Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I cosponsor this concurrent resolution with the Senator from Washington to congratulate the sailors of the United States submarine force upon their completion of 1,000 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine deterrent patrols. Ballistic missile submarines serve as our Nation's primary and most secure nuclear deterrent. This milestone is a testament to the hard work and dedication of the sailors who provide our security against the rising threats that are permeating the globe. I stand here today to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this concurrent resolution in honor of all those who made this milestone possible.

The strategic deterrence capability provided by the Ohio class remains as critical to our national security today as it did when we commissioned the first Ohio-class submarine in 1981. As result of the rapid advancements in the information and technology industries, our adversaries across the globe are developing weaponry at a much faster rate than they were two decades ago. Because of this, we must always be prepared for the next generation of threats. No other weapon can provide deterrence against these threats like the ballistic missile submarine. It is imperative that we continue to fund the research and development to maintain this fleet, thereby ensuring the future of ballistic missile submarines in our naval force. I, along with many of my colleagues, am committed to improving and embracing new technologies that will allow us to maintain and operate the finest submarine force in the world.

The successful completion of 1,000 patrols is a testament to the achievements and hard work of the sailors who support and operate this incredible fleet of submarines. At the same time, we realize that this security is not provided without cost and sacrifice. Thousands of submariners in our Navy spend months and possibly years of their lives underneath the sea to ensure our safety and our freedom. Additionally, we must remember the countless hours spent by Connecticut laborers to design and construct the Trident submarines, also made possible by vendor support from all around the country. It is extremely important that we take the time to thank those service members and those American workers for their sacrifice and their service to our great Nation.

Again, my sincerest congratulations go to all the sailors who made the successful completion of 1,000 deterrent patrols possible. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution in their honor.

Mr. President, very briefly--and I say this because I happen to agree with, and I think most of our colleagues agree with, the intent of the Senator from Arizona--this has been a matter before the Banking Committee. In fact, in the last session of Congress, by a vote of 19 to 2, the Banking Committee--with Senator Shelby as ranking member--approved Comprehensive Iran sanctions legislation, that went far beyond the scope of the amendment proposed by the Senator from Arizona. But when the legislation was sent to the Senate floor, it was blocked by the Senate minority. I thank my colleagues on the committee who supported it.

Right now, however, the administration is conducting a policy review on Iran at the very time we are gathering here to engage in this debate. I think before considering new legislation, it would be wise to have some hearings, after the administration completes its review and decide the appropriate course of action, in consultation with the appropriate federal agencies.

Clearly, sanctions dealing with Iran's energy sector, as Senator Kyl pointed out, have great merit, as Congress has determined in years past. But I think there is a time and a place for deciding major changes in our sanctions policy--probably not this evening at 7 o'clock, at the end of a long debate on this omnibus bill, when so much is at stake. Such changes should not be added to this underlying bill. Speaker Pelosi has made clear she would pursue a year-long Continuing Resolution if this bill is changed in any way the day before funds for the government expire. If that happens, the amendment would essentially kill or potentially delay critical funding, including an additional $5 million slated for the Department of the Treasury's Terrorism and Financial Intelligence unit to enforce our sanctions against Iran.

I say respectfully, while there is no disagreement that something must be done to stop Iran's efforts to promote terrorism and proliferate weapons of mass destruction, we must do so in close coordination with the new Administration, much as we worked with the Bush administration in fashioning our sanctions bill last year. Let the Obama Administration's Iran review be completed. Once we have an opportunity to examine it, we may then consider a new approach to our Iran policy. At that time, I look forward to working with my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle to address these critical matters. I therefore, urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. President, I seek time of my own time. My colleague is exactly right and I thank him immensely for his involvement. We thank Senator Inouye as well as others who were part of this exchange, a colloquy which we will submit for the Record, which explains exactly what the Senator from Idaho has described. He has it exactly right. This is an expanded removal of jurisdiction from one area to another. There are a lot of very serious questions raised by it.

Our intent is at the earliest possible time we will have legislation to correct what is in this bill and change that. I thank him for his cooperation on this. I thank Senator Inouye and the staff and other people who could have objected to this. Senator Dorgan and others have had some strong views on this and I am very grateful to him as well, understanding our concerns on this matter. We will have a chance to come back to it. I again thank my colleague who helped us craft this colloquy which allowed us to move beyond this particular point. There may be others who want to object to what we want to do, but we feel strongly about the language of the amendment that Senator Crapo has crafted here and we will hopefully get to that quickly.

Mr. President, I seek clarification from the Senator from North Dakota and the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee about the intent and effect of section 626 of Division D of the bill. Will the Senators confirm that section 626 was designed to enhance the FTC's ability to impose new standards only on those mortgage industry participants that are currently subject to the FTC's rulemaking jurisdiction?

With respect to the provisions granting the states authority to take enforcement action, is it your intent the states limit their enforcement actions under the new mortgage standards promulgated by the FTC, or under TILA, only to those mortgage industry participants that are not currently supervised by the federal banking agencies or are not Federal credit unions?

I ask the Senators to work with me to add an amendment to the next appropriate legislative vehicle that clarifies the scope of this provision to reflect the gentlemen's intent and that provides appropriate participation by state attorneys general in enforcement of federal mortgage standards.

Mr. President, I have been approached, along with my colleague Senator Shelby and leaders of the House Financial Services Committee, by the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair, with a request to increase substantially the FDIC's borrowing authority from Treasury from the current $30 billion to $100 billion, for use by the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund and for temporary additional borrowing authority to help weather the economic crisis. In response to her request, I am introducing the Depositor Protection Act of 2009, which provides this authority. We are taking this step out of an abundance of caution and to meet any contingencies that the fund may face in the coming months.

The FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund DIF absorbs losses that result from the corporation's obligation to protect insured deposits when FDIC- insured financial institutions fail. Insured financial institutions pay premiums that support the DIF and under current law those premiums can be increased to cover any losses to the fund.

Today, the House passed legislation to substantially and permanently increase this borrowing authority as part of H.R. 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. Last month, Treasury Secretary Geithner and Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve Board wrote to me to underscore their support for the FDIC's increased borrowing authority.

Since the FDIC's borrowing authority was last increased in 1991, the asset size of banks has tripled. Even more important, the financial system is under considerable stress, and the level of thrift and bank failures has been rising. This line of credit is designed strictly to serve as a backstop to cover potential losses to the DIF.

Though this statutory borrowing authority has historically never been tapped, and Chairman Bair has made clear she does not anticipate doing so, I agree with Chairman Bair, Secretary Geithner, and Chairman Bernanke that under current economic circumstances such an increase in borrowing authority is both prudent and necessary. It is important that we increase this line of borrowing authority so that the FDIC has the funds available which might be needed to meet its obligations to protect insured depositors and to reassure the public that the Government continues to stand firmly behind the FDIC's insurance guarantee.

