Floor Statements

Mr. President, I want to congratulate a Missourian who has accomplished something truly remarkable. We have known our share of champions in Missouri, like the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals and the Big 12 North winning University of Missouri football team. We have also had our share of great entertainers, like Josephine Baker, Scott Joplin, and Sheryl Crow. But it is very rare that we have someone who is both. Last night, David Cook, a native of Blue Springs, MO, and a graduate of Central Missouri State University, achieved that rare combination when he was crowned winner of ``American Idol.''

David's victory was remarkable even by ``American Idol's'' standards. The show has become one of the greatest competitions the country has ever witnessed. It is ubiquitous. It is practically unavoidable. And with the eyes of the whole country watching, David Cook won ``American Idol'' by the incredible margin of 12 million votes out of a record 97.5 million votes cast. His performances, along with those of David Archuleta, the other worthy finalist, drew in more viewers than watched the season finale last year.

It is telling of the graciousness and humility of this superbly talented young man that David didn't even intend to try out for the show. The only reason he was at the audition was to support his brother. But while entering the contest may have been accidental, it is no accident that the country voted him the next ``American Idol.'' His easy confidence and visible passion (not to mention that voice), made him the clear choice. He was also one of the nicest contestants ever to appear on the show--even notoriously grumpy Simon Cowell said so.

So I want to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Missouri's next superstar, David Cook. I wish you the best of luck in what I am sure will be a stellar career.

Mr. President, have you ever flown over the heartland of the United States and wondered how the Midwest and West got its distinctive and remarkable checkerboard pattern?

The reason for that extraordinary system is a law enacted on this date in 1785. On May 20, 1785, Congress enacted a bill that laid the foundation for American land policy. The Land Ordinance of 1785 provided that from a point of beginning in East Liverpool, Ohio, the new Northwest Territory was to be systematically surveyed and the lands subdivided into settlements and townships. Of the thirty-six sections of 640 acres in each township, the sixteenth was reserved ``for the maintenance of public schools.'' Congress began an extraordinary process of inventorying the lands to the west, providing for settlement and homesteads, surveying and subdividing the lands, and providing land for Revolutionary War soldiers, as payment in lieu of compensation to relieve the new Republic of its war debts to those who fought for our freedom.

But while these early Acts of Congress, beginning with the Land Ordinance of 1785, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, through the Homestead Act of 1862 and the more recent Federal Land Policy and Management Act FLPMA in 1976, all contributed to the inventorying, surveying, preservation, disposal and settlement of lands of the West, to this day the United States does not have a current, accurate inventory of the lands the Federal government owns.

The fact is, the Federal Government does not know what it owns, where it owns it, what condition it is in, what its characteristics are, or what its designated use should be. This is the third consecutive Congress in which Congress's watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office placed `Managing Federal Real Property' in the High-Risk Series, a category describing those activities with the highest risk of waste, fraud or abuse.

The GAO, GAO-03-122, found over 30 Federal agencies control hundreds of thousands of real property assets worldwide, including facilities and land. However, the portfolio is not well managed, many assets are no longer consistent with agency mission or needs, and many assets are in an alarming state of disrepair. Also, GAO, GAO-T-RCED-95-117, told Congress, ``The General Services Administration, GSA, publishes statistics on the amount of land managed by each federal agency. However, we found this information was not current or reliable.''

To remedy the lack of a current accurate inventory of all Federal real property, and the duplication and inefficiency of the many property databases the government does maintain, I am today introducing the Federal Land Asset Inventory Reform, FLAIR, Act, along with my colleague Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. Our bill is a companion to H.R. 5532, introduced in the House on a bipartisan basis by Representative Kind of Wisconsin and Representative Cannon of Utah.

There is no reason for the Government to lack a current, accurate inventory of all the land it has been entrusted to manage for the citizens of the United States. With the technology available, it should not happen that then-Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton would testify before the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee on March 2, 2005 that ``The Department currently uses 26 different financial management systems and over 100 different property systems. Employees must enter procurement transactions multiple times in different systems so that the data are captured in real property inventories, financial systems, and acquisition systems. This fractured approach is both costly and burdensome to manage.''

It is time the U.S. Government invested in a methodology and technology to identify and inventory its land holdings. Such a system can help enhance the Federal land management, resource conservation, environmental protection, and use of Federal real property. We should not be creating multiple inventories when today's technology permits us to do it once and use it many times. Gathering information to solve national problems should not require an Act of Congress, particularly when a few keystrokes on a computer will do the job.

Although the Bush administration took a step toward solving this problem when President Bush issued Executive Order 13327 in 2004, the resulting GSA inventory is neither GIS-based nor includes public lands. Unfortunately, this means that more than 300 million acres are exempt from the inventory currently maintained by GSA.

Since 1980, the National Academy of Sciences has been calling for the development of a multipurpose cadastre, or land registry, in its report, ``Need for a Multipurpose Cadastre.'' The report said, ``There is a critical need for a better land-information system in the United States to improve land-conveyance procedures, furnish a basis for equitable taxation, and provide much- needed information for resource management and environmental planning.'' In 2007, the Academy renewed this effort and recommended the idea of the FLAIR Act, in its report, ``National Land Parcel Data: A Vision for the Future.''

This Federal effort will also help State and local agencies verify their ongoing efforts to identify what each level of government owns, and permit the fair, efficient and equitable taxation of private property. This will enable government at all levels to find missing lands through a gap analysis that identifies properties on which taxes are not being collected due to the inefficiencies in our systems. For example, when the State of Wyoming used a GIS to audit the mass appraisal process, it found that approximately 250,000 parcels were not on the tax rolls.

Over the past decade, nearly 30 Governors and State Legislatures have created State land inventories. Let me give you a few examples of what some States have found.

In California, an inventory discovered that in 1955, the State purchased a golf course in Oakland to make way for a highway. The road was never built, and the State still owns the land, unbeknownst to any State agency.

In South Carolina, a State commission found the University of South Carolina, a State university, still owned Wedge Plantation, a 1,500 acre tract valued at $5 million, originally used for research of insect-borne diseases, but now leased to a half-dozen hunters who pay no rent.

While serving as Missouri State Auditor, my office issued a report noting that the Missouri Department of Transportation lacked accurate and reliable records of excess property and property being held for future projects. The best MoDOT could do was estimate

the amount and value of the land they held.

