Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, today I speak as a Member of the Senate, but also as a former chairman and now ranking member of the Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia Subcommittee. I have had a relationship with the District for quite some period of time and have been very interested in the District and also in the District's reaching out in terms of providing a quality education for the boys and girls who live in the District, understanding that this is the Nation's Capital and it should be the shining city on a hill where people can come from all over America and see the very best we have in our country in terms of educational opportunities and, I also feel, the opportunity of people to have the right to vote.

As a result of my concerns about the ways to rectify the lack of voting representation for the District, I have approached this bill with the belief that citizens who pay taxes and serve in the military should have House representation so long as such representation conforms to the Constitution.

Although a constitutional amendment would provide the clearest constitutional means to ensure District residents are provided House representation, after studying the legal arguments, I have concluded that there are sufficient indicia and precedent that the Constitution's District clause grants Congress the constitutional authority to give the District a House Member. As for any argument that the bill is unconstitutional, I need only to say that I believe any ambiguity and disagreement will be resolved quickly by the courts.

After weighing the constitutional arguments and equities, I have decided to support this legislation--in fact, I am a cosponsor of this legislation--on one condition: We must also continue to give the families of the District a vote on how their children are educated.

Accordingly, I am proud to join Senator Ensign in offering an amendment to reauthorize the District of Columbia Scholarship Program for an additional year. Perhaps one may wonder why am I so concerned about this issue. It is because of the fact that when I was Governor of Ohio, we started a scholarship program in Ohio for children who were not members of the public schools. That experiment has worked to the benefit of thousands of children, particularly in the Cleveland district, who have gone through the system and are now in college. I meet with them, and they tell me: Were it not for the Cleveland Scholarship Program where I had a choice to go to another school, I don't believe I would be in college today and be as successful as I have been.

When I instituted that program, it was said it was unconstitutional. I am pleased to say that several years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court said that providing scholarships to nonpublic school systems fit in with the Constitution of our country.

When we had an opportunity to help the District, we provided $14 million for public schools, $14 million for charters, and $14 million for the scholarship program. It is a critical component of a three- sector education strategy to provide a quality education to every child in the District, regardless of income or neighborhood.

The program provides up to $7,500 per student per year to fund tuition, fees, and transportation expenses for K-12 for low-income DC families.

To qualify, students must live in the District and have a household income of no more than 185 percent of the Federal poverty level. In 2008, that was

about $39,000 per family of four. In fact, the average income for families using scholarships in 2008 was just over $24,000.

Since its inception, the program has served over 2,600 students. They have about 7,500 who would like to get in the program, but they do not have a place for them. Entering students had average math and reading test scores in the bottom third.

A recent evaluation of the Department of Education reaffirms academic gains among participants less than 2 years after receiving a scholarship. They are benefiting from it. We need more time to see how it works out. I wish to underscore that I think this is part of this whole package we put together.

Many Members of this body are unaware of the fact that today the people who live in the District can go to any public college in the United States and we provide up to $10,000 for out-of-State tuition. They are not aware of the fact that Don Graham over at the Washington Post got the business community together and set up the Washington scholarship program, the CAP program, and $2,500 is available for youngsters. Or that the Gates Foundation thinks so much of what is happening in the District that they provided another $120 million to keep kids in school in the two worst dropout districts in the District of Columbia.

There are some wonderful things happening in the District, and yet-- and yet--there are some people here, because of special interest groups, who want to do away with the scholarship program. They want to deny these children an opportunity to have this educational opportunity, this smorgasbord we have available to them.

What this amendment does is it extends for 1 year that program as we look at it and see how it goes through its metamorphosis.

I have to say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and this side of the aisle, if you want to do something that is disastrous to the kids in the District in terms of public relations and the interest of all these people in the District, go ahead and make it impossible for this program to keep going.

Think about this: the Gates Foundation, the College Assistance Program--great things are happening in the District today. What a terrible message it would send to the rest of the country and those who care about education in the District if we were denied this opportunity, this experiment to continue in the District.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two editorials, one on January 26 titled ``School Vouchers, District parents know why the program should continue.'' The demand for it is tremendous. They want it. And a recent editorial, ``Hoping no one notices, congressional Democrats step between 1,800 DC children and a good education.''

Madam President, do you know why? It is because of the National Education Association. They do not want it to happen. They fought it in my State. The Ohio school boards fought it. I will never forget going up for an endorsement in 2004 when I ran last time. When I ran in 1998, I got support from the Ohio Education Society. They said: No Governor has done more for education than George Voinovich. So I came to Washington. They kind of forgave me for the scholarship program in Cleveland. They kind of let that go.

Madam President, 2004 came along, and I went through the whole endorsement procedure. I did everything. After it was over, many people came up to me and said: George, you absolutely did a fabulous job with your presentation, what you are trying to do with education on the national level and you are concerned about it. But we got the word from Washington that you are not going to be endorsed because you have broken the rule in supporting scholarships, supporting an opportunity for kids to have another opportunity to go to school and try something new.

I want to say this. In this country of ours, we cannot survive with half the kids in our urban districts dropping out of school. I am glad the President spoke about it in his State of the Union. I am glad the President talked about charter schools. But the real question is, Is he going to stand up and are the Democrats on the other side of the aisle and some Republicans going to stand up to the National Education Association, the National School Boards Association and some of these groups that want to keep things as they are?

I am going to tell you something, Madam President. We will never make

it. I want everybody to understand that I am for this bill, voting rights, but I am not going to support this bill unless I am convinced we are going to have an opportunity to debate this issue in the Senate and keep this program going for the boys and girls who are benefiting from it, the same kind of program that benefited so many thousands of people in the State of Ohio.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kohl in introducing legislation to assist many of our Nation's public servants who choose to work part-time for a portion of their Federal career. The legislation is timely given the increasing number of Federal employees eligible to retire and the need for agencies to retain an experienced workforce to carry out critical government functions.

Our legislation would change the computation of Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, annuities involving part-time service by correcting an anomaly that is a disincentive for employees nearing the end of their careers who would like to phase into retirement by working part-time. Under current law, if an employee under the CSRS system with substantial full-time service before 1986 switches to a part-time schedule at the end of his or her career, the high-three average salary that is applied to service before 1986 is the pro-rated salary or, if higher, the full-time salary from the years before the employee began working part-time. This often results in a disproportionate reduction in the employee's benefit.

The legislation would clarify that CSRS annuities based in whole or in part on part-time service should be pro-rated for the period of service that was performed on a part-time basis. The correction will help agencies, as part of their succession planning efforts, in retaining the expertise of staff that elect to work on a part-time basis at the end of their Federal careers. It is my hope agencies will include this tool in their human capital plans to help facilitate the transfer of knowledge to the next generation of government leaders.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kohl in introducing legislation to assist many of our Nation's public servants who choose to work part-time for a portion of their Federal career. The legislation is timely given the increasing number of Federal employees eligible to retire and the need for agencies to retain an experienced workforce to carry out critical government functions.

Our legislation would change the computation of Civil Service Retirement System, CSRS, annuities involving part-time service by correcting an anomaly that is a disincentive for employees nearing the end of their careers who would like to phase into retirement by working part-time. Under current law, if an employee under the CSRS system with substantial full-time service before 1986 switches to a part-time schedule at the end of his or her career, the high-three average salary that is applied to service before 1986 is the pro-rated salary or, if higher, the full-time salary from the years before the employee began working part-time. This often results in a disproportionate reduction in the employee's benefit.