Additionally, on Friday, February 27, the FDIC Board voted to impose a one-time special assessment of 20 basis points on insured depository institutions because of concern about the level of the DIF. This special assessment is in addition to the regular premiums, which were increased on February 27 to a range of 12 to 16 basis points. The DIF is significantly below the statutory minimum reserve ratio of 1.15. As of December 31, 2008, the DIF ratio stood at .4. The FDIC has informed us that with the increased borrowing authority provided in this legislation, it believes it can reduce the size of the special assessment while still maintaining appropriate assessments at a level that supports the DIF with funding from the banking industry.

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

Mr. President, I have been approached, along with my colleague Senator Shelby and leaders of the House Financial Services Committee, by the Chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair, with a request to increase substantially the FDIC's borrowing authority from Treasury from the current $30 billion to $100 billion, for use by the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund and for temporary additional borrowing authority to help weather the economic crisis. In response to her request, I am introducing the Depositor Protection Act of 2009, which provides this authority. We are taking this step out of an abundance of caution and to meet any contingencies that the fund may face in the coming months.

The FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund DIF absorbs losses that result from the corporation's obligation to protect insured deposits when FDIC- insured financial institutions fail. Insured financial institutions pay premiums that support the DIF and under current law those premiums can be increased to cover any losses to the fund.

Today, the House passed legislation to substantially and permanently increase this borrowing authority as part of H.R. 1106, the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. Last month, Treasury Secretary Geithner and Chairman Bernanke of the Federal Reserve Board wrote to me to underscore their support for the FDIC's increased borrowing authority.

Since the FDIC's borrowing authority was last increased in 1991, the asset size of banks has tripled. Even more important, the financial system is under considerable stress, and the level of thrift and bank failures has been rising. This line of credit is designed strictly to serve as a backstop to cover potential losses to the DIF.

Though this statutory borrowing authority has historically never been tapped, and Chairman Bair has made clear she does not anticipate doing so, I agree with Chairman Bair, Secretary Geithner, and Chairman Bernanke that under current economic circumstances such an increase in borrowing authority is both prudent and necessary. It is important that we increase this line of borrowing authority so that the FDIC has the funds available which might be needed to meet its obligations to protect insured depositors and to reassure the public that the Government continues to stand firmly behind the FDIC's insurance guarantee.

Additionally, on Friday, February 27, the FDIC Board voted to impose a one-time special assessment of 20 basis points on insured depository institutions because of concern about the level of the DIF. This special assessment is in addition to the regular premiums, which were increased on February 27 to a range of 12 to 16 basis points. The DIF is significantly below the statutory minimum reserve ratio of 1.15. As of December 31, 2008, the DIF ratio stood at .4. The FDIC has informed us that with the increased borrowing authority provided in this legislation, it believes it can reduce the size of the special assessment while still maintaining appropriate assessments at a level that supports the DIF with funding from the banking industry.

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

Mr. President, I will be very brief. Senator Leahy described the situation very well. One name that was not mentioned in the discussion here was Jim Talent, a former colleague of ours from Missouri, a former Republican Member of this body who was the principal author of the Emmett Till legislation. I was his cosponsor, and when he left, I became the lead sponsor and others joined on both sides of the aisle to adopt this legislation to pursue unsolved civil rights cases.

I say to my friend from Oklahoma, I am pleased we resolved it. He had some problems not so much with the idea of investigating unsolved matters. His concern was, if I recall, whether the matter ought to be authorized without having an offset at the time. As I recall, that was the debate.

We went a year, maybe longer, while this was held up and we were not able to adopt it. The argument is that had we done so, when it finally passed unanimously in this body, it was after the Commerce-Justice- Science appropriations bill was adopted. So it was too late to get the funding in that proposal. As a result, we ended up with an authorization.

As Senator Leahy has pointed out, Eric Holder has testified, in fact, I think, in response to questions of my friend from Oklahoma, whether there would be funding for this program during either his confirmation hearing or an appearance before the committee. He responded there was adequate funding. He said--I think his quote was at the time he would ``figure out ways to try to move money around'' to investigate and prosecute these crimes.

Of course, under this omnibus bill before us, Department of Justice funds can be used to investigate unsolved civil rights crimes. The money includes $123 million for the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice responsible for investigating cold cases, which is $7 million more than the fiscal year 2008 levels. There is an additional $30 million for competitive funds for State and local governments. Eligible activities include expenses associated with investigating and prosecuting civil rights violations that are criminal in nature.

Obviously, as Senator Leahy and others have pointed out, it is critically important we get this omnibus bill done or funding altogether will be eliminated. I say it is time we move forward. This has been an important matter, the fact that we received unanimous support on this effort back a few months ago.

Jim Talent, who came up with the idea, thought we ought to pursue these matters. I thought it was a worthy one. That is why I joined him in it. On a bipartisan basis, we stepped forward. It would be unfortunate at this hour to take this omnibus bill, which has resources to do that, to reject this and obviously send the whole matter into conference, which would delay the funding that is appropriated in this bill.

With that, I respectfully say to my friend from Oklahoma that I appreciate his support of the underlying concept and bill, that we pursue these matters of unsolved civil rights cases. I welcome his participation in that. I strongly urge my colleagues respectfully to reject the amendment so we can move forward and provide the funding necessary for the bill.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I send to the desk a private relief bill to provide permanent resident status to Juan and Alejandro Gomez, and ask that it be appropriately referred.

Juan, 20, and Alejandro, 21, are natives of Colombia who came to the U.S. with their parents in August 1990 on B-2 visitors visas and reside in Miami, FL. Their parents were deported on October 30, 2007. Their initial departure date was September 14, 2007, but because of legislation introduced last Congress that date was extended. However, now they have been ordered to report for deportation on March 15, 2009. Juan and Alejandro have lived continuously in the U.S. for the last 18 years. They have both graduated from Miami Killian High School. Juan is a student at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Alejandro is a student at Miami Dade Community College and works at the Biltmore Hotel in Miami. They have the strong support of their community. It would be an extreme hardship to uproot Juan and Alejandro from their community, which has wholeheartedly embraced them, to send them back to Colombia where there lives could be in serious danger.

We all know that the circumstances of Juan and Alejandro are not unique. Just like many other children here illegally, they had no control over their parents' decision to overstay their visas a number of years ago. Most of these young people work hard to complete school and contribute to their communities. Cases like Juan's and Alejandro's are the reason why the so called DREAM Act was attached to the comprehensive immigration reform legislation that the Senate attempted to pass last Congress, only to face a filibuster from opponents of any comprehensive immigration reform proposal.

