Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise today to state my opposition to the confirmation of Timothy Geithner to be Treasury Secretary.

Our current economic crisis is, in part, a crisis of confidence. If we are to return to prosperity, the American people must have confidence in those who would chart our course. Mr. Geithner's professional background and experience should inspire that confidence. They are overshadowed, however, by the personal issues regarding his own tax returns.

When these issues first arose, they were cited as examples of the baffling complexity of our Tax Code and of the need for reform. They were described by the nominee himself as ``careless mistakes.'' As more details have emerged, it has become clear to me that this is not merely a matter of complexity leading to mistakes, but of inexcusable negligence.

Mr. Geithner failed to pay self-employment taxes while working for the International Monetary Fund. He failed to make these tax payments despite the fact that the IMF repeatedly reminded him of this obligation. He signed paperwork acknowledging this obligation. He received extra compensation that he acknowledged at the time was for the purpose of paying this obligation. Yet when he filed tax returns for the years he was employed at the IMF, he did not pay self- employment taxes.

After working for the IMF for 3 years, Mr. Geithner was audited by the Internal Revenue Service in 2006, which discovered that he had failed to pay his self-employment taxes. Mr. Geithner was ordered to correct his tax returns for 2003 and 2004, and he paid the amount that he owed for those years.

But Mr. Geithner had made the same omission in 2001 and 2002, years that were outside the scope of the audit. Yet, having been informed by the IRS of his omission for 2003 and 2004, Mr. Geithner took no action to correct the deficiency from 2001 and 2002--years for which the statute of limitations had already run. In fact, Mr. Geithner chose not to make the payments until he was being considered for this position at the end of 2008.

A similar failure to correct omissions when informed of them occurred when the accountant who prepared Mr. Geithner's tax returns in 2006 informed him that certain deductions Mr. Geithner had taken for 3 earlier years were not allowed. These deductions involved writing off overnight camps as childcare expenses. Mr. Geithner did not attempt to claim the deduction for 2006 but did not correct his returns for the previous years. And again, this deficiency was not addressed until late last year, when Mr. Geithner was being considered for this Cabinet position.

Madam President, throughout the State of Maine and indeed throughout the Nation, millions of hard-working Americans pay their taxes on time and in full. Our taxation system is essentially an honor system that depends on self-assessment and honesty. When taxpayers make mistakes, they are expected to correct them promptly and completely. How can we tell the taxpayers that they are expected to comply fully with our tax laws when these laws have been treated so cavalierly by the person who would lead the Treasury Department and, ultimately, the Internal Revenue Service, when he was applying them to himself?

Therefore, Madam President, I must oppose this nomination.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the confirmation of Senator Hillary Clinton to be our next Secretary of State. Last Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee overwhelmingly approved Senator Clinton to become our Nation's top diplomat. I rise today to echo the committee's approval and to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of her confirmation.

Senator Clinton's many years of public service make her an outstanding nominee for Secretary of State. In her confirmation hearing, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, spoke of Senator Clinton as ``the epitome of a big leaguer,'' who has remarkable qualifications for the post of Secretary of State. The committee chairman, Senator Kerry, shared his faith in her qualifications and abilities, having seen her ``diplomatic acumen up close.'' He also said that Senator Clinton did an outstanding job in her testimony before the committee, as those of us who observed the hearings can affirm.

Senator Clinton is the ``first'' First Lady of the United States elected to public office. As First Lady, she traveled the world for 8 years, visiting more than 80 countries. In doing so, she took an active role in helping to carry out our Nation's foreign policy and was an advocate for our Nation. She not only met with foreign leaders at the highest levels of government, but she made it a hallmark of her trips to visit villages, clinics, and other remote areas, learning firsthand the importance of a foreign policy founded at the most basic levels of humanity.

During my service in the Senate, I have had the opportunity to work very closely with Senator Clinton on a number of issues, particularly since we both serve as fellow members of the Armed Services Committee. We have worked together tirelessly to improve the detection, assessment, and treatment of traumatic brain injury among wounded servicemembers.

We also cochaired the Alzheimer's Task Force and have worked together to increase funding for research into this devastating disease.

Senator Clinton and I have had the opportunity to travel with Senator

McCain to Iraq and Afghanistan. I witnessed her world knowledge and authoritative approach to foreign policy. I have seen her tireless work ethic and intelligence up close, as well as her ability to engage with colleagues across the aisle to get the job done and to meet the needs of the American people.

I will always remember one meeting in particular that we had together in Afghanistan. Senator Clinton and I broke off from the group to go meet with a group of Afghan women from all walks of life. I was so impressed with Senator Clinton's engagement with these women, with her genuine interest and the details of their lives, whether it was their access to health care or the education for their children. She was very engaged in the conversations despite the fact that we had traveled all night and were extremely tired.

Her caring, her compassion came across in her conversations with these women. I know these qualities--her caring, her compassion, her commitment, her extraordinary preparation and intelligence--will serve her well and will serve our country well as Secretary of State.

Today our Nation faces many pressing challenges abroad. The challenges are many, not only in Afghanistan and Iraq but security in the Middle East and the safety of the people of Israel, and the dangerous situation in Pakistan. I am encouraged by Senator Clinton's commitment to a foreign policy and a national security strategy that is built on bipartisan consensus and executed with nonpartisan commitment and confidence. She has promised a foreign policy based on principles and pragmatism, not rigid ideology; facts and evidence, not emotion or prejudice.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of her confirmation, and I echo the suggestion of Senator McCain that we get on with this as she is an extraordinary nominee and deserves our support.

Mr. President, I wish to support the nomination of Dr. Peter R. Orszag to be the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

As our Nation wrestles with the economic crisis, the next Director of the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, must be prepared to tackle serious fiscal and budgetary crises. The Federal budget is under stress from the impact of a deep recession and the costs of rescue and stimulus packages. Spiraling, out-of-control health-care costs are driving long-term budgetary imbalances. And the next few years will also see cresting waves of baby boom retirements, with enormous impacts on Social Security and Medicare expenditures, as well as the Federal workforce.

Pointing to these trends and to the estimated $1.2 trillion deficit for the current fiscal year, President Obama has prudently warned that unless strong measures are taken, the outlook is for ``red ink as far as the eye can see.'' That is, of course, an unacceptable and unsustainable scenario for the Government, for the economy, and for the households and business owners who pay the Government's bills.

OMB is the leading player for the incoming administration as it formulates policy to deal with a grim present and uncertain future. OMB also serves as a critical link between Congress and the executive branch as we work toward a consensus on a sustainable path forward.

Dr. Orszag brings an impressive set of skills and experiences--and apparently boundless energy--to OMB. As a former Director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, he is familiar with the legislative branch and the intricacies of budgets and policy analysis. Earlier service as an economics adviser in the Clinton administration, as a scholar at the Brookings Institution, and as a consultant will also provide important perspectives.

Dr. Orszag will need to draw on every ounce of his knowledge and experience as he takes the reins of OMB.

Dr. Orszag has already indicated that the economy and stimulus measures portend a near-term rise in the deficit. But as he knows, recent years' outlays and the growth of unfunded entitlements are unsustainable.

We desperately need a realistic plan to avoid having the Federal budget become a mammoth drag on opportunities for job growth and higher personal income--and for people's ability to decide what to do with their own money. The public also expects aggressive oversight and careful stewardship of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and of any future economic-recovery package.

Dr. Orszag will also need to focus intensely on the management challenges confronting the Federal Government. OMB must provide sustained leadership to build upon contracting reforms Senator Lieberman and I championed in the last Congress. Improving transparency and accountability in Government operations and enhancing agency performance will also be Dr. Orszag's responsibility.

These and other pressing challenges will confront Dr. Orszag as Director of Office of Management and Budget. I look forward to working with him as we confront the financial problems our Nation faces.

nomination of janet napolitano

Mr. President, I also support the nomination of Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to be the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

As the Department nears its sixth anniversary, those of us who participated in its creation can take some measure of satisfaction in its progress. The men and women of the Department have helped detect and prevent terrorist attacks.

