Barbara Mikulski

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am the leadoff speaker today in what will be a substantial conversation on the Fair Pay Restoration Act. It has been otherwise known in the community and in the media as the Lilly Ledbetter bill, which we hope to bring up for a vote tomorrow to advance this bill. What this legislation will do is to overturn the Supreme Court decision that essentially mitigated the ability to file lawsuits for equal pay for equal work. Mr. President, I am not new to this bill, and neither are you. We counted you as one of our strong advocates when we had our vote last year on April 23. The person who has been one of the leads in the Senate has been our very good colleague, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. As we know, Senator Clinton is about to assume other responsibilities. I have taken up this bill as the lead sponsor, along with many of the women in the Senate and the very good men. I thank Senator Clinton for her leadership and her advocacy on behalf of women and on behalf of civil rights and on behalf of fairness and justice. She has been a great advocate, and we are going to miss her. I also thank Senator Kennedy and his staff, Senator Kennedy for his leadership in trying to right the wrong the Supreme Court decision created. Senator Kennedy has been a stalwart on this bill and is also one of the original sponsors of the remedy we are bringing before our colleagues today. You might recall that in April we had our vote on the Lilly Ledbetter bill. You might recall it was a very intense and emotional debate. Most of the women of the Senate came on the floor. We were dressed in red because that was the color of the women's movement and Mrs. Ledbetter herself wore red. We lost that vote by essentially two votes. As everybody left the floor, they thought it was over. But I knew it was not over because we were not going to let it be over. We were going to continue the fight. I said to my colleagues then, when we lost the vote, we would come back and fight another day, and that day is here. We said very loudly, clearly, firmly, and resolutely that we wanted to be sure women receive equal pay for equal work, equal or comparable work. We wanted to change the law books so women would feel it in their checkbooks. I reminded our colleagues, because there had been a fantastic miniseries about John Adams, that Abigail, one of our heroes, had written John when he was busy writing the Constitution--she was busy running the farm and keeping life going--and she said: John Adams, when you write that Constitution, remember the ladies because if you forget us, we will foment another rebellion. I said on the floor on April 23 that we, in the spirit of Abigail Adams, were ready to foment another revolution if we were going to be denied the opportunity to pursue equal pay. I then said we were going to fight, and I asked the women of the Senate--I asked the women of the Senate and women all over the country--to suit up, get ready to fight. Put your lipstick on, and let's foment another revolution. Wow, the revolution came, and it is more than I anticipated. The revolution came in one of the most dynamic primaries our country has ever seen. The revolution came when people said loudly and clearly, at every primary and every caucus across this country, that they wanted change. They chose a new standard-bearer in President-elect Barack Obama. In that, with Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, we have the leadership the American people want. In their leadership, working on a bipartisan basis in the Congress, we want to bring about change, and therefore one of the first bills we bring to the floor of the Senate is one that makes sure women have equal pay for equal or comparable work and they have access to the courts and appropriate legal process to be able to pursue their concerns and their complaints. The revolution is here, and the votes are coming. We are going to vote tomorrow on cloture on the motion to proceed. Later on, we are going to have complete debate on the bill itself. We know there are colleagues who offer alternatives, but that is part of the revolution-- to have great ideas, engage where there are differences of opinion, and then, at the end of the day, have the votes. We are looking forward to this. It is a day long in coming. This year, this new Congress and this new President bring us not only a new year, but it also has created a new economic reality. The economy is tanking, with no end in sight, retirement accounts are plummeting, home values are sinking, and unemployment is surging. This is not news to women. Women who are in the workplace today know how hard it is to get and keep a job. What we also know is that in good times or bad times, women are discriminated against in terms of the pay they receive. Right now, today, in the 21st century America, women still earn only 76 cents an hour when men receive a dollar an hour. There are women who pursued remedies. In May 2007, the Supreme Court made an outrageous decision. They said women cannot get equal pay for equal work unless they file a complaint 180 days from when the discrimination began. Women do not always know when discrimination began. They meant from the very first day that you get a paycheck that discriminates against you, within 180 days, within 6 months, you are supposed to know that and file a complaint. We would love to be able to do that. But this decision does not reflect the reality of the workplace. What is it that we know about the workplace? You can talk about anything in the workplace. Often, politics are discussed in the lunchroom; religion is talked about at the computer; sex is often discussed at the water cooler; but salary is never discussed. How many people really know the salary of their coworkers? Women do not go around asking men: How much are you paid, and pull out a little pad. They presume that if they are doing the job side by side with male coworkers, they are getting equal pay. They don't