The DREAM Act has broad partisan support and is not the reason that the immigration bill stalled in the Senate. I would hope that consideration could be given to delinking the DREAM Act from the larger bill so that we can put in place a legal framework for dealing with young people similar in circumstances to Juan and Alejandro who are caught in this unfortunate immigration status. But that is not likely to happen soon enough to address the problems confronting Juan and Alejandro.

That is why I have decided to reintroduce a private bill on their behalf. I will also be writing to Senator Charles Schumer, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration to request, pursuant to the Subcommittee's Rules of Procedure, that the Subcommittee formally request an expedited departmental report from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services regarding the Gomez brothers so that the Subcommittee can then move forward to give consideration to this bill as soon as possible.

I have had the opportunity to meet Juan and Alejandro. They believe that America is their home. They love our country and want to have an opportunity to fulfill their dreams of becoming full participants in this country. Passage of the private bill would give them that opportunity. I look forward to working with the Subcommittee to facilitate its passage.

Mr. President, today I send to the desk a private relief bill to provide permanent resident status to Juan and Alejandro Gomez, and ask that it be appropriately referred.

Juan, 20, and Alejandro, 21, are natives of Colombia who came to the U.S. with their parents in August 1990 on B-2 visitors visas and reside in Miami, FL. Their parents were deported on October 30, 2007. Their initial departure date was September 14, 2007, but because of legislation introduced last Congress that date was extended. However, now they have been ordered to report for deportation on March 15, 2009. Juan and Alejandro have lived continuously in the U.S. for the last 18 years. They have both graduated from Miami Killian High School. Juan is a student at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Alejandro is a student at Miami Dade Community College and works at the Biltmore Hotel in Miami. They have the strong support of their community. It would be an extreme hardship to uproot Juan and Alejandro from their community, which has wholeheartedly embraced them, to send them back to Colombia where there lives could be in serious danger.

We all know that the circumstances of Juan and Alejandro are not unique. Just like many other children here illegally, they had no control over their parents' decision to overstay their visas a number of years ago. Most of these young people work hard to complete school and contribute to their communities. Cases like Juan's and Alejandro's are the reason why the so called DREAM Act was attached to the comprehensive immigration reform legislation that the Senate attempted to pass last Congress, only to face a filibuster from opponents of any comprehensive immigration reform proposal.

The DREAM Act has broad partisan support and is not the reason that the immigration bill stalled in the Senate. I would hope that consideration could be given to delinking the DREAM Act from the larger bill so that we can put in place a legal framework for dealing with young people similar in circumstances to Juan and Alejandro who are caught in this unfortunate immigration status. But that is not likely to happen soon enough to address the problems confronting Juan and Alejandro.

That is why I have decided to reintroduce a private bill on their behalf. I will also be writing to Senator Charles Schumer, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration to request, pursuant to the Subcommittee's Rules of Procedure, that the Subcommittee formally request an expedited departmental report from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services regarding the Gomez brothers so that the Subcommittee can then move forward to give consideration to this bill as soon as possible.

I have had the opportunity to meet Juan and Alejandro. They believe that America is their home. They love our country and want to have an opportunity to fulfill their dreams of becoming full participants in this country. Passage of the private bill would give them that opportunity. I look forward to working with the Subcommittee to facilitate its passage.

Mr. President, I had intended to speak briefly yesterday on a very important piece of legislation, S. 160, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009, but I was delayed by meetings and so wanted to have an opportunity to address this bill today. S. 160 provides the people of our Nation's capital with permanent voting representation for the first time in over 200 years. Legislation on this matter has been bottled up for many years in the Senate, and I am hopeful that this year it will finally be enacted.

Despite our Nation's great progress over the years toward removing unnecessary and irrelevant voting restrictions--including those based on race, sex, wealth, property ownership, and marital status--about half a million U.S. citizens are effectively unrepresented in the U.S. Congress. Major decisions in domestic and foreign policy are made in these citizens' backyards, but they have no one to represent their concerns as a voting Member of Congress.

As a recent New York Times editorial stated, ``Washington's lack of representation is profoundly undemocratic. Its residents are American citizens who pay taxes, vote for the president and serve and die in the military. Although the city is relatively small, it is more populous than Wyoming and nearly equal to those of Vermont and Alaska.'' DC residents pay the second highest per capita Federal income taxes in the country but have no vote on how the Federal Government spends their money. The famous phrase, ``no taxation without representation,'' that ignited the American Revolution and launched the original Thirteen Colonies on their quest for independence is

still displayed prominently on DC license plates today.

It is ironic that the city most closely associated with our democratic Government is the very place that U.S. citizens remain without a voice or a vote in Congress. In the words of Thomas Paine: ``The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected.'' It is, in fact, the right on which all others in our democracy depend. The Constitution guarantees it, and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored that it is one of our most precious and fundamental rights as citizens.

I know that some opponents argue that the reasons the Founders made the Nation's Capital a separate district, rather than locate it within a State, remain sound, and therefore we should not tinker with their work, even at the cost of continued disenfranchisement of DC's citizens. That argument ignores the commitment we all must have to extending the full franchise to all Americans and to ensuring their representation in Congress. And it ignores the fact that article I of the Constitution explicitly gives Congress legislative authority over the District ``in all cases whatsoever.'' The courts have over time described this power as ``extraordinary and plenary'' and ``full and unlimited,'' and decades of legislative and judicial precedents make clear that the simple word ``states'' in article I--which provides that the House of Representatives ``shall be composed of members chosen by the people of the several states''--does not trump Congress's legislative authority to grant representation in the House to citizens of the District. Even so, to address the concerns of some, section 2(a)(2) of the bill states that ``The District of Columbia shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the United States Senate.''

The current bipartisan compromise embodied in this bill would increase the number of seats in the House of Representatives from 435 to 437. It would provide one seat for a voting Member representing DC that is predominantly Democratic and one at-large seat for Utah in a district that is predominantly Republican-leaning and which was next in line for congressional representation in the House according to 2000 census data. This legislation strikes the appropriate balance by allowing additional representation for both DC and Utah without disadvantaging either national political party. It embodies a reasonable compromise and allows for a responsible reassessment during the next reapportionment effort.

Congress has never granted the DC Delegate full voting rights in the House. Whether such a Federal law is constitutional has never been placed squarely before the courts. While no one can respond to the constitutionality question with certainty until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a binding decision directly on point, a bipartisan group of academics, judges, and lawyers have concluded that Congress has the authority to provide for voting representation for the District's people. Upon review of the arguments on both sides, I agree. I believe that the Constitution vests in Congress broad power to regulate national elections and plenary authority over DC under article I, section 8, clause 17, known as the ``District clause,'' to address this problem legislatively without the need for a constitutional amendment.

