Floor Statements

Madam President, I will vote against the nomination of Timothy Geithner to be the next Secretary of the Treasury. I do so with some reluctance. President Obama, like any other President, is entitled to have the Cabinet he wants, barring a serious disqualifying issue. And Mr. Geithner is a very able nominee in many ways. Mr. Geithner is clearly a smart, capable individual, with the qualifications to be Treasury Secretary, and he has a host of distinguished individuals attesting to those facts.

While I am troubled by Mr. Geithner's track record on the issues that have contributed to the credit market crisis, I do not base my vote on what is, to a certain extent, a matter of policy disagreement. During the last year of the Clinton administration, Mr. Geithner reportedly participated in the Treasury Department's support for the elimination of the Glass-Steagall Act protections which had served to keep our banking system stable since the Great Depression, as well as the Department's opposition to the regulation of derivatives, the explosive financial instruments that helped trigger the financial market contagion. It those reports are accurate, Mr. Geithner's actions were not singular by any means. Indeed, while I opposed both moves, they each had broad bipartisan support in the House and Senate.

His more recent work as President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank also raises serious questions. At a minimum, he was one of the primary regulators of some of the largest financial institutions in the country at a time when their activities greatly contributed to the eventual meltdown of the credit markets.

As I have noted in the past, I give any President great deference with respect to his executive branch nominees, and the greatest deference regarding Cabinet appointments, even when I may have significant policy differences with the nominee. The matters surrounding the credit crisis largely fall into this category.

Mr. Geithner's tax liability is a different matter, however. I am deeply troubled by his failure to pay the payroll taxes he owed, despite repeated alerts from his employer at the time, the International Monetary Fund, that he was responsible for paying those taxes. It is especially troubling because Mr. Geithner signed documents at the IMF promising to pay taxes, including the payroll taxes, in exchange for a special ``gross-up'' of his income intended to offset the cost of those taxes. Moreover, his earlier interactions with the Internal Revenue Service over his failure to pay sufficient payroll taxes for his household employees make Mr. Geithner's explanations of his failure to pay his own payroll taxes even less satisfactory.

The failure to comply with our Nation's tax laws would be problematic for any Cabinet nominee, but it is especially disturbing when it involves the individual who will be charged with overseeing the enforcement of our tax laws. Mr. President, surely that individual must meet a higher standard than a failure to establish they deliberately evaded their tax liability.

With the condition the economy is in today, and the state of our country's financial institutions, the stakes could not be greater for the next Treasury Secretary. And despite his failure to comply with the tax laws, the seriousness of our economic challenges may be the reason Mr. Geithner is confirmed. Indeed, that seems to be likely.

If he is confirmed, Mr. Geithner will be asked to oversee not only a faltering economy but also the rehabilitation of our financial markets. No Treasury Secretary has faced bigger challenges. I hope that if he becomes our next Secretary of the Treasury Mr. Geithner will be a bit humbled by his missteps, policy, and otherwise, and will revisit the positions he took when he was in the Clinton Treasury Department in light of the subsequent damage they did to our financial markets, as well as his actions or lack of action as President of the Federal Reserve.

Given the enormous challenges he will face and the great talent he appears to have Timothy Geithner has the ability to be a truly great public servant. I hope he will live up to that potential.

Mr. President, Senator Sanders and I are introducing the Veterans Outreach Improvement Act which will help to ensure that all of our veterans know about Federal benefits to which they may be entitled by improving outreach programs. I introduced similar legislation in the 108, 109, and 110 Congresses. I am also pleased to note that there is a companion bill in the House, H.R. 32, sponsored by Representative McIntyre. Last year, the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs approved the bill by a voice vote.

I would like to thank the junior Senator from Hawaii for working with me to improve outreach to veterans. This year, he has introduced an omnibus veterans health care bill, S. 252, which includes a provision creating a grant program for organizations that, among other things, perform outreach to veterans. At my request, this grant program was extended to include State and local agencies that conduct outreach to veterans, consistent with provisions of my outreach bill. I greatly appreciate the Chairman's willingness to consider the key role these agencies play in ensuring that veterans receive the benefits they have more than earned. I would also like to thank Senator Sanders for working with me to expand the scope of this grant program.

Based on Senator Akaka's recommendations, I have made a few changes to my outreach bill this year. He has informed me of the special need to increase outreach to veterans in rural areas. I have modified my outreach bill to reflect this important need.

I was extremely troubled by revelations of gaps in care as servicemembers transition to the VA that emerged as a result of investigations of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I appreciate the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs' attempts to remedy these gaps, but more work remains to be done. It can be extremely difficult for veterans to navigate the VA's health care and benefits systems. This bill will increase congressional oversight of the VA's outreach activities and authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to work with State, local and community-based organizations to perform outreach.

Several years ago, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, WDVA, launched a statewide program called ``I Owe You.'' The program encourages veterans to apply, or to re-apply, for benefits that they earned from their service in the U.S. military.

As part of this program, WDVA has sponsored several events around Wisconsin called ``Supermarkets of Veterans Benefits'' at which veterans can begin the process of learning whether they qualify for Federal benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. These events, which are based on a similar program in Georgia, supplement the work of Wisconsin's County Veterans Service Officers and veterans service organizations by helping our veterans to reconnect with the VA and to learn more about services and benefits for which they may be eligible. More than 11,000 veterans and their families have attended the supermarkets, which include information booths with representatives from WDVA, VA, and veterans service organizations, as well as a variety of Federal, State, and local agencies. I was proud to have members of my staff speak with veterans and their families at a number of these events. These events have helped veterans and their families to learn about numerous topics, including health care, how to file a disability claim, and preregistration for internment in veterans cemeteries.

The Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government recognized the ``I Owe You'' program by naming it a semi-finalist for the 2002 Innovations in American Government Award. The program was also featured in the March/April 2003 issue of Disabled American Veterans Magazine.

In order to help to facilitate consistent implementation of VA's outreach responsibilities around the country, my bill would help to improve outreach activities performed by the VA in three ways. First, it would create separate funding line items for outreach activities within the budgets of

the VA and its agencies, the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration to ensure oversight of the VA's outreach activities. Secondly, the bill would create an intra-agency structure to require the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Public Affairs, the VBA, the VHA, and the NCA to coordinate outreach activities. By working more closely together, the VA components would be able to consolidate their efforts, share proven outreach mechanisms, and avoid duplication of effort that could waste scarce funding. Finally, the bill would give the VA grantmaking authority to award funds to State, local and community-based organizations to conduct outreach activities such as the WDVA's ``I Owe You Program.''

I look forward to working with Chairman Akaka and the members of the Senate Veteran Affairs Committee to make the veteran outreach grant program a success. As we continue to deploy members of the Armed Services overseas at a staggering pace, it is essential that we ensure a smooth transition into the VA for all veterans in need of care. It is the least we can do.

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation that would put an end to automatic pay raises for Members of Congress.

As I have noted when I raised this issue in past years, because Congress has the authority to raise its own pay, something that most of our constituents cannot do, it ought to exercise that authority openly, and subject to regular procedures including debate, amendment, and a vote on the record.

Regrettably, current law allows Congress to avoid that open debate and public vote. All that is necessary for Congress to get a pay raise is that nothing be done to stop it. The annual pay raise takes effect unless Congress acts to prevent it.

