Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program Reauthorization Act

Mr. President, I rise to discuss rising energy prices. I remind President Bush, as he leaves for his trip to the Middle East, his ally, Saudi Arabia, holds the key to reducing gasoline prices at home in the short term.

I, along with my colleagues, Senator Dorgan of North Dakota, Senator Casey of Pennsylvania, Senator Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Senator Sanders of Vermont plan to submit a Senate resolution that would block all four pending arms deals to Saudi Arabia, which together total $1.4 billion, unless Saudi Arabia shows that our friendship is a two-way street and increases its oil production by 1 million barrels per day above the January 2008 output levels.

Because these weapons have not yet been delivered to Saudi Arabia, Congress still has the power to block these four deals as leverage to get the world's larger oil producer to bring its production back to historical levels, an action that would have the single greatest impact of lowering gas prices in the short term.

I am very proud that we today voted to prevent continued oil going into the SPR as Senator Dorgan, the sponsor and somebody who has pushed this issue a long time and done it well, has noted that will probably reduce prices about a nickel. There is more. It is a good first step, as he would be the first to say, but we can do more.

If Saudi Arabia would increase production by 1 million barrels a day, the price of gasoline would go down 50 cents a gallon almost immediately. It is a short-term fix.

As my colleagues across the aisle and the administration continue to side with big oil, we have no other choice because, right now, it is Big Oil and OPEC that are benefitting and American families are losing. It is unfortunate we are at this point. Eight years of poor stewardship over our Nation's energy policy has left us with alternatives. And my Republican colleagues have blocked every attempt at real energy reform that would help alleviate the rising energy prices in this country.

In the 110th Congress alone, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blocked four different attempts by Democrats to extend the alternative tax provisions, and not only for a year or two but many.

On June 21 of last year, the extension of energy credits received 57 votes; on December 7, it received 53 votes; on December 13, it received 59 votes; and on February 6, 58 votes.

Each time, Republicans put up roadblocks requiring 60 votes in order to pass the bill. Each time the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted for the bill, the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted against.

President Bush opposed the bills because each would have ended tax breaks for big oil, as if they needed more tax breaks given their record profitability.

Meanwhile, Americans continue to spend more and more on gasoline, as prices at the pump have skyrocketed upward to record heights. Although our President was not aware that gasoline prices were predicted to top $4 a gallon this summer, American households already faced with rising fiscal burdens incurred as a result of the subprime foreclosure crisis and the financial credit crunch are being squeezed further by record- high prices at the pump.

In a sign that high prices will continue unabated, the Department of Energy recently forecasted that gasoline prices would average $3.66 per gallon across the U.S. this summer, 25 percent higher than last summer's average.

So I, along with several of my colleagues, think it is time to get the President's attention and the attention of the leaders of Saudi Arabia. The resolution we have introduced today, which Senator Reid will rule to move on to the calendar this afternoon, requires Saudi Arabia to increase their oil production by 1 million barrels a day or jeopardize their $1.4 billion of pending arms deals with the United States.

One of those deals includes the sale of JDAMs, Joint Direct Attack Munitions, which makes conventional bombs into smart bombs that can be aimed through the window of a house. The administration has warned us that Saudi Arabia needs to use these weapons in their fight against terrorism.

But how are they going to use laser-guided bombs to fight terrorists in their midst? Saudi Arabia very much wants these smart bombs. So our resolution sends a strong signal to the administration and to Saudi Arabia that friendship with the United States is a two-way street. If the Saudis want to see their weapons, we need to see an increase in crude oil production within the next 30 days. As we all know, the principal cause underlying the rise in gasoline prices has been a spike in crude oil prices, now over $120 a barrel, a 100-percent increase over the crude price at this point last year. A significant portion of this price rise is due to supply decisions made by OPEC. The largest member of OPEC, Saudi Arabia, controls one-fifth of the world's crude reserves and constitutes more than 10 percent of daily production of crude oil.

In the past, Saudi Arabia has kept crude oil prices high by limiting supply, producing anywhere from 1 to 5 million barrels per day below capacity. Currently, they are producing 2 million barrels a day below capacity. Why? Why right now, when crude prices are at an historic high, are the Saudis continuing to cut back on production? Does it make any sense? It does if you are a member of OPEC. It does if you are ExxonMobil. But it doesn't if you are almost everybody else. With crude oil at the highest price ever, Saudi Arabia and other members of OPEC are making record profits, and Saudi Arabia is not alone. Last month big oil companies announced some of the best profits in recorded history. Exxon made almost $11 billion in profit last quarter. So we know OPEC has no incentive to increase their production right now, since that would decrease their profits. In fact, if Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day, that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the price of crude oil. Crude oil prices would fall by more than $25 a barrel from the current level of $126. In turn, that would lower the price of gasoline between 13 and 17 percent or by more than 62 cents off the expected summer price, if the Saudis would simply produce the amount of oil they used to produce when they were far more responsible. Yet Saudi Arabia's oil minister said there was no need to increase supplies by even one barrel of oil.