When even conservative legal scholars--from Judges Ken Starr, former U.S. Solicitor General appointed by President George H.W. Bush, to former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh appointed by President George W. Bush--have done exhaustive legal analyses which outline the positive case for Congress granting representational rights to citizens of the District, you know there is a strong case to be made. In any event, it is clear to me that these important constitutional questions should ultimately be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, and enactment of this bill would enable us to do just that. If opponents of the bill are so certain of their constitutional arguments, they should, it seems to me, allow those arguments to be tested in the full light of day, in the courts, and be resolved once and for all. If it were to be enacted and then struck down because of constitutional infirmities, it would then be clear that a constitutional amendment is the only viable alternative left to DC citizens. This bill provides for expedited review by the courts of the constitutionality of the law, a prudent step in my view.

Mr. President, I would like to briefly address the issue of the fairness doctrine, which was the subject of two votes yesterday. This doctrine, enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, for over 30 years, required broadcast licensees to cover issues of public importance in a fair, balanced manner.

The fairness doctrine was established to ensure that there would be a diversity of views available to the public in the limited media market available at the time of its adoption. At the time of its establishment, there were just three major television networks and a far smaller number of radio stations. However, in 1987, the FCC rescinded the policy after concluding that the doctrine was no longer necessary given the abundance of media outlets available to the public.

I have been supportive of the fairness doctrine in the past because a well-informed citizenry is of fundamental importance to our democracy. However, given the incredible communications innovations just over the last decade and the explosion of new news sources, I believe that reinstating the fairness doctrine could prove unnecessary and unmanageably complex. Today, citizens can get their news from the major broadcast television networks, a growing number of 24-hour cable news networks, dozens of radio stations, and hundreds or thousands of Internet news outlets and blogs.

I supported the amendment offered yesterday by Senator DeMint because, in my view, such a fundamental issue as how the public gets its news deserves a larger forum for debate than the FCC provides. The DeMint amendment ensures that only Congress would have the authority to reinstate the fairness doctrine. While the FCC will continue to play a critically important role in regulating telecommunications, as the elected representatives of the people, the Members of this body and the House of Representatives must be involved in whether to reinstate such a far-reaching policy.

Mr. President, what is at stake with the DC voting rights legislation is nothing less than a fundamental issue of fairness in voting. Every eligible citizen, regardless of where he or she lives, has a constitutionally guaranteed right to be represented in Congress by a voting Member. This bill is another step forward in our efforts to ensure that all Americans are represented equally before this Government. It is the right thing to do, and this century is the right time to do it. In fact, it is long past due. I commend my colleague from Connecticut, the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, for bringing this important measure before the Senate and for getting it adopted by the Senate yesterday, even with the unnecessary and unwise addition of the gun provisions, which I hope will be stripped from the final bill. I hope the House will act favorably on it next week and that we will soon have a conference report before us to vote on. The President has made clear he would sign it, and I hope it will be enacted soon. The people of the District have waited much too long for that happy day.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lieberman, Boxer, Schumer, McCaskill, and Bond in cosponsoring this legislation, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 100,000 five-dollar gold coins and 500,000 silver dollar coins in a design emblematic of the life and legacy of Mark Twain.

Samuel L. Clemens, better known by his pen name ``Mark Twain,'' was born in 1835 in Florida, Missouri, and died in 1910 while residing in my home State of Connecticut. As many of us know from having read his works, Twain is an iconic author who has left an indelible mark on our Nation's history. Two of his most renowned works, ``The Adventures of Tom Sawyer'' and ``Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,'' have become a central part of the American literary canon and are still widely read in schools and universities across the country. Another enduring work, entitled ``The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today,'' satirized the excesses of the age during which it was written, and solidified Twain's reputation as a fierce but subtle social critic. His writings evoke discussions of race, politics, and economic inequality, all issues with which our nation continues to struggle as we become a ``more perfect union.''

This bill will allow the Treasury to mint and issue coins in commemoration of Mark Twain's lasting contributions to America's literary tradition and cultural heritage. A portion of proceeds from surcharges of $35 and $10 applied to each gold and silver coin sold to the public will be distributed by the Treasury to support four institutions critical to the mission of promoting Mark Twain's legacy: The Mark Twain House & Museum in Hartford, CT; the Mark Twain Project at the Bancroft Library of the University of California, in Berkeley, CA; the Center for Mark Twain Studies at Elmira College, in New York; and the Mark Twain Boyhood Home & Museum in Hannibal, MO.

The Mark Twain House and Museum in Hartford, CT, is a national historic landmark. Each year, over 60,000 visitors flock there, many of them from outside my home State. This site offers a unique experience to all who visit, and serves as a center for educating young and old alike about Mark Twain's life and legacy. However, as recent news articles have reported, the Mark Twain House and Museum has--not unlike many other nonprofit entities across the country in the midst of the economic downturn--struggled to cover operating costs solely on private donations, and the financial challenges it currently faces are substantial. Passing this legislation will help to support the continued operation and restoration of the Mark Twain House, and promote its goals by honoring Mark Twain with a commemorative coin desirable to coin collectors as well as enthusiasts of American history and literature.

Congressman John Larson of Connecticut is introducing companion legislation today in the House of Representatives. As a procedural matter, the House Financial Services Committee requires no less than 290 cosponsors for any commemorative coin bill to come under committee consideration, and similar cosponsorship rules are in place for the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Moreover, the House adheres to a tradition of interpreting commemorative coin bills as ``revenue-raisers'' subject to the origination clause of the U.S. Constitution. Passing the Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Act through both Houses will require no small amount of effort, but today marks an important first step as we put this legislative proposal forward and begin to generate broad public support for the effort. Once Congressman Larson's companion bill meets the necessary requirements and is adopted by the full House, I intend to press it forward here in the Senate.

The legislation I am introducing will require broad bipartisan support to meet the high threshold for commemorative coin legislation established by the rules of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, so I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and join me in supporting the life and legacy of Mark Twain, as well as the important places in our Nation that promote further study and education on his significant contributions to American history.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lieberman, Boxer, Schumer, McCaskill, and Bond in cosponsoring this legislation, which authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 100,000 five-dollar gold coins and 500,000 silver dollar coins in a design emblematic of the life and legacy of Mark Twain.

Samuel L. Clemens, better known by his pen name ``Mark Twain,'' was born in 1835 in Florida, Missouri, and died in 1910 while residing in my home State of Connecticut. As many of us know from having read his works, Twain is an iconic author who has left an indelible mark on our Nation's history. Two of his most renowned works, ``The Adventures of Tom Sawyer'' and ``Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,'' have become a central part of the American literary canon and are still widely read in schools and universities across the country. Another enduring work, entitled ``The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today,'' satirized the excesses of the age during which it was written, and solidified Twain's reputation as a fierce but subtle social critic. His writings evoke discussions of race, politics, and economic inequality, all issues with which our nation continues to struggle as we become a ``more perfect union.''

