Floor Statements

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. President, the 2008 Defense authorization bill contains a number of provisions that I strongly support. I support a pay raise for our troops, elimination of the SBP-DIC offset--which I was pleased to vote for--and extra funding for barracks maintenance. I also strongly support the provision limiting the outsourcing of private security functions in war zones. During this time of incredible strain on the women and men serving in the Armed Forces, it is essential that we provide them the best quality of life we possibly can.

However, I voted in opposition to the bill because it contains $70 billion to continue the war in Iraq but no language mandating that we safely redeploy our troops. Seven years after September 11, we remain bogged down in a conflict that is undermining our efforts to combat those who attacked us. We must redeploy from Iraq so that we can focus on the global threat posed by al-Qaida and its affiliates, particularly with respect to al-Qaida's safe haven in Pakistan along the Afghanistan border.

Mr. President, I am very concerned that one of Africa's most gruesome and longstanding conflicts is once again falling off the radar screen of this Congress and this administration. For 22 years, northern Uganda has been caught in a war between the Ugandan military and rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army, leading at its height to the displacement of 1.8 million people, nearly 90 percent of the region's population. Just a few years ago, an estimated 1,000 people were dying each week in squalid camps, and northern Uganda was called the world's worst neglected humanitarian crisis. The rebels for their part are reviled across the world for their horrific brutality. Over the course of the conflict, they have reportedly abducted more than 66,000 children, forcing them into sexual slavery or child soldiering.

In March of 2007, the Senate passed a resolution I introduced recognizing this crisis and calling on the administration to support the ongoing peace negotiations. These negotiations--which began in 2006 in Juba, Southern Sudan, and were mediated by the Government of Southern Sudan--brought a cessation of hostilities and offered the best opportunity in a decade to bring an end to the war. At the urging of this Congress and thousands of concerned Americans, the State Department finally appointed a senior diplomat to coordinate U.S. support for this peace process. That diplomat, Tim Shortley, played a crucial role over the last year in moving the negotiations forward. In March 2008, the parties reached an agreement that was one of the most comprehensive of its kind, including provisions for truth-telling, disarmament and demobilization, reconciliation and accountability.

Unfortunately, the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army--LRA--Joseph Kony, has refused to sign the agreement. Far more disturbing, his rebels now operating almost entirely outside Uganda and instead in the border region between Central African Republic, Congo, and Southern Sudan have resumed attacks and abducting children. They are easily exploiting the region's porous borders and ungoverned spaces a problem which, in my view, constitutes a threat to international peace and security. Yet rather than intensify efforts to engage and pressure Kony to accept the agreement, the United States and others in the international community have downscaled our efforts. Instead of mustering the tremendous resources at our disposal to press the rebels to accept a political solution, we have turned our attention elsewhere again.

As a result, there is now a haphazard military operation underway to contain the rebels by the Congolese military a force not known for its success in defeating armed groups or for respecting civilians caught in the crossfire. Yes, the U.N. Peacekeeping Force in Congo, known by its French acronym MONUC, is supporting the Congolese military, but MONUC is already overwhelmed by its inability to fully address its primary task: controlling the persistent violence in the eastern Congo. I visited that region last summer and it is a region desperately in need of greater security. Without expanded resources and capacity focused

on this problem, a completely new offensive runs a high risk of exacerbating the region's volatility rather than addressing it. We have seen too many times in this part of the world how rash and uncoordinated ``military solutions'' have fueled the flames of conflict and generated new political grievances.

This is not to say that security measures aren't needed to protect civilians in the region and thereby bring permanent peace to eastern Congo and northern Uganda. They are. Until we are able to build the capacity of national and regional institutions, the LRA and other armed groups will continue to exploit the region's borders and wreak havoc throughout these four countries. We need more inter-agency collaboration to consider how we can bolster sustainable long-term civilian protection mechanisms, while in the meantime devising creative short-term strategies to help fill the gaps.

The calm brought by the Juba peace process presented an unprecedented opportunity in this conflict's history to rebuild northern Uganda's institutions, which is the surest safeguard against future violence and instability. I fear that this opportunity is being squandered. Since the cessation of hostilities was signed two years ago, nearly half of the people displaced have returned to their original homes and begun to restore their livelihoods. However, this process has increasingly been fraught with problems. The lack of access to basic services in the villages and transit sites, such as clean water, health care and education, has broken up families and hindered recovery. The lack of a capable and competent police force and judiciary has left women and girls vulnerable to sexual violence. Finally, the lack of programs to address underlying grievances and psychosocial trauma has allowed tensions to fester.

Responsibility for managing northern Uganda's transition lies first and foremost with the Government of Uganda. I realize that the government has limited capacity, but it seems there has been a distinct lack of high-level leadership. In October 2007, the Ugandan government launched a three-year $600-million recovery plan for the war-torn region, but that plan has been mired in confusion. Its partial implementation only began 2 months ago. Moreover, there continues to be a lack of coordination between the government, donors, U.N. agencies and non-governmental organizations. I urge the Ugandan government to show leadership at the highest levels and demonstrate its willingness to fulfill the promises it made to the people of northern Uganda over the last year.

If the Ugandan government leads and takes measures to prevent corruption, the international community should back it up with the necessary financial and technical support. To signal that commitment, I call on the administration to help convene a high-level conference of Uganda donors. Such a conference can coordinate an effective donor strategy to support recovery efforts and hold the Ugandan government accountable. This conference, though, must only be the beginning of reinvigorated institutional engagement by this administration and the next to bring this conflict to its conclusion, which is finally in sight after 22 years. Let us make it clear once and for all that the United States is resolved to see peace secured in northern Uganda.

Too often this Administration has leapfrogged from one crisis to another in Africa, trying to put out fires but not addressing the underlying factors driving these conflicts. This is not a result of lack of interest or dedication from our diplomats, for I have seen first-hand their resourcefulness and hard work. But the reality is that the State Department's Africa Bureau is overwhelmed and under resourced. For places like northern Uganda or eastern Congo or the Niger Delta, we do not have the personnel or on-the-ground presence to respond comprehensively to insecurity. We in Congress must give greater attention in the coming months and years to ensuring our diplomats have the resources they need to operate in these neglected conflict areas. However, that process begins with us committing to these places, not just whenever they hit the headlines but because they are important to our collective security and to basic American principles.

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with the senior Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, the OLC Reporting Act of 2008. In short, the bill would require the Attorney General to report to Congress when the Department of Justice issues a legal opinion concluding that the executive branch is not bound by a statute. Along with the Executive Order Integrity Act of 2008, which I introduced in July with the junior Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, this bill takes an important step toward curbing the executive branch's reliance on secret law.

The principle behind this bill is straightforward. It is a basic tenet of democratic government that the people have a right to know the law. The very notion of ``secret law'' has been described in court opinions and law treatises as ``repugnant'' and ``an abomination.'' That's why the laws passed by Congress have historically been matters of public record.

But the law that applies in this country includes more than just statutes. It includes regulations, the controlling legal interpretations of the executive branch and the courts, and certain Presidential directives. As we learned at a hearing of the Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee that I chaired in April, this body of executive and judicial law is increasingly being kept secret from the public, and too often from Congress as well. Perhaps the most troubling recent example of secret law is the elaborate legal regime constructed by DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel to justify controversial administration policies that operate outside the framework of statutory law.

An opinion issued by OLC is not just a piece of legal advice, such as the advice individuals or corporations might solicit from their lawyers. An OLC opinion binds the entire executive branch, just like the ruling of a court. If a court were to reach a different interpretation than OLC, the court's interpretation would prevail--but many OLC opinions address matters that courts never have the chance to decide. On those matters, OLC essentially steps into the role of the courts as the final interpreter of the law. In the words of Jack Goldsmith, former head of OLC under President Bush: ``These executive branch precedents are `law' for the executive branch.''