Our Nation's ability to prepare for and respond to disasters--whether natural or manmade--has also improved dramatically with the changes this committee made in the structure and operations of FEMA. Nonetheless, constantly evolving terrorist threats and the forces of nature demand further improvements at the Department and strong and skilled leadership.

I believe Governor Napolitano will provide that leadership.

I have had the opportunity to closely examine the record of Governor Napolitano and talk with her about a wide range of issues, including security at our borders and seaports, cooperation with State and local law enforcement, and the myriad tests that DHS must confront in the coming years.

The Governor's law enforcement background and knowledge of homeland security issues are impressive.

Her experience as a border-State Governor enables her to bring an important perspective to the Department. Arizona, like my home State of Maine, is a border State with extensive cross-border and tourism. Residents of border communities work, shop, worship, and visit friends and family on both sides of the boundary, complicating the challenge of border security.

Governor Napolitano understands that we have to let our friends in, while keeping our enemies out--enforcing border regulations in a practical manner that accommodates legitimate trade and travel.

One emerging challenge the new Secretary will face is the need to enhance security at the Nation's biological laboratories. The recent report of the Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction predicted a terrorist attack with a biological weapon within the next 5 years. The Commission pointed to lax security at biological labs as one of the bases for that chilling assessment.

Another threat that the Department must address is the security of our Nation's cyber-infrastructure. The Department must fully understand the cyber threat and establish and enforce best practices across the executive branch, as well as redouble its efforts to work with the private sector on cyber-security.

We must also continue to focus on the security and resiliency of our Nation's critical infrastructure. With more than 85 percent of those assets in private hands, this is a daunting task. Seaports and chemical facilities have been made more secure through legislation that I coauthored. In addition to extending these two important programs, the Department must develop a strategy to promote the best practices developed through the National Infrastructure Protection Plan.

In the last 6 years, DHS has helped improve our all-hazards preparedness and response capabilities. Homeland security grant funding for our State and local first responders has certainly played a key role in that effort. Funding levels in the last few years, however, have been under attack from the executive branch, and DHS has not yet fully complied with the requirement to establish an all-hazards risk formula. The Department must also improve information sharing and cooperation with our State and local partners.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency forms the core of the Department's ability to perform its preparedness, response, and recovery missions. After Hurricane Katrina, Senator Lieberman and I authored vital reforms of FEMA. Subsequent disasters like wildfires, tornadoes, and severe storms and floods have demonstrated FEMA's new and improved capabilities, bolstered by increased coordination with State and local governments and military resources.

FEMA's documented improvements and the logical combination of all- hazards prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery in a single department underscore the need to keep FEMA within DHS. Detaching FEMA in the vain hope of recapturing mythical halcyon days would weaken its effectiveness, reduce the ability of DHS to carry out its all-hazards planning mandate, cause needless duplication of effort, and foment confusion among State and local first responders during a disaster. That is why our Nation's leading first responder organizations, like the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the Congressional Fires Services Institute, the International Association of the Chiefs of Police, and the National Troopers Coalition, all strongly support keeping FEMA as part of DHS.

As a relatively new Department, DHS still suffers from significant integration and management challenges. The effective operation of the Department's 22 legacy agencies requires a strong Departmental culture, close collaboration between the Department's components, and effective cooperation with other Federal, State, local, tribal and private-sector partners. From the Department's program management and resource allocations, to the basic need for a consolidated headquarters, the next Secretary must focus intently on removing obstacles to effective integration and improved performance.

To continue its growth, the Department must have a skilled executive to lead its dedicated workforce. I believe Governor Janet Napolitano has the ability to meet these and other challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security in the years to come. I look forward to working with her and urge support for her nomination.

nomination of eric shinseki

Mr. President, Maine and New Hampshire have much in common. When John Sununu came to the Senate six years ago, I immediately saw in him those traits shared by the people of our two States: a strong work ethic combined with a great sense of humor, traditional values balanced by a spirit of innovation, and fiscal prudence always tempered by compassion. He quickly became not only a valued colleague but also a trusted friend.

John's extraordinary intellect, wisdom, and experience belied his young age and benefited this chamber and Nation. His upbringing in a family devoted to public service, his education in science, engineering, and business, and his experience in the House of Representatives made him a veteran from day one. His ability to analyze challenges and devise creative solutions made him an esteemed colleague.

In the best tradition of the Senate, John brought his knowledge and experience to bear on some of the most pressing issues we face. In technology, he has been a leader committed to growth and advancement. He has been a devoted advocate for special education and rural health care. He has been a strong voice for our forest products industry and for a sound energy policy that would reduce our dangerous reliance on foreign oil.

It has been an honor to work with him on the Homeland Security Committee. His diligence and commitment have helped make America safer. His tireless leadership to reform the Patriot Act demonstrated his unwavering commitment to safeguard the civil liberties Americans cherish.

In addition to his leadership on national issues like the Patriot Act and tax policy, John has been an effective advocate for projects of special concern to New Hampshire, whether it is low-income heating assistance and weatherization programs or the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. We recently worked closely together with our two colleagues to secure $20 billion for the shipyard's new dry dock to help secure its future.

Above all, Senator John Sununu has distinguished himself as a champion of good government. He is an independent thinker who stands up--always--for what he believes to be right for New Hampshire and right for our country. He has a sharp eye for wasteful spending and is a resolute fighter for fiscal responsibility.

It has been an honor to serve with John, and I wish him and his family all

the best. I will miss serving with him day to day, but I know that he will continue to accomplish a great deal.

pete domenici

Mr. President, as the 110th Congress draws to a close, I rise to say thanks and farewell to one of our hardest working and most dedicated Members, Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico.

Pete Domenici's story is truly the American dream come to life. The son of immigrants, Pete worked in the family grocery business, earned a college degree, taught school, obtained a law degree, and served in local government before his election to the Senate.

I cannot overlook one vitally important part of his biography, and that is his stint as a pitcher for a farm team of the old Brooklyn Dodgers. Who knows how much different history would be if his fast ball had had a little more ``pop'' to it?

For 36 years, however, baseball's loss has been the Senate's gain. The character developed by athletic competition--determination, hard work, a sense of fair play--is fully evident in Pete's six terms in office.

When the people of New Mexico chose Pete Domenici to be the longest serving Senator in their State's history, they chose wisely. His tireless work on a wide range of issues has helped to ensure a better future for all Americans, rural or urban, large State or small. He is a respected leader on some of the most important challenges of our time, such as strengthening energy security, curbing nuclear proliferation, and promoting sound Federal budget policy.

Pete's understanding of the budget process is matched only by his appreciation of the critical role fiscal responsibility plays. His service on the Budget Committee established his universal reputation as one of the Senate's hardest working, most intelligent, and best- informed Members. His focus on results rather than the limelight led one colleague to describe him as having ``a terminal case of responsibility.''

Senator Domenici is also a true champion for biomedical research, and especially for Americans suffering from mental illness. He has worked unceasingly over the years to increase the understanding and to eliminate the stigma associated with mental illness. He has led the effort in the Senate--first in partnership with Senator Paul Wellstone, and later with our colleague Senator Ted Kennedy, to pass legislation that requires insurers to cover mental illness in the same way they cover physical illnesses.

Thankfully, those efforts have finally borne fruit with the inclusion of his legislation in the economic stimulus bill, the stabilization bill passed in the Senate. It is a victory not just for Senator Domenici's longstanding efforts but also for the estimated 50 million Americans who suffer from some kind of mental illness. It is a testament to his dedication and his compassion.

Senator Domenici's tenure has been marked by vision, common sense, and a

commitment to results. When he became chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 2003, Senator Domenici set to work to craft the first major comprehensive energy bill in more than a decade. Many thought it would be impossible to put together the bipartisan support to pass the Energy Policy Act of 2005, but Senator Domenici did it. That landmark law laid the foundation for American energy independence, the responsible use of existing resources, and the development of new technology. We can build on that foundation by following the model he set of informed debate and thoughtful consensus.

While most of his many accomplishments have national significance, there is one that may not be well known outside of his home State. More than a decade ago, Pete Domenici introduced a program that has helped the schoolchildren of New Mexico learn trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. This program is called ``Character Counts.'' It fully epitomizes what Pete Domenici is all about. It fully describes his legacy because, with Pete Domenici, character has always counted.

