Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act

Mr. President, I rise to speak about legislation that I am introducing today, the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2009. This legislation takes important steps to confront the growing problem of organized criminal activity involving stolen and resold retail goods. This organized retail crime costs retailers billions of dollars per year and creates significant health and safety risks for consumers. My legislation will toughen criminal laws and put in place effective regulatory and information-sharing measures to help retailers, secondary marketplaces, and law enforcement agencies work together to stop this crime. I am pleased that my colleague Senator Klobuchar is joining me in introducing this important legislation, and I look forward to working with her and all my colleagues to see it passed into law.

I recently became Chairman of the Senate Crime and Drugs Subcommittee and I hope to hold a hearing in the Subcommittee on the problem of organized retail crime and the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act. I also want to acknowledge that Congressman Bobby Scott, the Chairman of the House Crime Subcommittee, and Congressman Brad Ellsworth are each introducing bills to crack down on organized retail crime. I look forward to working with them and all of my colleagues to enact legislation that will address this growing problem in a comprehensive and effective manner.

Organized retail crime rings currently operate across the Nation and internationally. Their criminal activity begins with the coordinated theft of large amounts of items from retail stores with the intent to resell those items. The foot soldiers in these organized retail crime rings are professional shoplifters, called ``boosters,'' who steal from retail stores such items as over-the-counter drugs, baby formula, medical diagnostic tests, health and beauty aids, clothing, razor blades, and electronic devices. These boosters often use sophisticated means for evading retailer anti-theft safeguards, and occasionally dishonest retail employees are complicit in the theft. Each booster routinely steals thousands of dollars worth of items from multiple stores, and delivers the items to a ``fence,'' or a person who buys stolen products from boosters for a fee that is frequently paid in cash or drugs.

Today, organized retail crime rings often enlist numerous fences to deliver stolen retail goods to processing and storage warehouses operated by the rings. At these warehouse locations, teams of workers sort the stolen items, disable anti-theft tracking devices, and remove labels that identify the items with a particular retailer. In some instances, they alter items' expiration dates, replace labels with those of more expensive products, or dilute products and repackage the modified contents in seemingly-authentic packaging. Often, the conditions in which these stolen goods are transported, handled and stored are substandard, leading to the deterioration or contamination of the goods.

Organized retail crime rings typically resell their stolen merchandise in physical marketplaces, such as flea markets and swap- meets, or on Internet auction sites. Internet sites are particularly tempting avenues for these sales, since the Internet reaches a worldwide market and allows sellers to operate anonymously and maximize return.

Organized retail crime has a variety of harmful effects. Retailers and the FBI estimate that this crime costs retailers approximately $30 billion per year and deprives states of hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales tax revenues. The proceeds of organized retail crime can be used to finance other forms of criminal behavior, including gang activity, drug trafficking and international terrorism. Further, organized retail crime often involves the resale of consumable goods like baby formula or medical diagnostic tests like diabetic strips, which can cause significant harm to consumers when stored improperly or sold past their expiration date.

Although the problem of organized retail crime predates the economic crisis facing our nation, the current recession has lent more urgency to the need to curb organized retail crime. In recent months theft and shoplifting from retailers has increased and retailers' revenues have decreased, thus enlarging the bite that organized retail crime has taken out of retailers' balance sheets. A December 2008 survey by the Retail Industry Leaders Association found that 80 percent of the retailers surveyed reported experiencing an increase in organized retail crime since the start of the current economic downturn. In a 2008 survey of loss prevention executives performed by the National Retail Federation, 85 percent of the 114 retailers surveyed indicated that their company had been a victim of organized retail crime in the past 12 months. Many law enforcement officials predict that organized retail crime will continue to increase during these troubled economic times.

After I introduced legislation on this subject last Congress, I listened to the views of stakeholders from law enforcement, the retail community, and the Internet marketplace community, and have made several revisions to my legislation in response to their suggestions. The legislation I am introducing today, the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2009, would do the following:

First, it would toughen the criminal code's treatment of organized retail crime. It would refine certain offenses, such as the crimes of interstate transport and sale of stolen goods, to capture conduct that is being committed by individuals engaged in organized retail crime. It would also require the U.S. Sentencing Commission to consider relevant sentencing guideline enhancements.

