"These are two of the most flamboyant attorneys in town," DePaul University law professor Leonard Cavise says of the team of Sam Adam and his son, Samuel E. Adam.

Cavise predicts fireworks if Blagojevich goes to trial on federal corruption charges, including allegations that he tried to sell the Senate seat vacated by President Barack Obama.

Federal prosecutors are expected to obtain an indictment by April. Blagojevich was arrested by FBI agents in December and was booted from office Thursday when a state Senate impeachment trial ended with a 59-0 vote against him.

Some are already questioning the Adams' legal strategy — including their decision to let Blagojevich go on a whirlwind New York media tour before his impeachment trial ended, fielding questions about the criminal case from Barbara Walters, Diane Sawyer, Larry King and more.

Blagojevich also gave an impassioned closing argument to senators before they removed him from office, although he didn't testify under oath.

His unwillingness to stay quiet cost him the help of his former lead attorney, Edward M. Genson, who announced he was withdrawing from the case before the media blitz.

Lawyers say Blagojevich tipped his hand about a possible defense when he said in his Senate plea that he had no intent to commit any crime.

The president picked the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for the first piece of legislation to sign as president.

He appeared before a packed East Room audience for a ceremony, and Ledbetter stood at his side.

His entrance in the room was met with hearty cheers from the many labor and women's groups represented there. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the first woman speaker in the history of Congress, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, were present. Clinton went further than any woman previously in her campaign for the presidency, although she ultimately lost the Democratic Party competition to Obama.

The measure is designed to make it easier for workers to sue for decades-old discrimination. He said "this is a wonderful day."

The law effectively nullifies a 2007 Supreme Court decision that said workers had only 180 days to file a pay-discrimination lawsuit.

Ledbetter said she didn't become aware of a pay discrepancy until she neared the end of her 19-year career at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsden, Ala. She sued, but the Supreme Court in 2007 said she missed her chance.

The court said in its 5-4 ruling that a person must file a claim of discrimination within 180 days of a company's initial decision to pay a worker less than it pays another worker doing the same job. Under the new bill, given final passage in Congress this week, every new discriminatory paycheck would extend the statute of limitations for another 180 days.

Congress attempted to update the law to extend the time, but the Bush White House and Senate Republicans blocked the legislation in the last session of Congress

Opponents contended the legislation would gut the statute of limitations, encourage lawsuits and be a boon to trial lawyers. They also argued that employees could wait to file claims in hopes of reaping larger damage awards. The bill does not change current law limiting back pay for claimants to two years.

They're just working around it — and perhaps inadvertently making the process more secretive.

The projects run the gamut: a Metrolink station that needs building in Placentia, Calif.; a stretch of beach in Sandy Hook, N.J., that could really use some more sand; a water park in Miami.

There are thousands of projects like those that once would have been gotten money upfront but now are left to scramble for dollars at the back end of the process as "ready to go" jobs eligible for the stimulus plan.

The result, as The Associated Press learned in interviews with more than a dozen lawmakers, lobbyists and state and local officials, is a shadowy lobbying effort that may make it difficult to discern how hundreds of billions in federal money will be parceled out.

"'No earmarks' isn't a game-ender," said Peter Buffa, former mayor of Costa Mesa, Calif. "It just means there's a different way of going about making sure the funding is there."

It won't be in legislative language that overtly sets aside money for them. That's the infamous practice known as earmarking, which Obama and Democratic congressional leaders have agreed to nix for the massive stimulus package, expected to come up for a House vote this week.

Instead, the money will be doled out according to arcane formulas spelled out in the bill and in some cases based on the decisions of Obama administration officials, governors and state and local agencies that will choose the projects.

"Somebody's going to earmark it somewhere," said Howard Marlowe, a consultant for a coalition working to preserve beaches.

The findings, released to lawmakers Sunday, call into question the effectiveness of congressional Democrats' efforts to pump up the economy through old-fashioned public works projects like roads, bridges and repairs of public housing.

Less than half of the $30 billion in highway construction funds detailed by House Democrats would be released into the economy over the next four years, concludes the analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. Less than $4 billion in highway construction money would reach the economy by September 2010.

The economy has been in recession for more than a year, but many economists believe a recovery may begin by the end of 2009. That would mean that most of the infrastructure money wouldn't hit the economy until it's already on the mend.

The CBO analysis doesn't cover tax cuts or efforts by Democrats to provide relief to cash-strapped state governments to help with their Medicaid bills. But it illustrates just how difficult it can be to use public investment to rush money into the economy. It usually takes bids and contracts to announce such developments, which invariably take time.

Overall, only $26 billion out of $274 billion in infrastructure spending would be delivered into the economy by the Sept. 30 end of the budget year, just 7 percent. Just one in seven dollars of a huge $18.5 billion investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs would be spent within a year and a half.

And other pieces, such as efforts to bring broadband Internet service to rural and underserved areas won't get started in earnest for years, while just one-fourth of clean drinking water projects can be completed by October of next year.

The Obama transition team said the two will visit the court Wednesday afternoon at the invitation of Chief Justice John Roberts.

It's something of a tradition for incoming presidents and vice presidents to pay their respects to the court, though not all have made the trip. Bill Clinton and his vice president-elect, Al Gore, called on the court in December 1992, and Ronald Reagan and his vice president-elect, George H. W. Bush, visited in November 1980.

The Obama team said Wednesday's visit was private, with no press permitted.

With his promise that he'd made no deals to gain the appointment, Burris cleared what he called one of the two hurdles between him and the oath that would make him Illinois' junior senator. Senate Democrats raised both obstacles.

The other hurdle, the signature that Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has so far declined to provide on paperwork certifying Burris' appointment, is in the hands of the Illinois Supreme Court. White has said the governor shouldn't have appointed someone to fill President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat, given the corruption charges against him.

"I feel like I've passed this test with flying colors," the 71-year-old Burris told reporters Thursday after testifying for almost 90 minutes before the committee, which later voted to recommend impeaching the governor. "I have nothing to hide."

Now Burris awaits the court's decision. It isn't clear how long that will take.

Blagojevich was arrested Dec. 9 on federal charges that include allegations he schemed to sell or trade Obama's Senate seat.

The two-term Democratic governor has denied any wrongdoing, but Senate Democrats had warned that the corruption allegations would strip credibility from anyone he named to fill the vacancy. Blagojevich ignored them and appointed Burris on Dec. 30, creating a furor.

White pressed the governor not to fill the seat before Burris' appointment, then withheld his signature as a "ceremonial" stand against the move, White spokesman Dave Druker said Thursday. If the court says White has to sign, he will, according to Druker.

Burris would be relying on a constitutional provision listing just three, easily met qualifications for the job and a 1969 Supreme Court decision rebuking the House for excluding an elected, though scandal-tarred, lawmaker.

So far, Senate leaders are unwilling to seat Burris because he was named by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, ensnared by allegations of corruption, to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the Senate.

Democrats and Obama have said the federal corruption charges against Blagojevich would strip credibility from anyone he appointed to the seat, although they do not question the integrity of Burris, a former Illinois attorney general. Blagojevich denies federal accusations that he tried to sell Obama's seat.

Senate Democrats are relying for the moment on a technicality — the refusal of the Illinois secretary of state to sign paperwork making Burris' appointment official. Burris' lawyers first are asking the state Supreme Court to take care of that problem.

But it is far from clear that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., would then relent and welcome Burris as a new colleague.