Senator Domenici leaves this Chamber with an overflowing and bipartisan store of good will and gratitude. We are all losing an outstanding colleague. On a personal note, I am also losing an outstanding Washington DC neighbor, since Pete and his wonderful wife, Nancy, live right down the street from me. I am pleased to be among the many Senators offering thanks for his years of service and best wishes to him and to Nancy.

Gordon Smith

Mr. President, for nearly 70 years, the film ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' has inspired Americans and people around the world with its uplifting story of how one man of conviction and character can make a difference. Today, I am honored to offer a few words to the Mr. Smith of our time: Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon.

Senator Smith came to Washington to make a difference--and he has. He and I were sworn into the United States Senate on the same day, January 7, 1997. Although his State and mine are a continent apart, we quickly found that we had a lot in common.

It has been a joy to work with Gordon Smith on so many important issues. Of course, where I come from, the name ``Senator Smith'' conjures up not just the beloved movie but also a towering, real-life figure, and my inspiration in public service. Although Margaret Chase Smith of Maine and Gordon Smith are separated by time, they are united in a spirit of independence and integrity. Both served with strong convictions but with respect for the principles of others. Both spoke up when they saw wrongdoing. Both had extraordinary courage that allowed them to speak out when they thought their own party was in error. Both saw the aisle not as a barrier to progress but as a bridge to reaching consensus on behalf of the American people.

This focus on moving forward is especially apparent in Gordon Smith's effective work on issues of great importance in Maine, in Oregon, and everywhere in between--health care, tax relief, small business, equal rights, and foreign policy. These challenges are ones that require careful consensus-building, a responsible approach that has defined Gordon Smith's service here.

Gordon Smith is simply a wonderful person and an extraordinary leader. We all remember the terrible tragedy he suffered with the loss of his son during his service here, a terrible tragedy that gave him and his family such sorrow. But it is typical of Gordon Smith that out of that tragedy, he chose to do something to help prevent other families from enduring the tragedy of the loss of a child. That is so typical of Gordon Smith--always thinking of others, always trying to do what is right, always committed to public service.

``Smith'' is one of the more common names in the English language, but in this Chamber the name has special meaning, one of uncommon principles and extraordinary accomplishments. It reminds us of a cherished film, of the great lady from the State of Maine, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, and now of Senator Gordon Smith. I thank him for his service and his friendship, and I wish him all the best in the future.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, when she came to the Senate 6 years ago, Elizabeth Dole brought with her a resume that for most would describe a full lifetime of public service and accomplishment. The intellect, principles, and dedication Elizabeth applied to her earlier endeavors have been readily apparent in the Senate. America has been enriched by all of Senator Elizabeth Dole's public service.

Her record of public service is truly inspiring. From the Office of Consumer Affairs and the Federal Trade Commission to the Secretary of Transportation and Labor, she has served five Presidents. Her tenure in each of these positions has been marked by the dedication, effectiveness, and accomplishments that we have seen firsthand in the Senate.

Nothing more fully describes Elizabeth's character than the fact that she left Government service only to become the president of the American Red Cross, joining founder Clara Barton as the only women to hold that position. In the spirit of that great organization, Elizabeth worked as a volunteer her first year, accepting no salary. Under her leadership, the American Red Cross was a model for charitable organizations, with 91 cents out of every dollar contributed going directly to help those in need.

Elizabeth led the American Red Cross by example. Following the gulf war, she visited Kuwait to assess personally the services provided to our military personnel. She traveled to famine-stricken Somalia and Mozambique and to war-ravaged Croatia. She led a humanitarian relief operation to Rwanda refugee camps. That same commitment, courage, and compassion have been the hallmarks of her work in the Senate.

Those of us who are women also appreciate the many times Elizabeth Dole has blazed the path forward for other women. We know she was one of the very first women to attend Harvard Law School. Think how difficult that must have been for a woman raised in the South. Yet she persevered and she excelled and she broke barrier after barrier for other women.

In her campaign for President in 2000, Elizabeth Dole had a profound effect. She attracted legions of new voters into the political process. She encouraged women throughout the country and of all political persuasions to step forward and get involved in the campaign and to run for public office themselves. Many of the cracks in the glass ceiling are the work of her hands.

Here in the Senate, I have been privileged to work alongside Senator Dole as members on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She has been one of our strongest and most eloquent voices for the men and women in uniform, and her commitment to them is inspiring. Her dedication to strengthening our national security and modernizing our military is unsurpassed.

It is certainly no accident that she is married to a man--former Senator Bob Dole--who exemplifies the quiet courage and devotion to duty that are the hallmark of America's armed services and by which both Senator Doles are known.

I know that all in the Senate and throughout our Nation will agree that just a few of the words that best describe Elizabeth Dole are ``intelligence,'' ``principles,'' and ``commitment.'' To those, I am proud to add the word ``friend.'' I will miss serving with Elizabeth Dole. I wish her all the best in the years to come.

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

Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the life of a true American patriot--Mr. James Joseph Durant of Scarborough ME--and to mourn his passing.

Mr. Durant died in the line of duty almost two years ago while serving his community through the Volunteers in Police Services, VIPS, program.

His premature death not only devastated his family but left a void in the life and social fabric of his community and his State.

Mr. Durant led an admirable and remarkable life. He was married for 47 years to his high school sweetheart, Janine. They began dating in their sophomore year when they were forced to share her English book because he had conveniently forgotten his own. Mr. Durant was a dedicated and caring father to their three children and a doting grandfather of five.

He was a decorated U.S. Army soldier and combat veteran of the Vietnam War. Mr. Durant's loyalty to the Army and to his country was so profound that he refused a deferral from deployment to Vietnam to which he was entitled when his wife discovered that she was pregnant with their second child.

After his return from Vietnam, Mr. Durant dedicated his life to public service. He worked with distinction for over 25 years as an electronic technician for the Federal Aviation Administration at the Portland International Jetport. He also volunteered for many activities and programs in Scarborough, including VIPS, where he patrolled parking lots on behalf of the local police department.

Sadly, it was this commitment to public service that ultimately cost him his life. On December 15, 2006, while serving the citizens of Scarborough in his capacity as a member of VIPS, Mr. Durant responded to a nearby traffic accident.

He was helping the under-manned police department by directing traffic when a vehicle struck him from behind. Although Mr. Durant was not a career officer, Scarborough honored him with local law- enforcement honors at his funeral. His was the first death of an officer in the line of duty in Scarborough's modern history.

Mr. Durant responded to the Nation's call for citizens to volunteer to help secure our homeland after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Managed on behalf of the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, VIPS provides an opportunity for ordinary citizens to volunteer in law enforcement. As a volunteer law enforcement officer, Mr. Durant made his community safer, stronger, and a better place to live.

Unfortunately, after Mr. Durant sacrificed his life heeding that call to service, the Federal government compounded his family's loss by denying their application for federal death benefits under the Public Safety Officer Benefits, PSOB, program.

According to the Department of Justice which administers the PSOB program, Mr. Durant did not qualify as a ``public safety officer'' within the meaning of the law.

The PSOB program has been plagued with problems since its inception. Most of the national law enforcement and fire services organizations, such as the International Association of Fire Fighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the Fraternal Order of Police, and the National Sheriff's Association, have long complained about the huge backlog of benefit applications and DoJ's overly strict interpretation of the law.

If we truly hope to encourage more Americans like Mr. Durant to engage in volunteer activities that safeguard our homeland, we must ensure that their families are taken care of in the event that they die while performing duties that public safety officers would have otherwise performed.

Mr. Durant is the first and so far only VIPS participant to have died in the line of duty. It would be folly to assume that he will be the last. That is why I believe that Congress should provide volunteers participating in VIPS and the Fire Corps, another potentially dangerous citizen volunteer program, with death benefits similar to those provided under the PSOB program.

I fully recognize that proposing to expand the PSOB program--even if narrowly--is controversial. But I also believe that such an expansion is necessary. In the future, I hope to reach agreement with my friends in the first responder community on a way to protect the families of volunteers, like Mr. Durant, who lose their lives protecting the citizens of this Nation.