know that. Then what happens if the male counterpart gets a raise? The guys have been out at a ball game. They say: Don't worry, we will take care of you. But the women don't know that. You have to know it the day you get the paycheck and he gets the bigger one. How are you going to know that? Snooping? Men get raises and promotions, but women are often overlooked and undervalued. What we saw in the Supreme Court decision was that it was a backward step for women and it violates the very concept of fairness and justice. The Supreme Court decision was so outrageous that our beloved and esteemed Justice Ginsburg took the unusual position of reading her dissent from the bench. Usually, Justices do not do that. She said in her dissenting opinion that the Court did not get it, that they do not understand the realities of the workplace that would prohibit women from knowing exactly when the discrimination started. She called upon Congress to fix it, and that is what this bill does. Our bill restores the original language that existed before Ledbetter. Along the way, President Bush heard about our legislation. He threatened to veto it. On January 20, we will have a new President, and he will not only sign it, he campaigned with Lilly Ledbetter and made a promise to the American people. When President-elect Obama, who by then will have taken his oath of office and will be President Obama--this will probably be the very first piece of legislation he will sign. What a sweet day for women all over America. But we have a legislative road to go on. A lot has been said about Lilly Ledbetter, but people are busy and they might not remember her whole story. What a gallant and courageous woman. She fought the system, and on her own time and with great risk, she took on the challenges of the workplace. She turned to the courts and began her fight. She fought two different times, once against sexual harassment and the other time against unequal pay. What you need to understand is when she began her fight to get equal pay, she was then sexually harassed because she followed her legal opportunities and rights. So she was doubly punished. She was punished in the workplace in her paycheck and she was punished in the workplace because she dared speak out. Lilly Ledbetter did not work at some microbusiness. Lilly Ledbetter worked at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. She worked there for 19 years and by all accounts was an outstanding employee. She did not know when the disparity developed, whether it was on the first day she was hired or over the many years she was there. But she found out and took it to court. A jury found that Goodyear had discriminated against her and awarded her $400,000 in backpay. When they did, Goodyear then took this all the way up to the appellate court. Each time, this woman pursued her remedies, often at great risk and great financial and personal hardship. Finally, because Goodyear, every time she won, took it to a higher court--that is their prerogative. But you had little Lilly Ledbetter against this giant corporation, with tons of lawyers and tons of legal resources. Finally, they had the Supreme Court on their side, and the Supreme Court said someone cannot sue their employer over unequal pay if that person doesn't file the suit 180 days from the day the discrimination began. As we said earlier, the Supreme Court just didn't get it. How many people know the salary of their coworkers, especially in the first 6 months on the job? What if you are hired at an equal rate with your male counterpart but he gets a raise every few months and you don't? The decision was terrible. As I said, Justice Ginsburg said, ``In our view, the Court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the insidious way in which women can become victims of pay discrimination.'' She encouraged us to fix it. As I said, women continue to earn 77 cents for every dollar. Women of color get paid even less. So Lilly Ledbetter is not an isolated incident. Now, there is opposition to this bill because people make profits off of discrimination; if you pay women less, you make more. I mean, we are providing a subsidy to these businesses that discriminate. Over a lifetime, it not only affects your current paycheck, but it affects your Social Security and your retirement in terms of lower lifetime earnings. The Supreme Court now even makes it harder for women workers to close this work gap. I am going to have more to say about this, but I want to say that we now know the situation in the workplace, women are paid less generally. We want to be sure that if you are paid less specifically, you have an open courthouse door that will have an open mind to the fact that discrimination might exist. We want to have a fair playing field for you to file this complaint. This bill will amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so that the time for an employee to file a wage discrimination suit runs from the date of the actual payment of a discriminatory wage, not from the time of hiring. That means that employees can sue employers based on discriminating paychecks. It does not limit the time a worker can seek the remedy. I want to be clear, though, it does not change the statute of limitations. What it does is, under the Supreme Court decision you would have to file your complaint within 180 days of when you were hired. Here, you can file it within 180 days of your last paycheck when you found that discrimination, you believed discrimination existed. We are going to be debating this bill. I have many colleagues who want to speak on it. There are many in this Congress who have been very strong advocates, but our leading advocates are the two wonderful women from the State of Washington who I know are eager to speak. Both are on the floor, and the lead on this working with us in the Health and Education Committee is, of course, the senior Senator from the State of Washington, a part of our leadership team, the dynamic and intrepid Patty Murray. I yield the floor for her.