Second, the bill would establish a reporting system through which evidence of organized retail crime can be effectively shared between the victimized retailers, the marketplaces where items are being resold, and the Justice Department. The bill would create a form that retailers could use to describe suspected illegal sales activity involving goods that were stolen from that retailer. The retailer would sign and submit this form to both the Justice Department and to the operator of a physical or online marketplace where

the stolen goods are suspected of being offered for resale. Upon receiving the form, the marketplace operator would be required to conduct an account review of the suspected sellers and provide the results of that account review to the Justice Department. This reporting system would ensure that the Justice Department receives information from both retailers and marketplaces in order to piece together organized retail crime investigations and prosecutions.

Third, the bill would require that when a marketplace operator is presented with clear and convincing evidence that a seller on that marketplace is selling stolen goods, the operator must terminate that seller's activities unless the seller can produce exculpatory evidence. The bill would also require that when a marketplace operator is presented with evidence of criminal activity involving a seller who offers consumable goods or medical diagnostic tests on that marketplace, the operator must immediately suspend the ability of that seller to sell such goods because of the potentially imminent danger to public safety.

Additionally, the bill would require high-volume sellers on Internet marketplace sites to provide a physical address to the marketplace operator. This address would be shared with the Justice Department and with retailers who attest and provide evidence that the high-volume seller is suspected of reselling goods stolen from that retailer. This address-sharing regime will permit appropriate inquiries to determine whether high-volume Internet sellers are legitimate operations, and is similar to address-sharing regimes that permit inquiries into possible copyright violations by online sellers.

In sum, the Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2009 is targeted legislation that aims to deter organized retail crime and facilitate the identification and prosecution of those who participate in it. The bill heightens the penalties for organized retail crime, shuts down criminals who are selling stolen goods, and places valuable information about illegal activity into the hands of law enforcement. This legislation has broad support in the retail industry in my home state of Illinois and nationwide. It is supported by the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, the National Retail Federation, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the Food Marketing Institute, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and the Coalition to Stop Organized Retail Crime, whose members include such retail chains as Walgreens, Home Depot, Target, Wal-Mart, Safeway, and Macy's.

Organized retail crime is a growing problem nationwide. There is a pressing need to address it, particularly in light of the weakening economy and the risks such crime creates for unknowing consumers. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so we can effectively combat this crime.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act.

This year marks the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth. We will spend this bicentennial year reflecting on Lincoln's legacy, a legacy that extends far beyond the Civil War. President Lincoln strove to democratize higher education. He enacted the Morrill Act, establishing public land grant universities and opening the doors to a college education to more Americans.

As we recognize Lincoln's legacy this year, we can again transform higher education. Today with Senator Wicker I am introducing the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act, which has the potential to equip a new generation of Americans with the skills to live in a globalized world.

The bill is named after the late Senator Paul Simon, a man whose passion for the public good remains an inspiration to all who knew him. Shortly before his death in late 2003, Senator Simon came back to Washington to talk to his former colleagues about the need to strengthen American security. He wondered how the United States could lead the world to stability, peace, and harmony when so many Americans are ignorant of the world. He envisioned a United States populated by a generation of Americans with greater international understanding--an understanding arrived at not by just studying the world, but by living in it. He believed this study abroad initiative would be as transformative as Lincoln's work to expand access to college.

Paul's tireless efforts led to Congress' establishment of the Abraham Lincoln Study Abroad Commission. I was honored to serve on this bipartisan Lincoln Commission, and it was a privilege for me to introduce legislation in the past two Congresses to

bring Paul Simon's dream closer to reality. The bill is based on the Commission's recommendations for a study abroad program for undergraduate students that will help build global awareness and international understanding. In the last Congress, this bill was supported by 50 bipartisan cosponsors.

The Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act has big goals. It declares our intention to send one million students abroad per year within the next decade. More of those students will study in the developing world and the students we send will be more diverse in terms of race, socioeconomic background, and field of study. To accomplish these goals, a small public-private entity, the Senator Paul Simon Foundation, will award grants to students and institutions of higher education. The goal of the program is to make study abroad in high- quality programs in diverse locations around the world more common for all college students. Grants to colleges and universities will be used to encourage tearing down institutional barriers to study abroad. By leveraging change at the institution level, the Foundation will create opportunities for countless students--far more than possible through direct student grants alone.