This stealth system of pay raises began with a change Congress enacted in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. On occasion, Congress has voted to deny itself the raise, and the traditional vehicle for the pay raise vote is the Treasury or more recently the Financial Services Appropriations bill. But as I have noted before, that vehicle is not always made available to those who want a public debate and vote on the matter. Last year, for example, Congress enacted a consolidated appropriations bill in which all but three appropriations bills were included. The traditional vehicle for the pay raise vote, the Financial Services Appropriations bill, was included in the massive consolidated appropriations bill, along with funding for eight other appropriations bills. Amendments to that consolidated appropriations bill were effectively shut off, thus, in particular, preventing any amendment that would have stopped the automatic pay raise from going into effect three months later in January of 2009. I voted against the consolidated appropriations bill in part because it did not permit an up or down vote on the Member pay raise.

Sadly this is not an uncommon situation. As I have noted in the past, getting a vote on the annual congressional pay raise is a haphazard affair at best, and it should not be that way. The burden should not be on those who seek a public debate and recorded vote on the Member pay raise. On the contrary, Congress should have to act if it decides to award itself a hike in pay. This process of pay raises without accountability must end.

This issue is not a new question. It was something that our Founders considered from the beginning of our Nation. In August of 1789, as part of the package of 12 amendments advocated by James Madison that included what has become our Bill of Rights, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Constitution providing that Congress could not raise its pay without an intervening election. On September 9, 1789, the Senate passed that amendment. In late September of 1789, Congress submitted the amendments to the States.

Although the amendment on pay raises languished for 2 centuries, in the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the Wisconsin State Senate, I was proud to help ratify the amendment. Its approval by the Michigan legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed approval by \3/4\ of the States.

The 27th Amendment to the Constitution now states: ``No law, varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.''

I honor that limitation. Throughout my 6-year term, I accept only the rate of pay that Senators receive on the date on which I was sworn in as a Senator. And I return to the Treasury any additional income Senators get, whether from a cost-of-living adjustment or a pay raise we vote for ourselves. I don't take a raise until my bosses, the people of Wisconsin, give me one at the ballot box. That is the spirit of the 27th Amendment. At the very least, the stealth pay raises like the one that Congress allowed for 2009 certainly violate the spirit of that amendment.

This practice must end and this bill will end it. Senators and Congressmen should have to vote up-or-down to raise their pay, and my bill would require just that. We owe our constituents nothing less.

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

Mr. President, Senator Sanders and I are introducing the Veterans Outreach Improvement Act which will help to ensure that all of our veterans know about Federal benefits to which they may be entitled by improving outreach programs. I introduced similar legislation in the 108, 109, and 110 Congresses. I am also pleased to note that there is a companion bill in the House, H.R. 32, sponsored by Representative McIntyre. Last year, the House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs approved the bill by a voice vote.

I would like to thank the junior Senator from Hawaii for working with me to improve outreach to veterans. This year, he has introduced an omnibus veterans health care bill, S. 252, which includes a provision creating a grant program for organizations that, among other things, perform outreach to veterans. At my request, this grant program was extended to include State and local agencies that conduct outreach to veterans, consistent with provisions of my outreach bill. I greatly appreciate the Chairman's willingness to consider the key role these agencies play in ensuring that veterans receive the benefits they have more than earned. I would also like to thank Senator Sanders for working with me to expand the scope of this grant program.

Based on Senator Akaka's recommendations, I have made a few changes to my outreach bill this year. He has informed me of the special need to increase outreach to veterans in rural areas. I have modified my outreach bill to reflect this important need.

I was extremely troubled by revelations of gaps in care as servicemembers transition to the VA that emerged as a result of investigations of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. I appreciate the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs' attempts to remedy these gaps, but more work remains to be done. It can be extremely difficult for veterans to navigate the VA's health care and benefits systems. This bill will increase congressional oversight of the VA's outreach activities and authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to work with State, local and community-based organizations to perform outreach.

Several years ago, the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs, WDVA, launched a statewide program called ``I Owe You.'' The program encourages veterans to apply, or to re-apply, for benefits that they earned from their service in the U.S. military.

As part of this program, WDVA has sponsored several events around Wisconsin called ``Supermarkets of Veterans Benefits'' at which veterans can begin the process of learning whether they qualify for Federal benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA. These events, which are based on a similar program in Georgia, supplement the work of Wisconsin's County Veterans Service Officers and veterans service organizations by helping our veterans to reconnect with the VA and to learn more about services and benefits for which they may be eligible. More than 11,000 veterans and their families have attended the supermarkets, which include information booths with representatives from WDVA, VA, and veterans service organizations, as well as a variety of Federal, State, and local agencies. I was proud to have members of my staff speak with veterans and their families at a number of these events. These events have helped veterans and their families to learn about numerous topics, including health care, how to file a disability claim, and preregistration for internment in veterans cemeteries.

The Institute for Government Innovation at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government recognized the ``I Owe You'' program by naming it a semi-finalist for the 2002 Innovations in American Government Award. The program was also featured in the March/April 2003 issue of Disabled American Veterans Magazine.

In order to help to facilitate consistent implementation of VA's outreach responsibilities around the country, my bill would help to improve outreach activities performed by the VA in three ways. First, it would create separate funding line items for outreach activities within the budgets of

the VA and its agencies, the Veterans Health Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, and the National Cemetery Administration to ensure oversight of the VA's outreach activities. Secondly, the bill would create an intra-agency structure to require the Office of the Secretary, the Office of Public Affairs, the VBA, the VHA, and the NCA to coordinate outreach activities. By working more closely together, the VA components would be able to consolidate their efforts, share proven outreach mechanisms, and avoid duplication of effort that could waste scarce funding. Finally, the bill would give the VA grantmaking authority to award funds to State, local and community-based organizations to conduct outreach activities such as the WDVA's ``I Owe You Program.''

I look forward to working with Chairman Akaka and the members of the Senate Veteran Affairs Committee to make the veteran outreach grant program a success. As we continue to deploy members of the Armed Services overseas at a staggering pace, it is essential that we ensure a smooth transition into the VA for all veterans in need of care. It is the least we can do.

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation that would put an end to automatic pay raises for Members of Congress.

As I have noted when I raised this issue in past years, because Congress has the authority to raise its own pay, something that most of our constituents cannot do, it ought to exercise that authority openly, and subject to regular procedures including debate, amendment, and a vote on the record.

Regrettably, current law allows Congress to avoid that open debate and public vote. All that is necessary for Congress to get a pay raise is that nothing be done to stop it. The annual pay raise takes effect unless Congress acts to prevent it.

This stealth system of pay raises began with a change Congress enacted in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. On occasion, Congress has voted to deny itself the raise, and the traditional vehicle for the pay raise vote is the Treasury or more recently the Financial Services Appropriations bill. But as I have noted before, that vehicle is not always made available to those who want a public debate and vote on the matter. Last year, for example, Congress enacted a consolidated appropriations bill in which all but three appropriations bills were included. The traditional vehicle for the pay raise vote, the Financial Services Appropriations bill, was included in the massive consolidated appropriations bill, along with funding for eight other appropriations bills. Amendments to that consolidated appropriations bill were effectively shut off, thus, in particular, preventing any amendment that would have stopped the automatic pay raise from going into effect three months later in January of 2009. I voted against the consolidated appropriations bill in part because it did not permit an up or down vote on the Member pay raise.