OLC opinions are ``law'' in another sense as well. Attorney General Mukasey has stated that DOJ will not prosecute a government actor for criminal conduct if he or she relied on an OLC opinion. Thus, even if a court overturns OLC's interpretation, the opinion may grant retroactive immunity for past violations of the law--effectively amending the law that existed at the time of the criminal act.

The Bush administration has relied heavily on secret OLC opinions in a broad range of matters involving core constitutional rights and civil liberties. The administration's policies on interrogation of detainees were justified by OLC opinions that were withheld from Congress and the public for several years. The President's warrantless wiretapping program was justified by OLC opinions that, to this day, have been seen only by a select few Members of Congress. And, when it was finally made public this year, the March 2003 memorandum on torture written by John Yoo was filled with references to other OLC memos that Congress and the public have never seen--on subjects ranging from the Government's ability to detain U.S. citizens without congressional authorization to the Government's ability to operate outside the Fourth Amendment in domestic military operations.

The few opinions whose content has been made public share a notable characteristic: the conclusion that various laws enacted by Congress do not apply to the conduct of the executive branch. The 2003 Yoo torture memo took the alarming position that the executive branch was not bound by the criminal statute prohibiting torture when interrogating detainees. Likewise, according to congressional testimony of former OLC head Steve Bradbury, the President's warrantless wiretapping program was supported by OLC opinions claiming that the President's wiretapping authority was not limited by the constraints of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The titles of other OLC opinions referenced in the Yoo memo strongly suggest that other statutory constraints have been disposed of in a similar manner.

The secrecy of these opinions cannot be justified or explained away by a wholesale claim of privilege. To be sure, there are sound arguments for shielding from public disclosure deliberations among OLC lawyers, as well as final OLC opinions that are not adopted as the basis for an executive branch policy. But once a final OLC opinion is issued and adopted by an executive

branch agency or official, that opinion is no longer mere legal advice or a deliberative document--it is effectively the law. Indeed, in his testimony before the Constitution Subcommittee in April, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OLC acknowledged that the confidentiality interest in OLC opinions is ``completely different'' for opinions that have been implemented as policy, and that such opinions should be made public ``as fast as possible.'' The Supreme Court expressed the same sentiment in legal terms, holding that ``opinions and interpretations which embody [an] agency's effective law and policy'' are not privileged, precisely because agencies otherwise would be operating under ``secret law.''

There is an even stronger interest in disclosure when an OLC opinion concludes that the executive branch is not bound by a Federal statute. In such cases, the executive branch is no longer operating according to the rules that are on the books, and there is truly a separate--and sometimes conflicting--regime of secret law. Moreover, Congress has an obvious institutional interest in knowing when DOJ opines that the executive branch is not bound by a statute, and the reasons for that opinion. If DOJ concludes that a statute is unconstitutional, Congress may wish to challenge this position, or it may decide to simply rewrite the law to avoid the perceived constitutional problem. Similarly, if DOJ concludes that Congress did not intend for a statute to apply to the executive branch, then Congress should have the opportunity to assess this conclusion and revise the law if necessary to make its intent clear. None of this can happen when Congress is denied access to the opinion.

Recognizing Congress's strong interest in knowing when DOJ takes issue with its enactments, current law requires the Attorney General to report to Congress when DOJ decides that it will not enforce or defend a statute because the statute is unconstitutional. This reporting provision, however, does not reach situations in which OLC stops short of declaring a statute unconstitutional, and instead construes the statute not to apply to the executive branch in order to avoid a finding of unconstitutionality. At the hearing I chaired on secret law, Dawn Johnsen, who served as the head of OLC for 2 years under President Clinton, testified that the law should be amended to require reporting to Congress in these situations as well. Bradford Berenson, former counsel to President Bush from 2001-2003, agreed with this modest proposal.

The bill that Senator Feinstein and I are introducing today grew out of this bipartisan agreement. It was drafted with the substantial assistance and input of Johnsen, Berenson, and an impressive group of some of the finest attorneys to serve in OLC in past years, many of whom are now constitutional scholars. The aim was to craft a targeted bill--one that would allow Congress to be sufficiently informed when OLC purports to release the executive branch from the strictures of a statute, without encroaching on the institutional interests, prerogatives, and privileges of OLC. We took great pains to ensure that an appropriate balance of power was maintained between the legislative and executive branches. The result is an approach that is narrowly tailored and eminently reasonable.

The bill adds a new disclosure requirement to 28 U.S.C. 530D, the statutory provision that requires the Attorney General to report to Congress if DOJ decides not to enforce or defend a statute on the ground that it is unconstitutional. Under the bill, the Attorney General must also report to Congress under four circumstances. These circumstances represent the means by which OLC is most likely to exempt the executive branch from the reach of a statute, in those areas where Congress has the greatest interest in knowing about it.

First, a report is required if DOJ issues an opinion that concludes that a Federal statute is unconstitutional. Current law requires reporting only when DOJ decides not to defend or enforce a statute, which does not necessarily reach cases in which an agency policy conflicts with a statute but DOJ is not presented with the opportunity for an enforcement action.

Second, a report is required if DOJ relies on the so-called ``doctrine of constitutional avoidance'' and cites Article II or the separation of powers--in other words, if DOJ determines that applying a statute to executive branch officials would raise constitutional problems. Regardless of the validity of this determination, the effect is to exempt executive branch officials from the statute's reach--a result that Congress should know about.

Third, a report is required if DOJ relies on a ``legal presumption'' against applying a statute to the executive branch. For example, the Yoo torture memo relied on the legal presumption that laws of general applicability, such as those prohibiting torture, do not apply to the conduct of the military during wartime. The criterion of a ``legal presumption'' serves to keep the reporting requirement narrowly tailored: it captures situations in which the executive branch is exempted from a statute categorically, without requiring reporting in more run-of-the-mill cases where a particular executive action simply does not fall within the statute.

Fourth, a report is required if DOJ determines that a statute has been superseded by a later enactment, when the later enactment does expressly say so. This provision would address situations like OLC's conclusion that the Authorization for Use of Military Force superseded the constraints of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In such cases, reporting to Congress gives Congress the opportunity to clarify its intent.

These reporting requirements are accompanied by several provisions to ensure scrupulous respect for executive privileges and prerogatives. The Attorney General would not be required to disclose the OLC opinion itself, as long as the report to Congress includes the information already required under 28 U.S.C. 530D whenever DOJ decides not to enforce or defend a statute--namely, a complete and detailed statement of the relevant issues and background. Furthermore, the bill leaves intact section 530D's provision allowing the Attorney General to exclude privileged information from the statement; the only information that could not be excluded is the date of the opinion, the statute at issue, and which of the four reporting categories the opinion falls within. No report would be required if officials expressly declined to adopt or act on the opinion, thus protecting from disclosure opinions that are truly advisory in nature.

The bill also protects the security of classified information. Information that could harm the national security if disclosed publicly could be provided to Congress in a classified annex. Classified information involving intelligence activities would be reported only to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees--or, under appropriate circumstances, a more narrow ``Gang of Twelve,'' to parallel the more limited disclosure provisions of the National Security Act.

The bill's targeted focus and careful preservation of executive prerogatives has earned it the support of former officials from both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Former head of OLC, Dawn Johnsen, and former counsel to President Bush, Bradford Berenson, have written a joint letter endorsing the bill. In their words: ``[W]e believe [the bill] strikes a sensible and constitutionally sound accommodation between the executive branch's need to have candid legal advice, to protect national security information, and to avoid being overburdened by overly intrusive reporting requirements and the legislative branch's need to know the manner in which its laws are interpreted.'' They write that enacting this bill ``would have the effect of enhancing democratic accountability and the rule of law.'' I ask unanimous consent to place this letter in the record along with my statement.