This bill will allow the Treasury to mint and issue coins in commemoration of Mark Twain's lasting contributions to America's literary tradition and cultural heritage. A portion of proceeds from surcharges of $35 and $10 applied to each gold and silver coin sold to the public will be distributed by the Treasury to support four institutions critical to the mission of promoting Mark Twain's legacy: The Mark Twain House & Museum in Hartford, CT; the Mark Twain Project at the Bancroft Library of the University of California, in Berkeley, CA; the Center for Mark Twain Studies at Elmira College, in New York; and the Mark Twain Boyhood Home & Museum in Hannibal, MO.

The Mark Twain House and Museum in Hartford, CT, is a national historic landmark. Each year, over 60,000 visitors flock there, many of them from outside my home State. This site offers a unique experience to all who visit, and serves as a center for educating young and old alike about Mark Twain's life and legacy. However, as recent news articles have reported, the Mark Twain House and Museum has--not unlike many other nonprofit entities across the country in the midst of the economic downturn--struggled to cover operating costs solely on private donations, and the financial challenges it currently faces are substantial. Passing this legislation will help to support the continued operation and restoration of the Mark Twain House, and promote its goals by honoring Mark Twain with a commemorative coin desirable to coin collectors as well as enthusiasts of American history and literature.

Congressman John Larson of Connecticut is introducing companion legislation today in the House of Representatives. As a procedural matter, the House Financial Services Committee requires no less than 290 cosponsors for any commemorative coin bill to come under committee consideration, and similar cosponsorship rules are in place for the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Moreover, the House adheres to a tradition of interpreting commemorative coin bills as ``revenue-raisers'' subject to the origination clause of the U.S. Constitution. Passing the Mark Twain Commemorative Coin Act through both Houses will require no small amount of effort, but today marks an important first step as we put this legislative proposal forward and begin to generate broad public support for the effort. Once Congressman Larson's companion bill meets the necessary requirements and is adopted by the full House, I intend to press it forward here in the Senate.

The legislation I am introducing will require broad bipartisan support to meet the high threshold for commemorative coin legislation established by the rules of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, so I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and join me in supporting the life and legacy of Mark Twain, as well as the important places in our Nation that promote further study and education on his significant contributions to American history.

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

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

Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak on behalf of Congresswoman Hilda Solis to be our new Secretary of Labor. Before I begin, on behalf of all of us, regardless of which side of the proverbial aisle we sit on, I know we wish Senator Ted Kennedy the very best. He will be back in a matter of days and once again will be involved in the daily business of the Senate. Were he here at this moment, he would be adding his very strong and vibrant voice in support of this excellent nominee to be the new Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis.

We all know these are tough economic times. It hardly needs to be said. The American people are living it every minute of every day. Too many are facing--within minutes or hours--the loss of a job, the loss of a home, or the total evaporation of their retirement accounts. This was showcased by one family I met over the weekend in my home State. They saved for years and years to provide their children with the opportunity to get a higher education, just to see it all wiped out in a matter of days. And with their children reaching the cusp of higher education, they are left wondering what will happen. Despite all the commitments they had made to those children and all their efforts to make sure they were financially prepared, today they find themselves in a very different position. Unemployment is rising. Incomes are stagnating, while the costs of health care and housing and education are skyrocketing. In my State, unemployment rates have risen from 4.8 percent in January of 2008 to 7.1 percent this past December. Every indication is these numbers are going to go up before they come back down again. Hopefully, they will come back down soon again.

I know this evening we are all anticipating the remarks of our new President as he addresses the joint Houses of Congress in his first State of the Union Message. I have gotten to know President Obama well. We served together in this body. We served on two committees together, and we campaigned for the Presidency both with each other and against each other for a brief period of time. I can tell you, he is an optimistic, positive, confident President; a reflection of who we are as a people.

This evening you are going to hear, in my view, a confident, optimistic President looking ahead to our future with hope, full of the aspirations I know we all share as Americans.

But the difficult problems we have in front of us make the need to confirm a Secretary of Labor more pressing than ever. The Department of Labor enforces the laws and regulations dealing with fair wages and hours, job training, workplace safety and health standards, unemployment, and family and medical leave--each absolutely essential to a productive, healthy workforce and economy.

Unfortunately, over the last 8 years, many of us have watched the Department of Labor with some concern as its focus moved away from the protection of employees in too many cases and focused more effort on protecting employers and denying workers their right to organize.

I do not view this as the Department's role, and I know Congresswoman Solis does not either. It certainly was not the intention of Congress when it created the Department in 1913 and wrote in the authorizing language, and I quote:

The purpose of the Department of Labor shall be to foster,

promote and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the

United States, to improve their working conditions, and to

advance their opportunities for profitable employment.

Let me say, as an aside, the departing Secretary of Labor, Elaine Chao, is a good friend of mine, and I have known her for a long time. Of course, her husband is our distinguished minority leader. She was, I think, the only Cabinet officer to serve all 8 years of the Bush administration.

Her job was, of course, to reflect the Bush administration's policies and judgments. I am not suggesting she disagreed with them, though I believe that from time to time she might have taken us on a different path, had she been in a position to solely decide what direction the country would go in. So when I express my disappointment over the direction of the Department of Labor over the last few years, I do not want it to reflect on the competency and the contribution Elaine made to our country.

However, looking at some of the decisions of the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board under the last Administration-- such as the outrageous overtime pay rules and the Kentucky River decisions that stripped tens of thousands of workers of the right to organize--I find it hard to believe they were made with the charter in mind that I described to you.

At this moment of such wrenching economic turmoil, it is essential that the Department of Labor recommit itself to protecting the rights of workers, and we need a strong leader such as Hilda Solis at the helm to do that.

The Department of Labor faces many challenges, not only in correcting what, in my view, were mistaken actions taken by the Bush administration but also in advancing the cause of workers' rights. One of the most important is the administration of the Family and Medical Leave Act, which will mark its 16th anniversary this month.

Since becoming law, the Family and Medical Leave Act has helped more than 60 million Americans take time off to care for a newborn or adopted baby, to help a parent through an illness, to get better themselves, to keep an eye on their children, knowing that their job will be there when the family problem diminishes.

I cannot think of how many occasions we have watched and supported one of our colleagues here in the Senate who has missed votes and committee hearings, for days or weeks on end, to recover from an illness or care for a spouse or a child who needed their attention.

I think of my wonderful friend, the new Vice President of our country, and the Presiding Officer who spent years working with him. When tragedy struck Joe Biden's family at the outset of his Senate career, he spent a lot of time, as he should have, at home with his children, making sure they could get through that difficult time.

He was applauded, and properly so, by his colleagues and others. No one ever suggested that Senator Joe Biden should not have his job back because he had missed work to be with his family.

