up my amendment at the desk, amendment No. 2642.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with; and I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to continue for 1 minute.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, more than three decades ago Congress created the Public Safety Officers Benefits Program at the Justice Department to provide assistance to the surviving families of police, firefighters, and medics who lose their lives or are disabled in the line of duty. The benefit, though, only applies to public safety officers employed by Federal, State, and local government entities. With volunteers providing emergency medical service to many communities all across the country, my amendment would remedy this gap in the P-S-O-B program by extending benefits to cover nonprofit EMS personnel who provide critical prehospital care. We have been working to address this gap in the Federal program for some time, and the tragic loss earlier this year of Dale Long--a decorated EMT from Bennington, VT--reminded everyone that first responders of many uniforms literally put their lives at risk every day. These brave emergency professionals never let their communities down when a call comes in, and no one ever asks the lifesavers at an emergency scene whether they work for the Federal government, a State government, a local government, or a nonprofit agency. My amendment will erase that unnecessary distinction from the P-S-O-B program. I would like to thank a number of first responder groups--including the American Ambulance Association, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Fraternal Order of Police--for their assistance on this matter. I also would note that this amendment is fully offset and cosponsored by Senator Sanders. I hope the Senate can move quickly to approve this amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor today an amendment to require the antitrust division of the Department of Justice to carry out oversight, information-sharing, and joint activities concerning competition in the agriculture sector. Our Nation's antitrust laws exist to promote competition, which ensures that consumers will pay lower prices, and receive more choices of higher quality products. The Department of Justice is charged with enforcing these antitrust laws. Yet there are few industries in which there are more serious concerns about the state of competition than the agriculture sector. Small farmers are suffering because the prices they can charge for many of their products continues to decline, and the level of concentration throughout the industry could have a negative long-term impact on the prices that consumers pay and the choices they have. Since first coming to Washington, I have fought to help our family farmers by ensuring a level playing field in American agriculture. The consolidation in recent years throughout the agriculture sector has had a tremendous impact on the lives and livelihoods of American farmers. It affects producers of most commodities in virtually every region of the country, and in my home State of Vermont, it affects dairy farmers. Farmers need a fair opportunity to compete in the marketplace and we must prevent giants in corporate agriculture from repeatedly hurting them with unfair, discriminatory, deceptive, and anticompetitive practices. I held a field hearing last month in Vermont to assess competitive issues in the dairy industry. During that hearing, we heard from officials from the Department of Justice and the United States Department of Agriculture. We also received first hand testimony from farmers whose businesses are suffering at the hands of large distributors. This crisis is real, and the Department of Justice has pledged to take a renewed look at competitive issues in the agriculture sector as a whole. This amendment is another step to help ensure that competition exists in the agriculture sector.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I applaud the distinguished Senator from Maryland. He has been a star in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and his support of Tom Perez is one of the reasons Mr. Perez went through our committee with an overwhelming vote. Incidentally, we do have letters of support. One I have which is very meaningful--and I think the Senator from Maryland would agree--is the letter we received from Senator Kennedy, the late Senator Kennedy. While this matter is pending, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter from the late Senator Kennedy printed in the Record, as well as letters of support from numerous attorneys general, including the attorney general of Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY. It is interesting that finally we are getting to this nomination. What is troubling to me, as someone who has been here for 35 years, is to see what is happening this year that is really unprecedented: having to overcome a Republican filibuster of a nomination that was voted out of committee 17 to 2. All but two Republicans voted for it. That was 4 months ago. There are no questions about the qualifications of Tom Perez. He is a former special counsel to Senator Kennedy. He has been nominated to run the division where he previously served with distinction, spending 10 years as a trial attorney in the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division, rising to Deputy Chief of the section. There is no question about the critical need for leadership in the Civil Rights Division, the division charged with enforcing our landmark civil rights laws and protecting all Americans from discrimination. Our delays in considering this nomination have hindered the work of restoring the division's independence and the tradition of vigorous civil rights enforcement, especially after the Bush administration compiled one of the worst civil rights records in modern American history and injected partisan politics into the division's hiring and law enforcement decisions. We need real leadership to restore the traditional sense of purpose that has guided the Civil Rights Division, a division that has acted in a totally nonpartisan way to uphold the civil rights of all Americans no matter what their political background, as is the priority of Attorney General Holder. It is a shame this filibuster has held up Mr. Perez for 4 months. The President designated Mr. Perez on March 13 and formally nominated him 2 weeks later. We held his confirmation hearing April 29, over 5 months ago. I thank Senator Cardin, who chaired that hearing and did a very able job of