Of course, the bill does not represent a perfect or complete solution to the problem of secret law. For example, it would not reach the now- infamous OLC conclusion that the infliction of pain does not constitute ``torture'' unless it approaches the level associated with ``death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions''--an interpretation that effectively exempted the executive branch from the full scope of the anti-torture statute. Moreover, under the provisions of the bill allowing the Attorney General to withhold privileged information, Congress may

well be forced to operate under a significant informational handicap. Nonetheless, the bill represents an important and necessary step toward curbing secret law and restoring the proper balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

When OLC concludes that a statute passed by Congress does not bind the executive branch, Congress has a right to know that the executive branch is not operating under that statute, and to be apprised of the law under which the executive branch is operating. The bill I am introducing with Senator Feinstein codifies that right. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support this common-sense measure.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing, along with the senior Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, the OLC Reporting Act of 2008. In short, the bill would require the Attorney General to report to Congress when the Department of Justice issues a legal opinion concluding that the executive branch is not bound by a statute. Along with the Executive Order Integrity Act of 2008, which I introduced in July with the junior Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, this bill takes an important step toward curbing the executive branch's reliance on secret law.

The principle behind this bill is straightforward. It is a basic tenet of democratic government that the people have a right to know the law. The very notion of ``secret law'' has been described in court opinions and law treatises as ``repugnant'' and ``an abomination.'' That's why the laws passed by Congress have historically been matters of public record.

But the law that applies in this country includes more than just statutes. It includes regulations, the controlling legal interpretations of the executive branch and the courts, and certain Presidential directives. As we learned at a hearing of the Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee that I chaired in April, this body of executive and judicial law is increasingly being kept secret from the public, and too often from Congress as well. Perhaps the most troubling recent example of secret law is the elaborate legal regime constructed by DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel to justify controversial administration policies that operate outside the framework of statutory law.

An opinion issued by OLC is not just a piece of legal advice, such as the advice individuals or corporations might solicit from their lawyers. An OLC opinion binds the entire executive branch, just like the ruling of a court. If a court were to reach a different interpretation than OLC, the court's interpretation would prevail--but many OLC opinions address matters that courts never have the chance to decide. On those matters, OLC essentially steps into the role of the courts as the final interpreter of the law. In the words of Jack Goldsmith, former head of OLC under President Bush: ``These executive branch precedents are `law' for the executive branch.''

OLC opinions are ``law'' in another sense as well. Attorney General Mukasey has stated that DOJ will not prosecute a government actor for criminal conduct if he or she relied on an OLC opinion. Thus, even if a court overturns OLC's interpretation, the opinion may grant retroactive immunity for past violations of the law--effectively amending the law that existed at the time of the criminal act.

The Bush administration has relied heavily on secret OLC opinions in a broad range of matters involving core constitutional rights and civil liberties. The administration's policies on interrogation of detainees were justified by OLC opinions that were withheld from Congress and the public for several years. The President's warrantless wiretapping program was justified by OLC opinions that, to this day, have been seen only by a select few Members of Congress. And, when it was finally made public this year, the March 2003 memorandum on torture written by John Yoo was filled with references to other OLC memos that Congress and the public have never seen--on subjects ranging from the Government's ability to detain U.S. citizens without congressional authorization to the Government's ability to operate outside the Fourth Amendment in domestic military operations.

The few opinions whose content has been made public share a notable characteristic: the conclusion that various laws enacted by Congress do not apply to the conduct of the executive branch. The 2003 Yoo torture memo took the alarming position that the executive branch was not bound by the criminal statute prohibiting torture when interrogating detainees. Likewise, according to congressional testimony of former OLC head Steve Bradbury, the President's warrantless wiretapping program was supported by OLC opinions claiming that the President's wiretapping authority was not limited by the constraints of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The titles of other OLC opinions referenced in the Yoo memo strongly suggest that other statutory constraints have been disposed of in a similar manner.

The secrecy of these opinions cannot be justified or explained away by a wholesale claim of privilege. To be sure, there are sound arguments for shielding from public disclosure deliberations among OLC lawyers, as well as final OLC opinions that are not adopted as the basis for an executive branch policy. But once a final OLC opinion is issued and adopted by an executive

branch agency or official, that opinion is no longer mere legal advice or a deliberative document--it is effectively the law. Indeed, in his testimony before the Constitution Subcommittee in April, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OLC acknowledged that the confidentiality interest in OLC opinions is ``completely different'' for opinions that have been implemented as policy, and that such opinions should be made public ``as fast as possible.'' The Supreme Court expressed the same sentiment in legal terms, holding that ``opinions and interpretations which embody [an] agency's effective law and policy'' are not privileged, precisely because agencies otherwise would be operating under ``secret law.''

There is an even stronger interest in disclosure when an OLC opinion concludes that the executive branch is not bound by a Federal statute. In such cases, the executive branch is no longer operating according to the rules that are on the books, and there is truly a separate--and sometimes conflicting--regime of secret law. Moreover, Congress has an obvious institutional interest in knowing when DOJ opines that the executive branch is not bound by a statute, and the reasons for that opinion. If DOJ concludes that a statute is unconstitutional, Congress may wish to challenge this position, or it may decide to simply rewrite the law to avoid the perceived constitutional problem. Similarly, if DOJ concludes that Congress did not intend for a statute to apply to the executive branch, then Congress should have the opportunity to assess this conclusion and revise the law if necessary to make its intent clear. None of this can happen when Congress is denied access to the opinion.

Recognizing Congress's strong interest in knowing when DOJ takes issue with its enactments, current law requires the Attorney General to report to Congress when DOJ decides that it will not enforce or defend a statute because the statute is unconstitutional. This reporting provision, however, does not reach situations in which OLC stops short of declaring a statute unconstitutional, and instead construes the statute not to apply to the executive branch in order to avoid a finding of unconstitutionality. At the hearing I chaired on secret law, Dawn Johnsen, who served as the head of OLC for 2 years under President Clinton, testified that the law should be amended to require reporting to Congress in these situations as well. Bradford Berenson, former counsel to President Bush from 2001-2003, agreed with this modest proposal.

The bill that Senator Feinstein and I are introducing today grew out of this bipartisan agreement. It was drafted with the substantial assistance and input of Johnsen, Berenson, and an impressive group of some of the finest attorneys to serve in OLC in past years, many of whom are now constitutional scholars. The aim was to craft a targeted bill--one that would allow Congress to be sufficiently informed when OLC purports to release the executive branch from the strictures of a statute, without encroaching on the institutional interests, prerogatives, and privileges of OLC. We took great pains to ensure that an appropriate balance of power was maintained between the legislative and executive branches. The result is an approach that is narrowly tailored and eminently reasonable.

The bill adds a new disclosure requirement to 28 U.S.C. 530D, the statutory provision that requires the Attorney General to report to Congress if DOJ decides not to enforce or defend a statute on the ground that it is unconstitutional. Under the bill, the Attorney General must also report to Congress under four circumstances. These circumstances represent the means by which OLC is most likely to exempt the executive branch from the reach of a statute, in those areas where Congress has the greatest interest in knowing about it.

First, a report is required if DOJ issues an opinion that concludes that a Federal statute is unconstitutional. Current law requires reporting only when DOJ decides not to defend or enforce a statute, which does not necessarily reach cases in which an agency policy conflicts with a statute but DOJ is not presented with the opportunity for an enforcement action.

Second, a report is required if DOJ relies on the so-called ``doctrine of constitutional avoidance'' and cites Article II or the separation of powers--in other words, if DOJ determines that applying a statute to executive branch officials would raise constitutional problems. Regardless of the validity of this determination, the effect is to exempt executive branch officials from the statute's reach--a result that Congress should know about.

Third, a report is required if DOJ relies on a ``legal presumption'' against applying a statute to the executive branch. For example, the Yoo torture memo relied on the legal presumption that laws of general applicability, such as those prohibiting torture, do not apply to the conduct of the military during wartime. The criterion of a ``legal presumption'' serves to keep the reporting requirement narrowly tailored: it captures situations in which the executive branch is exempted from a statute categorically, without requiring reporting in more run-of-the-mill cases where a particular executive action simply does not fall within the statute.