Expanding study abroad should be a national priority. The future of the country depends on globally literate citizens who are at ease in the world. In his troubled time, Lincoln said, ``The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.'' Today, our Nation also faces an occasion piled high with difficulty. By passing the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act, we will send the next generation of Americans out into the world with open minds and they will come back able to think anew and act anew. I ask my colleagues to join Senator Wicker and me in support of this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, today I will once again introduce with the senior Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, a bill to require that Senate candidates file their campaign finance disclosure reports electronically and that those reports be promptly made available to the public. This step is long overdue; indeed I first introduced this bill in 2003. I hope that the Senate will act quickly on this legislation this year.

A series of reports by the Campaign Finance Institute has highlighted the anomaly in the election laws that makes it nearly impossible for the public to get access to Senate campaign finance reports while most other reports are available on the Internet within 24 hours of their filing with the Federal Election Commission, FEC. The Campaign Finance Institute asks a rhetorical question: ``What makes the Senate so special that it exempts itself from a key requirement of campaign finance disclosure that applies to everyone else, including candidates for the House of Representatives and Political Action Committees?''

The answer, of course, is nothing. The U.S. Senate is special in many ways. I am proud to serve here. But there is no excuse for keeping our campaign finance information inaccessible to the public when the information filed by House candidates or others is readily available.

My bill amends the section of the election laws dealing with electronic filing to require reports filed with the Secretary of the Senate to be filed electronically and forwarded to the FEC within 24 hours. The FEC is required to make available on the Internet within 24 hours any filing it receives electronically. So if this bill is enacted, electronic versions of Senate reports should be available to the public within 48 hours of their filing. That will be a vast improvement over the current situation, which, according to the Campaign Finance Institute, requires journalists and interested members of the public to review computer images of paper-filed copies of reports, and involves a completely wasteful expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars to re-enter information into databases that almost every campaign has available in electronic format.

The current filing system also means that the detailed coding that the FEC does, which allows for more sophisticated searches and analysis, is completed over a week later for Senate reports than for House reports. This means that the final disclosure reports covering the first two weeks of October are often not susceptible to detailed scrutiny before the election. According to the Campaign Finance Institute, in the 2006 election, ``[v]oters in six of the hottest Senate races were out of luck the week before the November 7 election if they did Web searches for information on general election contributions since June 30. . . . In all ten of the most closely followed Senate races voters were unable to search through any candidate reports for information on pre-general election (October 1- 18) donations.'' And a September 18, 2006, column by Jeffery H. Birnbaum in the Washington Post noted that ``When the polls opened in November 2004, voters were in the dark about $53 million in individual Senate contributions of $200 or more dating all the way back to July. . . .''

Because the Senate failed to pass this bill last Congress, even though we had 48 bipartisan cosponsors and no known opposition, and even though the Senate Rules Committee reported the bill by voice vote, the same problem existed for Senate elections in the 2008 cycle. In addition, because of the expense, when the FEC puts information from the paper filings in its electronic database, it only enters contributions, not expenditures. So anyone interested in how a Senate campaign is spending its money has to consult the paper forms.

As Roll Call said in its recent editorial in favor of the bill, ``[i]t's time for this nonsense to come to an end.'' It is time for the Senate to at long last relinquish its backward attitude toward campaign finance disclosure. I urge the enactment of this simple bill that will make our reports subject to the same prompt, public scrutiny as those filed by PACs, House and Presidential candidates, and even 527 organizations. I close with another question from the Campaign Finance Institute: ``Isn't it time that the Senate join the 21st century and allow itself to vote on a simple legislative fix that could significantly improve our democracy?'' This Congress, let us finally answer that question in the affirmative.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the Roll Call editorial be printed in the Record.

[From Roll Call, Feb. 11, 2009]

Outrageous

In this year when ``transparency'' is all the rage, it

would be appropriate for the Senate--at long last--to join

the House and every federal political committee in filing

campaign finance reports electronically.

Fundraising and spending reports for the end of 2008 were

due on Jan. 31. Reports for House Members and candidates and

the Republican and Democratic parties and their campaign

committees all were instantly available to the media,

watchdog groups and the public on the Federal Election

Commission's Web site.