it. And then after accommodating the request of the senior Republican and other Republicans of the Judiciary Committee, we did not move immediately to it; we held it over until after the Memorial Day recess so they could ask other questions. Mr. Perez's nomination was reported by the Judiciary Committee on June 4. Senator Hatch voted for him; Senator Grassley voted for him; Senator Kyl, the deputy Republican leader, voted for him; Senator Graham and Senator Cornyn voted for him. The ranking member, Senator Sessions, and Senator Coburn asked to meet the nominee before consideration by the Senate. That meeting took place almost immediately after the request. It reportedly went well. Unfortunately, despite these efforts, it has taken 4 months to schedule Senate consideration of this well-qualified nominee. That makes a mockery of the kind of way we should treat the Department of Justice, which is the Department of Justice of America for all Americans. It is not a partisan place, it is there for all of us. In fact, if the Senate Republican minority applied the same standard to the consideration of President Obama's nomination of Tom Perez as Democrats and Republicans used in considering President Bush's first nomination to serve the Civil Rights Division, Ralph Boyd, Mr. Perez would have been confirmed many months ago. I remember the Boyd nomination well. I chaired the Judiciary Committee at the time he was confirmed. We held Mr. Boyd's hearing just a little over 3 weeks after his nomination. Compare that with the delays here. He was reported by the Judiciary Committee with every single Democrat voting for him. Did he have to wait 4 months after that? No. He was confirmed 1 day later by a voice vote in the Senate. No shenanigans. No partisanship. No posturing for narrow special interests. I want to be sure that was heard: no posturing for narrow special interests. By comparison, it has now been 188 days since Mr. Perez was nominated to the same post, even longer since he was designated. It should not have taken more than twice as long to consider President Obama's first nomination to this post as it took for President Bush's. Then President Bush had a second nomination to head the Civil Rights Division, Alex Acosta. We moved even more quickly. At that point, the Democrats were in the minority. We did not filibuster. We did not obstruct. We did not delay. We knew how important it was. We cooperated. We agreed to a hearing less than 4 weeks after he was nominated. He was reported from the Judiciary Committee by a unanimous vote. He was confirmed by a Senate voice vote. It took just 36 days. Republicans have dragged the process out on the Perez nomination to extend more than five times that long. Democrats didn't do that to President Bush. No shenanigans, no partisanship, no posturing for narrow special interests. President Bush's third nomination to the civil rights division, Wan Kim, was also considered and confirmed much more quickly than Mr. Perez. He was confirmed in the Senate by a voice vote. There was no filibuster. There were no shenanigans. There was no partisanship. There was no posturing for special interests. Then Mr. Kim had to resign along with Attorney General Gonzales and the entire senior leadership of the Bush-Cheney Justice Department in the wake of the U.S. Attorney firing scandal and revelations of political hiring and decisionmaking that threatened the morale and independence of the Civil Rights Division and the Department. Indeed, it was that scandal that prevented us from considering President Bush's fourth nomination to head the Civil Rights Division. Grace Chung Becker refused to answer many questions at her confirmation hearing about whether she was involved in politicized hiring and decision-making, repeatedly citing the then-ongoing internal investigation by the Department as a reason not to answer. In light of Ms. Becker's repeated invocation of the investigation in response to questions, we had to await its conclusion before moving forward on her nomination. Unfortunately, the report from the Department's Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility was not completed until it was too late to consider Ms. Becker's nomination. There is no similar cause to delay the consideration of Mr. Perez's nomination. We should instead have treated his nomination as we did that of Mr. Boyd, Mr. Acosta, and Mr. Kim. I say this because the filibuster of Mr. Perez's nomination is indicative of the double standard that Republican Senators seem intent to apply with a Democratic President. It is wrong. I am not saying that Republican Senators don't have the power under Senate rules to do it or that it is even unconstitutional. What I am saying is, it is not in the interest of the American people. It is bad judgment. It is misspent time. It is something we can ill afford. The Civil Rights Division, following the scandals of the last administration, needs to be restored to the level of prestige it held under both Republican and Democratic presidents in the past. Ten months into President's Obama's first term, President Obama having won overwhelmingly, we find that 16 nominations reported by the Judiciary Committee, many of them unanimously, remain pending on the Senate's executive calendar. Seven of them were before the last recess, including the nomination of Mr. Perez. Five of these nominations are for appointments to be assistant attorneys general at the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice, which during the Gonzales days reached probably its low point, certainly since I have been old enough to practice law, we saw was demoralized. We saw the scandals. Now we are trying to build it back up. So what has happened? Because of Republican foot dragging and shenanigans and appealing to special interests, we find five out of a total of 11 divisions at the Department do not have a confirmed and appointed head. The Office of Legal Counsel, as well as the Civil Rights Division, the Tax Division, the Office of Legal Policy, and the Environment and Natural Resources Division remain without Senate- confirmed Presidential appointees to guide them. President Obama won the election. President Obama inherited a Justice Department that had been wracked by scandal. He ought to be commended for trying to put it back. But look what has happened with some of these delays. Even his attorney general was delayed for weeks and weeks. And when they finally allowed him to have a vote, he got a greater vote than any of the last four attorneys general. Is this delay for the sake of