The FLAIR Act addresses the twin problems of a lack of a single, interoperable, current and accurate Federal land inventory, and the proliferation of inefficient, duplicative, costly, inaccurate and out- of-date inventories by authorizing the Department of the Interior to develop and manage a single multipurpose, uniform Federal GIS database to track and account for all Federal Real Property, as called for by GAO and recommended by the National Academy.

Waste and duplication can be avoided if the Government knew what inventories it had. The FLAIR Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an ``inventory of inventories'' to identify all inventory databases, whether efficient or inefficient. The efficient databases will be merged into a single multipurpose cadastre while the inefficient databases are repealed, thus preventing waste and duplication from continuing. By integrating the efficient databases, redundancy can be identified and eliminated. Resources can be applied to gaps in data rather than duplicative data.

Once a multipurpose inventory is complete, the government can become a better real property asset manager, and a responsible steward of its land holdings. This will result in more efficient land management, again providing savings. That is what the FLAIR Act provides.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hatch and myself in enacting this good-government bill.

Mr. President, have you ever flown over the heartland of the United States and wondered how the Midwest and West got its distinctive and remarkable checkerboard pattern?

The reason for that extraordinary system is a law enacted on this date in 1785. On May 20, 1785, Congress enacted a bill that laid the foundation for American land policy. The Land Ordinance of 1785 provided that from a point of beginning in East Liverpool, Ohio, the new Northwest Territory was to be systematically surveyed and the lands subdivided into settlements and townships. Of the thirty-six sections of 640 acres in each township, the sixteenth was reserved ``for the maintenance of public schools.'' Congress began an extraordinary process of inventorying the lands to the west, providing for settlement and homesteads, surveying and subdividing the lands, and providing land for Revolutionary War soldiers, as payment in lieu of compensation to relieve the new Republic of its war debts to those who fought for our freedom.

But while these early Acts of Congress, beginning with the Land Ordinance of 1785, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, through the Homestead Act of 1862 and the more recent Federal Land Policy and Management Act FLPMA in 1976, all contributed to the inventorying, surveying, preservation, disposal and settlement of lands of the West, to this day the United States does not have a current, accurate inventory of the lands the Federal government owns.

The fact is, the Federal Government does not know what it owns, where it owns it, what condition it is in, what its characteristics are, or what its designated use should be. This is the third consecutive Congress in which Congress's watchdog agency, the Government Accountability Office placed `Managing Federal Real Property' in the High-Risk Series, a category describing those activities with the highest risk of waste, fraud or abuse.

The GAO, GAO-03-122, found over 30 Federal agencies control hundreds of thousands of real property assets worldwide, including facilities and land. However, the portfolio is not well managed, many assets are no longer consistent with agency mission or needs, and many assets are in an alarming state of disrepair. Also, GAO, GAO-T-RCED-95-117, told Congress, ``The General Services Administration, GSA, publishes statistics on the amount of land managed by each federal agency. However, we found this information was not current or reliable.''

To remedy the lack of a current accurate inventory of all Federal real property, and the duplication and inefficiency of the many property databases the government does maintain, I am today introducing the Federal Land Asset Inventory Reform, FLAIR, Act, along with my colleague Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. Our bill is a companion to H.R. 5532, introduced in the House on a bipartisan basis by Representative Kind of Wisconsin and Representative Cannon of Utah.

There is no reason for the Government to lack a current, accurate inventory of all the land it has been entrusted to manage for the citizens of the United States. With the technology available, it should not happen that then-Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton would testify before the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee on March 2, 2005 that ``The Department currently uses 26 different financial management systems and over 100 different property systems. Employees must enter procurement transactions multiple times in different systems so that the data are captured in real property inventories, financial systems, and acquisition systems. This fractured approach is both costly and burdensome to manage.''

It is time the U.S. Government invested in a methodology and technology to identify and inventory its land holdings. Such a system can help enhance the Federal land management, resource conservation, environmental protection, and use of Federal real property. We should not be creating multiple inventories when today's technology permits us to do it once and use it many times. Gathering information to solve national problems should not require an Act of Congress, particularly when a few keystrokes on a computer will do the job.

Although the Bush administration took a step toward solving this problem when President Bush issued Executive Order 13327 in 2004, the resulting GSA inventory is neither GIS-based nor includes public lands. Unfortunately, this means that more than 300 million acres are exempt from the inventory currently maintained by GSA.

Since 1980, the National Academy of Sciences has been calling for the development of a multipurpose cadastre, or land registry, in its report, ``Need for a Multipurpose Cadastre.'' The report said, ``There is a critical need for a better land-information system in the United States to improve land-conveyance procedures, furnish a basis for equitable taxation, and provide much- needed information for resource management and environmental planning.'' In 2007, the Academy renewed this effort and recommended the idea of the FLAIR Act, in its report, ``National Land Parcel Data: A Vision for the Future.''

This Federal effort will also help State and local agencies verify their ongoing efforts to identify what each level of government owns, and permit the fair, efficient and equitable taxation of private property. This will enable government at all levels to find missing lands through a gap analysis that identifies properties on which taxes are not being collected due to the inefficiencies in our systems. For example, when the State of Wyoming used a GIS to audit the mass appraisal process, it found that approximately 250,000 parcels were not on the tax rolls.

Over the past decade, nearly 30 Governors and State Legislatures have created State land inventories. Let me give you a few examples of what some States have found.

In California, an inventory discovered that in 1955, the State purchased a golf course in Oakland to make way for a highway. The road was never built, and the State still owns the land, unbeknownst to any State agency.

In South Carolina, a State commission found the University of South Carolina, a State university, still owned Wedge Plantation, a 1,500 acre tract valued at $5 million, originally used for research of insect-borne diseases, but now leased to a half-dozen hunters who pay no rent.

While serving as Missouri State Auditor, my office issued a report noting that the Missouri Department of Transportation lacked accurate and reliable records of excess property and property being held for future projects. The best MoDOT could do was estimate

the amount and value of the land they held.

The FLAIR Act addresses the twin problems of a lack of a single, interoperable, current and accurate Federal land inventory, and the proliferation of inefficient, duplicative, costly, inaccurate and out- of-date inventories by authorizing the Department of the Interior to develop and manage a single multipurpose, uniform Federal GIS database to track and account for all Federal Real Property, as called for by GAO and recommended by the National Academy.