I remember Jake Garn, my good friend and a former chairman of the Banking Committee, who donated a kidney to one of his daughters. He spent days away from here in order to take care of that child and to get back on his feet himself. No one suggested Senator Garn of Utah had done anything but what a father should do in those circumstances. His job was never in jeopardy. His pay and his pension were not put at risk. Yet, prior to the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act, millions of our fellow citizens struggled through similar situations every single day without the security that their jobs would be there when they came back.

As the author of the Family and Medical Leave Act 16 years ago, I take as much pride in that bill as anything I have done here in 30 years. Nothing is healthier for a family, during a time of crisis, than to be together. These families deserve to get the support and backing they need. I have worried over the past 8 years about the efforts of the Department of Labor to water down, to minimize, to create obstacles in the

path of those who seek the family and medical leave protections.

FMLA has also benefitted businesses. With lower turnover and a boost to morale, 90 percent of employers told the Department of Labor in 2000 that the Family and Medical Leave Act had a neutral or positive effect on profits. No one should be forced in a crisis to make the impossible choice between work and family. Which is why I am so excited about the prospect of Congresswoman Solis leading the Department of Labor. She is a forceful advocate for working families and will bring to the job a genuine understanding and passion for the issues that affect families so deeply.

I am also particularly encouraged by Hilda Solis's knowledge and enthusiasm for green job training. In the House of Representatives, where she served with distinction, she authored the Green Jobs Training Act, which will help train American workers for jobs in the renewable energy and energy-efficiency industries. I share her belief that the creation of good-paying, green-collar jobs is critical to both our economic and energy security.

My own State of Connecticut is home to a number of exciting green energy companies, including world leaders in the design and manufacture of hydrogen fuel cells. I know the Congresswoman will bring her experience to the creation of new programs at the Department of Labor, within the Job Corps and elsewhere, to create a new generation of professionals. These programs will be critically important to our Nation's ability to transform and reinvigorate our economy.

These are but a few of the many challenges that will face the Department of Labor in the coming days. Others include revitalizing and restoring the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, modernizing unemployment insurance, and preventing wage theft, which results in as many as 2 to 3 million workers not being paid minimum wage and millions more being denied the overtime pay that they rightly deserve.

I would like to briefly conclude these remarks by addressing some of the issues being raised by some of my friends who have been critical and may, in fact, oppose this nomination. There have been questions about Congresswoman Solis's responsiveness to HELP Committee inquiries and about her work in an unpaid position on the board of a nonprofit workers advocacy organization. Congresswoman Solis has been very forthright and candid about all those issues. She has fully answered more than 140 questions from committee members, including 121 from my colleagues on the minority side.

Congresswoman Solis is a highly respected public servant, an eminently qualified nominee to be Secretary of Labor, and, in my view, deserving of support from every Member of this body. In these challenging times, we need a Secretary of Labor as soon as possible. The workers of our country need a strong leader at the Department to fight for them and to protect their rights.

Hilda Solis is that leader. I urge all my colleagues to support for this nomination and to vote for her when the vote occurs later this afternoon.

I yield the floor.

The Economy

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rules of procedure for the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce four bills today: The AmeriCorps: Together Improving Our Nation (ACTION) Act, the Semester of Service Act, the Summer of Service Act, and the Encore Service Act-- legislation that would offer Americans the opportunity to serve their communities and work to improve their Nation.

As we have discussed time and time again, the challenges facing America are mounting--from a struggling economy, to a broken health care system, to challenges in our schools that put our children's futures at risk.

These are problems that countless Americans have lived and struggled with--that we here in this institution have debated for years, decade even. We can disagree amongst ourselves about how to solve them--and we certainly have.

But what we can all agree on is the impact citizens can make when it comes to facing some of our biggest challenges.

We know the extraordinary things ordinary citizens can accomplish for our communities when given the opportunity--the difference they can make in our schools and nursing homes, in veterans' hospitals and in helping those living on fixed incomes. With these four important pieces of legislation, we are offering citizens of all ages even more opportunities to be involved.

We already harness the enormous power of a dedicated group of individuals looking for ways to serve their communities is through the remarkably successful AmeriCorps program. Last year alone, 75,000 AmeriCorps members gave back to our communities, serving in over 4,000 schools, faith-based and community organizations, and nonprofits across the country. They also brought reinforcements--recruiting another 1.7 million community volunteers to work alongside them. Because of AmeriCorps, our communities have been strengthened, and our democracy fortified.

Unfortunately, as the hours AmeriCorps Members have contributed to our communities have increased, the Segal AmeriCorps Education Award created to help members pay for their college tuition has remained flat at $4,725. Meanwhile, the average college tuition has skyrocketed. The education award previously paid for two years of college, but currently it does not even cover the cost of single year. I am introducing the AmeriCorps: Together Improving Our Nation, ACTION, Act, in part, to update the education award to keep pace with 15 years of tuition increases.

The ACTION Act will raise the education award to $6,585 and increase the award annually to match the average tuition at a 4-year public university. That figure, $6,585 is the average cost of tuition at a four-year public university according to the College Board. The Act will also make the education award tax exempt to ensure that alumni are able to use their entire award to advance their education.

The Summer of Service bill would reach the youngest Americans interested in giving back to their communities, fostering a commitment to service that will last a lifetime. The Summer of Service Act would create a competitive grant program that would enable states and localities to offer middle school students an opportunity to participate in a structured community service program over the summer months. It would employ service-learning to teach civic participation skills, help young people see themselves as resources to their communities, expand educational opportunities and discourage ``summer academic slide.'' Providing tangible benefits to their communities, Summer of Service projects would direct grantees to work on unmet human, educational, environmental and public safety needs and encourage all youth, regardless of age, income, or disability, to engage in community service. The program would also grant participants with an educational award of up to $500 which can later be used to pay for college.

The Semester of Service Act also engages students in service-learning at the high school level. We talk so much about ways to improve academic performance in our schools. Well, when service is integrated into our students' curricula at school, young people make gains on achievement tests. Service-learning results in grade point averages going up, and feelings about high-school are that more positive.

And the benefits of service-learning go well beyond the classroom. When young people participate in service activities they feel better able to control their own lives in a positive way. They are less prone to engage in risky behavior, more likely to engage in their own education, and far more aware of the career opportunities before them.

Indeed, research shows that for every dollar we spend on a service- learning project, $4 worth of service is provided to the community involved. That means by authorizing $200 million for fiscal year 2009, as the Semester of Service Act does, our country will save more than half a billion dollars in service performed.

This legislation works by creating a competitive grant program that gives school districts, or nonprofits working in partnership with local school districts, the opportunity to have students participate in a semester of service in their junior or senior year for academic credit. These students are required to perform a minimum of 70 hours of service learning activities over 12 weeks, with at least 24 of those hours spent participating in field-based activities--outside of the classroom.

By engaging both the public and private sector, Semester of Service teaches civic participation skills and helps young people see themselves not merely as residents in their communities--but resources to them.