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

Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator very much. We look forward to her hard work and advocacy for people who have been left out, pushed out, redlined and sidelined. This concludes for today the number of women who wished to speak on this legislation. Senator Boxer is chairing a hearing, and I could go through others. I believe Senator Clinton just finished her confirmation. No, just kidding, but it seems like that. So we are going to conclude this part of it. We will be on the floor tomorrow, when we have a vote on cloture on the motion to proceed, at which time we hope to be able to do that, so we can actually get down to the business next week of debating the amendments, as has been promised, and moving to final passage next week. We will be doing that after the inauguration of Barack Obama. I look forward to further discussion on this bill. I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we also want to be able to call upon one of our newest colleagues, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, from the State of New Hampshire. Though new to the Senate, she is certainly not new to the issue. She has been a strong advocate for fairness and justice and an advocate for ending discrimination her whole life and her whole career. She recently, of course, was Governor of New Hampshire, and now brings all that wealth of experience, know-how, and commitment to the Senate. This is not her first speech. It is her second speech. We are eagerly awaiting her words on this issue.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we would now like to turn to another strong advocate for ending discrimination, someone who has completed her first 2 years in the Senate and is part of that zone of civility to get the job done. We would like to hear from Senator Klobuchar.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 14, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing on the nominations of Lisa P. Jackson to be Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Nancy Helen Sutley to be Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 14, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 14, 2009, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on the nomination of General Eric Shinseki to be Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The committee will meet in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 10 a.m.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 14, 2009, at 10 a.m. in room G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to consider the nomination of Gov. Thomas J. Vilsack, of Iowa, to be Secretary of Agriculture.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 14, 2009, at 2 p.m. to consider the nomination of Peter R. Orszag to be Director, Office of Management and Budget.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the period for the transaction of morning business be extended until 5 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, can we have order? I would like us to at least give the courtesy of listening to the Senator since we are not going to give her the courtesy of the vote.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I wish to honor and congratulate the Frederick News-Post on its 125th anniversary. On October 15, 1883, a printing company in Frederick, MD, published the first edition of The News, an evening newspaper that reported about local happenings. In 1916, this printing company purchased another local paper, the Frederick Post, which it continued to offer in the mornings. After almost a century of circulating these two editions, the company chose to merge the two papers in 2002 and offer just a morning paper that included not only great local news stories but also important national coverage. The Frederick News-Post circulates over 11 million papers a year and employs over 200 people. The company also includes FNP Printing & Publishing, a commercial printing venture as well as an Internet division called FNP Interactive. The Frederick News-Post is a vital part of the Frederick community, and I am so proud that this Maryland newspaper has been successful for the past 125 years. I hope that it continues to bring the news to families around the State for 125 more.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. I wish to speak in morning business on the topic of the economic situation which the country faces and where we are. I want to acknowledge that the Senator from Oklahoma has some interesting ideas, and I would like to know more about it because I am pretty frustrated about what has happened with the taxpayer rescue money we have gotten. First, let me say, though, I am pretty frustrated with the Senate right now. I am frustrated that we are lame in this lameduck session. I was telling my constituents as I moved around Maryland, as is my habit and joy, that I have used this as a November work session--you know, get back to work. The election is over. We know who won. Now it is time to govern and govern with responsibility, to come back and go to work. So we come back, and here we are again whirling around with a lot