Sadly this is not an uncommon situation. As I have noted in the past, getting a vote on the annual congressional pay raise is a haphazard affair at best, and it should not be that way. The burden should not be on those who seek a public debate and recorded vote on the Member pay raise. On the contrary, Congress should have to act if it decides to award itself a hike in pay. This process of pay raises without accountability must end.

This issue is not a new question. It was something that our Founders considered from the beginning of our Nation. In August of 1789, as part of the package of 12 amendments advocated by James Madison that included what has become our Bill of Rights, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Constitution providing that Congress could not raise its pay without an intervening election. On September 9, 1789, the Senate passed that amendment. In late September of 1789, Congress submitted the amendments to the States.

Although the amendment on pay raises languished for 2 centuries, in the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the Wisconsin State Senate, I was proud to help ratify the amendment. Its approval by the Michigan legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed approval by \3/4\ of the States.

The 27th Amendment to the Constitution now states: ``No law, varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.''

I honor that limitation. Throughout my 6-year term, I accept only the rate of pay that Senators receive on the date on which I was sworn in as a Senator. And I return to the Treasury any additional income Senators get, whether from a cost-of-living adjustment or a pay raise we vote for ourselves. I don't take a raise until my bosses, the people of Wisconsin, give me one at the ballot box. That is the spirit of the 27th Amendment. At the very least, the stealth pay raises like the one that Congress allowed for 2009 certainly violate the spirit of that amendment.

This practice must end and this bill will end it. Senators and Congressmen should have to vote up-or-down to raise their pay, and my bill would require just that. We owe our constituents nothing less.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, legislation that I have cosponsored for the past 2 years. This legislation simply seeks to protect American workers from pay discrimination based on factors such as race, gender, religion, and national origin. I am pleased that the Senate is on the verge of finally passing this important bill after we came so close to passing it last year. For over 2 years, Lilly Ledbetter, the victim of discriminatory pay based on gender, has worked tirelessly to move this legislation forward and today's Senate passage of the Ledbetter bill marks an important victory for her and the many advocates

around the country who joined with her.

These are challenging economic times for many families in Wisconsin and around the country. Too many workers are struggling to hang onto their jobs, their homes, and provide for their children. We in Congress need to do all we can this year to help create solid family-supporting jobs, but we also need to make sure that people who already have jobs can support their families. We need to pass legislation like the Ledbetter bill to help ensure that workers are treated fairly and earn what they deserve.

I know many of my colleagues in the Senate share my disappointment and frustration that, despite all the gains women have made since gaining the right to vote 100 years ago, they still make 77 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts. It is hard to believe that this pay disparity continues to exist in the 21st century. Unfortunately, the pay disparity not only exists but is even larger in my State of Wisconsin. According to data gathered by the Institute for Women's Policy Research, IPWR, women's salaries were only approximately 72 percent of men's salaries in Wisconsin. The wage gap gets even larger when you look at the earnings of minority women throughout Wisconsin. In 1999, African-American women's salaries were only around 63 percent of White men's salaries; while Hispanic women's salaries were only 59 percent of White men's salaries according to an analysis of Wisconsinites' wages by IWPR.

These troubling wage gaps exist throughout the country and, thanks to the flawed Supreme Court decision in Ms. Ledbetter's case, it is now even more difficult for hard-working Americans to seek legal redress for this inequity in the workplace.

As we heard in testimony before the Judiciary Committee last year, Lilly Ledbetter's experience ``typifies the uphill battle that American workers face'' in efforts to ``right the wrong of pay discrimination.'' After she found out that she was being paid less than her male counterparts, she filed a complaint with the EEOC and then brought a lawsuit in Federal court in Alabama. The Federal district court ruled in her favor, but 2 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Ledbetter had filed her lawsuit too long after her employer originally decided to give her unequal pay. Under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an individual must file a complaint of wage discrimination within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. Before the Ledbetter decision, the courts had held that each time an employee received a new paycheck, the 180-day clock was restarted because every paycheck was considered a new unlawful practice.

The Supreme Court changed this longstanding rule. It held that an employee must file a complaint within 180 days from when the original pay decision was made. Ms. Ledbetter found out about the decision to pay her less than her male colleagues well after 180 days from when the company had made the decision. Under the Supreme Court's decision, it was just too late for Ms. Ledbetter to get back what she had worked for. It did not matter that she only discovered that she was being paid less than her male counterparts many years after the inequality in pay had begun. And it did not matter that there was no way for her to find out she was being paid less until someone told her that was the case.

In Ms. Ledbetter's case, to put it simply, the Supreme Court got it wrong. It ignored the position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the decisions of the vast majority of lower courts that the issuance of each new paycheck constitutes a new act of discrimination. It ignored the fact that Congress had not sought to change this longstanding interpretation of the law.

The Court's decision also ignores realities of the American workplace. Perhaps we lose sight of this in Congress, since our own salaries are a matter of public record, but the average American has no way of knowing the salary of his or her peers. As Ms. Ledbetter noted, there are many places across the country where even asking your coworkers about their salary would be grounds for dismissal.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which has been pending in the Senate since shortly after the Supreme Court's erroneous decision, reestablishes a reasonable timeframe for filing pay discrimination claims. It returns the law to where it was before the Court's decision, with the time limit for filing pay discrimination claims beginning when a new paycheck is received, rather than when an employer first decides to discriminate. Under this legislation, as long as workers file their claims within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck, their complaints will be considered.

This bill also maintains the current limits on the amount employers owe once they have been found to have committed a discriminatory act. Current law limits back pay awards to 2 years before the worker filed a job discrimination claim. This bill retains this 2-year limit, and therefore does not make employers pay for salary inequalities that occurred many years ago. Workers thus have no reason to delay filing a claim. Doing so would only make proving their cases harder, especially because the burden of proof is on the employee, not the employer.

Opponents say that this bill will burden employers by requiring them to defend themselves in costly litigation. This is simply not the case. Most employers want to do right by their employees and most employers pay their employees fair and equal wages. This legislation is targeted at those employers who underpay and discriminate against their workers, hoping that employees, like Ms. Ledbetter, won't find out in time. The Congressional Budget Office has also reported that restoring the law to where it was before the Ledbetter decision will not significantly affect the number of filings made with the EEOC, nor will it significantly increase the costs to the Commission or to the Federal courts.

The impact of pay discrimination continues throughout a person's life, lowering not only wages, but also Social Security and other wage- based retirement benefits. This places a heavy burden on spouses and children who rely on these wages and benefits for life's basic necessities like housing, education, healthcare, and food. This discrimination can add up to thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of dollars in lost income and retirement benefits. In these challenging economic times, Congress must do all it can to ensure that the wages and retirement savings of American men and women are protected and not subject to attack by flawed court decisions or legislative inaction.

On matters of pay discrimination, this bill simply returns the law to where it was before the Supreme Court issued its misguided decision in 2007. We need to do more than just correct past mistakes, however we also need to examine the challenges facing working Americans and address those challenges in a constructive and thoughtful way. I look forward to working with my colleagues to strengthen and improve laws that help working families, including creating jobs, expanding access to health care, and improving educational opportunities for all Americans.