delay? Is there such resentment that President Obama won the election? Then talk to those who voted, but don't hold up the Department of Justice. The Department is there for Republicans and Democrats and Independents, for all of us. We have to do a better job of confirming the leadership team of the Justice Department to ensure that the Nation's top law enforcement agency is fully equipped to do its job. I hope that all Senators who delayed law enforcement in this country will be reminded of that when they go home and speak about being in favor of law enforcement. I was privileged to spend 8 years of my public life in law enforcement. I still breathe deeply the sense of being in law enforcement. Every one of us favors good law enforcement. But you are damaging law enforcement by holding up these people. I hope now, despite this unnecessary filibuster, Republicans and Democrats who joined together in the past to help law enforcement will join together to confirm this well-qualified nominee. Mr. Perez has been nominated to lead the Civil Rights Division, which for 50 years has stood at the forefront of America's march toward equality. It has a long tradition of independent law enforcement that has helped transform the legal landscape of our country and brought us closer to the ideal of a ``more perfect union.'' A strong and independent Civil Rights Division is crucial to the enforcement of our precious civil rights laws. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Perez made clear his commitment that the Justice Department would enforce the law. In the arena of civil rights, living up to those assurances is particularly important, because the nation's civil rights laws ensure that the system works for all Americans--no matter the color of their skin, their gender, their religious affiliation or their sexual orientation. The civil rights laws are the foundation of our Nation's aspiration toward a just and fair society. That is why so many people were concerned during the last administration when we witnessed an abandonment of the Division's finest traditions of independence and a rollback of the priorities upon which it was founded. The report released nine months ago by the Justice Department's Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility confirmed some of our worst fears about the last administration's political corruption of the Civil Rights Division. The report confirmed our oversight findings that political appointees in the Division marginalized and forced out career lawyers because of ideology, and injected a political litmus test into the Division's hiring process for career positions. It should come as no surprise that the result and the intent of this political makeover of the Civil Rights Division led to a dismal civil rights enforcement record. This report was just one of the final chapters in the regrettable legacy of damage that the Bush administration inflicted on the Justice Department, our civil rights, and our fundamental values. It also reinforced the need for new leadership. Given that Tom Perez has a distinguished record of public service and a long career advancing civil rights, I have full confidence that he is the right person to restore the Civil Rights Division to its finest traditions of independent law enforcement. He is the first person nominated to head the Civil Rights Division in over 35 years who has experience as a career attorney in the Division. In addition, he has worked on civil rights at various levels of Federal, state and local government, serving as Special Counsel to Senator Kennedy, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Director of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, and currently as Maryland's Secretary of Labor, Licensing, and Regulations. His impressive credentials also include graduating from Brown University, Harvard Law School, and the Kennedy School of Government. By confirming this highly qualified nominee today, we will take a significant step forward. Numerous major civil rights and law enforcement organizations have written to endorse Mr. Perez's nomination, including the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights, the National Women's Law Center, and the chief law enforcement officers of the States of Arizona, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Utah, Washington, and Vermont. Those chief law enforcement officers wrote: ``Secretary Perez's qualifications and credentials are exceptional'' and ``[h]e is a nationally recognized civil rights lawyer whose breadth and depth of experience make him an ideal choice to lead the Civil Rights Division.'' The Leadership Conference of Civil Rights wrote: ``It will take strong and reliable leadership combined with extensive experience at the Division to restore the Division to its previous prominence in the enforcement of civil rights laws. Tom Perez is the right person to take on that challenge.'' Mr. Perez's nomination has also earned support from both sides of the aisle. Former Republican staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have described him as ``a public official of the highest integrity . . . whom the Committee and the nation can be proud.'' These Republican staffers who worked with Mr. Perez describe him as a person ``more interested in `moving the ball forward' for the common good than in scoring political points at the expense of his adversaries.'' Congressman Elijah Cummings of Maryland, who worked with the nominee when he served as Maryland's Secretary of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, wrote that Tom Perez is committed to ``serving the public good.'' He also wrote ``it is hard to imagine how President Obama and Attorney General Holder could have made a better choice.'' Senator Mikulski of Maryland said, ``I am confident Tom Perez will get the Civil Rights Division back on track'' and he ``will restore our reputation . . . of tolerance and equal rights and protection for all.'' Mr. Perez intends to make restoration of the Civil Rights Division and its mission a priority. He has pledged to follow in the footsteps of his mentor, his former boss, Senator Kennedy, and rekindle the bipartisanship that has characterized the fight for civil rights throughout our Nation's history by returning the division to its law enforcement roots. Let us not go back to an era in the Senate when we were opposed to civil rights enforcement. Let's support this well- qualified nominee. Let's go back to enforcing the civil rights laws. Does the Senator from Vermont have any time remaining?