But Senate reports take weeks from the filing deadline to

make it into the public realm. And when they are made

available, it's at the conclusion of a circuitous process

that costs taxpayers an estimated $250,000 a year that could

be far better spent elsewhere--almost anywhere else--or

simply used to narrow the federal deficit.

Moreover, because of the expense, the FEC does not

electronically post Senate campaign expenditures, only

contributions--a gap that Steve Weissman of the Campaign

Finance Institute correctly calls ``outrageous.''

Senators use FEC-approved software to compile their

reports, but then they snail-mail paper copies to the office

of the Secretary of the Senate, which then scans some 27,000

pages and sends them electronically to the FEC.

They can be then combed through page by page on the FEC Web

site, but not digitally manipulated or matched. The FEC hires

a contractor to key the data into digital form. Only then, a

month or more after the filing deadline, can the data be

searched and connections made, if any, between money

collected and votes or positions Senators or their opponents

have taken.

But it still takes page-by-page searching to review

candidates' spending--to determine, for instance, if

candidates' relatives are on the campaign payroll.

All this ridiculous complexity is necessary because in 2000

the Senate exempted itself from an electronic filing

requirement written into the FEC's appropriation. Legislation

to correct the situation has been regularly introduced by

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), and it's regularly had dozens of

co-sponsors.

But it's never passed. Change was resisted at first by Sen.

Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who wanted to maintain a fusty Senate

``prerogative,'' and then by various Republican Senators who

wanted to attach amendments that amounted to ``poison

pills.''

Last year, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee

approved the bill for floor action, but it was blocked by

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) who sought to add a provision

requiring disclosure of the donors to any organization filing

ethics complaints against a Senator. The bill never was voted

on.

It's time for this nonsense to come to an end. Feingold is

planning to re-introduce the measure soon. It ought to be

processed promptly by the Rules Committee, now chaired by

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and pushed to the floor for

passage as early in the year as possible so if it's subject

to more shenanigans, they can be exposed and resolved.

Mr. President, today I will once again introduce with the senior Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act, a bill to require that Senate candidates file their campaign finance disclosure reports electronically and that those reports be promptly made available to the public. This step is long overdue; indeed I first introduced this bill in 2003. I hope that the Senate will act quickly on this legislation this year.

A series of reports by the Campaign Finance Institute has highlighted the anomaly in the election laws that makes it nearly impossible for the public to get access to Senate campaign finance reports while most other reports are available on the Internet within 24 hours of their filing with the Federal Election Commission, FEC. The Campaign Finance Institute asks a rhetorical question: ``What makes the Senate so special that it exempts itself from a key requirement of campaign finance disclosure that applies to everyone else, including candidates for the House of Representatives and Political Action Committees?''

The answer, of course, is nothing. The U.S. Senate is special in many ways. I am proud to serve here. But there is no excuse for keeping our campaign finance information inaccessible to the public when the information filed by House candidates or others is readily available.

My bill amends the section of the election laws dealing with electronic filing to require reports filed with the Secretary of the Senate to be filed electronically and forwarded to the FEC within 24 hours. The FEC is required to make available on the Internet within 24 hours any filing it receives electronically. So if this bill is enacted, electronic versions of Senate reports should be available to the public within 48 hours of their filing. That will be a vast improvement over the current situation, which, according to the Campaign Finance Institute, requires journalists and interested members of the public to review computer images of paper-filed copies of reports, and involves a completely wasteful expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars to re-enter information into databases that almost every campaign has available in electronic format.

The current filing system also means that the detailed coding that the FEC does, which allows for more sophisticated searches and analysis, is completed over a week later for Senate reports than for House reports. This means that the final disclosure reports covering the first two weeks of October are often not susceptible to detailed scrutiny before the election. According to the Campaign Finance Institute, in the 2006 election, ``[v]oters in six of the hottest Senate races were out of luck the week before the November 7 election if they did Web searches for information on general election contributions since June 30. . . . In all ten of the most closely followed Senate races voters were unable to search through any candidate reports for information on pre-general election (October 1- 18) donations.'' And a September 18, 2006, column by Jeffery H. Birnbaum in the Washington Post noted that ``When the polls opened in November 2004, voters were in the dark about $53 million in individual Senate contributions of $200 or more dating all the way back to July. . . .''