The legislation would clarify that CSRS annuities based in whole or in part on part-time service should be pro-rated for the period of service that was performed on a part-time basis. The correction will help agencies, as part of their succession planning efforts, in retaining the expertise of staff that elect to work on a part-time basis at the end of their Federal careers. It is my hope agencies will include this tool in their human capital plans to help facilitate the transfer of knowledge to the next generation of government leaders.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in regards to a recent rollcall vote held in the Senate. On February 5, 2009, the Senate voted 32 to 65 on Senate amendment No. 140, which was offered by the junior Senator from Wisconsin. Due to an inadvertent error, I recorded my support for this amendment. I would like to take a few moments to clarify my views regarding this amendment.

As my colleagues know, this amendment would have allowed a point of order to be raised against congressionally directed spending for programs whose authorization has lapsed. This amendment would have hamstrung the Senate in the exercise of its constitutionally delegated ``power of the purse.'' Procedures already exist for Senators to strike provisions of bills they find objectionable, including language in appropriation bills. For example, Members may offer amendments to strike or amend such provisions as they deem appropriate. In addition, as my friend, the senior Senator from Hawaii, has pointed out, this amendment would have exempted funding requests for unauthorized programs included in the President's budget request from this so-called ``earmark point of order.'' In effect, this would have allowed unelected bureaucrats the ability to request funding for programs whose authorization has lapsed while denying elected and accountable members of the Senate from doing likewise.

Finally, important programs like the ones that could be affected by this point of order should not be penalized by Congress's inability to enact authorization bills in a timely fashion.

Together, the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations are taking steps to provide for unprecedented levels of transparency in the appropriations process. As a new member of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, I look forward to working with my colleagues to address the pressing issues that will come before the committee, and I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my views on this issue.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Tester and Klobuchar to introduce the Passport Card Travel Enhancement Act of 2009 in order to allow United States citizens to use passport cards for air travel between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean.

Over the past several years, the Departments of State, State, and Homeland Security, DHS, have worked hard to implement the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, WHTI, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. As part of those efforts, State has developed the United States passport card as a cheaper, more portable alternative to a United States passport book. The passport card is adjudicated to the exact same standards as the passport book and allows United States citizens to enter United States land and sea ports-of-entry from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda, but the card does not allow for any air travel. In my mind, this discrepancy makes no sense, and the passport card should allow for air travel between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean for several reasons.

First, prior to 2007, United States citizens rarely needed a passport to enter the United States by air from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda or the Caribbean. Rather, United States citizens were only required to satisfy inspecting officers of their identities and citizenship. This practice changed in 2007, when WHTI went into effect for air travel. I think we all recall the events that occurred following WHTI air implementation, when State was deluged with passport applications, the time necessary to get a passport expanded from the typical four to six weeks to several months, and some Americans were forced to cancel trips. We need to avoid problems like that in the future by providing United States citizens with more documents that comply with WHTI.

Further, State's ``Card Format Passport; Changes to Passport Fee Schedule'' final rule states that the passport card ``is not intended to be a globally interoperable travel document,'' and ``will not be designed to meet the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, standards and recommendations for globally interoperable passports,'' but I do not believe that these facts mean that the passport card cannot be used for limited, western hemisphere air travel. In fact, I question whether globally interoperable passport standards and recommendations need be met in order to use passport cards for the limited flights allowed by the Passport Card Travel Enhancement Act of 2009 because DHS's NEXUS card, which does not meet ICAO standards, is currently accepted as an alternative to a passport for some air travel between the United States and Canada.

Lastly, in today's current economic climate, I believe we must foster secure, legitimate trade and tourism between the United States and our allies. Providing additional, less expensive ways for our constituents to comply with WHTI is good government and makes sense for our Nation's security and economic prosperity.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Tester and Klobuchar to introduce the Passport Card Travel Enhancement Act of 2009 in order to allow United States citizens to use passport cards for air travel between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean.

Over the past several years, the Departments of State, State, and Homeland Security, DHS, have worked hard to implement the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, WHTI, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. As part of those efforts, State has developed the United States passport card as a cheaper, more portable alternative to a United States passport book. The passport card is adjudicated to the exact same standards as the passport book and allows United States citizens to enter United States land and sea ports-of-entry from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda, but the card does not allow for any air travel. In my mind, this discrepancy makes no sense, and the passport card should allow for air travel between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean for several reasons.

First, prior to 2007, United States citizens rarely needed a passport to enter the United States by air from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda or the Caribbean. Rather, United States citizens were only required to satisfy inspecting officers of their identities and citizenship. This practice changed in 2007, when WHTI went into effect for air travel. I think we all recall the events that occurred following WHTI air implementation, when State was deluged with passport applications, the time necessary to get a passport expanded from the typical four to six weeks to several months, and some Americans were forced to cancel trips. We need to avoid problems like that in the future by providing United States citizens with more documents that comply with WHTI.

Further, State's ``Card Format Passport; Changes to Passport Fee Schedule'' final rule states that the passport card ``is not intended to be a globally interoperable travel document,'' and ``will not be designed to meet the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, standards and recommendations for globally interoperable passports,'' but I do not believe that these facts mean that the passport card cannot be used for limited, western hemisphere air travel. In fact, I question whether globally interoperable passport standards and recommendations need be met in order to use passport cards for the limited flights allowed by the Passport Card Travel Enhancement Act of 2009 because DHS's NEXUS card, which does not meet ICAO standards, is currently accepted as an alternative to a passport for some air travel between the United States and Canada.

Lastly, in today's current economic climate, I believe we must foster secure, legitimate trade and tourism between the United States and our allies. Providing additional, less expensive ways for our constituents to comply with WHTI is good government and makes sense for our Nation's security and economic prosperity.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 2009 with Senator Lieberman and Senator Carper.

When I came to the Senate in 1999, I introduced the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 with Senators Lieberman, Thompson and Durbin because as a former mayor and governor, I had seen first-hand the problems and complications that existed in the federal grant making process.

Congress enacted our legislation to improve the effectiveness and performance of Federal financial assistance programs, simplify Federal financial assistance application and reporting requirements, improve the delivery of services to the public and coordinate the delivery of those services, and progress was made under the law, which is commonly known as ``P.L. 106-107.'' A 2005 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report noted that ``[m]ore than 5 years after passage of P.L. 106- 107, cross-agency work groups have made some progress in streamlining aspects of the early phases of the grants life cycle and in some specific aspects of overall grants management . . . .'' However, GAO also noted that work remained to be done and in 2006 suggested that Congress consider reauthorizing the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999, which expired in 2007.

I believe that Congress should heed GAO's advice and reauthorize this important law, so last year I introduced S. 3341 with Senator Lieberman to reauthorize the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act and make improvements to that Act based on the 2005 and 2006 recommendations of GAO. The bill passed the Senate in September 2008.

Today we are reintroducing that legislation, which requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to improve the grants.gov website or develop another public website that allows grant applicants to search and apply for grants, report on the use of grants, and provide required certifications and assurances for grants. I believe such a website will enhance the transparency required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act that Congress enacted in 2007.