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate was finally able to prevent a filibuster of this important legislation and that we are now on the verge of passing this bill. I am a proud cosponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and I was disappointed when it failed in the Senate by just four votes last year. This is a significant victory for working families in Wisconsin and around the country. Of course, pay discrimination is not the only issue that women, minorities, people with disabilities, and other protected groups of workers confront, and we need to do more to strengthen and improve other employment conditions, like worker safety, as well. As this new Congress gets underway, I stand ready to work with my colleagues in the Senate to advance legislation that protects employment rights and strengthens job opportunities for all Americans.

Mr. President, the next administration will be faced with the difficult task of building a smarter U.S. foreign policy that restores America's image abroad and security at home. Senator Hillary Clinton's distinguished record and testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee demonstrate that she is the right person to lead this effort. Her experience, intelligence and thoughtfulness make her an excellent choice to be our most senior diplomat and to lead a stronger and more effective State Department.

I do share some of the concerns that have been expressed about the potential for a conflict of interest between her work as our incoming Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation. I hope that Senator Clinton will make every effort to avoid even the appearance of such a conflict of interest, if confirmed.

Senator Clinton brings many strengths to this position, and I am pleased to support her nomination. It has been a pleasure working with Senator Clinton as a Senate colleague, and I look forward to working closely with her in a new capacity.

Mr. President, today I want to take a moment to thank President Obama for his service in the Senate. Our new President has some very difficult challenges ahead, as he faces a serious economic downturn, and many critically important national security issues. But he has already shown his ability to handle tough challenges through his outstanding work here in the Senate since his election in 2004.

From the moment he arrived, Barack Obama showed himself to be an outstanding legislator and public servant. I was very pleased to work with him on ethics and lobbying reform issues, first authoring a bill together, and then working together to pass the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. Passing that landmark legislation took a determined, focused effort over many months, and then-Senator Obama showed that he was both a deeply principled, and very effective, member of this body. I was also pleased to work with him on a number of other issues, including the presidential public funding legislation, and I look forward to his continued support on that issue in this new Congress.

I was proud to support his efforts, along with many other members, on the efforts to support our wounded warriors, which he championed. And, finally, I thank him for his support of my bill, authored with Majority Leader Harry Reid, to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. His support helped to build momentum for our effort to redeploy the troops from Iraq and move toward a better national security strategy, and I thank him for it.

We will miss his presence here in the Senate, but of course the Nation needs his unparalleled skills, and deep commitment to public service, more than ever as he is now President of the United States. I look forward to continuing to work with him on issues important to the American people, and I thank him once again for his service here in the Senate.

Joseph Biden

Mr. President, it has been a pleasure to serve with Senator Joe Biden for the last 16 years. He is an outstanding colleague and a good friend, and I know that he will make a terrific Vice President. I have been pleased to work with him on so many issues over the years. For instance, I was proud to support him in his tremendous work on the COPS program. In turn I appreciate his steadfast support of campaign finance reform issues over the years.

Most of all, I want to say how much I have enjoyed serving with Senator Biden on the Foreign Relations and Judiciary Committees. I also can attest to his mastery of the complicated issues he faced in both committees. It is a huge challenge to take on the chairmanship of a Senate committee, and to do it well, but to serve with such distinction as chair of two of the Senate's most important committees is very rare, and it speaks volumes about Joe Biden's service in this body.

I have always found Senator Biden to be someone who I could talk with seriously about issues of mutual concern, or when we disagree. He is open-minded and he really listens. That quality will surely serve him well in his new position. He also, in my view, can be uniquely persuasive. He is one of the few Senators who I have actually seen change people's minds during a committee debate. In a policy fight involving complex issues, Joe Biden is someone who you want to have on your side.

Now Senator Biden becomes Vice President, and I know he will serve the Nation with the same outstanding commitment and skill with which he served the people of Delaware. I thank him for his many years of distinguished service in the Senate, and look forward to continuing to work with him, and President Obama, in the years to come.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in thanking Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for her outstanding service in the Senate, and wishing her our very best as she becomes our Secretary of State. One of the many reasons I strongly support her nomination for Secretary of State is because I have had the pleasure of working with Senator Clinton, and I know what a skilled legislator and committed public servant she is. We have worked on a number of issues together over the years, including fighting for family farmers and especially the dairy farmers that are so important to both New York and Wisconsin. Finding common ground, we worked together to make sure dairy markets functioned properly, to improve the milk income loss contract or MILC program, and pushing for country-of-origin labeling, or COOL, legislation for dairy products. I was also proud to support the Paycheck Fairness Act, which she authored, and to work with her on many other issues.

I also had the opportunity to travel with Senator Clinton and a number of other senators on an official trip to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and Pakistan, where we listened to service men and women on the ground, as well as local leaders. On that trip Senator Clinton deeply impressed me with her depth of knowledge on foreign relations and national security issues. Later I was very pleased to have her support for my effort with Majority Leader Harry Reid to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq, and I look forward to continuing to work with her on these critically important issues as she becomes our next Secretary of State. Once again, I thank her for her service in this body, and I wish her all the best as she continues her service to the American people.

Ken Salazar

Mr. President, I join my colleagues in thanking Ken Salazar for his outstanding service to the people of Colorado over the last 4 years. It has been a pleasure to work with him on a number of issues; he is extremely easy to work with, both someone of integrity and great personal decency. In particular, he has been one of the Senate's leaders when it comes to protecting the rights and freedoms of the American people as we work to strengthen our national security. I was proud to work with him and a bipartisan coalition of Senators on the SAFE Act to change flawed provisions of the PATRIOT Act. I also appreciated his critical support of the NSL Reform Act, to address the serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities. I also know Senator Salazar's deep commitment to public lands and energy resources issues, and I think he will be an excellent Secretary of the Interior. Again, I thank him for his service in this body, and I look forward to continuing to work with him as he assumes the leadership of the Interior Department.

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers.

Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, for 2009, the mileage reimbursement level permitted for businesses is 55 cents per mile, nearly four times the volunteer rate.

During this economic downturn we are asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services, but the 14 cents per mile limit is imposing a very real hardship for charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups. This was an even harsher constraint on volunteer activity when gasoline prices spiked last summer.

I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit. One of the first organizations that brought this issue to my attention was the Portage County Department on Aging. Volunteer drivers are critical to their ability to provide services to seniors in Portage County, and the Department on Aging depends on dozens of volunteer drivers to deliver meals to homes and transport people to their medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services.

As many of my colleagues know, nutrition is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. As I discovered during my ten years as Chair of the Wisconsin State Senate Committee on Aging, the senior nutrition programs not only provide needed nutrition services, but in many cases, the congregate meals program provides an important community contact point for seniors who may live alone, and the meals program may be the point at which many frail elderly first come into contact with the network of services that can help them. For that reason, the senior nutrition programs are often at the heart of the aging services network, and as such are essential for many critical services that frail elderly may need.

Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years, increasing pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for that lagging Federal support. The 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit has made it far more difficult to obtain those volunteer services. Portage County reported that at 14 cents per mile, many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services.