But even as they are saying no, no, no to the United States, they are saying yes, yes, yes to China. They are doubling oil production for China. This is galling. When the President goes to Saudi Arabia and acts as if the Saudi King and the Saudi leadership are our good friends, he ought to look the American family in the eye and say that and say Saudi Arabia is a loyal ally. To most Americans, a well-armed Saudi Arabia is far less important than a reasonable price for gasoline, heating oil, and all other products upon which oil is based.

The Saudis have to understand this is a two-way street. The President has to understand that the one-way street relationship with Saudi Arabia has to end. We provide them weapons. Our troops provide them protection. Then they rake us over the coals when it comes to the price of oil. Just as Saudi Arabia feels a need to protect itself with high- tech, laser-guided missiles, American consumers and our economy need protection from record high oil prices, exacerbated by OPEC's stranglehold on supply. The administration needs to use all of the leverage it has to influence the OPEC cartel to stop manipulating the world's oil supply to its member nations' own wealth advantage. It is time we stop treating a cartel that would be illegal in the United States with kid gloves. That is what our resolution does. It reminds the Saudis there are consequences for keeping oil prices high at a time when American families are hurting. It reminds Saudi Arabia that it can't take American support for granted. They can choose record oil profits or American weapons, but they can't have both.

I would like any Member of this Chamber and President Bush to look the average American family in the eye and say: There is nothing we can do to get Saudi Arabia to be responsible.

There are things we can do; we just refuse to do them. This resolution has us step to the plate. The resolution is not the final answer, of course, to the problem of rising gas prices. That is why I am a proud cosponsor of S. 2991, the Consumer First Energy Act of 2008 that we Democrats will offer on the floor before Memorial Day. That bill addresses underlying causes that are

driving up energy prices and forces big oil to reinvest some of their record-breaking profits into alternative and renewable sources of energy that are both good for the environment, the consumer, and break our dependence on foreign oil.

Our bill will also attack the broader bill's speculation, punish price gouging, and put additional pressure on the OPEC cartel. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. I am hopeful we can move on this resolution as soon as possible so American consumers no longer have to carry the heavy burden of high energy prices all by themselves.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss with my colleagues an issue that has hit home over the last few years for all Americans, and that issue is crimes against children. We have all heard stories of children, our most innocent population, being victimized and abused by predatory criminals. While it is true we have made great strides passing Federal legislation against criminal predators, more work needs to be done. That is why I am here today to introduce a bill that I entitled the Prevention and

Deterrence of Crimes Against Children Act of 2008. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl and Senator Vitter who have cosponsored this bill with me.

This is a very important bill that will protect our children from the vilest forms of abuse and will send a strong signal to criminals that we as a society will not tolerate such behavior and that their predatory actions have real significant consequences.

I wish to take a moment to talk about the murder of a girl from my home State of Iowa, Jetseta Marrie Gage. On March 24, 2005, Jetseta, a 10-year-old girl from Cedar Rapids, IA, went missing from her home. Within 12 hours of her disappearance, Iowa law enforcement agents arrested a registered sex offender, Roger Bentley, for the crime. He had been previously convicted of committing lascivious acts with a minor.

Regrettably, this criminal served just over a year in prison for his previous sex crime conviction. Two days after her disappearance, an AMBER Alert tip led officials to the location of her body. She was found stuffed in a cabinet in an abandoned mobile home. The autopsy revealed she had been sexually assaulted and suffocated with a plastic bag.

I can't help but wonder whether Jetseta would still be alive today had her killer received stricter penalties for his first offense. It breaks everybody's heart to hear about cases such as this, but it is even more demoralizing when you know that it might have been prevented with adequate sentencing.

Last week, I honored two extraordinary law enforcement officers who helped put away another one of Jetseta's abusers: James Bentley. Unbelievably, James Bentley is the brother of Roger Bentley who was responsible for the rape and murder of Jetseta. A year prior to her murder, James Bentley took nude photos of 9-year-old Jetseta and her 13-month-old little sister Leonna.