Fourth, a report is required if DOJ determines that a statute has been superseded by a later enactment, when the later enactment does expressly say so. This provision would address situations like OLC's conclusion that the Authorization for Use of Military Force superseded the constraints of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In such cases, reporting to Congress gives Congress the opportunity to clarify its intent.

These reporting requirements are accompanied by several provisions to ensure scrupulous respect for executive privileges and prerogatives. The Attorney General would not be required to disclose the OLC opinion itself, as long as the report to Congress includes the information already required under 28 U.S.C. 530D whenever DOJ decides not to enforce or defend a statute--namely, a complete and detailed statement of the relevant issues and background. Furthermore, the bill leaves intact section 530D's provision allowing the Attorney General to exclude privileged information from the statement; the only information that could not be excluded is the date of the opinion, the statute at issue, and which of the four reporting categories the opinion falls within. No report would be required if officials expressly declined to adopt or act on the opinion, thus protecting from disclosure opinions that are truly advisory in nature.

The bill also protects the security of classified information. Information that could harm the national security if disclosed publicly could be provided to Congress in a classified annex. Classified information involving intelligence activities would be reported only to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees--or, under appropriate circumstances, a more narrow ``Gang of Twelve,'' to parallel the more limited disclosure provisions of the National Security Act.

The bill's targeted focus and careful preservation of executive prerogatives has earned it the support of former officials from both the Clinton and Bush Administrations. Former head of OLC, Dawn Johnsen, and former counsel to President Bush, Bradford Berenson, have written a joint letter endorsing the bill. In their words: ``[W]e believe [the bill] strikes a sensible and constitutionally sound accommodation between the executive branch's need to have candid legal advice, to protect national security information, and to avoid being overburdened by overly intrusive reporting requirements and the legislative branch's need to know the manner in which its laws are interpreted.'' They write that enacting this bill ``would have the effect of enhancing democratic accountability and the rule of law.'' I ask unanimous consent to place this letter in the record along with my statement.

Of course, the bill does not represent a perfect or complete solution to the problem of secret law. For example, it would not reach the now- infamous OLC conclusion that the infliction of pain does not constitute ``torture'' unless it approaches the level associated with ``death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions''--an interpretation that effectively exempted the executive branch from the full scope of the anti-torture statute. Moreover, under the provisions of the bill allowing the Attorney General to withhold privileged information, Congress may

well be forced to operate under a significant informational handicap. Nonetheless, the bill represents an important and necessary step toward curbing secret law and restoring the proper balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

When OLC concludes that a statute passed by Congress does not bind the executive branch, Congress has a right to know that the executive branch is not operating under that statute, and to be apprised of the law under which the executive branch is operating. The bill I am introducing with Senator Feinstein codifies that right. I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support this common-sense measure.

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

Mr. President, last week marked the fourth anniversary of the tragic death of Munir Said Thalib, one of Indonesia's leading human rights defenders. Munir was powerful voice who brought attention to the human rights violations committed by Indonesia's military in East Timor, Papua, and Aceh Province during and after the rule of President Suharto. He founded the Commission for Disappearances and Victims of Violence (Kontras) and championed accountability and justice on behalf of the victims of ``disappearances'' during the final days of the regime in the late 1990s. Munir, 37, was poisoned with arsenic while traveling from Jakarta to Amsterdam to study international humanitarian law.

Munir as a singular figure who inspired crowds with his impassioned pleas for nonviolence, worked with progressive elements in the military even while challenging army abuses, and made a point of using himself as an example to inspire others. By refusing to show fear in the face of threats and intimidation, including several attempts on his life, he served as a model for those otherwise afraid to stand up to human rights violators.

Now, 4 years after Munir's untimely death, there is promise that those responsible for his murder will be brought to justice. Despite delays and setbacks, two of those charged have now been convicted, but those who planned the assassination remained at large. Now, 3 years after a fact-finding team established by current President Yudhoyono discovered evidence of involvement by officials of the State Intelligence Agency, a retired general and former senior intelligence officer is on trial for his alleged role in the crime. This trial is an opportunity for Munir's friends and family, for the Indonesian Government, and for the citizens of Indonesia, to obtain a fair accounting of the facts and application of the law. I note with appreciation the work of the investigators in the case so far and convey my strongest support for a fair, timely and transparent process and a just outcome for all concerned.

President Yudhoyono has called the case a test for Indonesia, and Munir's supporters similarly argue that ``justice for Munir is justice for all.'' The willingness of the government to investigate the role of senior staff at the State Intelligence Agency is a significant step forward, and I hope it is an indication of increased accountability more generally. Those who committed human rights abuses must be identified and brought to justice, both to provide a sense of closure for victims who suffered these atrocities as well as to set the important precedent that human and political rights play an important role in today's Indonesia. I encourage the Indonesian Government to undertake similar investigations for other crimes, and urge them to do so in a timely and fair manner.

The decision to undertake this trial is an important indicator of the government's commitment to address ongoing human rights abuses, and to protect human rights activists. I am hopeful this will be the beginning of a more systematic process that prioritizes basic human rights and the rule of law and recognizes that Indonesia has yet to deal effectively with past human rights violations in Aceh, East Timor, Papua, Jakarta, and elsewhere. I hope the resolution of Munir's case will be a blow against impunity and provide an opportunity to promote much-needed military and intelligence reform. Indonesia has made positive reforms since the end of the Suharto regime, but must continue to develop proper mechanisms for accountability, to ensure that such human rights abuses are not repeated.

Indonesia continues to be an important ally of the United States and we must work toward a strong and effective partnership, particularly as we

seek to combat extremism around the globe. It is in the national interest of both countries for Indonesia to successfully complete its process of reform and democratization. However, this strengthening relationship must not come at the expense of a principled stance on human rights and accountability. As we commemorate Munir's death, we must remember that part of this commemoration includes addressing the continuing legacy of Indonesia's recent authoritarian past.

Mr. President, our Government agencies collect and report a range of economic information but much of what we see or hear is most suited to describing the general state of the country's economy. This information does not reflect what is happening in and what matters most to our families and the quality of our lives. For example, our national unemployment figures don't tell us that those who are employed may not have benefits, or that they are working two or three jobs to earn the income that they report, or that their mortgage debt and college loans are jeopardizing their ability to repay their credit card debt or their medical bills. By knowing and reporting this kind of information we can not only more accurately reflect what our families are experiencing economically, we can better inform policymakers about what matters most to people and the steps that need to be taken to address household economic needs and concerns.

To address this need I am introducing the Commission on Measures of Household Economic Security Act of 2008. The bill would establish a bipartisan congressional commission of 8 economic experts to look at existing government economic data and identify the possible need for new information, more accurate methodologies and better ways to report these economic measures to give a more accurate and reliable picture of the economic well being of American households. As part of their effort, the Commission will be asked to meet with representative groups of the public so that their views are taken into account in the Commission's recommendations.

In doing this, the Commission will look at such things as the current debt situation of American individuals and households, including categories of debt such as credit card debt, education related loans and mortgage payments; the movement Americans between salaried jobs with benefits to single or multiple wage jobs with limited or no benefits with a comparison of income to include the value of benefits programs such as health insurance and retirement plans; the percentage of Americans who are covered by both employer-provided and individual health care plans and the extent of coverage per dollar paid by both employers and employees; the savings rate, including both standard savings plans and pension plans; the disparity in income distribution over time and between different demographic and geographic groups; and the breakdown of household expenditures between such categories as food, shelter, medical expenses, debt servicing, and energy.

In addition, the Commission will consider the relevance of certain non-market activities, like household production, education, and volunteer services that affect the economic well being of households but are not measured or valued in currently reported economic statistics. As Robert F. Kennedy has famously said, some of our economic indicators measure ``everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.'' We need to make an effort to value more than just our gross domestic product and sales receipts. We need to better measure and understand what matters to American households.