If volunteer drivers cannot be found, either those services will be lost, and those most vulnerable in our society will go wanting, or the services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services. The same is true for thousands of other nonprofit and charitable organizations that provide essential services to communities across our Nation.

By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. As I noted earlier, for 2009 the comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is 55 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees

nearly four times the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence.

This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 109th Congress and the 110th Congress, and largely the same as the version I introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses, and provides an offset to ensure that the measure does not aggravate the budget deficit. The most recent estimate of the cost to increase the reimbursement for volunteer drivers is about $1 million over 5 years. Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. That provision increases the criminal monetary penalties for individuals and corporations convicted of tax fraud. The provision passed the Senate in the 108th Congress as part of the JOBS bill, but was later dropped in conference and was not included in the final version of that bill.

I also extend my thanks to the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for including my bill in his larger omnibus volunteer driver relief measure, the GIVE Act, last year, and the junior Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, for including my bill in this year's version of the GIVE Act. Both Senators are keenly aware of the need for the change provided by this bill, and I thank them for their leadership on this issue.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the tax code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers.

Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, for 2009, the mileage reimbursement level permitted for businesses is 55 cents per mile, nearly four times the volunteer rate.

During this economic downturn we are asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services, but the 14 cents per mile limit is imposing a very real hardship for charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups. This was an even harsher constraint on volunteer activity when gasoline prices spiked last summer.

I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit. One of the first organizations that brought this issue to my attention was the Portage County Department on Aging. Volunteer drivers are critical to their ability to provide services to seniors in Portage County, and the Department on Aging depends on dozens of volunteer drivers to deliver meals to homes and transport people to their medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services.

As many of my colleagues know, nutrition is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. As I discovered during my ten years as Chair of the Wisconsin State Senate Committee on Aging, the senior nutrition programs not only provide needed nutrition services, but in many cases, the congregate meals program provides an important community contact point for seniors who may live alone, and the meals program may be the point at which many frail elderly first come into contact with the network of services that can help them. For that reason, the senior nutrition programs are often at the heart of the aging services network, and as such are essential for many critical services that frail elderly may need.

Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years, increasing pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for that lagging Federal support. The 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit has made it far more difficult to obtain those volunteer services. Portage County reported that at 14 cents per mile, many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services.

If volunteer drivers cannot be found, either those services will be lost, and those most vulnerable in our society will go wanting, or the services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services. The same is true for thousands of other nonprofit and charitable organizations that provide essential services to communities across our Nation.

By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. As I noted earlier, for 2009 the comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is 55 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees

nearly four times the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence.

This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.

The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 109th Congress and the 110th Congress, and largely the same as the version I introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses, and provides an offset to ensure that the measure does not aggravate the budget deficit. The most recent estimate of the cost to increase the reimbursement for volunteer drivers is about $1 million over 5 years. Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. That provision increases the criminal monetary penalties for individuals and corporations convicted of tax fraud. The provision passed the Senate in the 108th Congress as part of the JOBS bill, but was later dropped in conference and was not included in the final version of that bill.

I also extend my thanks to the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for including my bill in his larger omnibus volunteer driver relief measure, the GIVE Act, last year, and the junior Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, for including my bill in this year's version of the GIVE Act. Both Senators are keenly aware of the need for the change provided by this bill, and I thank them for their leadership on this issue.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the tax code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves.

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

Madam President, today I will vote to support final passage of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, S. 22. While I oppose two provisions in the bill, there are many other provisions that I support.

Yesterday I voted to oppose bringing an end to debate on the bill since the majority leader used a procedural tactic to prevent Senators from offering amendments. I had hoped that cloture would be defeated so that we could reach agreement to allow a few amendments.

One such amendment was one I cosponsored to strike a troublesome provision that would authorize the transfer of Federal land in Alaska's Izembek National Wildlife Refuge--a designated wilderness area and internationally recognized Ramsar site--so that a road could be built. The road is purportedly to allow travel between two Alaskan communities in cases of medical emergencies. However, Congress has already appropriated more than $36 million to provide a hovercraft, which I am told crosses Cold Bay in about 20 minutes and to date has met every medical evacuation need in all weather conditions, over 30. The road, on the other hand, would need to avoid the numerous ponds and priority wetland areas--taking 1 to 2 hours to drive--and would not provide safer, faster, or more cost-effective transportation than the hovercraft.

Another provision that troubles me was considered by neither the House nor the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a prerequisite for all the other public lands bills in the package. The Washington County, UT, provision was air-dropped into this legislation. It is unfortunate that the wilderness designations in the provision fall well short of the wilderness-quality land in the county that should be protected. This public lands bill only proposes to designate 44 percent of what is included in the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, which I have been pleased to join Senator Durbin in supporting. Furthermore, this public lands package omits a wilderness unit, Dry Creek, that Senator Bennett has previously agreed to protect in his Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2008, S. 2834.

There are two provisions in the public lands bill that will impact Wisconsin. The first is Section 5301, the ``National Trails System Willing Seller Authority.'' This section is based on a bill I cosponsored in the 110th Congress, S. 169, and will allow the Federal Government to purchase lands from willing sellers for two important trails in Wisconsin: the North Country National Scenic Trail and the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. I would like to acknowledge the efforts by the Ice Age Park and Trail Foundation, North Country Trail Association, Partnership for the National Trail System, and the Conservation Fund to help the National Park Service complete these trails. This provision will establish willing seller authority as a uniform policy for the entire National Trail System, allowing these two trails and seven others to benefit from this commonsense policy.

Section 7116 of the bill also makes a technical correction to the name of the wilderness area in the Apostle Islands, now to be called the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. Removing the ``A'' from the former name--Gaylord A. Nelson Wilderness--is supported by the National Park Service and Nelson's family. Though this ia a small change, I do want to take the opportunity to again express my deep respect for the former U.S. Senator and Wisconsin Governor and my support for the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. In August 2005, I was deeply honored to participate in a ceremony marking the creation of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness and honoring the remarkable life of Gaylord Nelson, father of Earth Day. I worked with Representative Obey to obtain the wilderness designation for 80 percent of the Apostle Islands, but it was Gaylord who was so essential in the effort to recognize the Apostle Islands as a national treasure and establish the national lakeshore.

Madam President, I will support the resolution disapproving the remaining $350 billion in funding for the financial bailout. While President-elect Obama's team has signaled some significant improvements in the actual administration of these funds, the three fundamental issues that caused me to oppose the bailout initially remain.

The bailout continues to be a huge strain on our budget, with no provision for offsetting its cost to the Federal budget--a cost that will be passed on to our children and grandchildren in the form of increased debt. There is no requirement to help families facing foreclosures on their homes, one of the root causes of the housing crisis. And finally it fails to reform the deeply flawed regulatory structure that permitted the crisis to arise in the first place. While we have heard promises of future legislation, the hammer we hold over the financial sector is the bailout funding. Once that funding is approved, we have lost the leverage needed to enact the tough reforms that will get the financial sector to clean up its act.

As I had hoped, a small portion of the financial bailout funds were used to provide temporary help for our automakers and help retain 3 million manufacturing jobs in this country. While I opposed the financial bailout for the reasons I have just spelled out, given that those funds were approved I felt it only right that a tiny percentage of them be used to help millions of working families whose livelihoods depend on a healthy automobile industry. Despite my concerns, I fully expect this second $350 billion for the financial bailout to be approved, and if it is, I certainly expect that the promise of additional financial backing for the automobile industry, and the millions of jobs associated with it, will be forthcoming.