After the child abuse prosecution of James Bentley stalled in State court due to sixth amendment concerns, U.S. Postal Inspector Troy Raper and Cedar Rapids Police Department Investigator Charity Hansel followed up on child pornography allegations that eventually led to James Bentley's conviction on Federal child pornography charges.

These investigators worked tirelessly to find nine previous victims of James Bentley. Only two of the nine victims testified, but their courage and their accounts of abuse by this man were very powerful. As a result, these testimonies influenced the district court's decision to use higher sentencing guidelines to put him away in Federal prison for 100 years. I am truly thankful for the public service that Inspector Troy Raper and Investigator Charity Hansel have done for Iowa's kids.

In doing our part, we in Congress have not sat idly by. Two years ago we passed into law the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act. This important legislation made great strides in protecting America's children against violent sexual predators. Among its many components, this act standardized the National Sex Offender Registry, eliminated the statute of limitations for sex crimes against children, provided grants for electronic devices used for monitoring sex offenders and, lastly, established more severe criminal punishment for certain crimes committed by sex offenders.

As part of the Adam Walsh Act, we were able to include the Jetseta Gage Assured Punishment for Violent Crimes Against Children amendment. The amendment created mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment for criminals who commit murder, kidnapping, or serious bodily harm against children.

We are on the right path, but I still say this is not enough--not enough punishment for people who commit these despicable crimes. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done on this serious issue.

This bill I am introducing today will help change this by protecting children in four ways. It will increase mandatory minimum sentences, boost penalties for certain crimes against children, control the use of passports by convicted sex offenders, and strengthen the process for removing criminal aliens who commit sex offenses.

The first section of the bill increases the penalties for child pornography offenses and elevates the mandatory minimum punishment for criminals who commit exploitation crimes against children. I know some of my colleagues have concerns about mandatory minimums, especially in the context of drug sentences. I understand that concern, but in light of the Supreme Court's decision in the Booker case, something must be done to ensure that sexual predators receive the type of sentences appropriate for their crimes.

In Booker, the Court held that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, thus Federal judges have unfettered discretion in sentencing. I am very worried judges are not doing their job to protect children. As a matter of fact, Deputy Attorney General Laurence E. Rothenberg testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year that since the Booker decision, Federal judges have significantly increased the number of downward departures for those convicted of possession of child pornography.

To counter this trend, my bill establishes the following mandatory minimums for exploitation crimes against children: One, where a crime involves child pornography, the offender will receive 20 years to life; two, where the crime deals with sexual exploitation of a minor by a parent or guardian, the offender will receive no less than 3 years to life.

The second section of the bill increases penalties for child sex trafficking and child prostitution. The penalties for these crimes need to be adjusted to adequately reflect the gravity of these crimes and the damage that they do to children.

The third section of the bill will ensure harsh penalties for criminals convicted of child sex offenses resulting in death, repeated child sex crimes, and forcible rape of children. These crimes involve the most violent types of sex offenders, and justice for these crimes should be dealt out with the strongest available prison sentences.

The final section of the bill has to do with not permitting these sex offenders to travel outside the country. If we know someone is a convicted child molester, we have the responsibility to not allow them travel to Asia or Europe or anywhere to exploit and harm other kids in other lands.

The bill provides for the following: When the sex offender has been convicted of a sex offense, the issuance of passports shall be refused. Secondly, if a passport has already been issued, the use of a passport may be restricted if the passport was used in the furtherance of a sex offense. Lastly, any alien convicted of a sex offense shall be placed immediately in removal proceedings.

The provisions of this bill are designed to protect our children by locking up violent sexual predators. I doubt that the Members of this body, many of whom have young children of their own, will have any objection to ensuring that violators of crimes against children receive tougher penalties for their acts.

It is unfortunate that it took the murder of girls such as Jetseta Gage for a law with severe penalties to be proposed, but I strongly believe a vote for this bill could save the lives of children in the future. We have an obligation as legislators to protect our citizens, including our most vulnerable populations, and we have an obligation as adults to protect our young people. We have a commitment as parents to protect our children and ensure that they are given the opportunity to grow up free from the dangers that violent sex offenders pose. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Kyl and Senator Vitter in strengthening our laws so that no child becomes a victim of a repeat offender.