I also pledge to continue working with them to ensure that the DoJ addresses their justifiable concerns with the administration of the PSOB program.

As a nation, we owe it to our first responders--whether career or volunteer--to care for their families when they have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect us. While I regret that the Federal Government has not fulfilled this obligation to Janine Durant and her family, I am committed to ensuring that our Nation treats its heroes honorably.

Mr. Durant was an ordinary American who did extraordinary things. Having already served his country in combat, having work and family obligations, he made the extra effort to serve his community, and lost his life in the process.

We are all poorer for his death, but we can redeem it by providing equitable treatment for the families of other volunteers who may perish while serving the public good.

Mr. President, since this is the first time I have spoken on the Senate floor since the elections have been completed, let me say I am very honored the people of Maine have chosen me to represent them in the Senate for another 6 years. It is a great honor and privilege to represent the great State of Maine, and I want to begin my remarks this afternoon by acknowledging that.

Mr. President, throughout the past few months, I have had the opportunity to talk to literally thousands of Mainers, and the No. 1 issue that has been on their mind is the financial crisis, the poor state of the economy.

Public confidence in our Nation's financial system has been shaken badly by the extent, the scope, and the rapidity of the financial meltdown. As a former financial regulator in the State of Maine, a position I held for 5 years, I have become convinced that significant regulatory reforms are required to restore public confidence and to ensure that the absence of regulation does not allow a crisis like the one we are engulfed in now to happen ever again.

Therefore, today I will introduce a bill that would close two dangerous gaps in the Government's system for overseeing financial markets. The bill would also establish a formal process for developing additional, comprehensive reforms of our financial regulatory system.

Our economy has struggled with a credit crisis spawned by mortgage defaults in the subprime mortgage market and their ripple effects throughout markets for mortgage-backed securities. Complex financial instruments that were poorly understood, not transparent, and, in many cases, not regulated have exacerbated the crisis.

What was once thought of as America's mortgage crisis has metastasized into a nightmare of converging forces that could lead to a deep and global recession. As we have so painfully learned, financial markets are truly global, and the hopes and fears that affect these markets move with the speed of light through electronic communications and electronic trading.

The consequences in our country have been dire: falling home prices, rising foreclosure rates, plunging consumer sales, increased unemployment, a tremendous erosion of retirement savings, and billions of dollars for emergency stabilization programs. We are even looking at a Federal deficit that could reach the extraordinary figure of $1 trillion.

The Maine lobster industry, the paradigm of hardy, small town entrepreneurship, has also felt the blows of the crisis in high finance and a terrible economy. It is not only that consumers have reacted by reducing their purchases of lobsters--although that is one factor--it is also that the lobster industry is an innocent victim of the global financial crisis.

It is extraordinary that the global financial crisis is putting the very existence of Maine's centuries-old lobster industry in jeopardy.

Here is what happened. In addition to plunging demand, many lobstermen in Maine send their lobsters to Canadian processors. Well, it turns out that those Canadian processors are, in turn, financed largely by financial institutions in Iceland--in Iceland.

When the Iceland financial system collapsed, credit was terminated to the Canadian processors, which, in turn, stopped processing Maine lobster. Who would have guessed that the failures of banks in Iceland would claim as victims the lobstermen in the State of Maine? But that shows how integrated our financial system is worldwide. A lobster dealer in my State said:

This is as devastating to the State of Maine as Hurricane

Katrina washing away all the boats and blowing down all the

wharves.

Nor is the fallout from the financial crisis confined to our shores. This past weekend, leaders of the G-20 nations who represent 85 percent of the world's economic activity met in Washington to address this crisis. Clearly, we need a coordinated global response to the downturn, but we also must take action to right our own ship. As we close out the 110th Congress and prepare to reconvene for the 111th, we must consider how to protect our financial system from the shortfalls in regulation, reporting, and transparency that helped lay the groundwork for a sudden and traumatic onslaught of bad economic news.

Consider that less than a year ago, the American financial system boasted five huge investment bank holding companies: Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley. Today, those institutions no longer exist as we had long known them. They have failed or are being acquired or, as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley demonstrate, have converted themselves to bank holding companies subject to Federal Reserve supervision. What is astonishing, however, is that current Federal law assigns no agency responsibility for supervising these enormous institutions, even though experience has shown their safety and soundness could have vast implications for the financial system and the broader economy. Think about that. Your local credit union, your small community bank is subject to safety and soundness regulations, but these enormous Wall Street financial institutions that arguably have a far greater impact on our economy have not been subject to safety and soundness regulations. Instead, they participated in a completely voluntary program of the Securities and Exchange Commission--a program that was later deemed as inadequate by the SEC Chairman as he canceled it this fall.

My legislation would apply safety and soundness regulation to investment bank holding companies by assigning the Federal Reserve this responsibility. Although the five big firms have left the field, this is a necessary step. Any new investment bank holding company that might be organized would fall into the same regulatory void as its predecessors. The SEC would be able to regulate its broker-dealer operations, but no Federal agency would have the explicit authority to examine its operations for safety and soundness or for systemic risk. The collapses at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers illustrate the tremendous hardship that can result under the recent voluntary system.

Federal financial officials have also pointed to a ``massive hole'' in their ability to monitor and manage systemic risk. That is the rapidly expanded markets in private, over-the-counter contracts known as ``credit default swaps.'' These are contracts that involve paying for protection against

default, loss of value, or another credit event that might affect a financial asset such as a government or corporate bond or a mortgage- backed security.

As government officials and financial experts have pointed out, there is nothing perhaps inherently wrong with such contracts. The problem, however, is that credit default swaps are not traded on regulated exchanges, are not officially reported to our Nation's financial regulators, and are not even subject to recordkeeping requirements. Some are visible to bank examiners who may take them into account when considering a bank's risk exposure and others are summarized in voluntary publications, but that is only a partial glimpse into a market whose total national value has been estimated as high as $60 trillion.

As the cases of Lehman Brothers and AIG insurance holding company showed this year, serious problems can arise when a major credit event suddenly reveals that massive claims for collateral posting or payment are converging on credit default swap parties who cannot meet their obligations. But under the current system, it is often impossible for regulators and even market participants to know in advance how all the tangled webs of contract commitments overlap and affect any particular party. This leaves regulators unable to take action against excessive debt, inadequate reserves, or other threats.

For example, Bear Stearns had a financial leverage ratio of 35 to 1. In other words, the firm borrowed $35 for every dollar of its own money. That level of debt financing can generate fabulous profits for shareholders and mind-boggling bonuses for top executives when investments flourish but can whipsaw disastrously if they drop in value. If your equity capital is $1 and you borrow $35 more to buy an asset worth $36 and the value of that asset declines by only $2, to $34, you are insolvent.

Although credit default swaps are contracts rather than asset purchases, they can also overwhelm sellers and leave buyers unable to get payment for the protection they thought they had secured. Excessive leverage and excessive risk exposure can combine to ruin even giants such as Lehman Brothers and AIG.

The fallout from such collapses extends far beyond the firms' investors, employers, and business partners--and this is the important point. It would be one thing if the bad decisions made by Wall Street firms only affected those firms, but that is not the case, as we have learned all too well. People in Maine and other Main Street Americans have felt shock and despair in reviewing the statements for their 401(k) accounts. For these people, the fact of their loss is far more important than its cause. But for us who are assigned the role of policymakers, understanding the cause of the problem is critical if we are to prevent its recurrence.

We now know that a fundamental source of trouble was the lack of effective oversight, of regulation for safety and soundness for the highly leveraged investment bank holding companies. And we know that the second problem is the lack of transparency and coordination in the enormous market for credit default swaps.

My bill would address the second problem in two ways. First, it sets a reporting requirement. For any U.S. entity that buys or sells a credit default swap contract, it must report that fact to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This simple step will go a long way to increasing the transparency and allowing us to identify potential risks. Second, my bill would add the force of law to the clearinghouse initiative being jointly pursued by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the SEC, and the CFTC.