As I have noted before, while some of the troubles of the automobile industry were of their own making, a great many of the problems facing domestic automakers are the direct result of policies enacted or ratified in Washington. The collapse of the housing and credit markets, the result of two decades of the reckless disassembly of a sound regulatory system, clearly hit the credit-sensitive auto industry hard. In addition, bipartisan majorities in Congress, led by Democratic and Republican Presidents, approved deeply flawed trade policies that have further disadvantaged the domestic auto industry. Currency manipulation by foreign competitors that has not been adequately addressed by our national leadership, too, has put our domestic producers at an enormous competitive disadvantage. Given Washington's policymaking complicity in the problems facing our domestic automobile industry, should these additional bailout funds for Wall Street move forward, a slice of them should rightly be used to provide some assistance for an industry that means so much for millions of American families.

Mr. President, over the past few days I have introduced a series of bills that are part of my E4 Initiative, dubbed E4 because of its focus on economy, employment, education, and energy. Today I am introducing two bills that are part of this effort: the Community Revitalization Energy Conservation, CREC, Act of 2009 and the Energy and Technology Advancement, ETA, Act of 2009.

The newest among my E4 bills is the Community Revitalization Energy Conservation, CREC, Act of 2009. This bill will increase the amount of funding available to State and local governments for the rehabilitation and revitalization of the fledgling green economy, and also expand the types of eligible projects to cover energy efficiency improvements to privately owned buildings. While our country is facing its greatest economic challenge since the Great Depression, we have a tremendous opportunity to create jobs critical to addressing the energy challenges we face. The CREC Act amends the recently authorized Qualified Energy Conservation Bond, QECB, program to increase funding for important public-private partnerships to significantly invest in energy efficiency and conservation, a key national priority. It also offers States and local governments the opportunity to create jobs and stimulate their local economies.

First, my bill will more than quadruple the amount of bonds that can be issued under the Qualified Energy Conservation Bond program-- increasing the program from $800 million to $3.6 billion. This will provide the opportunity for private investors to partner with State and local governments to fund energy investments through State and locally issued tax credit bonds. As we give private investors the opportunity to participate in the green economy through Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, we signal to the market that the Federal Government will continue to affirm the importance of investment in energy efficiency and conservation, as well as the development of new energy technologies. Helping these new energy technologies thrive is not only a promising way to develop the next generation of energy technology to reduce our energy consumption, it will also help to spur job creation as State and local governments embark on capital improvements.

Increasing the size of the program will support funding for eligible projects including energy efficiency improvements of publicly owned buildings; rural development of electricity from renewable sources; research facilities or grants for renewable technologies such as advanced automobile battery technology and nonfossil fuels; mass commuting facilities that reduce energy consumption; or financing qualified energy production projects such as wind, biomass, geothermal, landfill gas, and solar.

Secondly, my bill expands the types of eligible programs to ones that reduce energy consumption in privately owned buildings. It would allow States and local governments to help homeowners and businesses make improvements such as heating-fuel saving measures; electricity-saving measures; on-site renewable energy generating devices; or water-saving measures that reduce the energy use of the owner, renter or water provider. Gains in efficiency savings between 20-30 percent are easily achievable through improving lighting, insulation, HVAC equipment and controls for these items. These measures are often one-time and low maintenance or maintenance free once they have been installed. In terms of costs, implementing efficiency measures only costs about 3 cents per kWh of energy saved while implementing wind and solar projects can cost at least two to three times more.

Importantly, my bill will increase the success of these energy efficiency and conservation programs by ensuring the Qualified Energy Conservation Bond program can be used to promote novel payment structures in order to reduce the prohibitive upfront costs that homeowners and businesses must pay for energy efficiency and conservation upgrades. By eliminating expensive up-front costs for homeowners and businesses, we can eliminate one of the main obstacles to making significant energy efficiency gains. Furthermore, we can virtually eliminate what homeowners and businesses have to pay for the efficiency and conservation upgrades by not increasing their out-of- pocket expenses. For example, States and local governments can work with electric and water utilities to bill individuals or businesses monthly for the cost of the efficiency improvements based on the savings they receive. The payment for the efficiency improvements each month will be no more than the monthly energy-savings realized by the improvements, thereby keeping their monthly payments the same as before the energy improvements.

The Center on Wisconsin Strategy states that buildings account for 40 percent of total U.S. energy consumption, 70 percent of U.S. electricity consumption, and 43 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, a larger share than either transportation or industry. It is possible that the U.S. could realize more than $200 billion in annual savings from improved building efficiency alone. However, one of the challenges associated with implementing building efficiency measures is its prohibitive cost. Unfortunately, poor households devote a disproportionate share of income to home energy costs, often upwards of 10 percent, because they have less income and tend to live in less efficient buildings and use less efficient appliances. Through building retrofits we have the potential to generate about 10 person years of employment in direct installation of efficiency measures and another 3- 4 person years in the production of relevant materials for every $1 million spent on retrofits

Large cities and counties with populations over 100,000 would be eligible for Wisconsin's share, $65.7 million, that my bill would allow for. Eligible local governments in Wisconsin include: Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, and the counties of Milwaukee, Dane, Waukesha, Brown, Racine, Outagamie, Kenosha, Winnebago, Rock, Marathon, Washington, Sheboygan, La Crosse, and Walworth.

I commend the city of Milwaukee and the Center on Wisconsin Strategy--they have already begun to develop a

program to address retrofitting residential buildings with energy efficiency measures through Me2--Milwaukee Energy Efficiency. COWS' initial estimates suggest if you could retrofit nearly all of the existing housing stock in Milwaukee, an initial investment of just under $250 million could result in annual energy savings of over $80 million. Examples of other cities that are tackling the issue of energy efficiency in residential buildings include Berkeley, CA; Babylon, NY; and Brookhaven, NY.

All of these efforts to conserve energy require investments in time and money. By combining efforts on two of the challenges that we currently face--energy and employment--we can create great opportunities. Energy efficiency and conservation are in our national interest for our long term economic well-being, for the health and safety of our citizens and the world as we mitigate the effects of climate change, and for our independence and security.

I have urged the Treasury Department to quickly issue regulations for the Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds so the initial program can get up and running. Once regulations are finalized, States and local governments can begin applying to receive an allotment of the bonds to pursue projects that may have been shelved in our struggling economy.

The second energy bill I am introducing as part of my E4 Initiative is the Energy and Technology Advancement Act. This bill will increase partnerships between the Federal Government and businesses to help spur the commercialization of energy, forestry, and other technologies--in other words, to increase the ETA, or estimated time of arrival, for bringing new technologies to market.

Particularly in the area of energy, we must do more to make new energy solutions, like next generation biofuels, a reality. My bill will help make the Federal Government a better business partner for the many businesses that are researching and developing innovative technology solutions our country needs. We are squandering the Federal investment of billions into research and development by not doing enough to prevent new technologies from sitting on the shelf or being shipped to another country. Helping these new energy technologies get off the ground is not only a promising way to develop the next generation of energy technology that will help break our addition to oil, it will also help to spur job creation and enhance rural development.