The bill also requires the Director of OMB to develop a strategic plan for an end-to-end electronic capability for non-Federal entities to manage the Federal financial assistance they receive and requires each Federal agency to plan actions to implement that strategic plan. Each federal agency would be required to report to OMB on progress made in achieving its objectives under the OMB strategic plan, and the Director of OMB would be required to report to Congress biennially on progress made in implementing the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act.

In 1999 I said the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act was an important step toward detangling the web of duplicative Federal grants available to States, localities and community organizations. Last year I said that while some progress was made under that law to detangle the web, work remained to be done. I hope that Congress will quickly reauthorize this law so that OMB and Federal agencies continue their efforts to simplify and streamline the Federal grant process.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 2009 with Senator Lieberman and Senator Carper.

When I came to the Senate in 1999, I introduced the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 with Senators Lieberman, Thompson and Durbin because as a former mayor and governor, I had seen first-hand the problems and complications that existed in the federal grant making process.

Congress enacted our legislation to improve the effectiveness and performance of Federal financial assistance programs, simplify Federal financial assistance application and reporting requirements, improve the delivery of services to the public and coordinate the delivery of those services, and progress was made under the law, which is commonly known as ``P.L. 106-107.'' A 2005 Government Accountability Office, GAO, report noted that ``[m]ore than 5 years after passage of P.L. 106- 107, cross-agency work groups have made some progress in streamlining aspects of the early phases of the grants life cycle and in some specific aspects of overall grants management . . . .'' However, GAO also noted that work remained to be done and in 2006 suggested that Congress consider reauthorizing the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999, which expired in 2007.

I believe that Congress should heed GAO's advice and reauthorize this important law, so last year I introduced S. 3341 with Senator Lieberman to reauthorize the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act and make improvements to that Act based on the 2005 and 2006 recommendations of GAO. The bill passed the Senate in September 2008.

Today we are reintroducing that legislation, which requires the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to improve the grants.gov website or develop another public website that allows grant applicants to search and apply for grants, report on the use of grants, and provide required certifications and assurances for grants. I believe such a website will enhance the transparency required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act that Congress enacted in 2007.

The bill also requires the Director of OMB to develop a strategic plan for an end-to-end electronic capability for non-Federal entities to manage the Federal financial assistance they receive and requires each Federal agency to plan actions to implement that strategic plan. Each federal agency would be required to report to OMB on progress made in achieving its objectives under the OMB strategic plan, and the Director of OMB would be required to report to Congress biennially on progress made in implementing the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act.

In 1999 I said the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act was an important step toward detangling the web of duplicative Federal grants available to States, localities and community organizations. Last year I said that while some progress was made under that law to detangle the web, work remained to be done. I hope that Congress will quickly reauthorize this law so that OMB and Federal agencies continue their efforts to simplify and streamline the Federal grant process.

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

I am more than happy to do that as long as I have a guarantee that after 7 minutes, I have a chance to offer my voice about the amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Hutchison substitute amendment.

Before I discuss the merits of the Hutchison amendment, I wish to thank Senator Mikulski for her commitment to debate this legislation in a constructive manner. As Senator Mikulski said, we can disagree, without being disagreeable.

I thank the Democratic leader, the Senator from Nevada and the minority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, for agreeing that we will make our best efforts to return to the tradition here in the Senate of debating bills and allowing amendments to be offered, and returning things to the point where I think it will enhance the reputation of this great body in terms of the body that is looking in on us. I hope this is the beginning of a new era here. I think the more we can work together, the better they are going to feel about the future of our country.

I would also like to thank my colleague, Senator Hutchison, who I know is extremely busy in her role as ranking member of the Commerce Committee. Her efforts to draft a solution are commendable. Senator Hutchison is in a strong position to speak on issues arising from both her substitute amendment and Senator Mikulski's underlying legislation. As Senator Hutchison said in her opening remarks, as a young lawyer coming out of law school, she experienced the nefarious consequences of gender discrimination. In addition, I think her experience as a small business owner and the general counsel of a bank provides Senator Hutchison with the unique perspective to understand the problems with Senator Mikulski's legislation.

There is one thing on which we all agree: Gender and other forms of discrimination are wrong, illegal, and they should not be tolerated. This debate should not be about whether one party condones illegal discrimination; rather, this debate must focus on how to strike the right balance to address the situation in which a person is subject to an individual act of discrimination but through no fault of their own has no way to know about it.

As I mentioned during my retirement announcement last week, one of the reasons I decided to retire in 2 years was the desire to spend more time with my family. I am the proud father of a daughter, Betsy, who graduated as a member of Phi Beta Kappa. When she was growing up, I said: Honey, the sky is the limit for whatever you want to do.

In addition to my daughter Betsy, I have seven grandchildren, and six of them are girls. I have said the same thing to them: The sky is the limit. My oldest granddaughter, Mary Faith, is 12 years old. One of these days, she is going to be out in that business world. I want Betsy, Mary Faith, and all my grandchildren, to have the opportunity to reach their full potential based on their God-given talents, and not be constrained by outdated prejudices.

Based on the debate so far, I believe there is a good deal of agreement between Members who support Senator Hutchison and Members who support Senator Mikulski's legislation. For example, we agree that discrimination based on gender is illegal and wrong. We also agree that the dynamics of the modern workplace may make instances of such discrimination difficult to detect if the discrimination is reflected in pay decisions.

Unlike when someone is denied a job, a promotion, or is terminated, paycheck discrimination may not be obvious. The source of our disagreement is how to find a solution to address this specific issue.

Before I address the specifics of why I support Senator Hutchison's amendment over Senator Mikulski's legislation, I believe there are some misconceptions about the Supreme Court's Ledbetter v. Goodyear decision. Advocates of the Ledbetter legislation have continued to state that passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will restore the law to what it was before the Supreme Court's decision. This is misleading. In its Ledbetter decision, the Supreme Court clarified a faulty interpretation of its early decision in Bazemore v. Friday. The Supreme Court did not change the underlying statute of limitations in title VII.

I think it is helpful to understand what the Court did in distinguishing these two cases. The Court's Bazemore decision held that if an employer's pay structure is facially discriminatory, that is, the pay structure sets different compensation on criteria like race or gender, then the paycheck is the last act of illegal conduct from which the 180-day filing period begins. The Court, rightfully in my opinion, distinguished this from the situation in Ms. Ledbetter's lawsuit.

With Ms. Ledbetter's lawsuit there was not a discriminatory pay structure in place, but rather allegations of specific acts of discrimination. The Court found those discrete acts occurred outside the 180-day filing period. I think that is an important distinction Members should understand.

Still, as some of my colleagues pointed out during this debate, specific and discrete acts of wage-based discrimination may be very difficult to detect within the 180-day filing period provided under title VII. This could lead to situations in which an employer escapes liability simply because the person did not know that a discriminatory act took place.

In such a situation, the 180-day filing rule appears to reward bad behavior and harm the person facing the illegal discrimination. I agree with Senator Mikulski that under this situation a strict 180-day filing rule is unfair.

As one of my colleagues supporting the Ledbetter legislation pointed out,

the Supreme Court, in TRW v. Adelaide and in an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, interpreted a statute of limitations arising under the Fair Credit Reporting Act as starting ``from the date on which the liability arises.'' Understanding this could unduly penalize victims of identity theft, Congress enacted a fix as part of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act of 2003. This fix extended the relevant statute of limitations based on the ``discovery by the plaintiff'' of the impermissible conduct.