This effort to improve how we measure what matters in our economy is very much in the Wisconsin tradition of accountable good Government. It was Senator Robert LaFollette, Jr. who, in 1932, introduced a resolution requiring the U.S. Government to establish a more scientific, specific and accurate set of measures of the health of the U.S. economy. From his request, Simon Kuznets, a University of Pennsylvania economics professor, developed the first set of national accounts which form the basis for today's measure of GDP and other economic indicators. Kuznets won the 1971 Nobel Prize in Economics ``for his empirically founded interpretation of economic growth which has led to new and deepened insight into the economic and social structure and process of development.'' His work was the basis for much of the New Deal reform policies. Yet Kuznets specifically acknowledged that his measures were incomplete and did not go far enough to measure what may really matter. In his 1934 report to the Senate on his compilation of statistics associated with Gross National Product he concluded: ``The welfare of a nation can . . . scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as [so] defined . . . .'' This bill is intended to advance these earlier efforts to make our economic statistical measures more reflective of the welfare of our families and our nation.

The cost of this commission will be fully covered by amounts already authorized and appropriated to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation

Mr. President, our Government agencies collect and report a range of economic information but much of what we see or hear is most suited to describing the general state of the country's economy. This information does not reflect what is happening in and what matters most to our families and the quality of our lives. For example, our national unemployment figures don't tell us that those who are employed may not have benefits, or that they are working two or three jobs to earn the income that they report, or that their mortgage debt and college loans are jeopardizing their ability to repay their credit card debt or their medical bills. By knowing and reporting this kind of information we can not only more accurately reflect what our families are experiencing economically, we can better inform policymakers about what matters most to people and the steps that need to be taken to address household economic needs and concerns.

To address this need I am introducing the Commission on Measures of Household Economic Security Act of 2008. The bill would establish a bipartisan congressional commission of 8 economic experts to look at existing government economic data and identify the possible need for new information, more accurate methodologies and better ways to report these economic measures to give a more accurate and reliable picture of the economic well being of American households. As part of their effort, the Commission will be asked to meet with representative groups of the public so that their views are taken into account in the Commission's recommendations.

In doing this, the Commission will look at such things as the current debt situation of American individuals and households, including categories of debt such as credit card debt, education related loans and mortgage payments; the movement Americans between salaried jobs with benefits to single or multiple wage jobs with limited or no benefits with a comparison of income to include the value of benefits programs such as health insurance and retirement plans; the percentage of Americans who are covered by both employer-provided and individual health care plans and the extent of coverage per dollar paid by both employers and employees; the savings rate, including both standard savings plans and pension plans; the disparity in income distribution over time and between different demographic and geographic groups; and the breakdown of household expenditures between such categories as food, shelter, medical expenses, debt servicing, and energy.

In addition, the Commission will consider the relevance of certain non-market activities, like household production, education, and volunteer services that affect the economic well being of households but are not measured or valued in currently reported economic statistics. As Robert F. Kennedy has famously said, some of our economic indicators measure ``everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.'' We need to make an effort to value more than just our gross domestic product and sales receipts. We need to better measure and understand what matters to American households.

This effort to improve how we measure what matters in our economy is very much in the Wisconsin tradition of accountable good Government. It was Senator Robert LaFollette, Jr. who, in 1932, introduced a resolution requiring the U.S. Government to establish a more scientific, specific and accurate set of measures of the health of the U.S. economy. From his request, Simon Kuznets, a University of Pennsylvania economics professor, developed the first set of national accounts which form the basis for today's measure of GDP and other economic indicators. Kuznets won the 1971 Nobel Prize in Economics ``for his empirically founded interpretation of economic growth which has led to new and deepened insight into the economic and social structure and process of development.'' His work was the basis for much of the New Deal reform policies. Yet Kuznets specifically acknowledged that his measures were incomplete and did not go far enough to measure what may really matter. In his 1934 report to the Senate on his compilation of statistics associated with Gross National Product he concluded: ``The welfare of a nation can . . . scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as [so] defined . . . .'' This bill is intended to advance these earlier efforts to make our economic statistical measures more reflective of the welfare of our families and our nation.

The cost of this commission will be fully covered by amounts already authorized and appropriated to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I urge my colleagues to support my legislation

Mr. President, today, like any other day, Americans will be busy getting to work, getting the kids off to school, and getting dinner on the table. Despite all those demands, however, today Americans will also pause to remember, with deep sadness, the terrible events that occurred on September 11, 2001. We are united by that sadness, just as we are united by our conviction that we must do everything in our power to prevent another such tragedy.

Our common purpose today is to honor the memory of those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001; to remember a day that began like any other, but quickly descended into chaos, with fire and smoke that engulfed the World Trade Towers, billowed out of the Pentagon, and rose from an empty field near Shanksville, PA. But 7 years later, we not only remember what was lost, but what rose from the ashes, because since that day we have all learned a great deal about the strength of the American people. September ll reminds us how resilient we are as a nation, and in a time when our Nation faces so many challenges at home and abroad, that reservoir of strength is invaluable.

It is with great pride in the American people, and deep gratitude to people around the world who stood with us on that day, that I remember that day, and its aftermath. I have so often thought, then and now, how senseless those attacks were, and how people from all over the world perished alongside so many Americans. It is our great diversity of every kind--of our people, our culture, our geography--that makes us such a strong and vibrant country. No act, however terrible, has ever changed that, or ever will.

This is a difficult day for all of us, but especially for those who lost loved ones on that day. We share in their sorrow, even though we cannot imagine their pain. In a day that may otherwise seem ordinary, we are all jolted back to the tragic events of that day in September which began with such calm, blue skies. It was a day unlike any we have ever known and unlike any we hope to see ever again. Seven years later, however, it is heartening to see how we have moved forward from that tragedy. More than ever, we are committed to our communities, to each other, and to this great Nation and its highest ideals. That is where our resilience lies, and, on this day of all days, that is what makes us stronger as a nation and as a people.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Energy and Technology Advancement, ETA, Act of 2008. At its heart, 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.

This bill is among the bills I have introduced this week as part of my E4 Initiative, dubbed E4 because of its focus on Economy, Employment, Education, and Energy.

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 addiction 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. The cost of the legislation is fully offset so as to not increase the Federal deficit.

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 percent 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.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Energy and Technology Advancement, ETA, Act of 2008. At its heart, 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.

This bill is among the bills I have introduced this week as part of my E4 Initiative, dubbed E4 because of its focus on Economy, Employment, Education, and Energy.

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 addiction 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. The cost of the legislation is fully offset so as to not increase the Federal deficit.

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 percent 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.

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

Mr. President, today I introduce a simple bill that is the first step toward helping American workers and businesses. The Skills Standards Certification Evaluation Act of 2008 will require the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce to evaluate skills standards certification programs that have been developed with Federal funding.

Skills Standards Certifications have emerged in the past 2 decades in response to job growth in high-technology and varied industries. The training or classes usually take weeks or months, rather than years. Often, they are developed in response to the needs of one industry or even one company, though the skills may be applicable more widely.

The Federal government has taken conflicting approaches to skills standards certifications over the past two decades. That is why, as part of the Skills Standards Certification Evaluation Act, I require a recommendation from the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce on how Congress ought to move forward with funding for these certification programs. Both the national, top-down, and a local, bottom-up approach have been tried, and a thorough evaluation will make clear how we can move forward to get the most out of the funding the Federal Government provides.

These certifications have a tremendous benefit for workers. First, because the training is often condensed into a few weeks with a flexible schedule, it allows people to complete certifications without leaving a current job and without the financial cost of attending a full-time program that lasts a year or more. In addition, these programs allow workers to clearly demonstrate a certain set of skills, and may open more doors for higher-paying employment. Because these programs can be completed without leaving work, they also allow workers to advance within a career or company to

more skilled positions and better wages and benefits.