Because the Senate failed to pass this bill last Congress, even though we had 48 bipartisan cosponsors and no known opposition, and even though the Senate Rules Committee reported the bill by voice vote, the same problem existed for Senate elections in the 2008 cycle. In addition, because of the expense, when the FEC puts information from the paper filings in its electronic database, it only enters contributions, not expenditures. So anyone interested in how a Senate campaign is spending its money has to consult the paper forms.

As Roll Call said in its recent editorial in favor of the bill, ``[i]t's time for this nonsense to come to an end.'' It is time for the Senate to at long last relinquish its backward attitude toward campaign finance disclosure. I urge the enactment of this simple bill that will make our reports subject to the same prompt, public scrutiny as those filed by PACs, House and Presidential candidates, and even 527 organizations. I close with another question from the Campaign Finance Institute: ``Isn't it time that the Senate join the 21st century and allow itself to vote on a simple legislative fix that could significantly improve our democracy?'' This Congress, let us finally answer that question in the affirmative.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the Roll Call editorial be printed in the Record.

[From Roll Call, Feb. 11, 2009]

Outrageous

In this year when ``transparency'' is all the rage, it

would be appropriate for the Senate--at long last--to join

the House and every federal political committee in filing

campaign finance reports electronically.

Fundraising and spending reports for the end of 2008 were

due on Jan. 31. Reports for House Members and candidates and

the Republican and Democratic parties and their campaign

committees all were instantly available to the media,

watchdog groups and the public on the Federal Election

Commission's Web site.

But Senate reports take weeks from the filing deadline to

make it into the public realm. And when they are made

available, it's at the conclusion of a circuitous process

that costs taxpayers an estimated $250,000 a year that could

be far better spent elsewhere--almost anywhere else--or

simply used to narrow the federal deficit.

Moreover, because of the expense, the FEC does not

electronically post Senate campaign expenditures, only

contributions--a gap that Steve Weissman of the Campaign

Finance Institute correctly calls ``outrageous.''

Senators use FEC-approved software to compile their

reports, but then they snail-mail paper copies to the office

of the Secretary of the Senate, which then scans some 27,000

pages and sends them electronically to the FEC.

They can be then combed through page by page on the FEC Web

site, but not digitally manipulated or matched. The FEC hires

a contractor to key the data into digital form. Only then, a

month or more after the filing deadline, can the data be

searched and connections made, if any, between money

collected and votes or positions Senators or their opponents

have taken.

But it still takes page-by-page searching to review

candidates' spending--to determine, for instance, if

candidates' relatives are on the campaign payroll.

All this ridiculous complexity is necessary because in 2000

the Senate exempted itself from an electronic filing

requirement written into the FEC's appropriation. Legislation

to correct the situation has been regularly introduced by

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), and it's regularly had dozens of

co-sponsors.

But it's never passed. Change was resisted at first by Sen.

Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who wanted to maintain a fusty Senate

``prerogative,'' and then by various Republican Senators who

wanted to attach amendments that amounted to ``poison

pills.''

Last year, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee

approved the bill for floor action, but it was blocked by

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) who sought to add a provision

requiring disclosure of the donors to any organization filing

ethics complaints against a Senator. The bill never was voted

on.

It's time for this nonsense to come to an end. Feingold is

planning to re-introduce the measure soon. It ought to be

processed promptly by the Rules Committee, now chaired by

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), and pushed to the floor for

passage as early in the year as possible so if it's subject

to more shenanigans, they can be exposed and resolved.

Mr. President, I come to introduce another bill as part of my Accountability in Government Week. Yesterday I introduced the False Claims Act Clarification Act to help restore the original intent of the most successful law the Government utilizes to protect taxpayers' dollars from fraud, waste, and abuse.

One key component I added to the False Claims Act when it was amended in 1986 was allowing whistleblowers to file cases on behalf of the Government when they are aware of fraud or abuse of taxpayers' funds. Whistleblowers are the key to unlocking the secrets of wrongdoing because they have access to information about how the frauds were perpetrated and can help lead authorities in the right direction to uncover the fraud. However, for their brave efforts whistleblowers are often the victims of retaliation and are removed from their jobs by supervisors who do not want the wrongdoing uncovered.