Unfortunately, this is not the approach the Ledbetter legislation takes. Rather, it would adopt a rule allowing for the filing of lawsuits 180 days after the last paycheck issued by the employer that was affected by a discriminatory act, even if it was a single act that occurred many years ago. Thus, the Ledbetter legislation could allow for the filing of lawsuits long after someone knew they were subject to a discriminatory act, effectively eliminating the statue of limitations from title VII in many cases.

As the Supreme Court noted in its Ledbetter decision, statutes of limitations serve an important policy of repose in our justice system. Under American legal principles, it has long been public policy that a person should not be called into court to defend claims that are based on conduct long past.

As many of my colleagues who have practiced law know, it can be very difficult to mount a defense in cases in which the underlying conduct occurred long ago because witnesses are difficult to locate, memories fade, and records are not maintained. In Ms. Ledbetter's case, the supervisor accused of the misconduct died by the time of the trial. Yet under the approach taken by the Ledbetter legislation, defendants could potentially find themselves facing lawsuits that are years, if not decades, old.

Because she recognizes that paycheck discrimination may not be obvious in the modern workplace and that a bad actor should not benefit from hiding such discrimination, Senator Hutchison crafted a sensible compromise. Under the Hutchison amendment, a person could bring a claim under title VII within 180 days after obtaining knowledge or information that the person is the victim of discriminatory conduct. In other words, you don't start the 180-day statute of limitations until the person knows or has reasonable suspicion that she is subject to a discriminatory wage. But once you know you have been discriminated against, then it is your obligation to bring that to the attention of the EEOC and start the process to obtain relief.

By allowing a person to bring a claim from 180 days after the discriminatory conduct is discovered, Senator Hutchison's amendment stops bad actors from benefiting, and addresses many of the concerns many of my colleagues raised.

Unfortunately, the Ledbetter legislation would swing the pendulum completely in the opposite direction and create an open-ended legal liability that could expose businesses, the very entities we need to help us lift our economy out of this recession, to expensive new legal liabilities.

While this may not be good for insurance companies who write policies and trial lawyers who bring lawsuits, I do not believe the legislation is sound public policy.

Finally, I want to address a related issue before I yield the floor. Besides disagreeing on the solution to the issues created by the Ledbetter decision, Senator Mikulski's legislation did not go through the HELP Committee during this Congress.

While I understand the HELP Committee held one hearing on the Ledbetter bill during the 110th, this hearing occurred before Senator Hutchison introduced her legislation, which is now before us as the pending amendment. As a result, the Senate is left without the wisdom of having testimony and information comparing the different approaches.

While I understand sometimes it is necessary to bypass committees, the Senate has started to bypass the committee process too frequently. So often, as a result of that committee process, compromises can be worked out so once the bill is out of committee in many instances you can get a UC and get that legislation passed, or at least people have had a chance to talk about it in terms of some compromise.

So I am glad to be involved in this debate, but I believe the Senate and our Nation would be better served if the Senate got back into the habit of taking up legislation after it has gone through the relevant committee. In fact, I believe if these two legislative proposals had been discussed in the HELP Committee, the committee might have crafted a compromise bill that had the support of most, if not all, of my colleagues.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Harmonizing America's Energy, Economy, Environment, and National Security Act, that I believe can lead our Nation out of the current energy crisis.

Much of the Nation's attention has understandably been focused on the financial turmoil taking place on Wall Street. Since the very beginning, I have been hard at work in addressing the financial crisis and I will be supporting the economic stabilization bill when the Senate votes tonight.

But I will vote with a heavy heart, for I have spent my entire career focusing on eliminating debt at the local, State and Federal level. While deciding to vote for a package of this magnitude feels like being punched in the gut, the thought of what would happen to average Americans if we did nothing is much more painful. I am, however, very pleased to see that any profit we may make off this deal will be used to pay down the national debt.

This is affecting not only Wall Street but Main Street and my street. Ohioans depend on credit to buy a home, drive to work and send their children to school. If this doesn't pass, the possible ramifications are staggering. Imagine if you can, businesses laying off staff or closing completely because they can't make payroll; retirement funds that have already taken a dramatic hit being reduced to nothing; parents unable to get a loan to pay for child's college tuition; families unable to get credit for a car or a house; cities unable to float bonds to build hospitals or schools; and home prices continuing to plummet.

We must act Mr. President. We must set aside our differences and our ideologies and do what is right. But our work cannot stop here. We must make a full-court press to stabilize the housing market and secure our energy supplies. While we have been debating and acting on the financial crisis, our energy crisis has not only continued, but in many ways grown worse. It remains an issue that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, and if our economy is to quickly recover, a comprehensive energy policy will need to be part of the equation.

I have heard loud and clear from thousands of Ohioans how this energy crisis is directly affecting them and their loved ones. They are expecting that we work together in bipartisan fashion to craft legislation that will address our Nation's long-term energy requirements.

Take for example, the severe fuel supply disruption created by our shortsighted offshore drilling policy and hurricanes Ike and Gustav. Both hurricanes followed paths that paved straight through the heart of our Nation's offshore oil production and home to the bulk of our refining capacity. Due to the frequency of gulf hurricanes, many oil experts have pointed to this as a reason we need to open additional areas of the Outer Continental Shelf outside of the Gulf of Mexico. With 25 percent of our oil production currently taking place within the Gulf of Mexico, gulf hurricanes frequently lead to wild price spikes in the gasoline market as oil rigs and refineries are taken off line to avoid damage and loss of life.

According to the Energy Information Agency, Ike and Gustav lead to a 25 percent drop in our domestic oil production compared to this time last year, from 5.1 billion barrels a day to 3.8 billion barrels per day. The loss in refining capacity cut our gasoline inventories to levels we have not seen since 1967, resulting in widespread fuel shortages that left many in the Southeast driving from gas station to gas station, desperate to find fuel for their cars. Much of the reason why these supply disruptions have not spread across the country is that we have reached out and imported large quantities of gasoline from overseas. Some of which has undoubtedly come from countries like Venezuela, that do not have our best interests at heart.

This situation is cause for concern in its own right, but is also underscored by the current financial crisis and the fact that this is no longer a question about the price of oil. Energy security is a matter of national security.

We have clearly ignored our financial situation for far too long. The national debt stands at $9.6 trillion, almost double the $5.4 trillion debt that existed when the senator came to the Senate in 1999. By the end of 2009, the national debt is expected to have grown to $10.5 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office said the Federal Government will finish the fiscal year with a near-record deficit of $407 billion. These numbers do not include borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund which would put the overall number close to $600 billion and $700 billion by next year.

We cannot overlook our ballooning national debt. Today, 51 percent of the privately-owned national debt is held by foreign creditors--mostly foreign central banks. Foreign creditors provided more than 70 percent of the funds that the U.S. has borrowed since 2001, according to the Department of Treasury. And who are these creditors?

According to the Treasury Department, the three largest foreign holders of U.S. debt are China, Japan, and OPEC Nations.

This is insane and it has to stop. We cannot afford to allow the countries that control our oil and our debt to control our future.