The clearinghouse, however, should be codified. We can't rely on a voluntary arrangement. The SEC's top risk-management official recommends such a statutory mandate to ensure participation, and that is what my bill would do. As two NYU finance professors wrote in a recent essay for Forbes: It is time to ``lift the veil'' from these derivatives with more reporting and with centralized clearing operations.

Correcting those gaps are important steps toward preventing repetition of the painful financial collapses we have seen. But we must also look in the long term at comprehensive financial reform. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act that was signed into law last month calls for two reports to advance that goal. One is due in January and one in April. Those will be useful, but I believe our deliberations would benefit from having the advice not only of a small panel on a short deadline and of the new administration but also from a special commission modeled on the one created to examine the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Fortunately, a plan for such a commission exists. It has been developed by my colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Senator Cantwell, and that has been incorporated into my bill as well.

I believe this issue of restoring confidence to our financial markets through a strong and effective regulatory reform bill is so critical to our Nation--critical for promoting growth and job creation, for protecting retirement savings and public services, for restoring credit to households and small businesses, and for promoting transparency and accountability in financial markets--that we should focus on it in a special session in December.

But regardless of the decisions made by our leadership on that issue, I hope the introduction of the Financial Regulation Reform Act of 2008 will prompt a much-needed debate on the fundamental changes needed to modernize and strengthen our system for monitoring and regulating the immensely complicated financial markets that supply the lifeblood for growth for our country.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the bipartisan legislation we will vote on tonight, that will help to stabilize our financial markets, to prevent catastrophic consequences for our entire economy.

Nobody is happy with the crisis we face, with the urgent pressure to take decisive action or with the very limited policy options available to us at this point. I share the anger of many of my constituents over this crisis, and I subscribe to the principles many of them invoke. As the Senator has pointed out, the initial proposal the Treasury Secretary presented to us was deeply flawed. That is why I pushed for strong taxpayer protections to be included in the plan. That is why I insisted that any plan include limitations on excessive compensation and golden parachutes for executives of the Wall Street firms that helped create the current crisis and that now seek Federal assistance.

Those controls and safeguards are part of the bipartisan package now before the Senate. That is why I advocated for strong oversight and accountability provisions rather than a blank check for the Secretary of the Treasury.

Those oversight and accountability protections, too, have been included in this package. I supported the proposal for a special inspector general to review the way this program will operate. But the fact is, unfortunately, we have to face the reality that the collapse of the housing bubble and the mortgages, the subprime mortgages and the exotic securities that floated along with them, do not just affect the executive suites on Wall Street. In fact, the ramifications cascade throughout our economy, affecting the credit lines needed by small businesses to meet their payroll, the young couple seeking to buy their first home, the automobile dealer trying to finance his inventory, the 55-year-old worker whose 401(k) plan lost a great deal of its value, and even our States and counties.

The State of Maine found itself unable to finance a routine $50 million transportation bond last week. How did we get here? Well, the culprits are many. They include the greedy Wall Street traders whose culture rewards risk taking and focuses on short-term problems.

They include unscrupulous mortgage brokers who pushed people into mortgages that were totally unsuitable for them. They include the naive or the deceptive borrower who simply did not understand or misrepresented their ability to pay once their mortgage rate reset.

They include, at the heart of this scandal, the Government-backed mortgage finance companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that took on huge amounts of risk with paltry levels of capital.

Sixteen years ago, some Members of Congress warned of the potential systemic risks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac presented. Officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations issued warnings and proposed reforms. In 2005, legislation that would have made a difference was actually considered by the Senate Banking Committee and proposed by Republican members of that committee. The full House considered a bill that would have helped, although, unfortunately, it rejected some strengthening amendments.

Unfortunately, these reforms did not get enacted until this July, when the sheer pressure of the mortgage crisis finally forced Congress to act. This is a huge crisis. There are some $1 trillion worth of subprime mortgages in the country. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae hold or guarantee more than 40 percent of America's mortgages and lately have been buying more than 80 percent of new mortgages because the private sector for the mortgage finance market has virtually disappeared.

As a former Maine financial securities and banking and insurance regulator, I understand this is a very complex problem. Its roots lie in the past

decade of the real estate bubble, the relaxed lending standards, the existence of this huge and exploding subprime mortgage market, the creation of complicated securities tied to mortgages that were not held by the originators of those mortgages, and then the sale of those securities when their risks were poorly disclosed, not well understood, and lightly regulated, if at all.

The subprime mortgages were bundled together into mortgage-backed securities that were, in turn, linked to complicated financial instruments that in some cases were not regulated at all. An example are the swaps we have heard discussed. The swaps are not securities so that, as such, they were not regulated by the SEC. While they perform a function very similar to an insurance policy, they are not insurance in the traditional sense, so they escaped regulation by State insurance regulators.

The lack of regulation set the stage for deep losses for countless investors and other entities that had entered into the swap contracts. But frustrated and angry though we are, the focus of our attention must be on averting the worsening storm of financial distress, and we must have the much-improved bipartisan package to halt its spread and to mitigate its damage.

We have all seen the big headline events, the bank failures, the Government takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the failures of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, the forced sales of Merrill-Lynch and Wachovia. These are the big headline events, and they may seem detached from people's daily lives, but they are not. Millions of Americans are being reminded that the cost and supply of new mortgages, the value of our homes, the availability of student loans, the interest rates on our credit cards, the short-term loans for business payrolls and supplies, the value of our retirement savings, are all tightly connected to the global web of credit and finance.

Economists of every ideological leaning agree we face a catastrophic crisis if we do not act. Monday's sudden drop in the stock market, the disappearance of interbank lending, the flight from money market funds, all stand as indicators of trouble and signs of panic.

As the economists noted a few days ago:

The potential costs of producing nothing, or too little too

slowly, include a financial crisis and a deep recession

spilling across the world.

Time is short, and I am not referring to the time until adjournment. We must act because the crisis will grow worse with delay and because the Treasury does not have unlimited authority or resources to continue case-by-case rescues.

The current compromise agreement includes principles for which I have pushed, including strong protections for taxpayers so it is very unlikely that taxpayers will be on the hook for $700 billion. In fact, there is a chance, with proper management of this program, that in some cases the taxpayers could actually make a profit. The bill now includes strong protections, curbs on excessive executive compensation, including golden parachutes, and tough oversight and accountability.

We must act now. None of us wants to see the further devastating consequences for our economy.

It also benefits from the addition of two new features. The first is temporarily raising the deposit-insurance protection for bank and credit-union customers from the current $100,000 per account per institution to $250,000. This is important to reassure consumers about the safety of the banking system in a time of turmoil, and to provide added protection for people who feel obliged to move assets to safe havens.

The second added feature is making the tax-extenders package that was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate in September a part of this stabilization package. Providing additional tax relief for individuals and small businesses in a time of stress and rising prices is in itself a step toward economic stability.

I am pleased to note that the tax provisions include energy-related measures such as new language on application of the wood-stove credit. We are not only providing general tax relief, but also targeted measures that will encourage more use of renewable resources and reduce our dependence on imported oil, whose increased cost aggravates the other injuries from which our economy suffers.

This bipartisan financial-stabilization package, endorsed by our congressional leadership and by both Presidential candidates, does not eliminate the need to keep reasonable questions in mind. While exchanging Treasury funds for currently depressed or unmarketable mortgage-related assets would obviously be a powerful tool for freeing the channels of credit and investment, many questions remain about how the Government would ensure that mortgages and mortgage-backed securities are carefully appraised so that taxpayers do not overpay or, worse yet, stand liable for debts used to purchase currently unmarketable assets; that the purchased assets are carefully managed; and that taxpayers are adequately protected through such devices as warrants or contingent equity interests in return for their financial exposure.

The bill before us now includes a provision that addresses those concerns in a comprehensive fashion. It directs the President, 5 years after the Troubled Asset Relief Program takes effect, to evaluate the ultimate cost, if any, to taxpayers, and to propose a program for recovering any shortfall from the financial industry. Considering that taxpayers may actually make money on the resale of troubled assets purchased by the Treasury, this added level of protection seems to insulate them from risk of losses.