of parliamentary quagmires. Can we bring it up? I object. No. We could be filibustered, et cetera. While we are fiddling and diddling to a parliamentary tune here, our economy is burning. And the question is, Do we burn the economic house down around us by inaction? Now, you might not like this rescue plan or that rescue plan or what about the automobile. I am a champion of jobs in the automobile industry. I do not champion an industry, I champion the jobs in the industry. I do not believe this Congress understands what the automobile industry is. Yes, it is manufacturers, union and nonunion. Whether it is the big three in Detroit and the UAW or whether it is foreign logo cars being made in the Southern States of our country, the Toyotas in Texas and Kentucky, the Nissans in Tennessee and so on, we are talking about jobs. We are talking about people who make the cars, and then we are talking about dealers who sell them, service them, maintain them, and the support services. In many rural parts of my State, the automobile dealers are the biggest employers outside of the local school system and the local hospital. So I want to talk about jobs, and that is what I have been talking about. But while we are talking about the rescue plan, what is shocking to me is the rigidity of the administration to help wrap up their time in the White House and their time to get our economy going, the fact that they are unwilling to look at the rescue package as a tool for saving jobs rather than saving banks. Now, this is where I believe we have gotten ourselves off on the wrong track. When I voted for the rescue plan, I thought I was voting for dealing with the credit crisis and bringing the financial system to some form of stability. It was a little too trickle-down for me, but I thought, we are in a crisis, square your shoulders and get out there and do it. Well, what has happened is, instead of dealing with helping with jobs, we have been helping with banks. The bailout has been simply a handout to Wall Street banks. And you know what, they have made out like bandits. Them that got want even more and do not promise to do anything in return. Let's review how we got there. We were facing Armageddon. We were concerned about the collapse of our financial system that America essentially helped create in terms of a financial system. We were talking about a frozen credit system that would affect big business and small business in our community. We were also concerned about the homeowner who was losing their home. Well, what did we do? We said: OK, we are going to make a public investment of $700 billion of taxpayers' money in the economy, through our Secretary of the Treasury. Now, who was this investor? Well, the taxpayers became investors. You know, we use that term, ``taxpayers.'' What does it mean? Well, I will tell you what it means to ``Senator Barb'' from Maryland. It means that single mother, that single mother who is trying to hold her family together, maybe in a job that pays $10 or $12 an hour, trying to keep her kids together, collect her child support, make sure she has an 8- year-old car still running and make sure those kids are in school to do something. She does not have a lot of money, and we take a chunk of it. What about the farmer and what about the waterman who right now is out in this cold weather trying to bring oysters to our Thanksgiving table? We are going to have a table of bounty; they have a table of trouble. But no, we are going to take their money and give it to Paulson to give it to AIG.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Let me finish describing the taxpayer, and I will come back to you. What about the waitress--you know, somebody who carries, in that diner, big plates of food? And what does she end up with at the end of the day? A few tips, a bad back, varicose veins, and a government that is not on her side. That is where Paulson got the money from. OK. So that is where that $700 billion came from. Then I will talk about what he did with it. I turn to my colleague.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Well, I will consider looking at his legislation, I assure him on the floor. I think we are in agreement with some of the principles you articulated earlier. But let me go on with my speech and see if we can't find that sensible center, that common ground we both would like to perceive because when I say, What were the Congress and the American people promised for this astronomical sum of money we gave, we were promised by the Secretary of the Treasury, on behalf of the President of the United States, that the investment of the taxpayer would go to stabilizing the financial system, get credit flowing again in our communities, and get the economy rolling. What did we get? We got bait and switched from Paulson. Paulson changed his plan. He originally said he would use it to open credit and to also deal with the toxic mortgages. Now he is using it for money to buy ownership in banks and not asking anything in return. Paulson threw money at the banks with no strings attached. We have now spent close to $350 billion, and where are we? We are nowhere. The stock market is down