Perhaps, the greatest untapped resource in our communities are older Americans. No one is more ready or more poised to make a difference--in our communities and throughout our country--than the gaining Baby Boomer generation.

In the next decade alone, the number of Americans 55 years and older is expected to grow another 22 percent. But for all the well-publicized challenges that growth presents, it is time we also recognize something else:

The opportunities it offers--if we seize them.

More than half of those considered a part of the Baby Boomer generation are interested in providing meaningful service to their communities. Countless older men and women who have given so much to their country throughout their lives want to serve as they enter their later years.

They are living longer, healthier lives than any generation in history. And they recognize something elemental:

Life doesn't end at retirement. For many, it is only beginning-- leading perhaps to a second career in the public or nonprofit sector.

We have so much to learn. Indeed, there can be no greater gift passed on to future generations than the lessons of the past. But the truth is, we too often fail to draw upon the experience, knowledge and ideas of previous generations.

What is missing is the opportunity.

Giving older Americans those opportunities is what the Encore Service Act is all about. It creates an Encore Service Program that provides Americans 55 years and older with opportunities to serve communities with the greatest need--to volunteer in our nation's schools, to help keep our neighborhoods clean, safe and vibrant, and so much more. In return for their service, which may include extensive training and a significant commitment of time, they can receive a stipend and education award, much like AmeriCorps does for younger generations.

Best of all, that stipend can be transferred to children or grandchildren. Imagine what that means for a grandmother or a grandfather who could literally put thousands of dollars into their newborn grandchild's college savings fund as a result of this program-- funds that can only be used after the child turns 18 and can be kept for up to 20 years. Of all the new ideas in this legislation, perhaps this one is the most exciting.

This legislation also creates an Encore Fellows program that places older Americans in one-year management or leadership positions in public or private not-for-profits. These year-long fellowships not only increase the capacity of public service organizations already doing tremendous work in our communities, they also promote those who have already had full, successful careers, perhaps in the private sector, to lend their expertise and experience to the cause of community or public service.

The Encore Service Act also creates a Silver Scholars program that awards older Americans with an education scholarship of up to $1,000 in exchange for volunteering with public agencies or private nonprofits between 250 and 500 hours a year. As with the Encore Service Program, they can use these awards for themselves or transfer them to children, grandchildren or other qualified designees.

Lastly, this legislation expands the capacity and builds on the success of current Senior Programs by raising the authorization funding levels for the Foster Grandparent, Senior Corps and RSVP programs. We all know that seniors and these programs have already made a remarkable difference in our communities. That is why our legislation raises program eligibility levels from 125 to 200 percent above poverty and ensures that all programs will be open to any individual 55 years and older.

Contrary to what some suggest, I believe the American people are starved for opportunities to serve--and stand at the ready not just in times of crisis, but every day.

Americans are simply waiting to be asked to serve something greater than themselves, as they originally were by President John F. Kennedy. In introducing this legislation today, we once again remind all Americans of that call to serve.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce four bills today: The AmeriCorps: Together Improving Our Nation (ACTION) Act, the Semester of Service Act, the Summer of Service Act, and the Encore Service Act-- legislation that would offer Americans the opportunity to serve their communities and work to improve their Nation.

As we have discussed time and time again, the challenges facing America are mounting--from a struggling economy, to a broken health care system, to challenges in our schools that put our children's futures at risk.

These are problems that countless Americans have lived and struggled with--that we here in this institution have debated for years, decade even. We can disagree amongst ourselves about how to solve them--and we certainly have.

But what we can all agree on is the impact citizens can make when it comes to facing some of our biggest challenges.

We know the extraordinary things ordinary citizens can accomplish for our communities when given the opportunity--the difference they can make in our schools and nursing homes, in veterans' hospitals and in helping those living on fixed incomes. With these four important pieces of legislation, we are offering citizens of all ages even more opportunities to be involved.

We already harness the enormous power of a dedicated group of individuals looking for ways to serve their communities is through the remarkably successful AmeriCorps program. Last year alone, 75,000 AmeriCorps members gave back to our communities, serving in over 4,000 schools, faith-based and community organizations, and nonprofits across the country. They also brought reinforcements--recruiting another 1.7 million community volunteers to work alongside them. Because of AmeriCorps, our communities have been strengthened, and our democracy fortified.

Unfortunately, as the hours AmeriCorps Members have contributed to our communities have increased, the Segal AmeriCorps Education Award created to help members pay for their college tuition has remained flat at $4,725. Meanwhile, the average college tuition has skyrocketed. The education award previously paid for two years of college, but currently it does not even cover the cost of single year. I am introducing the AmeriCorps: Together Improving Our Nation, ACTION, Act, in part, to update the education award to keep pace with 15 years of tuition increases.

The ACTION Act will raise the education award to $6,585 and increase the award annually to match the average tuition at a 4-year public university. That figure, $6,585 is the average cost of tuition at a four-year public university according to the College Board. The Act will also make the education award tax exempt to ensure that alumni are able to use their entire award to advance their education.

The Summer of Service bill would reach the youngest Americans interested in giving back to their communities, fostering a commitment to service that will last a lifetime. The Summer of Service Act would create a competitive grant program that would enable states and localities to offer middle school students an opportunity to participate in a structured community service program over the summer months. It would employ service-learning to teach civic participation skills, help young people see themselves as resources to their communities, expand educational opportunities and discourage ``summer academic slide.'' Providing tangible benefits to their communities, Summer of Service projects would direct grantees to work on unmet human, educational, environmental and public safety needs and encourage all youth, regardless of age, income, or disability, to engage in community service. The program would also grant participants with an educational award of up to $500 which can later be used to pay for college.

The Semester of Service Act also engages students in service-learning at the high school level. We talk so much about ways to improve academic performance in our schools. Well, when service is integrated into our students' curricula at school, young people make gains on achievement tests. Service-learning results in grade point averages going up, and feelings about high-school are that more positive.

And the benefits of service-learning go well beyond the classroom. When young people participate in service activities they feel better able to control their own lives in a positive way. They are less prone to engage in risky behavior, more likely to engage in their own education, and far more aware of the career opportunities before them.

Indeed, research shows that for every dollar we spend on a service- learning project, $4 worth of service is provided to the community involved. That means by authorizing $200 million for fiscal year 2009, as the Semester of Service Act does, our country will save more than half a billion dollars in service performed.

This legislation works by creating a competitive grant program that gives school districts, or nonprofits working in partnership with local school districts, the opportunity to have students participate in a semester of service in their junior or senior year for academic credit. These students are required to perform a minimum of 70 hours of service learning activities over 12 weeks, with at least 24 of those hours spent participating in field-based activities--outside of the classroom.

By engaging both the public and private sector, Semester of Service teaches civic participation skills and helps young people see themselves not merely as residents in their communities--but resources to them.