The current upheaval in the financial markets certainly has created great strain on the lives of families throughout the country as well as our financial markets. And it threatens a terrible recession here and around the world. The bill before us is not perfect, but it reflects a consensus on the shape of an effective intervention, and it provides robust provisions for accountability and taxpayer protection.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this carefully crafted and urgently needed measure, and in my call for a thorough review of our financial regulatory system so that the current crisis does not occur again.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the energy tax provisions of Senator Dodd's amendment to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. These provisions were included in the tax extenders, H.R. 6049, passed by the Senate last week. I strongly support these provisions, and I am pleased that they are included in the financial rescue plan we are voting on today.

The United States needs a balanced, comprehensive national energy policy that addresses our immediate problems and future needs without compromising the health of the environment. In fact, I believe we must embark on a national effort to achieve energy independence by 2020. This effort will require a stronger commitment to renewable energy sources and energy efficiency and conservation.

Some of the best ideas about what we need to do now and over the next 5 years to address our Nation's energy crisis are coming from people in my State of Maine. A professor at the University of Maine has a plan for clean, renewable offshore wind power to supply as much as 40 percent of the Nation's energy. Offshore wind production that is out of sight from land could provide an affordable source of renewable energy directly to population centers on each coast while supplying thousands of new jobs. In addition, it would expand Maine's electricity supply so that people could transition away from using oil.

Maine is also well positioned to take a leading role in the development of this tidal power. The U.S. wave and tidal energy resource potential that reasonably could be harnessed is about 10 percent of national energy demand. In Maine, a consortium of the University of Maine, Maine Maritime Academy, and industry is poised to become a key test bed site for tidal energy devices.

Maine also has a large supply of wood that could be used as an energy source. These stoves dramatically reduce both indoor and outdoor air pollution, use up to 50 percent less wood for the same amount of heat and utilize one of Maine's renewable resources. I am pleased that the energy tax bill includes a provision I authored to provide a $300 tax credit for replacing an old, inefficient wood stove with a cleanburning wood or wood pellet stove.

This credit will be an important tool to help people in my home State and throughout the Nation find affordable ways to heat their homes this winter. This legislation provides a credit for home heating systems which have thermal efficiencies greater than 75 percent and which use renewable, biomass fuels. Efficient, clean-burning biomass equipment currently is available that can achieve this thermal efficiency, and I believe that equipment should and would be eligible for tax incentives in this amendment.

Mr. President, again I am pleased that we are discussing renewable energy and energy efficiency tax credits today. I look forward to seeing these credits signed into law soon.

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

Mr. President, could the Chair inform us whether there is an order for proceeding? It was my understanding we were alternating, going back and forth. I would inform the Senators on the floor I have a 5-minute tribute to Senator Warner. But I am unaware of what the order is.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the Senator from New Jersey.

Senator John Warner

Mr. President, throughout our Nation's history, the Commonwealth of Virginia has provided leaders of uncommon courage, dedication, and vision. The names that are revered in the Old Dominion are honored across

America: Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Mason, and Henry, to name but a few.

Today, as the 110th Congress draws to a close, we say farewell to another great Virginian, a great patriot, public servant, and distinguished colleague whose name history will add to that honor roll: the name of our friend and colleague, Senator John Warner.

Senator Warner's career mirrors those of the Founding Fathers in many ways. During World War II, when freedom was under attack, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy at just 17 years of age.

Following the war, he rejoined civilian life, earned a college degree, and entered law school. At the outbreak of the Korean war, he suspended his studies to serve his Nation once again, this time as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps.

After he returned from Korea, he completed his law degree but remained an officer in the Reserves, always ready to answer the call of his Nation. Senator John Warner truly exemplifies the American tradition of the citizen soldier.

As a civilian, John Warner continued to serve: as an assistant U.S. attorney, as Under Secretary of the Navy, and as Secretary of the Navy. During his 5 years in the Navy's Secretariat, he demonstrated another American tradition: a commitment to both military strength and diplomacy.

It is fitting that one so steeped in the best of America's traditions was chosen by the President, in 1976, to coordinate our Nation's bicentennial celebrations in all 50 States and in 22 foreign countries.

It was in 1978 that the wise citizens of Virginia sent John Warner to the U.S. Senate. For 30 years, the people of America have been grateful. The hallmark of Senator Warner's service in the Senate has been his absolute and unwavering commitment to a strong national defense. It has been my honor to serve with him on two committees that bear directly upon that commitment--the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

As the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner has consistently upheld the pledge he took to defend America when he enlisted in the Navy 63 years ago. His support for our men and women in uniform, for their families, and for our veterans is unwavering. He has been an effective and strong advocate for modernizing our military to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

Senator Warner also understands that America's future does not just depend upon defending our Nation against attack. I am proud to have worked with him on climate change legislation, and his leadership on the America's Climate Security Act with our friend, Senator Joe Lieberman, demonstrates his commitment to protecting our environment and to securing our energy future.

Senator Warner's career has been defined by his involvement in some of the most pressing issues of our time. But he has also worked hard on those seemingly smaller issues that make a big difference in people's lives. As just one example, he joined me in authoring the tax deduction for teachers who spend their own money on classroom supplies. Whether in uniform or in our classrooms, John Warner believes those who serve have earned our gratitude and our support.

Also, we remember John Warner's pivotal role at a time when our institution of the Senate was at a threshold of chaos and dysfunction. I refer to his leadership in the so-called Gang of 14, which worked out a compromise on judicial nominations that helped save this institution from what would have otherwise been a very bleak time.

Senator Warner has continued and enhanced the best traditions of this Nation and of the Commonwealth of Virginia in countless ways. One that must be mentioned, before I conclude my remarks, is his unfailing civility and courtesy toward his Senate colleagues. Regardless of the significance of the issue or the intensity of the debate or the strength of his colleagues' feelings, Senator Warner has always tempered staunch advocacy for his convictions with the utmost respect for the convictions of others.

On a personal note, he has been a wonderful friend and mentor to me, the Senator from Maine. I know all Americans join me today in thanking Senator John Warner for his dedicated decades of service to his country, whether in times of peace or war, and in wishing him all the best in the years to come.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his very kind and thoughtful comments. At a time when we are attempting to pay tribute to him, he, of course, is gracious to others.

I thank the Senator from New Jersey for his tolerance on the extra time.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, along with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein. This bill will accelerate research of plug-in hybrid technologies for heavy duty trucks.

The Department of Energy, DOE, administers several grants to speed production of hybrid cars, but DOE does not have a single grant specifically intended for trucks. Truck operators in Maine and around the country are being hit hard by high diesel prices. In 1999, a Maine truck driver could purchase $500 of diesel fuel and drive from Augusta, ME, all the way to Albuquerque, NM. Today, a driver who purchases $500 of diesel and leaves Augusta would not even make it to Altoona, PA, and because diesel prices may well continue to increase, the problem is only getting worse. Plug-in hybrid trucks would make them less susceptible to dramatic swings in oil prices.

Industries turn their trucks over faster than consumers do their cars and can therefore adopt new technologies faster. This means reducing oil consumption by heavy duty trucks could go a long way toward reduce our Nation's oil consumption. DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that hybrid trucks could reduce fuel use by as much as 60 percent.

Current hybrid technology works well for cars because they can be made with lightweight materials and run shorter distances. Trucks need to be able to carry heavy loads and, if they are going to be plug-in hybrids, travel long distances in between charges. So, the battery and other technologies needed to make plug-in trucks a reality are more advanced than for cars.

The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act would direct DOE to expand its research in advanced energy storage technologies to include heavy hybrid trucks as well as passenger vehicles. The focus on plug-ins builds on a proven technology for cars that can drastically reduce our use of foreign oil and enhance the efficiency of the electric grid.

Grant recipients will be required to complete two phases. In phase one, recipients must build one plug-in hybrid truck, collect data and make comparisons to traditional trucks, and report on the fuel savings. In phase two, recipients must produce 50 plug-in hybrid trucks and report on the technological and market obstacles to widespread production. To help with this second phase, grant applicants can partner with other manufacturers. The bill authorizes $16 million for each of fiscal years 2009-2011 for the grant program.