Waste and duplication can be avoided if the Government knew what inventories it had. The FLAIR Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an ``inventory of inventories'' to identify all inventory databases, whether efficient or inefficient. The efficient databases will be merged into a single multipurpose cadastre while the inefficient databases are repealed, thus preventing waste and duplication from continuing. By integrating the efficient databases, redundancy can be identified and eliminated. Resources can be applied to gaps in data rather than duplicative data.

Once a multipurpose inventory is complete, the government can become a better real property asset manager, and a responsible steward of its land holdings. This will result in more efficient land management, again providing savings. That is what the FLAIR Act provides.

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hatch and myself in enacting this good-government bill.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order under rule XLIV, paragraph 8(a), section 12034 of the farm bill conference report violates this rule in that it is a new directed spending provision.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about an amendment that I hope to offer on the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. It is an important amendment, and I want to discuss it so that my colleagues understand what this amendment is about.

This is a picture of an airplane that was provided to my office by a U.S. safety inspector. A pilot for a Chinese carrier requested permission and landed in Frankfurt, Germany, for an unscheduled refueling stop. They were running low on fuel. This is what the U.S. safety inspector provided us. This is what German workers found-- seatbelts wrapped around fan blades.

There is a seatbelt. There is a seatbelt, as you can see, and the structure behind. They did this to minimize turbulence because there had been an engine that had failed. The inspection found that a total of three engines had to be replaced before the plane was going to be allowed to take off again.

What does this have to do with the amendment? In the latest audit, the Department of Transportation inspector general found that 67 percent of the heavy maintenance--not talking about kicking the tires or changing the oil--of U.S. commercial aircraft is now being performed by foreign repair stations. In a series of reports, the inspector general has identified many gaps in FAA oversight for these foreign repair stations.

What this amendment does is seek to apply the same standards of safety and security to all of these foreign repair stations that U.S. carriers are using. That is a pretty reasonable proposition. If you have a commercial carrier that is serviced in the United States at an FAA certified facility, it is likely an FAA inspector is onsite, a constant presence. There are requirements of drug and alcohol checks. There is perimeter security. There are standards that must be met in terms of these repair stations. How does it make sense that we don't demand those same standards for American carriers that are using foreign repair stations? Most Americans would be surprised to find out that we don't. That is what this amendment is going to fix.

I thank Senator Specter for cosponsoring this amendment. I want to spend a little bit of time talking about what the amendment contains, but I want to make sure that not only is the problem just whether the work being done is not up to the standards we would expect in some of these foreign repair stations, I want to talk about security issues.

My mom is going to be 80 this summer. She has had two knee replacements. She can't go through an airport without being wanded, many times her suitcase being opened. We all know that we have to check our shampoo. We have to not carry water bottles through security anymore. I think the American flying public understands and has accepted these incredibly intrusive measures because they want safety. They want security. They want to make sure that when they fly, they are safe. So they have said: OK, I am going to take a bunch of time at the airport. I will stand in lines. I will have a wand. I will have people patting my body. I am going to do all this because I want safety and security.

In 2003, an inspector general report found that there was an al-Qaida member working at a foreign repair station in Singapore. The report discovered easy access to facilities by outsiders and found the FAA was leaving employee background checks and drug and alcohol testing up to individual airlines.

We note that in December 2001 a senior aircraft technician

at a foreign repair station was found to be a member of the

terrorist organization Al Qaeda. . . .The aircraft technician

photographed U.S. aircraft as potential targets for a

terrorist attack.

Really, is it fair that we all are worrying about whether we have 1 ounce too much of shampoo when we have not taken the basic steps to make sure al-Qaida is not under the hood? I think most Americans would be shocked to see this inconsistency in our sense of urgency and caution when it comes to the safety of the flying public.

What does this amendment do? It is pretty simple. First, it requires identification and oversight of foreign repair facilities that are noncertified. The FAA must submit a plan to Congress within 6 months of enactment to identify and expand its oversight of all noncertified facilities used by U.S. air carriers. Keep in mind, these U.S. air carriers are not just outsourcing the labor to foreign repair stations that are FAA certified in foreign nations. They are also outsourcing the work to noncertified FAA facilities.

I keep asking the FAA in hearings: Why do we have certification? I will say: Do you think certification is important?

The FAA officials will say: Yes, we think it is important.

I say: Then why do we have it, if we don't require everybody to have it? What is the point? Why are we letting carriers use noncertified facilities if the certification is important to our safety and security? It doesn't make sense.

This amendment would, in fact, require that those carriers use certified facilities if they are, in fact, going to use foreign repair stations. It will require the FAA to do two inspections a year. I do not think that is a heavy lift: two inspections a year of their facilities, wherever they may be.

It will require drug and alcohol testing of employees performing maintenance at foreign repair stations. It has been interesting to me because we have had some push-backs from some places about this because of some countries that want us not to require this because they currently have work of U.S. carriers and they do not want America to require FAA oversight to this degree. One of the things they protest most--some of these nations--is the drug and alcohol testing. Well, with all due respect, I really do not think Americans are excited about the idea that we would waive drug and alcohol testing for people who are working on airplanes. I think that is a basic. It certainly would be a basic in this country. I think it is certainly something the American people would expect.

It will also enforce the TSA requirements that foreign repair stations comply with security standards issued by the Transportation Security Administration.

It will update foreign repair station fee schedules to ensure taxpayers are not subsidizing the outsourcing of this work.

Here is the part that gets me a little bit cranky about this whole situation. It is one thing for companies to want to outsource labor to other countries because it is cheaper. Now, other than the need to fix our Tax Code, we do not encourage the outsourcing of jobs. It is not as if we can require corporations in our country to keep all their jobs in the United States. That is a tough thing for us to do in an open democracy, in a free market economy. I will tell you what we can do, though. We can sure make absolutely certain these companies are not doing it with the help of taxpayer dollars.

Right now, as to the certified repair facilities that are in foreign countries, the U.S. taxpayers are underwriting the bill for those inspections and that certification. In other words, the companies can outsource the labor to a country where it is less expensive, and taxpayers are footing part of the bill for the safety and security of those facilities.