Mr. LEAHY. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEAHY. How much time is available on our side?

Mr. LEAHY. I was going to speak, but I see the distinguished Senator from Maryland, who has done a superb job in this matter, and I would yield him 5 minutes. If he needs more time, I will yield more time.

Mr. LEAHY. If I have any remaining time, I yield it back.

Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote on this matter be vitiated and that it be in order to request the yeas and nays for a vote up or down at 12:15.

Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the nomination.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Senator Bond to temporarily suspend the retirement of tactical aircraft by the U.S. Air Force. For months, Senator Bond and I as co-chairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus have repeatedly questioned Air Force and Department of Defense leadership about what it was doing to address a looming shortfall in available aircraft for Air National Guard Units. The Air Force acknowledges this issue and I know has spent a great deal of time studying options on how to address the shortfall. But, after numerous requests at hearings and briefings for a concrete plan, at the start of the fiscal year 2010 fiscal year today, we still do not have a plan. That is why Senator Bond and I have proposed an amendment that temporarily suspends the retirement of tactical aircraft until the Secretary of the Air Force provides Congress with a roadmap that resolves the looming tactical aircraft shortfall. I hope this amendment prompts the Air Force to conclude its deliberations so that our National Guard and Reserves never get to point where there are units that have the best trained pilots and technicians in the world but there are no aircraft on the tarmac.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2565

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Coburn amendment, which would impose an additional layer of bureaucracy to the National Guard and Reserve's spending decisions, is unnecessary and burdensome. This proposal mandates a new component of review and assessment in a process where a high level of accountability already exists. As is already required by law, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs sends reports to Congress, including the four committees which oversee defense spending. These reports explain, in detail, how the various Reserve component chiefs have determined to spend the funds provided. The Guard plays a unique role in our country; they defend us here at home and, as has been the case all too often in recent years, they fight for us abroad. This special status directly effects the Guard's spending priorities, and in recent years they have focused on buying ``dual use'' equipment that is good for both foreign war and for domestic missions. Based on this reality, it is important that Congress maintain the Reserve component chief's level of influence so they can spend funds based on their most urgent requirements and unique needs. Finally, creating statutory requirement for an additional ``thorough review,'' involving the Secretary of Defense and other officials, will likely delay access to these funds. At a time when our Guard is called upon more frequently at home and is being relied upon so heavily in Iraq and Afghanistan, to risk underresourcing them and not providing the full support of Congress is irresponsible and negligent. I call upon my colleagues to support the Guard and Reserves and reject this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Harkin and other Senators to introduce the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. This legislation overturns the Supreme Court's recent decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, a divided case that thwarted congressional intent, overturned well-established precedent, and delivered a major blow to the ability of older workers to fight age discrimination. This bill restores the intent of Congress to fully empower older workers to seek redress in the courts, and to root out discrimination in the workplace. I thank Senator Harkin for introducing this bill, and I commend him for his commitment and dedication over the years to ensure that the promise of equal opportunity is real for all Americans. We worked hard last year to enact into law the ADA Amendments Act, which clarified and expanded protections for Americans with disabilities. I am proud to once again join as an original cosponsor of legislation that will do the same for older workers. I am also pleased that Congressman George Miller will introduce a companion bill in the House today as well. This Nation was founded on the promise of equal rights and equal opportunity for all Americans. To fulfill this promise, Congress has enacted a full slate of civil rights laws to eliminate discrimination in society, including the workplace. In 1967, Congress passed the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, ADEA, with the intent to extend protections against workplace discrimination to older workers. We strengthened those protections in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which the Senate passed by a vote of 93 to 5. Last month, Senators from both sides of the aisle joined together to celebrate the life and accomplishments of Senator Ted Kennedy, whose legacy includes authoring and shepherding these civil rights measures into law. As Senator Kennedy said, ``It has long been clear that effective enforcement of civil rights and fair labor practices is possible only if individuals themselves are able to seek relief in court.'' However, contrary to the intent of Congress, the Supreme Court's decision in Gross will make it more difficult for older workers victimized by age discrimination to seek relief in court, and more difficult for those