We need a comprehensive approach to addressing the energy crisis. The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act is one vital piece of that approach. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, along with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein. This bill will accelerate research of plug-in hybrid technologies for heavy duty trucks.

The Department of Energy, DOE, administers several grants to speed production of hybrid cars, but DOE does not have a single grant specifically intended for trucks. Truck operators in Maine and around the country are being hit hard by high diesel prices. In 1999, a Maine truck driver could purchase $500 of diesel fuel and drive from Augusta, ME, all the way to Albuquerque, NM. Today, a driver who purchases $500 of diesel and leaves Augusta would not even make it to Altoona, PA, and because diesel prices may well continue to increase, the problem is only getting worse. Plug-in hybrid trucks would make them less susceptible to dramatic swings in oil prices.

Industries turn their trucks over faster than consumers do their cars and can therefore adopt new technologies faster. This means reducing oil consumption by heavy duty trucks could go a long way toward reduce our Nation's oil consumption. DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that hybrid trucks could reduce fuel use by as much as 60 percent.

Current hybrid technology works well for cars because they can be made with lightweight materials and run shorter distances. Trucks need to be able to carry heavy loads and, if they are going to be plug-in hybrids, travel long distances in between charges. So, the battery and other technologies needed to make plug-in trucks a reality are more advanced than for cars.

The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act would direct DOE to expand its research in advanced energy storage technologies to include heavy hybrid trucks as well as passenger vehicles. The focus on plug-ins builds on a proven technology for cars that can drastically reduce our use of foreign oil and enhance the efficiency of the electric grid.

Grant recipients will be required to complete two phases. In phase one, recipients must build one plug-in hybrid truck, collect data and make comparisons to traditional trucks, and report on the fuel savings. In phase two, recipients must produce 50 plug-in hybrid trucks and report on the technological and market obstacles to widespread production. To help with this second phase, grant applicants can partner with other manufacturers. The bill authorizes $16 million for each of fiscal years 2009-2011 for the grant program.

We need a comprehensive approach to addressing the energy crisis. The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act is one vital piece of that approach. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I recognize a landmark event at one of our Nation's great success stories in higher education. On October 11, 2008, Husson College in my home State of Maine will become Husson University.

This designation is but the latest chapter in a history that is truly inspiring. It began more than a century ago, in 1898, when Chesley Husson founded the Shaw School of Business on the second floor of a building in downtown Bangor, offering instruction in such cutting-edge technologies of the day as typing and telegraphy. From the very start, Husson has remained a private school with an entrepreneurial approach and a commitment to educating young people of limited means.

Since then, Husson has grown tremendously, both in the size of its beautiful campus and in the range of the courses and degrees offered. It has grown because, through all those years, Husson has remained true to its founding principles of responding to needs, recognizing opportunities, and delivering real value.

Today, Husson offers a university-caliber range of both undergraduate and graduate degrees, including graduate professional degrees in business, health and education. It is home to the New England School of Communications, which offers audio, video, Web and computer programs, marketing, theater, and both print and broadcast journalism, and to the Bangor Theological Seminary, the only accredited graduate school of religion in Northern New England. In addition to its main campus in Bangor, Husson has developed a statewide reach with education centers in South Portland and Presque Isle, the Boat School in Eastport, and Unobskey College in Calais.

The Husson story is, however, about more than growth in enrollment, degree offerings, and campus locations. It also is a story of fostering personal growth, of preparing graduates for successful professional careers, and of promoting in each student the development of individual self-worth.

Before coming to the Senate, I had the honor of serving as the founding director of the Dyke Center for Family Business. I have never known a school, a faculty, or a student body more focused on preparing for a professional career than at Husson. Husson truly is remarkable in its dedication to this aspiration and its clear sense of purpose.

I saw in Husson students an emerging sense of personal pride, a sense of self-worth grounded in knowledge and confidence. This wonderful combination of hands-on learning, personal attention from the faculty, friendships that develop with other students, and self-discovery is the Husson spirit. As I travel throughout Maine and across the Nation I find Husson alumni from every walk of life who possess that invaluable sense of self-worth.

Husson is more than a pretty campus in a small city that shines, as Thoreau put it, ``like a star on the edge of night.'' Husson is a network. It is a network that includes teachers, architects, bankers, nurses and therapists, counselors, criminal justice administrators, hospital CEOs and doctors, corporate executives and entrepreneurs, heads of architectural firms, senior law partners and entrepreneurs. It is a network that reaches across the State of Maine and around the world.

If there is one thing today's college students do not need to be told, it is that the world is changing every day. A big part of the Husson spirit is anticipating change. Among Husson alumni there are business graduates who have become architects and attorneys, nurses who are hospital CEOs, and teachers who have become ministers. A Husson degree is more than proof that a student can do one thing well. By developing the skills to perfect one profession, Husson graduates learn the discipline, leadership skills, and problem-solving capabilities to change with the times. The Husson spirit is not just about being part of change, but of leading it.

The change I recognize today is evidence of that spirit. I congratulate Husson College as it becomes Husson University. The Husson story is remarkable, but I know that the most remarkable chapters have yet to be written.

Ten minutes.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for finally working this out.

I rise today in strong support of the Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act. Let me begin by thanking the committee's distinguished chairman, Senator Levin, for his leadership, and also Senator Warner, who is taking on double duty, acting as the ranking Republican on the committee in the absence of Senator McCain. I want to take this opportunity to thank the senior Senator from Virginia for his years of service on the committee. He has been a true friend to me and to the members of our committee and the armed services of this Nation, and his guidance, wisdom and, above all, his civility in all matters will be greatly missed. I deeply admire him, and I thank him for his leadership on this bill and on so many other issues.

I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, this legislation will provide essential training, equipment, and support to our troops as they engage in combat overseas and in exercises at home. It also offers an important opportunity for continued debate as to our Nation's strategy in Iraq, especially the cost of reconstruction in Iraq.

I am particularly pleased the legislation we are now debating contains an amendment that Senators Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, and I offered to alleviate the burden on the American taxpayers of our operations in Iraq. It is time for the Iraqis to pay more of the costs of securing, rebuilding, and stabilizing their own country. During the Armed Services Committee markup, I joined Senators Nelson and Bayh in authoring the provisions that are in this bill which shift to the Iraqi Government the costs of securing and rebuilding Iraq in order to lift that burden from the shoulders of the American taxpayers.

While our country is struggling with a soaring deficit, the Iraqi Government is awash in oil revenues. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has estimated that Iraq's oil profits will reach $70 billion this year. That is far more than the Government of Iraq anticipated when it established its budget of $47 billion.

Similarly, on August 5, the Government Accountability Office issued a report that provided an in-depth examination of Iraqi revenues, expenditures, and surpluses. This GAO report underscores the need for our amendment requiring the Iraqi Government to assume greater responsibility for its own costs. The report verifies the stronger financial position of the Iraqis due to the unanticipated windfall brought about by record-high oil revenues. According to the GAO, Iraq is likely to receive between $67 billion and $79 billion in revenues from oil sales in 2008 alone--twice the average of revenues between 2005 and 2007. Yet the Iraqis still have not adequately invested in reconstruction efforts in their own country. In fact, they have spent just 28 percent of the $12 billion investment budget.

In addition, the Iraqis had approximately $29 billion in surplus funds that actually went unused during the past 2 years. When Americans are struggling with the high cost of energy, a weakening economy, and a burdensome deficit, there is simply no reason for the American taxpayers to continue paying for the major reconstruction projects, for the salaries, training, and equipping of the Iraqi security forces, or the cost of fuel in a country that has the second largest oil reserves and a burgeoning budget surplus.

Our bipartisan amendment would shift these costs to the Iraqis. Specifically, our amendment prohibits America's tax dollars from being spent on major reconstruction projects in Iraq. It requires the Iraqis to assume the responsibility of paying for the salaries, training, and equipping of Iraq's security forces, including the army, the police, and the Sons of Iraq; it initiates negotiations between our Government and the Iraqi Government on a plan to cover other expenses, such as the fuel used by American forces when they are in-country.

Our proposal was approved unanimously by the Senate Armed Services Committee, and it represents a significant bipartisan change in our policy in Iraq.