Now, if you are going to go for a less expensive labor cost, it seems to me that you, at a minimum, ought to add to that savings the cost of the inspections by the U.S. Government. Why should the taxpayers foot the bill for FAA inspectors to fly over to Singapore to inspect a facility? That does not seem fair. So this makes sure the people who are using the foreign repair stations are absorbing the costs of inspecting and keeping those foreign repair stations up to our standards. Obviously, it requires the regular inspector general oversight of the implementation of this provision.

This is very reasonable. The House has similar language in its bill. I think this makes sense. I think it is something, frankly, the American public would be surprised to understand, that we have this huge gap in our safety and security oversight for the flying public.

I look forward to an opportunity for the Members to have a vote on this amendment. I think we all want trade. We all want to make sure we can export American products. We do not want trade agreements that put us at a

disadvantage or, frankly, we want to make sure we still have access to other markets. But we cannot outsource safety. We just cannot. This administration is willing to do that. This administration is willing to say: We are going to let these other countries worry about whether their facilities are safe. I do not think this is one area where the American people want this function of our Government outsourced. I think they want us to be on top of it. I think they want to make sure it is being done right. I think they want to make sure it is being done fairly. I think they want to make sure they are not paying the bill to outsource this work.

At the end of the day, I think they have been cheerful, as Americans always are about what is asked of them, but I do not blame them for being a little worried that there has not been more sense of urgency about the safety and security of this situation in light of all of the money we have spent in the name of national security and, importantly, homeland security.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I also rise to talk about Lilly Ledbetter and some practical realities regarding this issue. I had the honor of representing a number of people on discrimination cases during the time I practiced law in Kansas City. I represented people on age discrimination, race discrimination, and gender discrimination. I am familiar with the law before Ledbetter. The thing about this decision that is hardest for me is how unpractical it is. When I was a single mom with three small kids in a job with a lot of responsibility and long hours, I had to be very practical in the way I lived my life. Working women across this country are very practical people. They have to prioritize. They make multitasking a way of life.

I look at this decision from a practical standpoint. Here is what sticks in my craw. They are acting as if when you get a paycheck, immediately some switch is turned on in your head that says: My paycheck is discriminatory.

There is no way women in the workplace can look at their paycheck and immediately determine they have been discriminated against. They don't know what everybody else is making. If you are going to say that someone only has 180 days to file a complaint on discrimination from the date the decision is made to make that complaint, what you are saying is that everybody in the workplace, whether they are an elderly person, whether they are a minority, whether they are a woman, they are going to have to turn into a detective every time they get a paycheck. They are going to have to run around and interview their colleagues as to how much money they are making to make sure their paycheck is fair. That is dumb. That is just dumb.

First, you are not even supposed to talk about your paycheck in the workplace. In many places of employment, the boss says it is against policy to discuss with other people what their salary is or what your pay is. So what we are saying to the women and to the older workforce and to members of minorities is: Now you have to figure out what is in the head of your employer. And by the way, you have 6 months.

If I were an employer in America, I would say: Hey, talk about hurting productivity.

Instead, doesn't it make sense that we should be able to show a pattern of discrimination that is reflected in a series of paychecks? Of course, it does. Who has the best knowledge as to whether someone is being discriminated against? I will guarantee you, it is not the person receiving the check. I think about the cases I represented and what kind of incredibly high bar it would have been for each one of those individuals to figure out in 180 days whether their paycheck was fair.

It is funny how people around this place talk about activist judges. I have a feeling that when we debate this issue today and tomorrow, and as this vote occurs, we won't hear a word from the other side about activist judges. This was, in fact, a Supreme Court decision that radically changed the law as we knew it, as it has been practiced in this country, as it has, in fact, been embraced by this country. This Court, by the narrowest of margins, said 5 to 4 that they were going to upset all that law and make it very difficult for people in the workplace to have their day in the bright sunshine of justice.

I am tempted to call it an activist judiciary. They are out of control. We have to do something about the judiciary. Instead, what we need to do is what we have always done in our history. We have to correct it. By the way, that decision spoke to us in terms of asking us, in the dissent, to take the steps necessary to put the law back where it was before that fateful day last summer when the Supreme Court said to the people who have been discriminated against: We are going to make it really hard for you to hold your employer accountable.

This is not a twilight zone of liability for companies. This is a situation where all the damages that someone

can receive is just 2 years, regardless of how long the discrimination has gone on. Mr. President, 180 days is a very short period of time in terms of filing a complaint--much shorter than any other statute of limitations that is out there for any wrong anyone suffers in our country.

I think people need to remember how Lilly found out about this. The jury found in her favor. The EEOC found in her favor. The law was in her favor--until the Supreme Court overturned it.

How did she find out she was being discriminated against? She had been there all these years. She had started out on an even keel with the colleagues who were men. Someone slipped her an anonymous note. There is not a tote board somewhere she could have checked. Someone slipped her an anonymous note in the workplace and said: Hey, do you realize what is happening to you? You need to start asking some questions about what is happening to your pay.

This is not just about women. This is also about the older workforce. By the way, with the economy the way it is right now, under this administration, people are having to work longer. People who used to think they could retire at 62--forget about that--they are working into their late sixties, into their seventies. In fact, we have many Members in this body who are working hard every day who are well beyond their early seventies who are contributing on a daily basis to this place. Should those people be discriminated against because they are older? Should they have to figure out in 180 days that a younger colleague is making a bigger paycheck?

What about the minorities in this country? This is not just about women. This is about discrimination. We need to send a very clear signal to the rest of the country that we understand we have to fix this and we have to fix it quickly.

This is not a bunch of whining over something that is not important. That 22 cents in Missouri that a woman makes less than a man is important. It is important to pay for the gas. It is important to pay for the daycare. It is important in order to make the bills come out even.

In Missouri, the figure is that women earn 78 cents for every $1 earned by men. The median annual income for a man with a college degree in Missouri, from the years 2004 to 2006, was $59,000. For a woman with the same amount of education, it was $46,000. The American Association of University Women did that study in the State of Missouri.

We need to unite behind this legislation. This is not going to be onerous for employers out there. It is fair. It is just fair. It is what we pledge allegiance to every day in this room: equal justice for all. Let's make sure we fix this. Let's make sure we move and pass this bill and send it to the President. I will tell you what, if this President has the nerve to veto this bill, I know a lot of women in America who are going to wake up and get busy before November.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes.