I have often said whistleblowers were as welcome as skunks at a picnic, despite the fact that all they do is bring forward the truth. This is wrong. That is why I have supported strong whistleblower protection laws during my time in the Congress.

The landmark whistleblower law is the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989--I believe is the year it was passed--providing rights and remedies to executive branch whistleblowers who are the victims of retaliation. I proudly cosponsored that bill. But like many laws that are 20 years old, it needs to be updated. So I have cosponsored legislation introduced by Democratic Senator Akaka to do just that. However, that law also needs to be extended to employees of the legislative and judicial branches of Government. So I come today to start the discussion and to introduce legislation that will provide the same whistleblower protection rights currently extended to executive branch employees to the legislative branch.

I am pleased to be joined by Senator McCaskill in introducing the Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act of 2009. This important legislation simply adds whistleblower protections to the legislative branch by incorporating the Whistleblower Protection Act into the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, a law that I authored to bring Congress in line with many labor and workplace practices that affected businesses around the country because I have long believed Congress should practice what it preaches. This legislation will do just that.

You might remember the Congressional Accountability Act was passed because, going back to the 1930s, Congress had exempted itself from a lot of employment laws because we individual Senators are employers, the Congress is an employer, but we exempted ourselves from, I think, 18, 19 different laws at that particular time.

So in 1995 I wanted to end the proposition of why we had two sets of laws in this country--one for Capitol Hill and one for the rest of the country. Now, since 1995, we have one set of laws, but we do not have the whistleblower protections that ought to be in it.

A theme that has dominated this new Congress, as well as dominated the campaign of last fall, is accountability and responsibility in Washington. In most instances, the only reason we discovered waste or fraud is because employees were brave enough to stand up to the wrongdoers and to expose the offenses. Without these whistleblowers, the American taxpayer would continue to foot a bill that might be a violation of law, might be fraudulent use of taxpayers' money, might just be a waste of taxpayer money. Either way, taxpayers are hurt.

This bill is long overdue. I have previously introduced similar legislation, but, unfortunately, those bills were never brought out of committee. I hope the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, of which the chairman is on the Senate floor--I did not know the Senator would be so available for me to preach to him. I hope the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will examine this legislation and will closely and expeditiously report it to the full Senate so we can ensure employees of the legislative branch that they are protected from any reprisals relating to protected whistleblowing the same way as executive branch employees.

Now, it has been a number of years since the Congressional Accountability Act was signed into law. So I would like to remind my colleagues why we passed that law. It was a time very similar to today. The American people were demanding more from their elected officials in Washington and wanted accountability and transparency in all branches of Government. I believed then, as I do now, that Congress needs to put its money where its mouth is and apply the various labor and employment laws that were enforced on other branches of Government and businesses all across the country.

That is what the Congressional Accountability Act did. It applied a number of important laws to Congress, including the Fair Labor Standards Act, title VII, the Civil Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Family Medical Leave Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Employee Polygraph Protection Act, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the Rehabilitation Act, as well as some provisions of title V relating to Federal service labor-management relations. It also created the Office of Compliance of the legislative branch that oversees the application of these important laws to this branch of Government and ensures that employees' rights under these laws are protected.

While the Congressional Accountability Act was a good start, the Office of Compliance has recommended additional laws be applied to the legislative branch, including the purpose of my bill, the Whistleblower Protection Act.

We have already taken the steps to protect whistleblowers in the executive branch, so it does not make sense not to extend those same protections to whistleblowers working right here in our own backyard on Capitol Hill. My bill will, very simply, give congressional employees the same protections that workers of other branches of Government have. It does this by simply adding the Whistleblower Protection Act to the preexisting list of statutes that are applied to the legislative branch by the Congressional Accountability Act.

This is a straightforward and simple solution to ensuring that employees of the legislative branch are not without vital whistleblower protections. So I ask, in closing, that my colleagues join me and Senator McCaskill in supporting this bill to ensure that those who help us in the fight to hold Government accountable are not punished for those efforts.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help protect the retirement benefits earned by our Nation's public service workers.

I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, as well as Senators Durbin, Kerry, Brown, Cardin, Boxer, Lincoln, Whitehouse, Nelson of Florida, and Menendez.