For employers, Skills Standards Certifications can simplify the search for employees. I have heard from numerous Wisconsin employers, especially small businesses with limited resources, that it is hard to find employees with the skills they need, or who will be dedicated and loyal. Skills Standards Certifications clearly show the qualification of an individual, of course, but also tell the employer that he or she is dedicated enough to invest in the course to earn the certificate. Very few people will spend the time and money to enroll in such a program if they don't intend to use the certificate.

Lastly, these programs can help State and local governments quantify their skilled workforce, which can be invaluable when marketing the area to businesses and investment.

This bill is a small first step in what I hope can be a continuing effort to help hard working Americans obtain and use high-demand work skills.

Mr. President, today I introduce another piece of my E4 initiative, so named because it is a collection of proposals that address issues important to the economy, education, employment and energy. The piece of legislation I am introducing now focuses on the important supporting role that transportation can play in economic development by creating an environment where employers and those seeking employment or better employment are connected together. Having such a system to overcome transportation hurdles can benefit both employers and employees, as well as the local economy.

In more general terms, investing in our infrastructure like roads, bridges and transit systems can have direct job creation impacts. This is one reason I have fought hard with the rest of the delegation for a fair rate of return for Wisconsin from the highway bill. I was glad the most recent 2005 bill continued a recent streak of getting at least a 1:1 rate of return after decades of being a donor state and not getting a fair share.

In addition to supporting transportation-related jobs, linking workers and businesses that need them can also be an important part of a more comprehensive job creation strategy. This can mean supporting a robust public transportation system or more specific programs designed to link low-income individuals with jobs. I have consistently done the former by supporting public transportation during consideration of the highway bill and Amtrak reauthorizations. But my specific proposal today focuses on the latter and improving the Job Access and Reverse Commute, JARC, program that links low-income workers with employers.

I have heard good things about the JARC program and was glad that it was shifted away from earmarks and was made available as a combination formula and competitively awarded program in the last highway bill. The primary program goal is to locally assess the transportation needs of low-income workers and then plan and fund programs to help alleviate transportation-related barriers to employment or better employment. While the traditional vision for these projects may have begun as reverse commute projects whereby transit routes were established to allow city center residents to access jobs in the suburbs, the program actually does much more than just this and provides reliable transportation to low-income urban, rural and suburban workers.

In Wisconsin, the Federal JARC program is jointly administered by the State departments of transportation and workforce development as the Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program, WETAP. According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, transportation barriers can include a lack of a dependable vehicle or bus service in the area, an absence of local jobs, or child care transportation problems.

The State agencies in Wisconsin have found several different types of projects to be effective, depending on the local circumstances. These projects have included the traditional public transit projects such as extending bus lines or supporting van-pooling, along with other programs such as providing cars or car repairs to low-income individuals. Wisconsin has even found that assisting with indirect barriers such as transportation of children to and from child care facilities is critical in allowing some individuals to improve their job prospects.

A recent University of Illinois Chicago study found that the societal benefits from this program are $1.65 per dollar spent and estimated lifetime benefits to low-income participants of $15 per dollar spent due to their ability to find and retain better paying jobs. While the goals of the Job Access and Reverse Commute program are important and the program has been found to

be fairly effective, there are some details that have prevented the program from reaching its full potential. Working closely with transportation officials in Wisconsin and partially based on recommendations from the UIC study, I've come up with some specific ideas to improve the program.

With a proven effective program and continuing unmet needs by employers and low-income individuals seeking employment, it seems clear to me that JARC could use a boost in funding. So that is why my proposal ramps up funding by $100 million over 5 years from the current funding of $165 million to $265 million in fiscal year 2014.

My proposal would also allow the Federal share of projects to increase to 80 percent from the current 50 percent level for operating expenses. The 50 percent local and State match wasn't feasible for far too many local governments in Wisconsin and as a result Wisconsin has not been able to spend all its Federal funds. The higher Federal cost share will better balance the need to leverage Federal funds, while ensuring that these critical funds are fully utilized--millions of dollars in an account does nothing to link people to jobs.

Besides the challenge in coming up with a 50 percent local cost share, the other main issue that has kept JARC from being as effective as it could be is the paperwork and reporting burden required by the program, especially for the small nonprofit groups that often have never dealt with Federal grant requirements before. My proposal directs the Federal Transit Agency, FTA, to examine the current reporting requirements to see if there are ways to streamline the amount of paperwork required while still ensuring that the program goals are met.

My bill also includes a pilot program funded at $10 million a year for 5 years in order to test a few areas that seem very promising, but should be evaluated more before broader implementation. The first portion of the pilot program builds off the regulatory streamlining evaluation and allows the FTA to test streamlined reporting requirements to help get the balance between oversight and administrative burden in proper balance.

The second part of the pilot program focuses on improving education and employment-related transportation for teens and young adults. Enabling students and young people to reliably get between their high schools or neighborhoods and technical colleges, job training centers or apprenticeships can have a life-long positive impact.

The third section of the pilot program would allow experimentation with combining different transit programs and integrating JARC projects across local political boundaries to provide a more comprehensive local transportation system. Instead of having one transit program to assist the disabled, one targeted toward the elderly and another focused on jobs, this pilot program would encourage funding combined applications to meet these needs together with one comprehensive project. There is even the potential for the Department of Transportation to further coordinate with other departments such as Health and Human Services for health care-related transportation. Similarly, the needs of employers for employees does not recognize local political boundaries, so encouraging greater collaboration between local entities to make a more robust interconnected system should ultimately provide more efficient and effective service.

While the FTA already provides some technical assistance for the JARC program, my proposal provides a small boost in funding and some additional areas of emphasis. For example, after hearing about the struggles that some small nonprofits have with the reporting requirements, in addition to looking for ways to streamline the requirements, my proposal would direct the FTA to also provide some technical assistance especially targeted to this need.

The final element of my proposal is the offset. The new spending authorized in the proposal is fully offset by rescinding highway and bridge earmarks that have not had funds spent from them despite being authorized over a decade ago as part of the TEA-21 highway bill. Helping connect workers and employers is a much better use of these funds than letting them sit unused in some obscure DOT account.

Providing reliable transportation to low-income individuals only goes so far--it is the companies and innovators creating the jobs and the individuals seeking to better their lot through education or more challenging employment, that are doing the heavy lifting. That being said, transportation can clearly be a challenge for companies and workers and in the case of the JARC program can play an important supporting role.

Mr. President, today I introduce a simple bill that is the first step toward helping American workers and businesses. The Skills Standards Certification Evaluation Act of 2008 will require the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce to evaluate skills standards certification programs that have been developed with Federal funding.

Skills Standards Certifications have emerged in the past 2 decades in response to job growth in high-technology and varied industries. The training or classes usually take weeks or months, rather than years. Often, they are developed in response to the needs of one industry or even one company, though the skills may be applicable more widely.

The Federal government has taken conflicting approaches to skills standards certifications over the past two decades. That is why, as part of the Skills Standards Certification Evaluation Act, I require a recommendation from the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce on how Congress ought to move forward with funding for these certification programs. Both the national, top-down, and a local, bottom-up approach have been tried, and a thorough evaluation will make clear how we can move forward to get the most out of the funding the Federal Government provides.

These certifications have a tremendous benefit for workers. First, because the training is often condensed into a few weeks with a flexible schedule, it allows people to complete certifications without leaving a current job and without the financial cost of attending a full-time program that lasts a year or more. In addition, these programs allow workers to clearly demonstrate a certain set of skills, and may open more doors for higher-paying employment. Because these programs can be completed without leaving work, they also allow workers to advance within a career or company to

more skilled positions and better wages and benefits.