Mr. President, I ask the Senate to join me today in honoring Dick Halliburton, an accomplished advocate at Legal Aid of Western Missouri. He has fought tirelessly for 38 years for the rights of low-income Missourians, first as a Legal Aid of Western Missouri, LAWMO, attorney and for the last 20 years as LAWMO's executive director. During his time as executive director, LAWMO's staff has represented clients in more than 250,000 cases--obtaining thousands of protective orders for victims of domestic violence, preventing thousands of unlawful evictions, obtaining safe and affordable public and federally subsidized housing for thousands of families; and obtaining Medicaid, SSI and other public benefits for thousands of Missourians.

His work has empowered low-income people throughout western Missouri, by giving them the means to assert and protect their legal rights in court. Without his leadership, many low-income people throughout Western Missouri would not have had meaningful access to the civil justice system.

Dick has worked for years as a governor of the Missouri bar to advocate for the interest of low-income people. This work has encouraged the bar to provide direct funding for Missouri's legal services programs and to advocate for State funding for legal services, which the programs now receive.

He has led LAWMO through many difficult challenges. Through it all, he has maintained the integrity of the program and made sure that LAWMO continues to provide high quality legal services that meet its clients' needs.

Dick has greatly increased private donations, grants and other non- LSC funding for the program. When he began as executive director, LSC funding accounted for well over half of LAWMO's budget. Now it is barely a quarter of the organization's budget.

Dick has trained and nurtured one of the most experienced and well- respected groups of case handlers in any legal services program in the country, and those case handlers have achieved consistently high- quality results for their clients.

Dick's work takes into account the words and commitment to public service of Reginald Heber Smith, who in his book, ``Justice and the Poor,'' stated:

Without equal access to the law, the system not only robs

the poor of their only protection, but it places it in the

hands of their oppressors the most powerful and ruthless

weapon ever created.

In short, Dick Halliburton has made Missouri's justice system more accessible for low-income people and, in doing so, he has improved the lives of all Missourians. We are sincerely grateful for his work.

Mr. President, I commend Senator Sanders on his amendment and look forward to supporting it. We have a lot of work to do on credit cards. It is much worse than people realize in terms of some of the practices the credit card industry has employed. One of my favorites is trying to lure people to their limit on credit, and when they get them there, raising their interest rates and telling them: Well, you are at your credit limit.

I can give many examples of how that practice is utilized, including sending people the check already made out so if they sign their name on that check and use it, then they are at their credit limit and up pops their interest rate. All kinds of tricks are used to try to--by the way, don't ever try to pay off a bunch of credit cards because it is hard to pay them off. First, they don't want you to pay in full every month and they don't want you to pay them off. For gosh sakes, they don't want you to cancel a card. They will immediately take notice you lost your card because they are on the hook. In fact, I pointed out in one of the hearings we had to the credit card executives, the only thing that is easy to understand on this is the first line which says if you lose your credit card or your credit card is stolen, call this phone number because they know they are on the hook if the credit card is lost or stolen, so they are interested in you getting to them in those circumstances. All the other circumstances you press this number and maybe you will get someone who will talk to you after you have hung on the phone for 2 hours.

I do not rise to talk about credit cards today. I rise to talk about reverse mortgages. I have an amendment that will be called up at a later time. I am proud we have been working on this amendment. We had a hearing on this subject in the Aging Committee. We have been working with Senator Shelby and his staff. We have been working with HUD. AARP has been helping with this amendment. They did a massive report that they issued about reverse mortgages.

If we look at the subprime mess and sit back and say, what caused the problem, the root of the problem is the people selling the subprime mortgages had no risk. If you have a risk, you are careful. If you have no risk, then it is very simple: I just have to close the sale.

We are doing the exact same thing with reverse mortgages. If you are watching any cable TV--and probably way too many people in this Chamber are watching way too much cable TV right now because everybody is watching the cable news channels because we are all addicted to the Presidential race and every twist and turn it encompasses--if you are watching any of the cable news shows, you are seeing advertisements over and over again by Robert Wagner, Pat Boone, and all these familiar, trusted faces saying: You know, don't miss out. There are advertisements that are being marketed to elderly people across this country that are saying: Don't pass up this Government benefit you are entitled to.

I have to tell the truth, I don't think anybody envisioned reverse mortgages were going to be called ``a Government benefit you are entitled to.'' Why are they saying that? They are saying that because ultimately the taxpayers are on the hook for these loans.

Guess what. The people who are selling them are making commissions, and they have no risk. We kind of like these reverse mortgages around here because, guess what, we make some money on it, too. That is, the Federal Government. So there is a push to lift the lid on how many reverse mortgages can be marketed to elderly people because the Federal Government is getting some of the money when they are sold. But we are going down a dangerous path because we are marketing a product that is complicated and expensive to the most vulnerable population in America.

For many of these elderly people, all they have is their home. For many of these elderly people, they do not have a loved one with whom they can talk about whether this financial instrument is a good idea.

Don't get me wrong, some reverse mortgages are good and they may be appropriate in some circumstances. But here is what is not appropriate: We require counseling. We have appropriated a whopping $300 million for counseling. They have to have counseling in every case, so guess who is paying for the counseling? Bad news: The lenders are paying for the counseling. So the same people who want to close the loans are paying the counselors who are supposed to be giving these elderly people advice that is unbiased as to whether this is a good idea for them.

The amendment will step up to the plate and say we are not going to repeat the subprime fiasco with the Nation's ``greatest generation.'' We are going to, in fact, fund the counselors so they get good, independent information. We are going to make sure those counselors are certified. Right now, they can have a criminal record, they can have no training. This is the wild, wild west out there selling a financial product that is expensive and complicated to our elderly. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that is a dangerous combination.

The other thing this amendment does is it is going to prohibit someone who is marketing one of these reverse mortgages from being able to sell another product. Believe it or not, there are actually some people who are sitting down with elderly people right now in America saying: We are going to get you a reverse mortgage and, by the way, at the same time, we are going to sell you a deferred annuity. I don't know how these people look themselves in a mirror.