victims who actually get their day in court to vindicate their rights. In passing the ADEA, Congress aimed to eliminate all forms of age discrimination in the workplace. Consistent with this goal, courts have for decades interpreted the ADEA to lessen the burdens on older workers victimized by discrimination. Victims of age discrimination were only required to show that age was a ``motivating factor'' for an employer's adverse action, though other factors may have also motivated a company's firing or termination of an employee. In Gross, however, the Supreme Court misinterpreted the intent of Congress and ignored the longstanding precedent in a way that resulted in weakening core civil rights protections for older workers. In a 5-4 decision, a majority of the Court concluded that under the ADEA an employee must now prove that age was the sole cause of an employer's adverse action. As a result, despite our intent to provide the same protections for older workers in the ADEA as we provided for racial minorities in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, today older workers now have less protection against workplace discrimination. I am concerned that the Gross decision will allow employers to discriminate on the basis of age with impunity as long as it is paired with other reasons. Older workers, who make up nearly 50 percent of the American workforce, are particularly vulnerable to suffering discrimination during difficult economic times. In fact, age discrimination complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission jumped nearly 30 percent between 2007 and 2008. I fear that in the wake of Gross few, if any, of these victims will attain justice. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, which is modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1991, would reverse the Gross decision, strengthen the safeguards of the ADEA, and restore fundamental fairness. The bill eliminates the high burden of proof that victims of age discrimination must meet after Gross. It clarifies that the standard for proving discrimination under the ADEA and other anti- discrimination and anti-retaliation laws is the same as the standard for proving race discrimination under Title VII. The bill makes clear that when a litigant shows that age was a motivating factor for an adverse employment action, the burden is on the employer to prove it complied with the law. This bill restores the law to what it was for decades before the Court rewrote the rule. The bill also ensures that all workers will be treated equally in the workplace. Today, some lower courts have already applied Gross to weaken the protections in other anti-discrimination statutes. The legislation clarifies that the ``motivating factor'' standard applies to all anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws, and reflects a broader commitment to address the needs of all persons who suffer discrimination. It reaffirms that Americans' rights will be honored. It also restores the faith of the public that our civil rights laws are just and fair. Those are timeless American values that we can all embrace. We have drafted this measure after long and thoughtful consideration with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a broad coalition of hundreds of civil rights and workers' rights organizations. The bill also has the support of AARP, the National Senior Citizens Law Center, the National Women's Law Center and the National Employment Lawyers Association. Their support gives me confidence that this legislation will improve the lives of all Americans. Time has shown that the ADEA has been one of our Nation's most effective tools in combating discrimination. Its continued effectiveness is important to ensure that the great progress we have made in widening the doors of opportunity for all Americans continues in the future. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act will restore vital protections that have long secured the promise of equal rights and equal opportunity for older workers. I hope all Senators will support passing this critical civil rights measure this year.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Harkin and other Senators to introduce the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act. This legislation overturns the Supreme Court's recent decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, a divided case that thwarted congressional intent, overturned well-established precedent, and delivered a major blow to the ability of older workers to fight age discrimination. This bill restores the intent of Congress to fully empower older workers to seek redress in the courts, and to root out discrimination in the workplace. I thank Senator Harkin for introducing this bill, and I commend him for his commitment and dedication over the years to ensure that the promise of equal opportunity is real for all Americans. We worked hard last year to enact into law the ADA Amendments Act, which clarified and expanded protections for Americans with disabilities. I am proud to once again join as an original cosponsor of legislation that will do the same for older workers. I am also pleased that Congressman George Miller will introduce a companion bill in the House today as well. This Nation was founded on the promise of equal rights and equal opportunity for all Americans. To fulfill this promise, Congress has enacted a full slate of civil rights laws to eliminate discrimination in society, including the workplace. In 1967, Congress passed the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, ADEA, with the intent to extend protections against workplace discrimination to older workers. We strengthened those protections in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which the Senate passed by a vote of 93 to 5. Last month, Senators from both sides of the aisle