and unemployment is up. Things have actually gotten worse. People continue to lose their homes. Now they are losing their life savings. And with our inaction on unemployment, they will lose their jobs. So let's talk about them that got. Do you remember their greed? Do you remember their incompetence on Wall Street that got us into this economic Superfund site? What did Wall Street say over the last several years to regulators and policymakers? Stay away. Get out of the way. It is our way or the highway. Having gotten buckets of bucks from the taxpayer, what does Wall Street say? Stay out of the way. Get out of the way. It is our way. And by the way, give us more, and let us keep our high pay. Well, it is not only what we hear from them, it is what we don't hear from them. You know what is so shocking to me. After this money goes to the big banks, there is no sense of gratitude. There is no sense of gratitude that that waitress, that single mother, that farmer, that firefighter is willing to do this--no sense of gratitude. There is also no sense of remorse on how they got us into this terrible situation. I know the Presiding Officer is a man of faith, as are our colleague from Oklahoma and myself. In my faith, when you have sinned, the way you get it right is you show remorse, you promise not to sin any more. You say: Let's make amends. How can I get it right? Have we heard that out of them? I have read every paper, heard every conversation. There is not one bit of remorse. They swagger around and say: There are three Americas--North America, South America, and corporate America. They treat themselves like a free trade zone. Hello. Do they promise to sin no more? Do we see a sense in the passion for reform coming out of them, saying: Boy, did we screw up; we now want to get it right? No. Do they say: Let's make amends? And the way they want to say let's make amends would be to work with our economic people to get jobs, credit, and our economy rolling. No. So what, instead, do those who have gotten bailout money do? They give themselves lavish salaries, bonuses, big perks such as spa retreats and golf tournaments in the most luxurious places in the world. And we are told that in order for them to keep talent, they have to pay big bonuses or people will walk away. They say that in order to keep the big talent at the big banks, they have to give big bonuses. I want to say, if they want to go, it is OK by me. I am an investor. Not as a Senator, but as a taxpayer, Why would we want to hold on to them? They got us into this mess. So it is OK by me if they go. There are plenty of talented people ready to go to work for our country. This is what ``Senator Barb'' wants to say to Wall Street: We do not want to be passive investors. We want to be active investors, not in a socialist form of government, picking winners and losers, but, by God, have a sense of reform. Cull out what is the best way to have sensible regulation. Come up with the great ideas to get our economy going and use the power and muscle of America's financial system. There is talent there to do that. If you need a lavish bonus to do this, then leave. Leave or get out of the way. There is a new sheriff coming to town, and I am part of that posse. There are not only young people but a lot of people who want to rebuild our country. So I say to those on Wall Street who feel they can't work for less than $14 million a year, you now work for the United States of America. Once we started making that public investment in you, you now work for the United States. Work for the United States. Give us your best thinking. Give us your energy. Give us your ideas. What I want to say to them is: It is time to restore our economy, restore our national honor. I say to those who are working in the economic system, pull up your pants and your pantsuits and start to go to work. Let's rebuild the economy. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, that was quite a letter. I must say, to be here for this historic moment, my heart is racing. We heard the letter from the President-elect resigning from the Senate. This is, indeed, a moment of passage in the Senate and for the country. By Senator Obama's resignation from the duty and responsibility the people of Illinois gave him, it is one more step for him to pick up the responsibilities of the Presidency of the United States. I will cherish this moment because it will be a historic moment, from ``We need change'' and ``Yes, we can'' on the long campaign trail to election night, to a charismatic speech calling us to act like an American community, not only a country of which we are proud, a nation we hold dear, but an American community. That is the Obama message which I hope will be the Obama effect. As our President-elect lays down these duties and takes up others, we need to realize and respond to his call and a new American mandate. Because on November 4, we who hold Federal office received a new American mandate to change the tone, to change the direction, to change the priorities, and to be able to move on and get our economy rolling and bring our troops back home and restore our national honor in the world. Sign me