We had a witness in front of our committee whose mother was in her eighties and sold a deferred annuity and a reverse mortgage at the same time. It is unconscionable to make the sale and make the money. It is a get-rich-quick scheme for some of these sales people. If we can provide certified counselors who are truly independent to make sure that every elderly person understands exactly what they are getting into, and if we can make sure they are not being marketed products that are inappropriate by the same people who are selling them reverse mortgages, and if we can make sure we are not closing a blind eye to this because we are benefiting in the short run from the marketing of these products, then I think reverse mortgages have an appropriate place as one potential help to people in their elderly years who need to get the equity out of their homes for emergencies or medical bills or even to send a loved one to college. Right now, it is a dangerous situation.

I look forward to hopefully having unanimous, bipartisan support for this amendment. As I say, HUD has been very helpful in drafting this language, along with AARP, along with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. It is well thought out. I think it is very appropriate, noncontroversial. It is not opposed by the industry. There are many good guys who are doing this work. We want to make sure we are protecting the elderly from the bad guys and making sure we are not standing here 5 years from now saying: Why didn't we do something about reverse mortgages? It is the same kind of dangerous mix we have in the subprime mortgages.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I will speak for a few minutes about the amendment I have cosponsored with Senator DeMint concerning the earmarking process in Congress.

It is very unusual that a problem is as bipartisan as this problem is. Spending public money is something we should take very seriously. It is one of the most important things we do. We all have to remember, it is not our money. This spending of public money should be done on merit; it should be done on a cost-benefit basis; it should be done on getting the most bang for our buck.

Spending public money should not be based on your political party. It should not be based on what State you come from. It should not be based on which committee you are assigned to. And it should certainly not be based on how politically vulnerable you might be in the next election.

If you look at the numbers, for example, the minority Members of the House of Representatives who represent primarily African-American districts, it is frankly hard to explain that they get less in earmarking money than even the Republican Members of the House. Why is that? Many of them are in politically safe seats.

In other words, what happens around here sometimes is you get more money if everyone thinks you need to be able to spend more money because that will help you get reelected.

Well, that is a goofy way to spend public money. That is not the way we should be spending public money. Many of these projects that are funded are great projects. Many of them I support. But distribution is not done on merit.

I have heard over and over again the arguments about the power of the purse, and that somehow if we do not do earmarking we are ceding congressional authority to the executive branch. Well, with all due respect, for 200 years we did fine without earmarking. I do not recall President Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson or FDR or LBJ saying it was essential for the balance of power in our constitutional form of Government to make sure that individual Members of Congress have the ability to personally decide how to spend public money.

So I think the idea that this practice, which started in the 1980s, late 1980s, and did not become an art form until the last 5 or 6 years, is kind of a hollow argument to say somehow this building is going to shake and lightning is going to strike and our power is going to dissipate.

We are debating this week all the power we have. The power of the purse is reflected in our budget amendments and is reflected in the appropriations. We continue to make the decisions. We will always continue to make the decisions about the priorities of the way our Government should spend its money. That is the way the Constitution was designed.

Finally, there are practices that continue to occur that hurt many States and hurt many citizens in terms of the way we are sacrificing the formula grants and the competitive grants in order to fund earmarks.

We give haircut after haircut after haircut to our formula grants and to our other grants. If you look at the Byrne grants, if you look at the violence against women grants, if you look at the COPS Program, all of these were based on merit. I know, because I used to apply for them when I was a prosecutor. They have been cut and cut and cut while earmarks have gone up and up and up. We are still air-dropping. We are continuing to fund private companies for projects not even requested by the Government.

It is time for, as I would say to my kids when they were young, a time-out. We need to take a deep breath, see if we can take another run at more reform and see if we cannot get to the business of spending public money based on merit and getting the best value for the dollar, not on the power of an individual Member or who you know.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be charged equally to both sides.

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

Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit about an amendment that has been offered by Senator DeMint to remove a very important provision of this bill--a very important provision because it deals with whistleblowers.

Now, why do we need to protect whistleblowers? Well, let's be honest about this. I think Senator Pryor has done a masterful job of laying out the reality of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and, frankly, the tawdry way it has met its responsibilities over the last 7 years. We obviously need to do many of the things that are included in this legislation, and I thank Senator Pryor for his work on this legislation, along with Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and Senator Collins, because this is important.

We are talking about the lives and health and safety of people who think we are on the job. They think their Government is, in fact, looking out for their safety and protection in terms of consumer products, and the safety of those products.

So why do we need whistleblower provisions? Because frankly that is our best line of defense. It is, in fact, the people who work at this important agency who have been most offended at some of the practices of this administration in terms of undermining and gutting the work that has been done by the brave, talented, and competent people who work there. So I do not know why we would be reluctant to give them whistleblower protection.

This is not a new concept. Whistleblower protection is not a new concept. This Congress has enacted and this President has signed many whistleblower protection laws into being over the last several years. Let's review them. These are the same commonsense protections that were already passed by the Senate and signed into law as part of the 9/11 Implementation Act and Defense Authorization Act.

Since 2000, Congress has passed the following same kind of commonsense whistleblower protections: We have done AIR-21 in 2000 for airline industry workers. We have done Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002 for employees of publicly traded companies. We have done the Pipeline Safety Act in 2002 for oil pipeline employees. We have done the Energy Policy Act in 2005 for nuclear workers. We have done, as I said, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act in 2007 for railroad and public transportation workers. And, of course, we have done the Defense Authorization Act in 2008 for Department of Defense contractors.

Now, why would we want to protect the contractors' employees at the Defense Department and not protect the employees in the Consumer Product Safety Commission? That does not even make sense. Of course, we want to protect them.

Let me give you some examples of what some of the employees have said publicly about some of the pressures they face and about the atmosphere in which they work. Then you realize the kind of protection they need.

One CPSC safety employee said his boss, his superior:

. . . hijacked the presentation. . . . He distorted the

numbers in order to benefit industry and defeat the petition.

It was almost like he still worked for them, not us.

And by ``them,'' he meant the industry that was supposed to be regulated and supposed to be made accountable.

Another CPSC safety employee said:

Buyer beware--that is all I have to say.

Another one:

So much damage has been done.

Another one:

It's a complete disaster.

All of these employees were talking about what they know and what they see in terms of this agency's failings to do the bare minimum, the basic necessities of protecting consumers.