joined together to celebrate the life and accomplishments of Senator Ted Kennedy, whose legacy includes authoring and shepherding these civil rights measures into law. As Senator Kennedy said, ``It has long been clear that effective enforcement of civil rights and fair labor practices is possible only if individuals themselves are able to seek relief in court.'' However, contrary to the intent of Congress, the Supreme Court's decision in Gross will make it more difficult for older workers victimized by age discrimination to seek relief in court, and more difficult for those victims who actually get their day in court to vindicate their rights. In passing the ADEA, Congress aimed to eliminate all forms of age discrimination in the workplace. Consistent with this goal, courts have for decades interpreted the ADEA to lessen the burdens on older workers victimized by discrimination. Victims of age discrimination were only required to show that age was a ``motivating factor'' for an employer's adverse action, though other factors may have also motivated a company's firing or termination of an employee. In Gross, however, the Supreme Court misinterpreted the intent of Congress and ignored the longstanding precedent in a way that resulted in weakening core civil rights protections for older workers. In a 5-4 decision, a majority of the Court concluded that under the ADEA an employee must now prove that age was the sole cause of an employer's adverse action. As a result, despite our intent to provide the same protections for older workers in the ADEA as we provided for racial minorities in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, today older workers now have less protection against workplace discrimination. I am concerned that the Gross decision will allow employers to discriminate on the basis of age with impunity as long as it is paired with other reasons. Older workers, who make up nearly 50 percent of the American workforce, are particularly vulnerable to suffering discrimination during difficult economic times. In fact, age discrimination complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission jumped nearly 30 percent between 2007 and 2008. I fear that in the wake of Gross few, if any, of these victims will attain justice. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, which is modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1991, would reverse the Gross decision, strengthen the safeguards of the ADEA, and restore fundamental fairness. The bill eliminates the high burden of proof that victims of age discrimination must meet after Gross. It clarifies that the standard for proving discrimination under the ADEA and other anti- discrimination and anti-retaliation laws is the same as the standard for proving race discrimination under Title VII. The bill makes clear that when a litigant shows that age was a motivating factor for an adverse employment action, the burden is on the employer to prove it complied with the law. This bill restores the law to what it was for decades before the Court rewrote the rule. The bill also ensures that all workers will be treated equally in the workplace. Today, some lower courts have already applied Gross to weaken the protections in other anti-discrimination statutes. The legislation clarifies that the ``motivating factor'' standard applies to all anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws, and reflects a broader commitment to address the needs of all persons who suffer discrimination. It reaffirms that Americans' rights will be honored. It also restores the faith of the public that our civil rights laws are just and fair. Those are timeless American values that we can all embrace. We have drafted this measure after long and thoughtful consideration with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a broad coalition of hundreds of civil rights and workers' rights organizations. The bill also has the support of AARP, the National Senior Citizens Law Center, the National Women's Law Center and the National Employment Lawyers Association. Their support gives me confidence that this legislation will improve the lives of all Americans. Time has shown that the ADEA has been one of our Nation's most effective tools in combating discrimination. Its continued effectiveness is important to ensure that the great progress we have made in widening the doors of opportunity for all Americans continues in the future. The Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act will restore vital protections that have long secured the promise of equal rights and equal opportunity for older workers. I hope all Senators will support passing this critical civil rights measure this year.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 6, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Minimizing Potential Threats From Iran: Administration Perspectives on Economic Sanctions and Other U.S. Policy Options.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 6, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (Treaty Doc. 110-21).''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 6, 2009, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Recovery Act for Small Businesses: What is Working and What Comes Next?''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 6, 2009, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Competitiveness, Innovation, and Export Promotion of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on October 6, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on October 6, 2009, at 1:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining the History and Legality of Executive Branch Czars.''

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on October 6, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``No Safe Haven: Accountability for Human Rights Violators, Part II.''