This bill will repeal two provisions of the Social Security Act--the Government pension offset and the windfall elimination provision--that unfairly reduce retirement benefits for teachers, police officers, and firefighters.

These two provisions were originally designed--the Government pension offset in 1977 and the windfall elimiantion provision in 1983--to prevent public employees from being unduly enriched.

But, the practical effect is that those providing critical public services are unjustly penalized.

Approximately 1\1/2\ million Federal, State, and municipal workers, as well as teachers and other school district employees, are held to a different standard when it comes to retirement benefits.

In California, the problem affects about 200,000 workers.

The Government pension offset reduces a public employee's Social Security spousal or survivor benefits by an amount equal to two-thirds of the individual's public pension.

In most cases, the Government pension offset eliminates the spousal benefit for which an individual qualifies. Three quarters of employees affected by the Government pension offset lose their entire spousal benefit, even though their spouse paid Social Security taxes for many years.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the Government pension offset provision alone reduces the retirement benefits earned by nearly 500,000 Americans each year by an average of $500 per month.

The windfall elimination provision reduces Social Security benefits by up to 50 percent for retirees who have paid into Social Security and also receive a public pension, such as from a State teacher retirement fund.

Private-sector retirees receive monthly Social Security checks equal to 90 percent of their first $744 in average monthly career earnings, plus 32 percent of monthly earnings up to $4,483 and 15 percent of earnings above $4,483.

Under the windfall elimination provision, retired public employees, however, are only allowed to receive 40 percent of the first $744 in career monthly earnings, a penalty of over $350 per month.

Our legislation will allow government pensioners the chance to earn the same 90 percent to which nongovernment pension recipients are entitled.

For those living on fixed incomes, in some cases this represents the difference between a comfortable retirement and poverty.

Americans are hurting as our economy continues to contract.

More than $4 trillion in retirement savings were lost last year as markets destabilized and investments soured.

Retirees on fixed incomes have been especially impacted by this recession. Every dollar matters to a retiree struggling to pay bills and meet mortgage obligations.

In California, more than 837,000 foreclosures were filed last year. The roughly $500 lost by beneficiaries to the Government pension offset each month may mean the difference between foreclosure and keeping one's home.

This is also critical for seniors residing in assisted living facilities or retirement communities concerned about paying the increasingly high cost of care.

Our Nation's unemployment rate stands at 7.6 percent. And, in my State, over 1.7 million people are out of work. For those close to retirement who have lost their jobs, reductions in Social Security benefits compound an already challenging situation.

We must also eliminate the barriers which discourage many Americans from pursuing careers in public service.

This is more difficult now than ever, as states face mounting deficits and painful budget cuts. Communities must be able to retain their most qualified teachers, police officers, and firefighters.

Unfortunately, the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provision only contribute to this problem at a time when we should be doing everything we possibly can to bring the best and brightest to these careers.

It is estimated that schools will need to hire between 1.7 million and 2.7 million new teachers nationwide by the end of this year because of record enrollments in public schools.

The projected retirements of thousands of veteran teachers and critical efforts to reduce class sizes also necessitate hiring additional teachers.

California currently has roughly 310,000 teachers but will need to double this number over the next decade, to 600,000 teachers, in order to keep up with student enrollment levels.

It is counterintuitive that on the one-hand, policymakers seek to encourage people to change careers and enter the teaching profession, while on the other hand, those wishing to do so are told that their retirement benefits will be significantly reduced.

I certainly recognize that our Federal budget deficit and national debt make repealing the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provision difficult.

And, I remain open to considering any alternatives that will allow hard working employees to keep the Social Security benefits to which they are entitled.

But the bottom line is that we should respect, not penalize, our public service employees.

In the 110th Congress, 38 Senators joined me in cosponsoring this legislation. In the House of Representatives, 351 Members of Congress supported Representative Howard Berman's companion bill. Our bill enjoys the support of more than three quarters of the entire House of Representatives.

The reason for this support is because public servants across the country are calling on Congress to act.

It is long overdue that we resolve this inequity, and it is time that this body protects retirement benefits for public employees and formulates a more cohesive approach to promoting public sector employment.

So I hope that my colleagues will join me in protecting the retirement benefits of our Nation's hard working public servants. We value their contributions and must ensure that all Americans receive the retirement benefits they have earned and deserve.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.