In March 2005, CPSC called together the Nation's top safety experts to confront an alarming statistic: 44,000 children riding ATV vehicles were injured the previous year, nearly 150 of them killed. Subsequent to an alarming presentation by CPSC employees of the dangers and risks, the agency's director of compliance then presented a public view that was unsubstantiated by the research that had been done.

The head of the poison prevention unit resigned when the efforts to require inexpensive child-resistant caps on hair care products that had burned toddlers were delayed, and delayed so industry costs could be weighed against the potential benefit to unsuspecting children.

These whistleblower protections will not shield bad employees. It does not protect disgruntled employees who make false claims, and it does not prevent an employer from firing a whistleblower for unrelated reasons, such as poor performance.

Let's get to the meat of the matter. The President does not like the whistleblower protections. I wish I were surprised. The claim is that the administration thinks this provision of the bill extends new whistleblower protections in ways that are unnecessary. This administration being hostile to a provision protecting whistleblowers is a little bit like the Sun coming up. It has gone out of its way to lobby against every whistleblower law that has been enacted.

This is a very secretive administration, and they are simply hostile to the concept of whistleblowing because it sheds light--it sheds light--and public scrutiny on abusive conduct that betrays the public trust.

Another claim made by the administration: These provisions are likely to result in serious problems for the CPSC in carrying out its mission and will cause a serious increase in the number of frivolous claims brought against employers.

Yes, the specter of frivolous claims. We always need to be worried about the specter of frivolous claims and frivolous lawsuits. It is not real, this worry from the administration. This provision is designed to help the dramatically understaffed CPSC enforce the law. It is a necessary enforcement cornerstone for this vital reform to be realized most effectively.

With only 400 employees, we cannot expect this agency to find every single consumer hazard or product that makes its way to consumers. We need to empower the employees to help. We need to protect them if they want to bring the public's attention to the work they have done.

There have been numerous concerns expressed about the increased burden to be placed on employers because of litigation. Frankly, these shrill predictions have been made every single time--every time we have considered one of the 35 other corporate whistleblower laws that Congress has passed.

The CPSC whistleblower language retains preexisting effective structural checks against litigation abuses. And this is important; let me underline this. There is not one case--not one case--since 1974 where the CPSC has had to use the structural checks against litigation abuses. In other words, this is a complete paper tiger.

Let's do what is right here. We should be celebrating whistleblowers, we should be thanking whistleblowers, and, by all means, we should be protecting whistleblowers.

I urge the Senate to reject the DeMint amendment that would gut one of the important ways we have in this bill to actually protect the innocent consumer from, in fact, having a toy with lead paint or another dangerous product that could do real and irreversible harm to members of their family.

Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 10 minutes and that following my remarks, the Senator from South Dakota be recognized to speak as in morning business for 20 minutes, and following him, the Senator from Washington be recognized for 10 minutes.

Madam President, I rise to speak briefly about patriotism and common sense. Every once in a while you open the morning paper and you go, huh? I had one of those moments this morning. In our Constitution, there are certain legal requirements to run for President of the United States. One of those is to be a natural born citizen. The article in the morning paper I read raised legal questions about the definition of ``natural born citizen.''

Actually, it talked about an ambiguity that could be interpreted in a way that would mean a child of someone in the Active military, stationed somewhere around the world, could have a baby, and that baby could never be President of the United States. In fact, Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone while his father was Active-Duty military in the Navy stationed in the Panama Canal Zone.

Clearly, that is a notion that defies common sense and certainly offends all of our patriotism. I can envision someone actually being misguided and trying to bring some kind of legal action to determine whether Senator McCain should run for President. That would be a waste of public time and resources. We should quickly and without fanfare fix this ambiguity and make it clear that any child of anyone serving in the Active military should, in fact, be qualified to run for President.

I will offer legislation I am confident everyone can agree on. How refreshing that notion is. It very simply defines ``natural born citizen'' to include any child born to a member of our military regardless of where in the world they may be serving. In America, so many parents say to their young children: If you work hard and play by the rules, in America someday you could be President.

Our brave and respected military should never have to spend a minute worrying whether that saying is true for their child. I hope we can quickly, by unanimous consent, pass this into law so there is no question that those children of the men and women who give it all for us can someday grow up to lead this great Nation.

Madam President, today I attended the funeral of Connie Karr, my neighbor and city councilwoman in Kirkwood, MO, which is my home. Connie Karr died in a tragic attack on the Town Hall of Kirkwood. I was therefore unable to be present for two rollcall votes taken by the Senate. Had I been, I would have voted aye on the motion to invoke cloture on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. I would have further voted aye on final passage of H.R. 2082.

Mr. President, I will happily yield to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. I am going to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I first want to comment on what a pleasure it was listening to several hours of tribute to Senator Lott. I have not served with Senator Lott for very long, but at the point in time that I, hopefully, would be allowed to decide to retire from the Senate, I could only hope I have such kind things said about me in so many different ways.

I was glad I got an opportunity to listen to 3 hours of Senators talking nicely about each other. It is an important thing to do this time of year, and I think, frankly, it is an important thing to do more often, and we do not do enough of it around here, particularly across the line.

I rise today to speak as in morning business for a few minutes about something that is on everybody's mind this time of year; that is, credit cards. Now, I know why it is on my mind, because my fingers are having to do the shopping because I cannot get home to Missouri, and so I am having to click, click, click on the Internet. I now know my credit card number by heart

because I have entered it so many times in the computer trying to get gifts for my family and my children. So I am very aware of my credit card this time of year.

I have spent some time this year in the Senate looking at the issue of credit cards, and as we all are wringing our hands and gnashing our teeth over the subprime mortgage mess, I think we all need to begin to wring our hands and gnash our teeth about some of the credit card practices in this country. We have allowed the credit card industry to play a little fast and loose with fairness.

I certainly fundamentally understand that people's obligations in terms of their credit, their unsecured credit on a credit card, are primarily their responsibility and it is important that people be responsible when they enter into debt, and it does not matter what kind of debt it is, whether it is credit card debt or any other kind of debt. On the other hand, I have spent some time trying to read through the fine print on some of these credit card agreements. Frankly, I have been trained as a lawyer, I have worked as a lawyer for most of my adult life, I have been a State legislator, I have now worked at the Federal level legislating, and I can't understand a lot of the fine print on some of these credit card statements. If I can't understand the fine print on a lot of these credit card statements, what shot does someone who has not spent as much time around the law as I have?