One obstacle identified by the Forest Service's Wisconsin-based Forest Products Lab which conducts forestry and energy technology research with businesses and others, is lack of Federal support for moving technologies from the research and development phase to commercialization. My bill will bridge this gap by authorizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, which includes the Forest Service, to work with businesses and provide access to resources to assist with getting technologies to market.

By encouraging the USDA to act as a ``business incubator,'' we can increase the rate of success and reduce the length of time for bringing technologies to the market. By providing a bridge to move new technologies beyond the research and development phase to commercialization, the Federal Government will accelerate the development of new technologies and create increased opportunities for small businesses, local and State government, and others.

All energy, forestry, and other technologies will benefit from my ETA Act because it will help new technologies come to the market. It does so by promoting the Federal Government as a better business incubator, encouraging the USDA to provide business support services, and authorizing USDA employees and private-sector employees to work together in Federal or private experimental or product facilities. My bill will also increase cooperation between the Federal Government and innovative businesses by encouraging the USDA to allow rental of Federal equipment and property for the development of new technology.

Lastly, a specific partnership encouraged by my Energy and Technology Advancement Act will spur the commercialization of biofuels. My bill requires the USDA to pursue a biorefinery pilot plant that will allow businesses to partner with the Federal Government to test various biofuels technologies derived from a variety of feedstocks, including woody and agriculture waste.

Certainly one of today's greatest challenges--energy--is also one of tomorrow's greatest opportunities. Today, the transportation sector accounts for 70% of our oil consumption. However, there are promising efforts to significantly lessen our dependence on oil by reducing fuel consumption through increased efficiency and by aggressively pursuing renewable fuels, or biofuels. The commercialization of biofuels will also create job opportunities, support rural development and industries such as forestry, and develop the next generation of fuels that are sustainable and from diverse sources.

Given our current dire fiscal situation, it is more important then ever that we are careful stewards of taxpayer dollars. Not only are both of these new bills fully offset, so as not to worsen our current Federal deficit; they actually provide over a billion dollars in deficit reduction. That's yet another reason to pass them, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that.

Mr. President, over the past few days I have introduced a series of bills that are part of my E4 Initiative, dubbed E4 because of its focus on economy, employment, education, and energy. Today I am introducing two bills that are part of this effort: the Community Revitalization Energy Conservation, CREC, Act of 2009 and the Energy and Technology Advancement, ETA, Act of 2009.

The newest among my E4 bills is the Community Revitalization Energy Conservation, CREC, Act of 2009. This bill will increase the amount of funding available to State and local governments for the rehabilitation and revitalization of the fledgling green economy, and also expand the types of eligible projects to cover energy efficiency improvements to privately owned buildings. While our country is facing its greatest economic challenge since the Great Depression, we have a tremendous opportunity to create jobs critical to addressing the energy challenges we face. The CREC Act amends the recently authorized Qualified Energy Conservation Bond, QECB, program to increase funding for important public-private partnerships to significantly invest in energy efficiency and conservation, a key national priority. It also offers States and local governments the opportunity to create jobs and stimulate their local economies.

First, my bill will more than quadruple the amount of bonds that can be issued under the Qualified Energy Conservation Bond program-- increasing the program from $800 million to $3.6 billion. This will provide the opportunity for private investors to partner with State and local governments to fund energy investments through State and locally issued tax credit bonds. As we give private investors the opportunity to participate in the green economy through Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, we signal to the market that the Federal Government will continue to affirm the importance of investment in energy efficiency and conservation, as well as the development of new energy technologies. Helping these new energy technologies thrive is not only a promising way to develop the next generation of energy technology to reduce our energy consumption, it will also help to spur job creation as State and local governments embark on capital improvements.

Increasing the size of the program will support funding for eligible projects including energy efficiency improvements of publicly owned buildings; rural development of electricity from renewable sources; research facilities or grants for renewable technologies such as advanced automobile battery technology and nonfossil fuels; mass commuting facilities that reduce energy consumption; or financing qualified energy production projects such as wind, biomass, geothermal, landfill gas, and solar.

Secondly, my bill expands the types of eligible programs to ones that reduce energy consumption in privately owned buildings. It would allow States and local governments to help homeowners and businesses make improvements such as heating-fuel saving measures; electricity-saving measures; on-site renewable energy generating devices; or water-saving measures that reduce the energy use of the owner, renter or water provider. Gains in efficiency savings between 20-30 percent are easily achievable through improving lighting, insulation, HVAC equipment and controls for these items. These measures are often one-time and low maintenance or maintenance free once they have been installed. In terms of costs, implementing efficiency measures only costs about 3 cents per kWh of energy saved while implementing wind and solar projects can cost at least two to three times more.

Importantly, my bill will increase the success of these energy efficiency and conservation programs by ensuring the Qualified Energy Conservation Bond program can be used to promote novel payment structures in order to reduce the prohibitive upfront costs that homeowners and businesses must pay for energy efficiency and conservation upgrades. By eliminating expensive up-front costs for homeowners and businesses, we can eliminate one of the main obstacles to making significant energy efficiency gains. Furthermore, we can virtually eliminate what homeowners and businesses have to pay for the efficiency and conservation upgrades by not increasing their out-of- pocket expenses. For example, States and local governments can work with electric and water utilities to bill individuals or businesses monthly for the cost of the efficiency improvements based on the savings they receive. The payment for the efficiency improvements each month will be no more than the monthly energy-savings realized by the improvements, thereby keeping their monthly payments the same as before the energy improvements.

The Center on Wisconsin Strategy states that buildings account for 40 percent of total U.S. energy consumption, 70 percent of U.S. electricity consumption, and 43 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, a larger share than either transportation or industry. It is possible that the U.S. could realize more than $200 billion in annual savings from improved building efficiency alone. However, one of the challenges associated with implementing building efficiency measures is its prohibitive cost. Unfortunately, poor households devote a disproportionate share of income to home energy costs, often upwards of 10 percent, because they have less income and tend to live in less efficient buildings and use less efficient appliances. Through building retrofits we have the potential to generate about 10 person years of employment in direct installation of efficiency measures and another 3- 4 person years in the production of relevant materials for every $1 million spent on retrofits

Large cities and counties with populations over 100,000 would be eligible for Wisconsin's share, $65.7 million, that my bill would allow for. Eligible local governments in Wisconsin include: Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, and the counties of Milwaukee, Dane, Waukesha, Brown, Racine, Outagamie, Kenosha, Winnebago, Rock, Marathon, Washington, Sheboygan, La Crosse, and Walworth.

I commend the city of Milwaukee and the Center on Wisconsin Strategy--they have already begun to develop a

program to address retrofitting residential buildings with energy efficiency measures through Me2--Milwaukee Energy Efficiency. COWS' initial estimates suggest if you could retrofit nearly all of the existing housing stock in Milwaukee, an initial investment of just under $250 million could result in annual energy savings of over $80 million. Examples of other cities that are tackling the issue of energy efficiency in residential buildings include Berkeley, CA; Babylon, NY; and Brookhaven, NY.