up. Sign me up as an enthusiastic member of this effort. I accept that mandate. I accept it. I call upon all my colleagues to do the same, to embrace the message Senator Obama has set, not only in terms of a dynamic, robust agenda but how we will work with each other. I thought it was grand that he sat down with our colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, to talk about how they could work together, how they could find that common ground, how we could find that sensible center between what we want to do and what we can afford to do. That is the tone Obama set with McCain. Let's set it now with Reid and McConnell. Let's try to find common ground, that sensible center, pragmatic, affordable solutions we can do now. We have a window. We have a time. As President-elect Obama said: This is our time. Our time doesn't begin January 20. Our time doesn't begin January 6. This is our time now to lay the groundwork for the transition of power, to work together. I ask us now, as we look at the stimulus package, as we look at solutions for our manufacturing area, how to extend the safety net for those people who are already hurting: Let's do that. Right now, once again, back to business as usual, entangled in a parliamentary quagmire, digging in our heels, based on rigid ideology. That is not what the people said on November 4. They said they wanted change, and they want it now. Let it begin with us, civilized debate, the clash of ideas to find that sensible center. By the way, that phrase is not mine. That phrase is Colin Powell's, a great American. There it is, right there is the center. I am ready to walk over to it. Come on over, I say to the other side.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. It is my understanding I still have the floor?

Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of a bill I have at the desk which is the text of title VII of S. 3689 regarding the auto sales tax deduction, and further that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Boy, am I sorry that is the last act of John Sununu in the Senate. I hope it is not the last thing. I feel so badly about people objecting to me bringing this up. Mine is a bipartisan bill that I thought maybe I would win, maybe I would lose, but at least we could bring it up and debate it and discuss it and vote on it. My bill was a straight-forward bill. My bill was to help save jobs in the automobile industry, from manufacturing, sales to service, to the little people who are the bookkeepers in our communities. My bill would give a tax deduction to someone who would buy a car in these 6 weeks and they would be able to take a deduction of interest and sales tax. The total cost of my bill was $8 billion. But the cost of not doing my bill is going to be horrific. It is going to be absolutely horrific. I cannot get over how these economic conservatives have their ostrich heads in the quicksand of our economy. You know what is going to happen when our automobile industry goes down. Well, let them go. Well, I will tell you, we are going to lose $156 billion over the next 3 years in lost taxes, unemployment, and health care assistance. We are facing the possibility that 3 million people could lose their jobs. But oh, no, we object. We object to debate. We object to discussion. We object to taking our ideas and putting them into the sunshine and being able to do what I thought you do in a democracy, vote ideas up or down. If I lose my bill in a vote, that is the way democracy works. But to move it through a parliamentary maneuver of something called, ``I object,'' I object to the objection. I have no idea why anyone would object to bringing up an idea that has bipartisan support to see if we could stimulate demand in the automobile industry. Well, I tell you what. Senator Barb Mikulski is not the only one who objects. The American people object. And that is what they did when they walked into that voting booth on November 4 and voted for change. They said: Yes, we can. They were objecting to what goes on in this institution and what has been going on in the White House for the last 8 years. They said: I object. And they voted. They objected and then they voted. And they object by their vote. There is a reason a political tsunami hit this institution. It is because of this continual way of throwing sand in the gears of democracy. So they said: I object. That is what the people said. So we can go through these parliamentary shenanigans. We can delay what we could do in the next 48 hours to get our economy going. But, oh, no. We are going to do it. The question is, are we going to do it today or are we going to do it 8 weeks from today? The longer we wait, the deeper and more prolonged the recession will be. Right now we could begin to not only turn the page but begin to turn the economy around. So those are the rules of the Senate. I signed up for the Senate, so I take the rules as they are. But I will tell you, I stand with the American people. I object. And I object to the objection. I am going to keep fighting this until we leave. It is my view we shouldn't leave until we pass legislation to get this economy going. If we cannot do it this week, come back next week because the real turkeys will not be in our oven. The real turkeys will be close at hand. I yield the floor.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess today from 2:30 until 4 to allow Senators to attend today's briefing with Secretary Gates, Secretary Rice, and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Ms. MIKULSKI