Americans are hurting from our addiction to oil, I'm not sure they fully realize the extent our national security, and indeed our very way of life, is threatened by our reliance on foreign oil.

Every year we send billions of dollars overseas for oil to pad the coffers of many Nations that wish our demise. In fact, in 2007, we spent more than $327 billion to import oil, and 60 percent of that, or nearly $200 billion, went to the oil-exporting OPEC nations. In 2008, the amount we will spend to import oil is expected to double to more than $600 billion, $360 billion of which will come from OPEC. Let's take a moment to put those import figures into context. When compared to our FY2008 budget for our Nation's defense, which was more than $693 billion, the $600 billion we will spend to import oil in 2008 is nearly equal to our entire defense budget.

There is no question that our dependence on foreign oil has serious national security implications. In addition to funding our enemies--as I just explained--we cannot ignore the fact that much of our oil comes from and travels through the most volatile regions of the world.

A couple of years ago, I attended a series of war games hosted by the National Defense University. I saw firsthand how our country's economy could be brought to its knees if somebody cut off our oil.

In 2006, Hillard Huntington, Executive Director of Stanford University's Energy Modeling Forum testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and based on his modeling, ``the odds of a foreign oil disruption happening over the next 10 years are slightly higher [than] 80 percent.'' He went on to testify that if global production were reduced by merely 2.1 percent due to some event, that it would have a more serious effect on oil prices and the economy than hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Let us take a moment to think of our Nation like a business. Our feedstock is oil, and our of competitors control the cost of our oil. We have debt, but our competitors also control our debt. What's to keep our competitors from raising prices, calling in our debt and running us out of business?

I hope this scenario scares you as much as it scares me.

But also keep in mind, that as Congress sat here and twiddle its thumbs over simply expanding domestic drilling within our own borders, Russia and China were actively and aggressively laying claim to energy resources around the globe.

Russia, the world's second biggest oil exporter, has its sights on a large section of the Arctic seafloor that is believed to contain billion of barrels of fuel equivalent. The country has also made moves to control a larger portion of the world's natural gas reserves. Russia, which has significant reserves of natural gas, is considering the creation of a natural gas cartel similar to OPEC. Venezuela and Iran have expressed interest.

Russia has proven it has no qualms with using energy as a weapon. In 1990, Russia tried to suppress independence movements in the Baltics by cutting energy supplies. In all, Russia has used energy as a tool to further their foreign policy goals on no less than six countries. Energy is believed to be one of the driving reasons for Russia's military action in the independent nation of Georgia.

China as well is moving ahead in securing its energy future. In Africa, China is handing out loans and funding

expansive infrastructure projects in an effort to lay claim to lucrative oil reserves. With the help of Chinese investment, Angola recently passed Nigeria to become the largest petroleum producer on the continent.

I am going to be brutally honest with you folks, the future of our country is in jeopardy. We cannot continue to transfer our wealth overseas to this degree without expecting serious consequences. Rather than addressing these national security concerns we have been living the life of Riley, and allowed the environmental movement to run wild.

Congress let them get away with. We let them get away with it Mr. President. Why? Because oil was cheap and so Congress felt no urgency to act. Well, oil is not cheap anymore. While detrimental to our economy and competitiveness, the high price of oil finally spurred some of my colleagues into action and I am proud that Congress has taken some steps to address the energy crisis.

The recently passed fiscal year 2009 Continuing Resolution removed the moratoria on oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf and moratorium on regulations for the development of oil shale. Reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf are believed to equal 8.5 billion barrels of oil, and undiscovered resources could equal ten times that. There are currently 800 billion barrels of technically recoverable reserves locked up in our Nation's oil shale. This is three times larger than the total proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

The Senate has also passed a tax extenders package that includes many incentives to develop advanced alternative energies that will lead our country to a future free of oil. Included in the package were popular tax credits for the wind and solar industry that have helped foster strong emerging industries in my home State of Ohio.

Congress needs to continue to act. I believe the Harmonizing America's Energy, Economy, Environment, and National Security Act is the vehicle for a bipartisan effort to develop a meaningful comprehensive energy plan.

Addressing this crisis requires nothing less than a Second Declaration of Independence--to move us away from foreign sources of energy in the near term and away from oil in the long term.

As you know, oil is not easily found nor substituted, and it will remain an integral component to our economy in the short-term. But we must make investments today that will help us achieve our goal tomorrow. To do this I believe we must find more, use less, and conserve what we have.

In order to find more and stabilize our Nation's energy supply, my legislation would encourage the development of oil resources within the Outer Continental Shelf and with regards to our oil shale reserves. It would also open ANWR to responsible development, where it is believed that there is over 10 billion barrels of oil.

While these resources will not physically come online for a number of years, moves to expand development will send a clear signal to the market that we are serious about meeting our future energy demands and begin to drive down the cost of oil because investors will know that gas won't be worth as much in the future and will therefore sell it off today--lowering the cost immediately.

And while we must increase our production of fossil fuels to relieve costs and reestablish our independence in the short term, in the long term we must reduce our demand for oil.

With that goal in mind, it is essential that we explore alternative means to meet our Nation's energy needs.

It is long past time for our government to provide the spark to rekindle our Nation's creativity and innovation. Following Russia's launch of Sputnik, President Kennedy challenged our country to be the first in the world to land a man on the moon. We must now undertake a similar Apollo-like project to establish clean, reliable and domestically abundant energy alternatives and in turn usher in a new era of American freedom and independence.

My legislation would help to fund such a project by setting aside a portion of the federal revenues raised through lease revenues in the Outer Continental Shelf and ANWR to be used for the development of advanced alternative energies, like wind, solar, fuel cells, advanced batteries, and advanced biofuels. It would also set aside funds to be explicitly to boost funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and to pay down our national debt.

The bill will also repeal Section 526, a provision that places our domestic coal-to-liquid industry in jeopardy. We have the largest coal reserves in the world, and at current rates of consumption, U.S. coal deposits will last for more than 240 years.

Coal can provide significant new supplies of affordable synthetic fuels for transportation. A lot of Americans don't understand that many country's get their oil from coal. In fact, South Africa gets nearly 70 percent of their oil from coal. But we are beginning to make advances here. In fact, Baard Energy is planning a CTL and biomass facility in SE Ohio that will produce 53,000 BPD of jet and diesel fuel, and other liquid production from coal and biomass feedstocks.

Last but not least, as we look to increase our supply and spark new innovation, we must also be more responsible with the energy we currently use. My legislation would fund the development of new conservation technologies and practices and would help to disseminate these across the country.

Americans today demand action and they demand we come together in a bipartisan fashion to solve our energy crisis. For 10 years I have been a member of the Environmental and Public Works Committee and for 10 years I have tried to coax Congress into harmonizing our energy, economy and the environment. Congress has refused and now the chickens have come home to roost.

I believe that the best message we can send to OPEC, those investing in the oil market, and indeed the entire world, is that we get it. We must demonstrate that we are going to find more by going after every drop of oil that we can responsibly drill and that we are going to use less by undertaking a new Apollo project to make the U.S. the most oil independent nation in the world.

I envision an America ten years from now where we have enough oil to take care of our needs. I imagine an America that is the least reliant country in the world on oil, an America where our economy is not threatened by our reliance on foreign energy sources. It will be an America that has created hundreds of thousands of jobs through the responsible development of our Nation's resources and the through the creation of new industries in the field of alternative energy.