Mr. President, today I join with my good friends Senators Ted Stevens, Daniel Inouye, and Lisa Murkowski to introduce legislation to ensure retirement equity for Federal workers in Hawaii, Alaska, and the U.S. territories. For years, Federal employees in my home state of Hawaii and in other non-foreign areas have been disadvantaged when it comes to their retirement due to a lack of locality pay. Federal workers in those areas may receive a nonforeign cost of living allowance, COLA, based on the differences in the cost of living between those areas and the District off Columbia, but this amount does not count for retirement purposes. Furthermore, while locality rates generally increase, nonforeign COLAs have been gradually declining. This lack of retirement equity has resulted, in several lawsuits against the Federal Government and hinders efforts to recruit and retain Federal workers in those areas.

On August 17, 2000, the U.S. District Court of the Virgin Islands approved the settlement of Caraballo v. United States, which was a class-action lawsuit in which employees in the nonforeign areas contested the methodology used by the Office of Personnel Management to determine COLA rates. However, on January 30, 2008, Judge Phillip M. Pro in the U.S. District Court in Honolulu ruled against the Federal employees in Matsuo v. the Office of Personnel Management, which held that excluding Alaska and Hawaii from locality pay did not violate the equal protection clause and substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment. Judge Pro acknowledged the disparity in his ruling saying that Congress ``discharged its legislative responsibilities imperfectly'' and recommended that Congress ``correct the incongruity made so evident by this case.''

While this issue has been discussed for years, a solution seemed out of reach given the lack of support for various proposed solutions. Last year, the Administration announced a legislative proposal to phase-out non-foreign COLA and phase-in locality pay. In May 2007 the Administration's draft bill was submitted. The draft bill would freeze nonforeign COLA rates at their current rates at their current rates and OPM would no longer conduct COLA surveys. Over the 7 years following the enactment of the proposal, locality pay would be phased in for General Schedule, GS, employees while nonforeign COLA is phased out. According to OPM, preliminary data indicates that the locality pay rate for Hawaii would be 20 percent. At the end of the 7 year period, if the locality pay rate is less than the amount of nonforeign COLA for a particular area, employees would continue to receive the difference in nonforeign COLA and locality pay until the locality rate reaches the COLA amount. Only at that time would employees no longer receive non- foreign COLA. However, the proposal did not address the impact such a change would have on postal employees, employees who receive special rates, members of the Senior Executive Service, and others who are in agency specific personnel systems or those who do not receive locality pay, such as employees under the National Security Personnel System at the Department of Defense.

Knowing of the growing interest in this proposal, I sent staff from my Federal Workforce Subcommittee to Hawaii last July to meet with employees and hear their questions and concerns about the Administration's proposal. Based on the questions and comments I have received, I submitted questions to OPM and other Federal agencies to obtain additional information. I also posted information on the Administration's proposal on my website, a link to a calculator created by OPM for Federal employees to determine exactly how their pay and retirement will be impacted by the proposal, and the agencies' response to my questions. Since then, I have received numerous letters and phone calls from constituents and Federal employees in the nonforeign areas about this issue. While there are still divergent views on this proposal, the vast majority of employees who I have heard from are supportive of a change to locality pay.

The legislation I introduce today is a collective effort of Senators Stevens, Inouye, Murkowski, and myself to find an equitable solution to a difficult and divided issue. The Non-Foreign Area Retirement Equity Assurance Act is not to be seen as the last word, only the latest step forward toward determining the best way to ensure retirement equity for Federal workers in the nonforeign areas. Our bill seeks to provide answers to the questions raised by the administration's proposal and to cover all employees. Most importantly, our bill seeks to protect employee's take home pay. During this current economic climate, we must be careful to do no harm.

Over the Memorial Day recess my subcommittee plans to hold a series of meetings in Hawaii on the Administration's proposal and this bill to hear remaining questions and concerns. I also plan to hold a hearing on these proposals in Honolulu on May 29, 2008. I continue to encourage employees in Alaska, Hawaii, and in the territories to write us with their questions and concerns on these proposals. My ultimate goal remains to ensure that Federal workers in the nonforeign areas are not disadvantaged when it comes to their pay and retirement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I join my friend from Hawaii in introducing the Non-foreign Area Retirement Equity Act. I thank Senator Akaka for his hard work on this important legislation that finally brings retirement equity to the thousands of Federal employees in Alaska and Hawaii.

Alaska and Hawaii are the only States in which Federal employees do not receive locality pay. Instead, they receive what is called a nonforeign cost of living allowance, or COLA. COLA was put in place in 1949, before Alaska and Hawaii were States. It is based on the cost of living in an area compared to the cost of living in Washington, DC. COLA was not available to employees in the lower 48 States.