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I am standing here asking for help on the stimulus package. I know that part of the stimulus package is to extend unemployment insurance. I absolutely support that. But what I also wish to do is not only extend unemployment insurance for those who are hurting, I am with the parts of the stimulus package that will extend employment, where we will do what we need to do to create the safety net, but we need to have a launching pad to keep jobs in this country. I wish to vote to extend unemployment help, but I wish to also vote to extend employment help. Hello. Let's find that sensible center. I am for saving and creating jobs, and I am also saying: Congress must act now. In the next 48 to 72 hours, we have our own rendezvous. If we do not act, we will create an economic framework that means the recession will be longer and deeper. The cost of doing nothing is more than we can afford to pay. I support the safety net in the economic recovery package--help with unemployment, energy assistance, help on Medicaid for the children and the elderly. Medicaid is a children's and elderly program, for children who need health care and elderly who need to be in nursing homes. I also support the part of the stimulus that creates jobs. I salute our leadership team for coming up with the framework to create jobs by making important investments in physical infrastructure--desperately needed. We need to make public investments that generate private sector jobs. Note what Senator Barb is saying: I am not for make work. I am not for a WPA. I am for public investments that create private sector jobs. By doing it in building and rebuilding America's infrastructure, we will be safer, and we will have a stronger economy--repairing bridges, building highways, mass transit that we need to move people and improve the environment, also to build water and sewer treatment plants to fix aging sewer systems. In my hometown of Baltimore, our mayor is under an EPA court order to rebuild the Baltimore sewer system. I am for that. My great-grandfather, who came to this country searching for the American dream, believing what Lady Liberty said when she said: Give me your tired, your poor, yearning to be free, another member of my family said: Sign me up. And he was a ditch digger on the Baltimore sewer system. My great-grandmother married him because he was a man of prospects. We rebuilt Baltimore then. I wish to rebuild Baltimore today and put people to work, from designing and engineering, moving heavy lifting equipment. The Chesapeake Bay is polluted because we don't have enough water in sewer treatment plants. That is one of the reasons. So we can build that by making public investments in physical infrastructure. By sending a dollar of taxpayer money today, we will have jobs today and economic recovery on the way. Also, I wished to talk about helping the automobile industry. My other colleagues will speak on the floor about the need for the $25 billion plan. My colleagues will also speak about other things to help Detroit for which I am supportive. But I also have another idea. See, the way I think, I am old-fashioned. My dad ran a grocery store. While others talk about the big macro picture, I learned economics at the macaroni-and-cheese level in my dad's grocery store. It was about supply and demand. I am saying if we stimulate demand, which actually gets people to buy cars, people will have to make them. They will have to sell them. They will have to service them. They will have to provide the insurance and other services to do it. Let me tell you how I wish to save jobs in the automobile industry and at the same time help our consumers and get our economy back on track. It is simple. It is straightforward. It is bipartisan. I am joined in my framework, which I introduced as a freestanding bill, by Senator Kit Bond of Missouri. More cosponsors are pouring in. My provision simply says this: If you buy a new passenger car or light truck between November 12 of this year and December 31 of next year, you will get a tax deduction on your sales tax and on the interest of your loan. Let me repeat that. It is a tax deduction for the sales tax on buying that car or light truck. You will also be able to deduct the interest on your loan. For many people, depending on the size of the vehicle, it can go anywhere from $2,000 to $5,000. It saves jobs. Remember where I started. Not only extend unemployment benefits to those who have lost their jobs but extend employment so people don't lose their jobs. One out of every ten jobs in America depends on the automobile industry. What is it I mean? First of all, in manufacturing--and we know what it feels like in Maryland. See this chart. On Broening Highway we made minivans for years. Now it is