Wouldn't it be great for our children and grandchildren to one day celebrate the time America put aside its differences and came together to reaffirm its independence a second time and rekindled the American spirit of self reliance, innovation and creativity to usher in new era of prosperity?

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Harmonizing America's Energy, Economy, Environment, and National Security Act, that I believe can lead our Nation out of the current energy crisis.

Much of the Nation's attention has understandably been focused on the financial turmoil taking place on Wall Street. Since the very beginning, I have been hard at work in addressing the financial crisis and I will be supporting the economic stabilization bill when the Senate votes tonight.

But I will vote with a heavy heart, for I have spent my entire career focusing on eliminating debt at the local, State and Federal level. While deciding to vote for a package of this magnitude feels like being punched in the gut, the thought of what would happen to average Americans if we did nothing is much more painful. I am, however, very pleased to see that any profit we may make off this deal will be used to pay down the national debt.

This is affecting not only Wall Street but Main Street and my street. Ohioans depend on credit to buy a home, drive to work and send their children to school. If this doesn't pass, the possible ramifications are staggering. Imagine if you can, businesses laying off staff or closing completely because they can't make payroll; retirement funds that have already taken a dramatic hit being reduced to nothing; parents unable to get a loan to pay for child's college tuition; families unable to get credit for a car or a house; cities unable to float bonds to build hospitals or schools; and home prices continuing to plummet.

We must act Mr. President. We must set aside our differences and our ideologies and do what is right. But our work cannot stop here. We must make a full-court press to stabilize the housing market and secure our energy supplies. While we have been debating and acting on the financial crisis, our energy crisis has not only continued, but in many ways grown worse. It remains an issue that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later, and if our economy is to quickly recover, a comprehensive energy policy will need to be part of the equation.

I have heard loud and clear from thousands of Ohioans how this energy crisis is directly affecting them and their loved ones. They are expecting that we work together in bipartisan fashion to craft legislation that will address our Nation's long-term energy requirements.

Take for example, the severe fuel supply disruption created by our shortsighted offshore drilling policy and hurricanes Ike and Gustav. Both hurricanes followed paths that paved straight through the heart of our Nation's offshore oil production and home to the bulk of our refining capacity. Due to the frequency of gulf hurricanes, many oil experts have pointed to this as a reason we need to open additional areas of the Outer Continental Shelf outside of the Gulf of Mexico. With 25 percent of our oil production currently taking place within the Gulf of Mexico, gulf hurricanes frequently lead to wild price spikes in the gasoline market as oil rigs and refineries are taken off line to avoid damage and loss of life.

According to the Energy Information Agency, Ike and Gustav lead to a 25 percent drop in our domestic oil production compared to this time last year, from 5.1 billion barrels a day to 3.8 billion barrels per day. The loss in refining capacity cut our gasoline inventories to levels we have not seen since 1967, resulting in widespread fuel shortages that left many in the Southeast driving from gas station to gas station, desperate to find fuel for their cars. Much of the reason why these supply disruptions have not spread across the country is that we have reached out and imported large quantities of gasoline from overseas. Some of which has undoubtedly come from countries like Venezuela, that do not have our best interests at heart.

This situation is cause for concern in its own right, but is also underscored by the current financial crisis and the fact that this is no longer a question about the price of oil. Energy security is a matter of national security.

We have clearly ignored our financial situation for far too long. The national debt stands at $9.6 trillion, almost double the $5.4 trillion debt that existed when the senator came to the Senate in 1999. By the end of 2009, the national debt is expected to have grown to $10.5 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office said the Federal Government will finish the fiscal year with a near-record deficit of $407 billion. These numbers do not include borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund which would put the overall number close to $600 billion and $700 billion by next year.

We cannot overlook our ballooning national debt. Today, 51 percent of the privately-owned national debt is held by foreign creditors--mostly foreign central banks. Foreign creditors provided more than 70 percent of the funds that the U.S. has borrowed since 2001, according to the Department of Treasury. And who are these creditors?

According to the Treasury Department, the three largest foreign holders of U.S. debt are China, Japan, and OPEC Nations.

This is insane and it has to stop. We cannot afford to allow the countries that control our oil and our debt to control our future.

Americans are hurting from our addiction to oil, I'm not sure they fully realize the extent our national security, and indeed our very way of life, is threatened by our reliance on foreign oil.

Every year we send billions of dollars overseas for oil to pad the coffers of many Nations that wish our demise. In fact, in 2007, we spent more than $327 billion to import oil, and 60 percent of that, or nearly $200 billion, went to the oil-exporting OPEC nations. In 2008, the amount we will spend to import oil is expected to double to more than $600 billion, $360 billion of which will come from OPEC. Let's take a moment to put those import figures into context. When compared to our FY2008 budget for our Nation's defense, which was more than $693 billion, the $600 billion we will spend to import oil in 2008 is nearly equal to our entire defense budget.

There is no question that our dependence on foreign oil has serious national security implications. In addition to funding our enemies--as I just explained--we cannot ignore the fact that much of our oil comes from and travels through the most volatile regions of the world.

A couple of years ago, I attended a series of war games hosted by the National Defense University. I saw firsthand how our country's economy could be brought to its knees if somebody cut off our oil.

In 2006, Hillard Huntington, Executive Director of Stanford University's Energy Modeling Forum testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and based on his modeling, ``the odds of a foreign oil disruption happening over the next 10 years are slightly higher [than] 80 percent.'' He went on to testify that if global production were reduced by merely 2.1 percent due to some event, that it would have a more serious effect on oil prices and the economy than hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Let us take a moment to think of our Nation like a business. Our feedstock is oil, and our of competitors control the cost of our oil. We have debt, but our competitors also control our debt. What's to keep our competitors from raising prices, calling in our debt and running us out of business?

I hope this scenario scares you as much as it scares me.

But also keep in mind, that as Congress sat here and twiddle its thumbs over simply expanding domestic drilling within our own borders, Russia and China were actively and aggressively laying claim to energy resources around the globe.

Russia, the world's second biggest oil exporter, has its sights on a large section of the Arctic seafloor that is believed to contain billion of barrels of fuel equivalent. The country has also made moves to control a larger portion of the world's natural gas reserves. Russia, which has significant reserves of natural gas, is considering the creation of a natural gas cartel similar to OPEC. Venezuela and Iran have expressed interest.

Russia has proven it has no qualms with using energy as a weapon. In 1990, Russia tried to suppress independence movements in the Baltics by cutting energy supplies. In all, Russia has used energy as a tool to further their foreign policy goals on no less than six countries. Energy is believed to be one of the driving reasons for Russia's military action in the independent nation of Georgia.

China as well is moving ahead in securing its energy future. In Africa, China is handing out loans and funding

expansive infrastructure projects in an effort to lay claim to lucrative oil reserves. With the help of Chinese investment, Angola recently passed Nigeria to become the largest petroleum producer on the continent.

I am going to be brutally honest with you folks, the future of our country is in jeopardy. We cannot continue to transfer our wealth overseas to this degree without expecting serious consequences. Rather than addressing these national security concerns we have been living the life of Riley, and allowed the environmental movement to run wild.