Perhaps, the greatest untapped resource in our communities are older Americans. No one is more ready or more poised to make a difference--in our communities and throughout our country--than the gaining Baby Boomer generation.

In the next decade alone, the number of Americans 55 years and older is expected to grow another 22 percent. But for all the well-publicized challenges that growth presents, it is time we also recognize something else:

The opportunities it offers--if we seize them.

More than half of those considered a part of the Baby Boomer generation are interested in providing meaningful service to their communities. Countless older men and women who have given so much to their country throughout their lives want to serve as they enter their later years.

They are living longer, healthier lives than any generation in history. And they recognize something elemental:

Life doesn't end at retirement. For many, it is only beginning-- leading perhaps to a second career in the public or nonprofit sector.

We have so much to learn. Indeed, there can be no greater gift passed on to future generations than the lessons of the past. But the truth is, we too often fail to draw upon the experience, knowledge and ideas of previous generations.

What is missing is the opportunity.

Giving older Americans those opportunities is what the Encore Service Act is all about. It creates an Encore Service Program that provides Americans 55 years and older with opportunities to serve communities with the greatest need--to volunteer in our nation's schools, to help keep our neighborhoods clean, safe and vibrant, and so much more. In return for their service, which may include extensive training and a significant commitment of time, they can receive a stipend and education award, much like AmeriCorps does for younger generations.

Best of all, that stipend can be transferred to children or grandchildren. Imagine what that means for a grandmother or a grandfather who could literally put thousands of dollars into their newborn grandchild's college savings fund as a result of this program-- funds that can only be used after the child turns 18 and can be kept for up to 20 years. Of all the new ideas in this legislation, perhaps this one is the most exciting.

This legislation also creates an Encore Fellows program that places older Americans in one-year management or leadership positions in public or private not-for-profits. These year-long fellowships not only increase the capacity of public service organizations already doing tremendous work in our communities, they also promote those who have already had full, successful careers, perhaps in the private sector, to lend their expertise and experience to the cause of community or public service.

The Encore Service Act also creates a Silver Scholars program that awards older Americans with an education scholarship of up to $1,000 in exchange for volunteering with public agencies or private nonprofits between 250 and 500 hours a year. As with the Encore Service Program, they can use these awards for themselves or transfer them to children, grandchildren or other qualified designees.

Lastly, this legislation expands the capacity and builds on the success of current Senior Programs by raising the authorization funding levels for the Foster Grandparent, Senior Corps and RSVP programs. We all know that seniors and these programs have already made a remarkable difference in our communities. That is why our legislation raises program eligibility levels from 125 to 200 percent above poverty and ensures that all programs will be open to any individual 55 years and older.

Contrary to what some suggest, I believe the American people are starved for opportunities to serve--and stand at the ready not just in times of crisis, but every day.

Americans are simply waiting to be asked to serve something greater than themselves, as they originally were by President John F. Kennedy. In introducing this legislation today, we once again remind all Americans of that call to serve.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2009. I want to thank Senators Alexander, Whitehouse, Lautenberg, and Kerry for joining me for this introduction.

Food allergies are an increasing food safety and public health concern in this country, especially among young children. I know first- hand just how frightening food allergies can be in a young person's life. My own family has been personally touched by this troubling condition and we continue to struggle with it each and every day. Sadly, there is no cure for food allergies.

The number of Americans with food allergies is on the rise. From 1997 to 2007 the prevalence of food allergies among children increased by 18 percent. Today, 3 million children in the United States have a food allergy. While food allergies were at one time considered relatively infrequent, they now rank third among common chronic diseases in children under 18 years of age. Peanuts are among several allergenic foods that can produce life-threatening allergic reactions in susceptible children. Peanut allergies doubled among school-age children from 1997-2002.

Clearly, food allergies are of great concern for school-age children nationwide, and yet, there are no federal guidelines concerning the management of life-threatening food allergies in our nation's schools.

I have heard from parents, teachers and school administrators that students with severe food allergies often face inconsistent food allergy management approaches when they change

schools. Too often, families are not aware of the food allergy policy at their children's school, or the policy is vastly different from the one they knew at their previous school, and they are left wondering whether their child is safe.

In 2006, Connecticut became the first State to enact school-based guidelines concerning food allergies and the prevention of life- threatening incidents in schools. I am very proud of these efforts, and I know that the parents of children who suffer from food allergies in Connecticut have confidence that their children are safe throughout the school day. I had the opportunity to visit with students and parents at Washington Elementary School in West Haven, CT, last May who shared with me their schools' comprehensive plan for its students with food allergies.

Nine other States, including Massachusetts, Tennessee, Vermont, New Jersey, Arizona, Michigan, New York, Washington, and Maryland have enacted statewide guidelines. But too many States across the country have food allergy management guidelines that are inconsistent from one school district to the next. The result is a patchwork of guidelines that not only may vary from State to State, but also from school district to school district.

In my view, this lack of consistency underscores the need for enactment of uniform, federal guidelines that school districts can choose to adopt and implement. For this reason, my colleague Senator Alexander and I are introducing the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2009 today to address the growing need for uniform and consistent school-based food allergy management policy. I thank Senator Alexander for his hard work and commitment to this important legislation.

Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today closely mirrors legislation I introduced last Congress which was cosponsored by 41 of my colleagues. Last May, I, along with Senator Alexander, chaired a hearing in our Children and Families Subcommittee exploring the current state of food allergies and the challenges parents of children with food allergies face.

Since that hearing, Senator Alexander and I have been working with members on both sides of the aisle to address any concerns they had with the legislation. As a result, the legislation we are introducing today reflects many excellent suggestions and changes offered by my colleagues. It is my sincere hope that the Senate will move quickly on this bipartisan legislation this year.

The legislation does two things. First, it directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to develop and make available voluntary food allergy management guidelines for preventing exposure to food allergens and assuring a prompt response when a student suffers a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction. The guidelines developed by the Secretary are voluntary, not mandatory. Under the legislation, each school district or early childhood education program across the country can voluntarily choose to implement these guidelines. The intent of the legislation is not to mandate individual school policy, but rather to provide for consistency of policies relating to school-based food allergy management by providing schools with consistent guidelines at the federal level.

Second, the bill provides for incentive grants to school districts to assist them with adoption and implementation of the federal government's allergy management guidelines in all K-12 public schools.

I would like to recognize the leadership of Congresswoman Nita Lowey who is introducing companion legislation today in the House of Representatives. She has been a longstanding champion for children and for awareness of the devastating impact of food allergies. I also wish to acknowledge and offer my sincere appreciation to the members of the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network for their commitment to this legislation and for raising public awareness, providing advocacy, and advancing research on behalf of all individuals who suffer from food allergies.

This legislation is supported by the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network, the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology, and many others.

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