For employers, Skills Standards Certifications can simplify the search for employees. I have heard from numerous Wisconsin employers, especially small businesses with limited resources, that it is hard to find employees with the skills they need, or who will be dedicated and loyal. Skills Standards Certifications clearly show the qualification of an individual, of course, but also tell the employer that he or she is dedicated enough to invest in the course to earn the certificate. Very few people will spend the time and money to enroll in such a program if they don't intend to use the certificate.

Lastly, these programs can help State and local governments quantify their skilled workforce, which can be invaluable when marketing the area to businesses and investment.

This bill is a small first step in what I hope can be a continuing effort to help hard working Americans obtain and use high-demand work skills.

Mr. President, today I introduce another piece of my E4 initiative, so named because it is a collection of proposals that address issues important to the economy, education, employment and energy. The piece of legislation I am introducing now focuses on the important supporting role that transportation can play in economic development by creating an environment where employers and those seeking employment or better employment are connected together. Having such a system to overcome transportation hurdles can benefit both employers and employees, as well as the local economy.

In more general terms, investing in our infrastructure like roads, bridges and transit systems can have direct job creation impacts. This is one reason I have fought hard with the rest of the delegation for a fair rate of return for Wisconsin from the highway bill. I was glad the most recent 2005 bill continued a recent streak of getting at least a 1:1 rate of return after decades of being a donor state and not getting a fair share.

In addition to supporting transportation-related jobs, linking workers and businesses that need them can also be an important part of a more comprehensive job creation strategy. This can mean supporting a robust public transportation system or more specific programs designed to link low-income individuals with jobs. I have consistently done the former by supporting public transportation during consideration of the highway bill and Amtrak reauthorizations. But my specific proposal today focuses on the latter and improving the Job Access and Reverse Commute, JARC, program that links low-income workers with employers.

I have heard good things about the JARC program and was glad that it was shifted away from earmarks and was made available as a combination formula and competitively awarded program in the last highway bill. The primary program goal is to locally assess the transportation needs of low-income workers and then plan and fund programs to help alleviate transportation-related barriers to employment or better employment. While the traditional vision for these projects may have begun as reverse commute projects whereby transit routes were established to allow city center residents to access jobs in the suburbs, the program actually does much more than just this and provides reliable transportation to low-income urban, rural and suburban workers.

In Wisconsin, the Federal JARC program is jointly administered by the State departments of transportation and workforce development as the Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program, WETAP. According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, transportation barriers can include a lack of a dependable vehicle or bus service in the area, an absence of local jobs, or child care transportation problems.

The State agencies in Wisconsin have found several different types of projects to be effective, depending on the local circumstances. These projects have included the traditional public transit projects such as extending bus lines or supporting van-pooling, along with other programs such as providing cars or car repairs to low-income individuals. Wisconsin has even found that assisting with indirect barriers such as transportation of children to and from child care facilities is critical in allowing some individuals to improve their job prospects.

A recent University of Illinois Chicago study found that the societal benefits from this program are $1.65 per dollar spent and estimated lifetime benefits to low-income participants of $15 per dollar spent due to their ability to find and retain better paying jobs. While the goals of the Job Access and Reverse Commute program are important and the program has been found to

be fairly effective, there are some details that have prevented the program from reaching its full potential. Working closely with transportation officials in Wisconsin and partially based on recommendations from the UIC study, I've come up with some specific ideas to improve the program.

With a proven effective program and continuing unmet needs by employers and low-income individuals seeking employment, it seems clear to me that JARC could use a boost in funding. So that is why my proposal ramps up funding by $100 million over 5 years from the current funding of $165 million to $265 million in fiscal year 2014.

My proposal would also allow the Federal share of projects to increase to 80 percent from the current 50 percent level for operating expenses. The 50 percent local and State match wasn't feasible for far too many local governments in Wisconsin and as a result Wisconsin has not been able to spend all its Federal funds. The higher Federal cost share will better balance the need to leverage Federal funds, while ensuring that these critical funds are fully utilized--millions of dollars in an account does nothing to link people to jobs.

Besides the challenge in coming up with a 50 percent local cost share, the other main issue that has kept JARC from being as effective as it could be is the paperwork and reporting burden required by the program, especially for the small nonprofit groups that often have never dealt with Federal grant requirements before. My proposal directs the Federal Transit Agency, FTA, to examine the current reporting requirements to see if there are ways to streamline the amount of paperwork required while still ensuring that the program goals are met.

My bill also includes a pilot program funded at $10 million a year for 5 years in order to test a few areas that seem very promising, but should be evaluated more before broader implementation. The first portion of the pilot program builds off the regulatory streamlining evaluation and allows the FTA to test streamlined reporting requirements to help get the balance between oversight and administrative burden in proper balance.

The second part of the pilot program focuses on improving education and employment-related transportation for teens and young adults. Enabling students and young people to reliably get between their high schools or neighborhoods and technical colleges, job training centers or apprenticeships can have a life-long positive impact.

The third section of the pilot program would allow experimentation with combining different transit programs and integrating JARC projects across local political boundaries to provide a more comprehensive local transportation system. Instead of having one transit program to assist the disabled, one targeted toward the elderly and another focused on jobs, this pilot program would encourage funding combined applications to meet these needs together with one comprehensive project. There is even the potential for the Department of Transportation to further coordinate with other departments such as Health and Human Services for health care-related transportation. Similarly, the needs of employers for employees does not recognize local political boundaries, so encouraging greater collaboration between local entities to make a more robust interconnected system should ultimately provide more efficient and effective service.

While the FTA already provides some technical assistance for the JARC program, my proposal provides a small boost in funding and some additional areas of emphasis. For example, after hearing about the struggles that some small nonprofits have with the reporting requirements, in addition to looking for ways to streamline the requirements, my proposal would direct the FTA to also provide some technical assistance especially targeted to this need.

The final element of my proposal is the offset. The new spending authorized in the proposal is fully offset by rescinding highway and bridge earmarks that have not had funds spent from them despite being authorized over a decade ago as part of the TEA-21 highway bill. Helping connect workers and employers is a much better use of these funds than letting them sit unused in some obscure DOT account.

Providing reliable transportation to low-income individuals only goes so far--it is the companies and innovators creating the jobs and the individuals seeking to better their lot through education or more challenging employment, that are doing the heavy lifting. That being said, transportation can clearly be a challenge for companies and workers and in the case of the JARC program can play an important supporting role.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2008. Senator Leahy joins me as an original cosponsor. The purpose of this bill is to reaffirm policy objectives towards Ethiopia and encourage greater commitment to the underpinnings of a true democracy--an independent judiciary and the rule of law, respect for human and political rights, and an end to restrictions on the media and non-governmental organizations.

As many in this body know, I have spoken numerous times in recent months about the situation in Ethiopia and I continue to believe that the U.S.-Ethiopian partnership is very important--one of the more critical ones given not only our historic relationship but also Ethiopia's location in an increasingly strategic region. Ethiopia sits on the Horn of Africa--perhaps one of the roughest neighborhoods in the world, with Somalia a failed state and safe haven for terrorists, Eritrea an inaccessible authoritarian government that meddles across national borders, Sudan a genocidal regime, and Kenya still emerging from a profound electoral crisis. One look at the deteriorating situation across the Horn and the importance of a robust relationship with Ethiopia is obvious. And, by contrast with some of its neighbors, Ethiopia appears relatively stable with a growing economy. But I am concerned about a number of anti-democratic actions in that country, particularly since this administration has largely overlooked them.

The security threats in Ethiopia are real but, unfortunately, the Bush administration's approach to addressing these threats and strengthening this alliance remains short-sighted and narrow--focusing predominately on short-term ways to address insecurity while overlooking the need for long-term measures that are needed to achieve the same goal, such as desperately needed goverance reform, the rule of law, and increased accountability. Genuine democratic progress in Ethiopia is essential if we are to have a healthy and positive bilateral relationship. It is also essential if we are going to successfully combat extremism, thereby bolstering our own national security here at home.