Congress let them get away with. We let them get away with it Mr. President. Why? Because oil was cheap and so Congress felt no urgency to act. Well, oil is not cheap anymore. While detrimental to our economy and competitiveness, the high price of oil finally spurred some of my colleagues into action and I am proud that Congress has taken some steps to address the energy crisis.

The recently passed fiscal year 2009 Continuing Resolution removed the moratoria on oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf and moratorium on regulations for the development of oil shale. Reserves in the Outer Continental Shelf are believed to equal 8.5 billion barrels of oil, and undiscovered resources could equal ten times that. There are currently 800 billion barrels of technically recoverable reserves locked up in our Nation's oil shale. This is three times larger than the total proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

The Senate has also passed a tax extenders package that includes many incentives to develop advanced alternative energies that will lead our country to a future free of oil. Included in the package were popular tax credits for the wind and solar industry that have helped foster strong emerging industries in my home State of Ohio.

Congress needs to continue to act. I believe the Harmonizing America's Energy, Economy, Environment, and National Security Act is the vehicle for a bipartisan effort to develop a meaningful comprehensive energy plan.

Addressing this crisis requires nothing less than a Second Declaration of Independence--to move us away from foreign sources of energy in the near term and away from oil in the long term.

As you know, oil is not easily found nor substituted, and it will remain an integral component to our economy in the short-term. But we must make investments today that will help us achieve our goal tomorrow. To do this I believe we must find more, use less, and conserve what we have.

In order to find more and stabilize our Nation's energy supply, my legislation would encourage the development of oil resources within the Outer Continental Shelf and with regards to our oil shale reserves. It would also open ANWR to responsible development, where it is believed that there is over 10 billion barrels of oil.

While these resources will not physically come online for a number of years, moves to expand development will send a clear signal to the market that we are serious about meeting our future energy demands and begin to drive down the cost of oil because investors will know that gas won't be worth as much in the future and will therefore sell it off today--lowering the cost immediately.

And while we must increase our production of fossil fuels to relieve costs and reestablish our independence in the short term, in the long term we must reduce our demand for oil.

With that goal in mind, it is essential that we explore alternative means to meet our Nation's energy needs.

It is long past time for our government to provide the spark to rekindle our Nation's creativity and innovation. Following Russia's launch of Sputnik, President Kennedy challenged our country to be the first in the world to land a man on the moon. We must now undertake a similar Apollo-like project to establish clean, reliable and domestically abundant energy alternatives and in turn usher in a new era of American freedom and independence.

My legislation would help to fund such a project by setting aside a portion of the federal revenues raised through lease revenues in the Outer Continental Shelf and ANWR to be used for the development of advanced alternative energies, like wind, solar, fuel cells, advanced batteries, and advanced biofuels. It would also set aside funds to be explicitly to boost funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and to pay down our national debt.

The bill will also repeal Section 526, a provision that places our domestic coal-to-liquid industry in jeopardy. We have the largest coal reserves in the world, and at current rates of consumption, U.S. coal deposits will last for more than 240 years.

Coal can provide significant new supplies of affordable synthetic fuels for transportation. A lot of Americans don't understand that many country's get their oil from coal. In fact, South Africa gets nearly 70 percent of their oil from coal. But we are beginning to make advances here. In fact, Baard Energy is planning a CTL and biomass facility in SE Ohio that will produce 53,000 BPD of jet and diesel fuel, and other liquid production from coal and biomass feedstocks.

Last but not least, as we look to increase our supply and spark new innovation, we must also be more responsible with the energy we currently use. My legislation would fund the development of new conservation technologies and practices and would help to disseminate these across the country.

Americans today demand action and they demand we come together in a bipartisan fashion to solve our energy crisis. For 10 years I have been a member of the Environmental and Public Works Committee and for 10 years I have tried to coax Congress into harmonizing our energy, economy and the environment. Congress has refused and now the chickens have come home to roost.

I believe that the best message we can send to OPEC, those investing in the oil market, and indeed the entire world, is that we get it. We must demonstrate that we are going to find more by going after every drop of oil that we can responsibly drill and that we are going to use less by undertaking a new Apollo project to make the U.S. the most oil independent nation in the world.

I envision an America ten years from now where we have enough oil to take care of our needs. I imagine an America that is the least reliant country in the world on oil, an America where our economy is not threatened by our reliance on foreign energy sources. It will be an America that has created hundreds of thousands of jobs through the responsible development of our Nation's resources and the through the creation of new industries in the field of alternative energy.

Wouldn't it be great for our children and grandchildren to one day celebrate the time America put aside its differences and came together to reaffirm its independence a second time and rekindled the American spirit of self reliance, innovation and creativity to usher in new era of prosperity?

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Specter, Leahy, Bayh, and others in strong support of S. 3325, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, PRO IP Act, which was just approved unanimously by the Senate today. First, I would ike to express my appreciation to Senator Specter and Senator Leahy for the excellent job they have done in ensuring that the Senate passed this important piece of legislation before we complete our business for the year. I would like to thank Senator Bayh. I have partnered with Senator Bayh on this issue for the past 3 years. We first introduced intellectual property enforcement legislation in the first session o the 109th Congress. I believe it is safe to say that we are both pleased that the concepts contained in our legislation have become a part of the PRO-IP Act. I think it is important to point out that the PRO-IP Act has strong bipartisan support in the Senate. When we pass legislation in a bipartisan manner, it reveals the best of the Senate.

For over 4 years, I have been talking about the need for our Government to improve its efforts to protect our Nation's intellectual property from what I have referred to as the Pirates of the 21st Century. At a time when American businesses face some of the fiercest competition ever, our Government cannot ignore the growing threat of intellectual property theft to companies, workers, and consumers. Intellectual property theft is no longer an issue limited to knockoff hand bags and pirated DVDs and CDs.

Today, almost every product made is subject to being counterfeited. The problem of intellectual property theft impacts businesses--big and small. Genuine products manufactured in the United States are competing with phony products, which are sold both here and abroad. At a time when so many American businesses and workers are in dire straits, our Nation can no longer turn a blind eye to this problem. The economic impact of intellectual property theft is overwhelming. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, intellectual property theft is costing American businesses an estimated $250 billion each year and has cost an estimated 750,000 jobs. The chamber estimates that if counterfeit auto parts sales were eliminated, the U.S. auto industry could hire up to 200,000 additional workers. In my home State of Ohio, 200,000 additional auto industry jobs would make a tremendous impact in reversing the loss of manufacturing jobs.

The costs of intellectual property theft are not limited to lost jobs and revenues. There are significant health and safety ramifications. For example, during a hearing I held in July 2006, the general counsel from Bendix Commercial Vehicle Systems LLC, Bendix, which is headquartered in Elyria, OH, testified that counterfeit air brakes used in tractor-trailers are so authentic looking that some of these counterfeit products are returned to Bendix via its warranty claims process. Bendix is so concerned about the safety implications of this problem that it is spending $1 million annually on IP protection and enforcement activities--that is $1 million that this one company is not able to spend each year on other things such as research and development or worker training. Moreover, given the proliferation of counterfeit goods into areas such as pharmaceuticals and auto parts, it is only a matter of time before our Nation sees the dire health and safety consequences arising from this problem.