When locality pay was established to benefit Federal employees in the lower 48, Alaska and Hawaii were not included because they were already under the COLA system. Locality pay brings Federal salaries closer to private industry salaries in an area.

The key difference between these two systems is how it affects a Federal employee's retirement. As you know, a Federal employee's retirement is based on their ``high 3'' years of service, usually the final 3 years of their base pay salary.

COLA is nontaxable income that cannot exceed 25 percent of the base pay. It is currently being reduced in Alaska and Hawaii by 1 percent each year. Because COLA is not taxed, it is not considered as part of an employee's base pay for retirement purposes. This means an employee in Alaska retires with a much lower ``high 3'' than an equivalent position in the lower 48.

Locality pay is taxable income, but is also considered part of an employee's base pay for retirement purposes. This makes a big difference in the amount of retirement benefits an employee receives.

Alaska has one of the highest costs of living in the Nation. Our Federal employees need to know they can continue to afford living in the State they call home on the money they receive in their retirement benefits. Many Alaskan Federal employees nearing retirement relocate to the lower 48 in order to receive locality pay for their ``high 3.'' This puts my State at a disadvantage because we are losing highly skilled, seasoned employees.

This is an inequitable and outdated system. It is time to bring retirement equity to all States. The bill Senator Akaka and I introduce today with Senators Inouye and Murkowski will do just that. Simply put, this bill will convert Federal employees in our States from the COLA system to the locality pay system. This conversion will not only benefit the Federal employees in these States, it will also save the Government money.

The COLA system requires that a survey be conducted every 3 years to determine an area's COLA. Our bill would eliminate these expensive and time consuming surveys. By changing to a locality pay system, employees will pay taxes on income they now receive tax free. Federal employees in Alaska and Hawaii have filed lawsuits to fight the inequity of the COLA system. With this change, the Government will not have to spend time and resources defending against this litigation.

The Office of Personnel Management supports replacing COLA with locality pay for all of these reasons.

This bill addresses several employee groups with unique circumstances, including postal employees. I am confident we can work closely with the U.S. Postal Service and the postal employee unions to ensure that postal employees in Alaska and Hawaii are protected.

Senator Akaka and I hope that all groups affected by this change will contact us so that we can ensure this bill takes everyone's concerns into consideration. Senator Akaka will be holding a hearing on this issue in Hawaii this month. Feedback from that hearing will be vital to improving our bill.

It is important we pass this bill before the end of this Congress to bring equality in retirement to all of our Federal employees. I urge Senators to support this bill.

Mr. President, I am proud to introduce a bill today to reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act for 3 years, through 2012. This legislation has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Congress since it was enacted in 1998, and I thank Senators Specter, Mikulski, Shelby and Hatch for joining me in today's introduction. I am also glad to be joined by Congressmen Visclosky who will introduce this bill in the House of Representatives today as well.

Since 1999, the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Department of Justice has distributed $234 million to State and local jurisdictions. Those grants have resulted in the purchase of an estimated 818,000 vests. Since its enactment, over 11,900 State and local jurisdictions have participated in this program. Congress can be proud of the fact that this legislation has directly provided life-saving equipment to so many law enforcement officers. I know that when State and local jurisdictions receive the matching grants through this program, their budgets can go farther in fighting crime in their communities.

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the importance of the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program. We heard from a law enforcement officer who was shot in the

chest at pointblank range during an auto theft investigation. He lived to tell the committee and others his story, thanks to the bulletproof vest he was wearing. In my home state of Vermont, the program has allowed the Vermont police to purchase over 350 sets of armor in the last 10 years. The program has had a tremendous impact on the ability of States and localities to give our law enforcement officers the protection they deserve while serving the needs of our communities.

As a Nation, we ask much of our law enforcement officers. Men and women who serve face constant and unknown risks, and too often make the ultimate sacrifice. During this week in Washington, law enforcement officers from around the country will remember those officers who died in the line of duty while protecting their fellow citizens. Unfortunately, an ongoing trend of rising violent crime in the U.S. underscores the continuing need of this program that has had such a positive impact on the safety of law enforcement officers. Reauthorizing and funding this program is the right thing to do, and it is something I hope all Senators will support. Every additional officer who is able to put on a vest today as a result of this grant program means that one more officer may survive a violent attack. Protecting the men and women who protect all Americans should be a priority for Congress and we have a chance to advance that priority with the continuation of this important program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.