being cleared for who knows what. We know it has new uses but not like this. There were 1,000 jobs that paid good wages and good salaries. I do not want ``closed'' signs up all over America. So it is jobs in manufacturing. Then there are jobs in car dealerships. Did you know there are 30,000 car dealerships in America, and each one employs about 50 or 60 people--from the people who sell the cars, service the cars, supply the parts, and the back office workers handling the bookkeeping and the accounting. In my own home State there are 300 dealers. If you look at the dealers nationwide, we are talking about 150,000 people. In my own State, it is over 25,000 people. In many of my rural communities, outside the hospital and local government, they are the major employer. Dealers are at risk. The people who work at the dealerships are at risk. We can change that. Now, let me go to the rationale. Why now? Why the urgency? Well, first of all, car purchases, whether you are talking about a Toyota or a Taurus, whether you are talking about cars made in Detroit or made in Kentucky, Alabama or Tennessee or Texas, buying cars, with people going into the showrooms, is down by 25 percent. But what we also know from the auto research is that people buy more cars during the period of Thanksgiving to New Year's Eve than any other 6-week period. If you pass the Mikulski-Bond amendment, and it is signed into law, and people come into the showroom, that is the time they want to buy cars, and this is the time we could give them the Federal incentive, along with the dealer and manufacturing incentives. It could mean tremendous help. Now, there are those who will say: Gee, how much does this cost, Senator Mikulski? It does cost $8 billion. However, the cost of doing nothing is phenomenal. The cost to the Government is about $50 billion a year if we do nothing, if our automobile system goes down. If we face the ``Armageddon'' of one of them going bankrupt, our pension guaranty system would be in great difficulty. We would lose taxes in unemployment benefits. In other words, there is a cost to doing nothing that is 10 to 20 times greater than what we are talking about here. I know my time is about up. I say: Pass this stimulus package. Thanks to the leader, my auto provision is part of it. We need to talk about saving 3 million jobs in the automobile industry. We need to talk about how to help the American people. I conclude by saying, during the break I went around and talked to my constituents. First of all, they are mad as the dickens over the way this bailout package has been handled. They feel we gave it to the sharks and the whales on Wall Street, and the little guys--the minnows--got no help. What they are worried about is the losing of their jobs. In many instances, they have already lost their life savings, they have lost their homes or they are already in jeopardy. Let's talk about a car dealer. I walked in to talk to a dealer in Montgomery County. The first thing was I noticed two things: an empty showroom and on his lapel he had a Rotary pin. This is a man for which that business, in Montgomery County, was started in 1939, during the Depression, because they believed in Roosevelt and they believed in the American economy. Can they believe in us? That man, with his Rotary pin and family, has provided jobs. They fix cars. They have sold cars and so on. They kept it going and at the same time contributed to the charities in their community, being a good corporate citizen. You talk to the people who work there. Let's talk to the guy I talked to who has worked there for 23 years. He said: Senator Barb, all I have ever wanted to do is fix cars. I love fixing cars, and I have fixed Chevys and now Accords and Acuras, and I have done a great job. I have been happy, and I have made a lot of people happy. But I have two kids in college. I was told that for the kind of job I have, there is a workforce shortage. But now there is more of a shortage of work than a shortage of workers. This is whom we are fighting for. We are fighting for our friends. We are fighting for our neighbors. We are fighting for the people who have kept our communities going. So we come back to wonder: How are we going to spend money? We have already spent $350 billion that went to banks that do not care. They have no remorse. They have no sense of gratitude, and they did not regard us as an investor. Mr. President, $350 billion to banks and Paulson is walking around like a passive investor. But here, if we make this investment to enable the consumer to be in a new car, which will get more fuel efficiency, lower carbon emissions, and pick up our economy, I think we are doing something. I hope today we get a chance to vote on the economic recovery bill. It has major components in it, and one of the major component is it extends employment, which is what Americans want. On the day Barack Obama resigned from the Senate, let us now resign ourselves to follow what the mandate was on November 4. They not only gave President-elect Obama a mandate; they gave us a mandate: Get America rolling again. The Mikulski legislation puts our economy back on wheels. I yield the floor.