All of these efforts to conserve energy require investments in time and money. By combining efforts on two of the challenges that we currently face--energy and employment--we can create great opportunities. Energy efficiency and conservation are in our national interest for our long term economic well-being, for the health and safety of our citizens and the world as we mitigate the effects of climate change, and for our independence and security.

I have urged the Treasury Department to quickly issue regulations for the Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds so the initial program can get up and running. Once regulations are finalized, States and local governments can begin applying to receive an allotment of the bonds to pursue projects that may have been shelved in our struggling economy.

The second energy bill I am introducing as part of my E4 Initiative is the Energy and Technology Advancement Act. This bill will increase partnerships between the Federal Government and businesses to help spur the commercialization of energy, forestry, and other technologies--in other words, to increase the ETA, or estimated time of arrival, for bringing new technologies to market.

Particularly in the area of energy, we must do more to make new energy solutions, like next generation biofuels, a reality. My bill will help make the Federal Government a better business partner for the many businesses that are researching and developing innovative technology solutions our country needs. We are squandering the Federal investment of billions into research and development by not doing enough to prevent new technologies from sitting on the shelf or being shipped to another country. Helping these new energy technologies get off the ground is not only a promising way to develop the next generation of energy technology that will help break our addition to oil, it will also help to spur job creation and enhance rural development.

One obstacle identified by the Forest Service's Wisconsin-based Forest Products Lab which conducts forestry and energy technology research with businesses and others, is lack of Federal support for moving technologies from the research and development phase to commercialization. My bill will bridge this gap by authorizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, which includes the Forest Service, to work with businesses and provide access to resources to assist with getting technologies to market.

By encouraging the USDA to act as a ``business incubator,'' we can increase the rate of success and reduce the length of time for bringing technologies to the market. By providing a bridge to move new technologies beyond the research and development phase to commercialization, the Federal Government will accelerate the development of new technologies and create increased opportunities for small businesses, local and State government, and others.

All energy, forestry, and other technologies will benefit from my ETA Act because it will help new technologies come to the market. It does so by promoting the Federal Government as a better business incubator, encouraging the USDA to provide business support services, and authorizing USDA employees and private-sector employees to work together in Federal or private experimental or product facilities. My bill will also increase cooperation between the Federal Government and innovative businesses by encouraging the USDA to allow rental of Federal equipment and property for the development of new technology.

Lastly, a specific partnership encouraged by my Energy and Technology Advancement Act will spur the commercialization of biofuels. My bill requires the USDA to pursue a biorefinery pilot plant that will allow businesses to partner with the Federal Government to test various biofuels technologies derived from a variety of feedstocks, including woody and agriculture waste.

Certainly one of today's greatest challenges--energy--is also one of tomorrow's greatest opportunities. Today, the transportation sector accounts for 70% of our oil consumption. However, there are promising efforts to significantly lessen our dependence on oil by reducing fuel consumption through increased efficiency and by aggressively pursuing renewable fuels, or biofuels. The commercialization of biofuels will also create job opportunities, support rural development and industries such as forestry, and develop the next generation of fuels that are sustainable and from diverse sources.

Given our current dire fiscal situation, it is more important then ever that we are careful stewards of taxpayer dollars. Not only are both of these new bills fully offset, so as not to worsen our current Federal deficit; they actually provide over a billion dollars in deficit reduction. That's yet another reason to pass them, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that.

Mr. President, today I will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed so that we can debate, amend, and consider the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, S. 22. I hope that my colleagues and I will be given the chance to amend this bill as I have reservations about supporting its final passage in its current form.

While I appreciate the chairman's efforts to make improvements, I intend to cosponsor an amendment to strike a troublesome provision that would authorize the transfer of Federal land in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge--a designated wilderness area and internationally recognized Ramsar site--so that a road could be built. The road is purportedly to allow travel between two Alaskan communities in cases of medical emergencies. However, Congress has already appropriated more than $36 million to provide a hovercraft, which I am told crosses Cold Bay in about 20 minutes and to date has met every medical evacuation need in all weather conditions--over 30. The road, on the other hand, would need to avoid the numerous ponds and priority wetland areas-- taking one to two hours to drive--and would not provide safer, faster, or more cost-effective transportation than the hovercraft.

I am also troubled by the addition of a provision that has been considered by neither the House nor the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a prerequisite for all the other public lands bills in the package. The Washington County provision was air-dropped into this legislation. It is unfortunate that the wilderness designations in the provision fall well short of the wilderness-quality land in the county that should be protected. This public lands bill only proposes to designate 44 percent of what is included in the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, which I have been pleased to join Senator Durbin in supporting. Furthermore, this public lands package omits a wilderness unit, Dry Creek, that Senator Bennett has previously agreed to protect in his Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2008, S. 2834.

This bill certainly has many good provisions, but I hope we can work to improve this important piece of legislation.

Mr. President, today marks the 4-year anniversary of the signing of Sudan's Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which brought an end to the tragic north-south civil war that raged for over two decades; a war, frankly, that for a long time seemed virtually endless. We should keep the CPA in mind as we lament the horrific suffering that endures in eastern Congo, Darfur, Somalia, and Zimbabwe. I am hopeful that 2009 will be a year in which we make significant progress toward peace in all of these countries, and that the United States plays an active role in that progress. The CPA is a remarkable testament to the fact that transformation is possible in even the most seemingly intractable conflicts when there is political will. I am proud of the critical role the United States played in bringing about this historic agreement 4 years ago, and it is a testament to the hard work of Special Envoy Jack Danforth and the leadership of President Bush.

Nevertheless, the CPA is not merely about a piece of paper or a moment in history but a commitment to secure lasting peace throughout Sudan. Unfortunately, this process remains unfinished and increasingly fragile, as evidenced by the clashes that broke out in the oil-rich Abyei region last May. Several flashpoints in the states of South Kordofan, Jonglei, and Blue Nile remain highly volatile. There remain too many arms and armed actors in these areas that are capable of undermining the agreement. Both sides, anticipating future clashes, are spending increased resources to build up their militaries. It is not difficult to imagine a minor incident causing renewed fighting in these areas, which could quickly plunge the north and the south back into full-scale war. Such a scenario would not only be devastating for the Sudanese but could have dramatic repercussions for the wider region.

With elections under the CPA scheduled for this year, 2009 may well be a watershed year for Sudan. The United States must renew and intensify its support for the implementation of the CPA as part of a comprehensive strategy for Sudan. We must continue to demonstrate, both in terms of our diplomacy and resources, a commitment to rebuild southern Sudan's institutions, and support the approaching elections. Simultaneously, we must work with our international partners to ensure that the UN Mission in Sudan, UNMIS, is doing all it can to monitor and keep the peace in Sudan's flashpoints. I am confident that the Obama administration understands the importance of implementing the CPA and will bring bold leadership and a holistic vision to peace efforts in Sudan.

Finally, we cannot ignore how the continued violence and humanitarian crisis in Darfur is a deep stain on the vision of a peaceful Sudan. Efforts at peacebuilding in Sudan will prove futile without a workable political solution for Darfur. Too often in the past, we have made the mistake of focusing on one region of Sudan at the expense of others. This kind of piecemeal approach has proven limited, if not counterproductive at times. In this critical year ahead, we need a comprehensive approach that can pave the way for lasting peace and stability for all of Sudan. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Obama administration to make that a reality.