The passage of the PRO-IP Act is an important step to building upon the efforts that have begun under the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council and STOP! initiative. The PRO-IP Act will provide increased resources for Department of Justice programs to combat intellectual property theft and provide coordination and strategic planning of Federal efforts against counterfeiting and piracy. I am particularly pleased that the PRO-IP Act will create a White House-led coordinator. I believe that the most effective intellectual property enforcement coordination requires White House leadership. As a result, I believe the efforts underway in each Department and agency will have improved effectiveness by placing the new IP enforcement coordinator within the Executive Office of the President. The coordinator will have both the visibility and the access to provide a most effective executive branch voice on IP enforcement.

Finally, while I am pleased that the Senate completed its work on passing intellectual property enforcement legislation, I know that my job is not finished. I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that Congress provides effective oversight over the various agencies and departments charged with enforcing and protecting intellectual property rights and that these entities have the resources necessary to get the job done.

Mr. President, today I honor and congratulate an outstanding community member, distinguished veteran of World War II and

Baseball Hall of Famer who played for my hometown team, the Cleveland Indians, on his upcoming 90th birthday on November 3.

Bob Feller, also known as ``Rapid Robert,'' was born in 1918, and grew up in humble beginnings during the Great Depression on a farm outside Van Meter, IA. There he learned the importance of hard work, leadership and civic responsibility from his father Bill, who worked the family farm, and his mother Lena, who was a nurse and a school teacher.

While doing chores around the farm--including milking the cows and taking the hogs to market--Bob dreamed of becoming a Major League Baseball player. With the encouragement of his parents--especially his father, who had been a semi-pro pitcher--Bob honed his skills and worked to achieve his dream.

Bob and his father spent countless hours playing pitch and catch on the mound and a backstop his father had built between the barn and the house. When it was too cold to throw outside in the winter, they moved practice sessions into the barn.

As he grew, Bob's pitching speed increased, and by the time he was in grade school he was regularly beating high schoolers. Word of his curveball and strong arm quickly spread, and sports fans across the country began to take notice of the kid with the ``Heater from Van Meter.'' As interest in Bob's pitching grew, Bob's father expanded the pitching mound and backstop into a full field with bleachers and a concession stand. A team was formed with Bob as pitcher and his father managing. Hundreds of people traveled to each game at the farm to pay 35 cents to watch young Bob dominate batters with his signature high windup kick and blazing fastball.

Bob began the first of his 18 seasons with the Cleveland Indians after his junior year of high school when he signed with the team and jumped straight to the big leagues. In his first Major League start, he backed up the hype and added to his legend by striking out 15 in a four-to-one win over the St. Louis Browns. At age 17, the win made him the youngest Major League pitcher to win a game--a record that still stands today.

After his rookie season, Bob returned to Iowa for his senior year of high school, and the eyes of the Nation followed him there. In fact, NBC covered his graduation live on national radio.

Back in Cleveland after graduation, Bob went on to establish himself as the premier pitcher in Major League Baseball, as he led the league in strikeouts in 1938, won 24 games in 1939 and, in 1940, threw the only Opening Day no-hitter in major league history. That year he also won a league best 27 games with an ERA of 2.61 and 261 strikeouts to win the pitcher's Triple Crown.

Despite being at the height of his career, Bob traded his cleats and baseball cap for a Navy uniform without a second thought after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. Putting his country first, he signed up just 2 days after the attack, making him the first major leaguer to enlist in the military to fight in World War II.

In the Navy, Bob was assigned to the battleship U.S.S. Alabama, where he led an anti-aircraft gun crew and attained the rank of Chief Petty Officer. During missions in the Atlantic and the Pacific, he fought admirably along with his fellow shipmates in notable battles in the waters off New Guinea, Guam and the Philippines. Though Bob earned 5 campaign ribbons and 8 battle stars, he'll quickly tell you that he is most proud that the Alabama never lost a man to the enemy in battle.

While on the Alabama, Bob stayed in shape by leading exercise classes twice a day, and playing on the ship's baseball team; but his dedication to his mission and his shipmates was unquestioned. In fact, Bob declined an invitation by Admiral Nimitz to leave the war zone and fly to Honolulu to pitch in the Army-Navy World Series game, telling the admiral that he had more important things to do.

Bob missed all of the next 3 seasons--and nearly all of the 1945 season--but he never had any regrets. His wife Anne says, ``For all that Bob accomplished in baseball, and all that baseball means to him, I still think Bob's more proud about his service in the Navy.''

When the war was won, Bob returned to baseball. For many athletes, 3 years off would be a difficult challenge to overcome, but not for Bob. He returned to the Indians for the 1946 season and had arguably the best season of his career, as he won 26 games, pitched a no-hitter, two-one hitters and struck out 348.

After the 1946 season, Bob played a major role in the desegregation of baseball. In a series of exhibitions played across the country organized by Bob and his good friend Satchel Paige, the Bob Feller All- Stars matched up against the Satchel Paige All-Stars from the Negro Leagues. These games offered a great amount of national exposure, smoothing the path for Jackie Robinson and other African Americans who would later enter Major League Baseball.

Bob retired after the 1956 season as one of Cleveland's all-time great players. Throughout his career he won 20 or more games in a season 6 times, pitched 3 no-hitters, was an integral part of the 1948 Indians team that won the World Series and played in the All Star Game eight times. He still stands as Cleveland's all-time leader in shutouts, innings pitched, wins and strikeouts.

In 1962, Bob's achievements were recognized when he was elected to the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility, becoming the first pitcher to enter the Hall in his first year of eligibility since charter member Walter Johnson.

More important than all of the records Bob holds are the lives he has touched and the people he has inspired with his amazing gift. Like so many other boys growing up in the 1940s and 1950s, Bob Feller was one of my heroes. Getting to know Bob and observe his down-home humility, enthusiasm for life and baseball and, more importantly, his commitment to his country, has been a great joy for me during my time as mayor of Cleveland, Governor and now Senator for Ohio. I will never forget being on the mound with Bob and President Clinton on opening day of the inaugural season for Jacobs Field in 1994, and I still treasure the baseball he signed for me that day.

Since retiring from baseball, Bob has continued to touch countless lives, as he has devoted himself to serving the community with the same passion and work ethic that made him one of the best pitchers in baseball history. He is well known for always taking time to sign autographs and visit with fans and has dedicated countless hours to a number of causes. Today he proudly lists the Salvation Army, the Cleveland Indians Charities, the Little League of Gates Mills and the U.S.S. Alabama Foundation among his favorite charities. Bob also remains very active in the Major League Baseball Players Alumni Association and the Bob Feller Museum in Van Meter, IA.

Cleveland will be forever indebted to Bob for his contributions and I am proud he still fondly calls the area home. In fact, he currently lives with his beautiful wife Anne in nearby Gates Mills, where he remains in close touch with his three sons and grandson.

Despite all that he has accomplished, Bob remains the hard-working, down-to-earth, patriotic and compassionate farm boy from Van Meter. When asked once if he could relive any one of the many great moments of his life, Bob answered without hesitation, ``Playing catch with my dad between the red barn and the house.''

On behalf of a grateful Nation, I would like to congratulate Bob Feller on his upcoming 90th birthday, and thank him for his service to his country, his dedication to the community and for sharing his love of baseball and the Cleveland Indians with so many. He is truly a role model that all of us should strive to emulate. I wish him continued health and happiness.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 17 minutes as in morning business.