That is why today I am introducing the Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2008--because as our administration fails to balance our priorities in Ethiopia, or to adopt comprehensive strategies to achieve those priorities, we are watching significant backsliding in previously hard-won democratic gains. As we turn a blind eye to the escalating political tensions, people are being thrown in jail without justification and non-government organizations are being restricted, while civilians are dying unnecessarily in the Ogaden region--just like so many before them in Oromiya, Amhara, and Gambella. Furthermore, the Ethiopian military has come under increasing scrutiny for its conduct in the Ogaden as well as Somalia, with credible reports from non-governmental organizations of torture, rape and indiscriminate attacks. By providing unconditioned security assistance we are also sowing the seeds of insecurity and creating new grievances both in Ethiopia and in its neighboring countries.

I want to see greater progress--not less--in Ethiopia which is why this bill authorizes an additional $20 million for democracy and governance projects in Ethiopia. The addition of these funds would make it one of the top five countries on the continent receiving this kind of assistance from this U.S. Government. This bill calls on the President to take additional steps to implement these programs but also requires that funds made available to the Ethiopian government be subject to regular congressional notification. This ensures U.S. taxpayer dollars are being used appropriately--and used to support a government taking steps to become more democratic, not less.

I make it a practice to pay for all bills I introduce, and the authorization in this bill is offset by a transfer of funds from NASA. Some may disagree with me on the need for an offset, but recent Office of Management and Budget projections confirm that we now have the biggest budget deficit in the history of our country. We cannot afford to be fiscally irresponsible so we must make choices to ensure that our children and grandchildren do not bear the burden of our reckless spending. Instead of cutting specific programs, which are likely to have begun and thus would cost more to close, transferring $20 million from the general budget would allow appropriators to evaluate, at their discretion, how best to make this transfer.

I ask my colleagues to consider what our own State Department has said about the political situation in Ethiopia and then consider how best to rectify the situation. The 2007 State Department Report on Human Rights notes that in Ethiopia the following occurred: ``limitation[s] on citizens' right to change their government during the most recent elections; unlawful killings, and beating, abuse, and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention, particularly of those suspected of sympathizing with or being members of the opposition or insurgent groups; detention of thousands without charge and lengthy pretrial detention; infringement on citizens' privacy rights and frequent refusal to follow the law regarding search warrants; use of excessive force by security services in an internal conflict and counter-insurgency operations; restrictions on freedom of the press; arrest, detention, and harassment of journalists for publishing articles critical of the government; restrictions on freedom of assembly; limitations on freedom of association; violence and societal discrimination against women and abuse of children; female genital mutilation, FGM; exploitation of children for economic and sexual purposes; trafficking in persons; societal discrimination against persons with disabilities and religious and ethnic minorities; and government interference in union activities, including killing and harassment of union leaders.''

The continued failure of the administration to acknowledge this reality is emblematic of its insular thinking and unwillingness to see the big picture. Without a balanced policy that addresses both short and long-term concerns in Ethiopia we are putting ourselves at greater risk and making ourselves more vulnerable, not less.

Mr. President, this week I am introducing a number of different bills designed to fuel job creation and spur economic development. My initiative, dubbed E4, because of its focus on economy, employment, education, and energy, seeks to respond to economic and job development needs both in my State of Wisconsin and around the country. Today I am introducing a bill, the Connecting Education and Emerging Professions Act of 2008, to help promote better collaboration between our Nation's high schools and local, regional, and statewide businesses and workforce development groups.

This legislation seeks to address a couple of interrelated issues. The first issue is the alarmingly high dropout rate in our Nation's high schools. While numbers vary slightly, a growing body of research indicates that the United States has a graduation rate of approximately 70 percent and about one-third of our country's high school students will not graduate on time. Graduation rates for minority and low-income students are even lower, in many cases, alarmingly lower. In addition, many of our Nation's urban school districts report very high dropout rates, including the Milwaukee

Public School District. According to the Cities in Crisis report put out earlier this year by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, the Milwaukee Public Schools has a graduation rate of 46.1 percent. Unfortunately, there are at least a dozen large urban districts that have even lower graduation rates than Milwaukee.

One of our top education priorities as a nation must be to address the low graduation rates nationwide in urban, suburban, and rural school districts. We must also work to close the huge opportunity gap that is created by the large disparity in graduation rates between our minority and non-minority students as well as between low income and more affluent students. Solving this problem will require a broad, comprehensive solution involving the Federal, State and local governments. It is my hope that when Congress finally reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we pay particular attention to the needs of our Nation's high schools and our students.

While many factors contribute to high dropout rates, disengagement from classroom instruction can contribute to a student's decision to drop out. Some students feel that high school is not relevant to their lives and do not see how completing high school will translate into future career and academic success. In this increasingly competitive twenty-first century where postsecondary education is now required for many entry-level jobs, it is up to us to show our Nation's students why it is imperative that they graduate from high school.

Another issue that this bill seeks to address is the growing sense among employers and postsecondary institutions that our Nation's high school students who do graduate are increasingly unprepared for success either in the workforce or in college. Employers in various economic sectors, including technology, manufacturing, health care, construction, and others, report difficulty in identifying qualified candidates for skilled positions. Recent surveys also indicate that many employers are dissatisfied with the overall preparation of secondary school graduates. In order for companies in the United States to be competitive in a global economy, we must have a highly skilled workforce. Adequate preparation at the high school level can help prepare students for entry into our rapidly changing global economy where new emerging industries are cropping up in Wisconsin and around the country.

To address these two interrelated issues, I am introducing the Connecting Education and Emerging Professions Act. My bill would provide 5-year competitive education grants to states and school districts to foster collaboration and discussions between schools, businesses, and others about the emerging industry workforce needs and how to prepare our high school students to meet those needs, both academically and practically. States and local school districts must use this money to form partnerships with local or regional businesses, postsecondary institutions, workforce development boards, labor organizations, nonprofit organizations and others.

These partnerships will have the responsibility of surveying the local, regional, and statewide emerging industries and deciding what are the academic and work-based skills that our high school students need in order to be successful in these emerging industries. The partnerships will then work together to develop new and engaging curriculum and programs designed to teach the academic and work-based skills that are necessary to succeed in these new emerging industries. Once the partnership has designed a curriculum or program and received approval from the Federal Department of Education, the partnership will work to implement the program in qualifying schools.

During the implementation phase, the partnership will come together to implement hands-on learning and work opportunities for students including internships, apprenticeships, job shadowing, and other career and technical education programs. These hands-on learning and work opportunities will be based on the emerging industry pathways curriculum or program that the eligible partnership has designed and will offer students practical academic experiences and skill-building lessons that they can use in the workplace or in postsecondary education.

This legislation seeks to help schools, businesses, colleges, and the students who would be served by this legislation all talk with each other to build new programs that would help boost student engagement in learning and student attendance and graduation rates while also preparing students for success in the workforce or in college after they graduate. There are a number of successful local and state programs around Wisconsin that this legislation would help support and that served as valuable examples as I developed this legislation.

Wisconsin's Department of Public Instruction, Department of Workforce Development, and various local school districts have all been working to boost Wisconsin's career and technical education offerings and gear these offerings towards emerging industries. My bill seeks to help Wisconsin and other states build on these efforts and engage in additional conversations with interested stakeholders to design new curriculums and programs to prepare students for emerging industries.

I look forward to pushing this legislation forward in the coming weeks and months. Some of our Nation's schools are experiencing high dropout rates in part because students aren't connecting with what they are being taught. At the same time, we're seeing an emergence of new industries, like those aiming to capitalize on alternative energies and energy efficiency, that need employers with skills and training in their field. If we help schools connect their students with businesses, workforce development boards, and colleges that offer career and academic opportunities in these new and exciting fields, we can help to lower the alarming dropout rates while helping these emerging industries thrive.

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