If you look at what is going on with the unsecured credit card industry in terms of some of the fast-and-loose play with the rules, the kinds of tricks that are being played--I will give you a great example. We now know your interest rate can go up if you get near your credit limit. We now know you can call and get an authorization to charge money on your credit card, and they will let you do it even if you go over your credit limit, and then they are going to charge you every month an extra fee because you went over your credit limit, which they said was okay for you to do. You never know this.

Imagine my interest when I learned in a hearing this year that they can raise your interest rate on your credit card just by getting more credit cards. So if you are going into a department store and they say: Hey, you can get 15 percent off today if you open a credit card, you can get 10 percent off today if you open a credit card, the act of opening those credit card accounts can increase your interest on another credit card. Now, who would have thunk that? No one ever explains that to the American consumer. No one ever explains that getting at or near your credit limit on a number of credit cards could require your interest rates to go up even if you are paying your bills on time, even if you have always paid exactly what you are supposed to pay on time every month.

It is very important that we get a handle on this. This is a great example. A member of my staff who knows I have been very interested in this brought this in to me this week. We just had a hearing where we learned that if you get to your credit limit, it is possible they will raise your interest rate even if you paid everything on time. Well, what is this? This staff member of mine had several thousand dollars left in available credit on one of his credit cards. So what happens? He gets checks in the mail from his credit card company, and the first one is made out. Guess how much it is made out for. It is made out for an amount that will get him very close to his credit limit. So the idea here is if you fill them all out, guess what. Bingo. You are over your credit limit, and then all the fees and the extra interest rates start.

Well, I have to tell you--by the way, there is nothing on this that says: If you go over your credit limit, not only will we charge you fees, but we are probably going to raise your interest rate. That is never explained to the American consumer. That is not fair play.

Make it very clear to your credit card customer exactly what they are going to pay for and when. Fifty percent of the people who have credit cards in this country right now are paying minimum balances only, and they don't understand they are in a hole they can't dig out of.

The credit card companies say: We have not had that much increase in defaults. Well, I will tell you, here is what is different: A lot of the credit card debt in this country--hundreds of billions of dollars of the credit card debt in this country--has been rolled into home equity lines of credit because of this housing boom we were on, and everyone was combining their credit cards, and a lot of that debt has been transferred to mortgage debt.

This is stuff that needs to get fixed, it needs to be fair, and the rules need to be clear to anyone because I will tell you, if we don't get it fixed, we are going to be wringing our hands and worrying about the next big problem in our economy, and that is all this unsecured credit that goes unpaid.

I think the credit card is a wonderful tool for Americans. It has allowed our country to consume at great levels, has kept our economy pumping. But at the end of the day, if we don't require the credit card companies to make full disclosure in a way that everyone can understand exactly what they are charging for this very expensive form of credit, we are going to regret it.

There are two pieces of legislation. First, Senator Levin and I have introduced a Stop Unfair Credit Card Practices Act which prohibits some of the most egregious examples I have talked about that unfairly deepen or prolong credit card debt held by consumers.

The other piece of legislation is one I am cosponsoring with Senator Kohl that deals with college students. Nothing strikes more fear in the heart of a parent who has two children in college than the idea that someone wants to send them credit cards right now.

I love my two children in college very much. I think they are smart and wonderful people. But, believe me, neither one of them has the resources to handle a credit card right now. The only resources they have to handle a credit card right now are mine. If they want to send me the credit card, that is fine, and if I want to help my kids, that is fine, but the idea that we are now selling lists of college students to credit card companies so they can send them--by the way, one of these credit card officials actually had the nerve to say in a hearing that he found college students to be a very good risk. Well, yes, because their parents pay it off because they do want not want them to have bad credit when they get out of college. But college students do not have the wherewithal to take on unsecured debt. They are having a hard enough time just getting to class and getting everything done, much less taking on unsecured debt.

We need to stop some of these practices that are victimizing the American consumer. We can do it. We can do it in the Senate. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the new year to see if we can't make it a better year for middle-class America that is buried under credit card debt without the playbook to show them how to get out.

Mr. President, this chamber approved the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. I am particularly pleased with the inclusion of an important provision contained in section 846 of the legislation to modernize the whistleblower protections afforded to defense contractor employees. At a time when reports of fraud, waste, and abuse in defense contracts are rampant, it is absolutely vital that we have in place the types of whistleblower protections for contractor employees that I will empower them in reporting such abuse and therefore will protect those who wish to protect American I taxpayer dollars.

I would like to thank Senator Collins for working with me on this important provision and further thank Senators Levin and McCain for their leadership and stewardship of this provision through the Senate and conference-considerations of the Defense Authorization Act.

I come to the floor, however, to make one explanatory clarification as to the final language of this amendment because I think it critical that the record be clear as to the intent of the Congress. Last year in Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court canceled constitutional protection for speech made within the normal course of an employee's execution of his or her job duties, specifically because those disclosures are covered by other whistleblower statutes. There should be absolutely no confusion that the Congress believes that the logic and holding of Garcetti is inapplicable to the defense contractor whistleblower protection statute, 10 U.S.C. 2409, as amended by section 846 of this act.

Disclosures taken to carry out job responsibilities, within the normal course of an employee's duties, are protected by this provision for three core reasons. First, they are essential preliminary steps for a responsible disclosure to the government. Second, often they in fact are indirect disclosures to Government inspectors, auditors, and investigators who must study associated internal corporate records to engage in informed oversight. Third, the purpose of whistleblower statutes is to reduce waste. But waste would be maximized if employees had to avoid their own organizations and go straight to the Government in order to avoid waiving their whistleblower rights. The law's goal is maximized by employees being empowered to safely

work within their employment structure, as a first step, so contractors can clean their own houses. Any reading that would exclude disclosures within an employee's internal chain or command would simply be an illogical, exceedingly narrow reading of the statute. Congress fully intends the employee protections, as amended, to be interpreted to include disclosures within the employee's company.

I thank my fellow Senators for joining Senator Collins and me in our efforts to protect whistleblowers and provide greater contractor accountability and oversight.