The fact is, the American taxpayers cannot wait for the administration to act. We must require this significant reform by changing the law. Asking the Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security and for the reconstruction of their own country will give them a sense of ownership, and it makes common sense given Iraq's growing budget surplus. That is the purpose of our provision, and I urge my colleagues to support the proposal that we have incorporated into the Defense authorization bill.

The legislation before us also includes a strong commitment to strengthening Navy shipbuilding by including more than $14 billion for shipbuilding programs. It fully supports the Navy's shipbuilding priorities. The declining size of our naval fleet is of great concern to me. This legislation is an important step toward reversing that troubling decline.

The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Roughead, has put forth a plan for a 313-ship Navy. It would address longstanding congressional concerns that naval shipbuilding has been inadequately funded. The instability and

inadequacy of previous naval shipbuilding budgets has had a number of troubling effects on our shipbuilding industrial base and has contributed to significant cost growth in the Navy's shipbuilding programs. The 313-ship plan, combined with more robust funding by Congress, will begin to reverse the decline in Navy shipbuilding.

This bill authorizes funding for construction of a third Zumwalt class destroyer. The DDG-1000 represents a significant advancement in Navy surface combatant technology.

It is critical that the construction of the first two DDG-1000 destroyers continue on schedule without further delay. It is equally important that Congress provide full funding for the third ship.

The dedicated and highly skilled workers at our Nation's surface combatant shipyards, such as the Bath Iron Works in my great State of Maine, are simply too valuable to jeopardize with any cuts or delays in this program. To date, the Navy has spent more than $11 billion on research, development, detailed design, and advanced procurement for this program. In addition, industry, including not just our shipyards but also a multitude of vendors in over 48 States, has made significant investments in preparation for building this new class of ship. It is critically important in these tight budget times that we not throw away the investment our country has made as the Navy prepares to build the destroyer for the 21st century. That is why I am so concerned that the House version of the Defense authorization bill eliminates funding for the construction of a third ship, and even more troubling, does not provide sufficient funding for the construction of any surface combatant.

Mr. President, as the threats from around the world continue to grow, it is vitally important that the Navy have the best fleet available to counter those threats, keep the sealanes open, and to defend our Nation.

Bath Iron Works and the shipyards of this country are ready to build whatever ships the Navy needs. But it is vitally important that there not be a gap in shipbuilding that jeopardizes our industrial base. I am pleased with the funding provided in this bill. I look forward to resolving this important issue in conference.

Earlier this year, the Navy proposed to truncate the DDG-1000 program after just two ships. In July, after further evaluation, the Navy realized the terrible effect that such a decision would have on the industrial base and on our shipyards, in particular. It would have created a gap in work for Bath Iron Works because of the delays and costs inherent in restarting the DDG-51 line.

It is important to note that Bath Iron Works is prepared to build whatever ships the Navy needs, but that there must be a stable work plan to sustain the industrial base. The best way to achieve that goal, and to take advantage of the billions of dollars already invested in the DDG-1000, is to proceed with the third ship at this time even if the Navy ultimately decides to build more DDG-51s.

The House version of this bill would also require that the next- generation class of amphibious ships be powered by nuclear propulsion systems, even though the shipyard that currently builds those ships does not have either the facilities or certifications required to construct nuclear-powered ships. This provision could dramatically increase the costs of future amphibious force vessels, with some estimates stating it could be as much as $800 million more per ship. This would reduce the overall number of ships that could be built at a time when the Navy is seeking to revitalize and modernize its fleet. It is completely contradictory to the Chief of Naval Operations 313-ship plan.

I am pleased that our Senate bill also includes funding for additional littoral combat ships. While this program has suffered a number of setbacks, the Navy, with the help of Congress, has taken significant steps in order to begin to get this program under control. These ships are important for the Navy in order to counter new, asymmetric threats, and the Navy needs to get these ships to the fleet soon.

I am pleased that the Senate Armed Services Committee also agreed to my request for $25 million in additional funding to continue the modernization program for the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers. This program provides significant savings to the Navy by applying some of the technology that is being developed for the DDG-1000 destroyer and back fitting the DDG-51, which may reduce the crew size by 30 to 40 sailors.

The Senate's fiscal 2009 Defense authorization bill also includes funding for other defense-related projects that benefit Maine and our national security.

The bill also authorizes $20.6 million for construction of a new drydock support facility at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME. This drydock, and its accompanying support facility, are essential for the shipyard's future work on Virginia-class submarines, the Navy's newest attack submarine.

Funding is provided for machine guns and grenade launchers, both of which are manufactured by the highly skilled workers at Saco Defense in Saco, ME.

In addition, the legislation provides $1.5 million to the University of Maine for the continued research and development of modular ballistic tent insert panels. These panels provide crucial protection to servicemembers in temporary dining and housing facilities in mobile forward operating bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill also authorizes an additional $1.5 million for the University of Maine's work on high temperature sensors that is important to the Air Force. These sensors are capable of sensing physical properties such as temperature, pressure, corrosion and vibration in critical aerospace components.

The legislation also provides $3.5 million for further development of the ripsaw ground vehicle, an innovative unmanned tank-like vehicle, manufactured by Howe and Howe Technologies in North Berwick, ME. This technology will have the ability to provide force security for our troops by taking them directly out of harm's way.

Finally, I am pleased that this bipartisan Defense bill also authorizes a 3.9 percent across-the-board pay increase for servicemembers, half a percent above the President's budget request.

This bill provides the necessary resources to our troops and our Nation and recognizes the enormous contributions made by the State of Maine. The bill provides the necessary funding for our troops, and I offer it my full support.

I thank the chairman. I agree with his comments. I am delighted with the support he and the chairman have given to this effort. I thank the Senator.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 5276 to the National Defense Authorization Act, an amendment that would establish a government-wide Contingency Contracting Corps.

Through numerous hearings and investigations, the Senate Homeland Security Committee has documented many costly failures in contracting and acquisition management related to Federal operations following Hurricane Katrina and in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, other IGs, and the Government Accountability Office have also reported on serious problems in Federal contracting. Many of these well-documented problems might have been avoided or mitigated if the government had a reserve cadre of skilled acquisition professionals who could be dispatched to areas in urgent need to assist with procurement and contract-management tasks.

Last year, I introduced S. 680, the Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 2007, with Senators Lieberman, Carper, Coleman, and McCaskill as original cosponsors. The Senate passed this bill unanimously last November 7, including a title that would establish a government-wide Contingency Contracting Corps. Unfortunately, House leaders have failed to take up our unanimously passed bill.

Just a few days before the Senate action, the Army released the report of a special commission on procurement headed by former Under Secretary of Defense Jacques Gansler. The Gansler Report noted that while contracting workload had increased by 350 percent since 1995, the Army's contract-oversight staff had declined by almost 50 percent. The report's recommendations for more people, better training, organizational reform, and other improvements offer us a case study of the challenges facing the Federal acquisition process.

``First and most important is the people,'' Dr. Gansler said while presenting his report. He was right, and that truth is at the core of the amendment that Senator Lieberman and I now offer.

The need for a Contingency Contracting Corps is urgent. The Federal Government purchases more than $440 billion of goods and services each year. Some of these purchases are pursuant to contracts issued under the stress and urgency of military operations or an emergency response.

Purchasing on such a prodigious scale and across a vast array of departments and programs can create abundant opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. And doing so under the stress of military or disaster-recovery operations without sufficient staff skilled in working in those conditions can multiply the potential for trouble.

Unfortunately, our government moved into the 21st century with 22 percent fewer Federal civilian acquisition personnel than it had at the start of the 1990s. And as noted, the decline in the DOD acquisition workforce was even more pronounced.

We have seen that the urgent demands of natural disasters, a terrorist attack, or active military operations can overwhelm any agency's acquisition workforce. This amendment would provide the equivalent of a rapid-reaction force or strike team to ensure that emergency acquisition activities are performed swiftly, effectively, and economically.

The Corps would draw on volunteers from civilian and uniformed Federal-acquisition professionals. It would be managed by the OFPP Administrator. The Administrator would be authorized to prescribe additional training and determine when the Corps would be deployed. Any deployments would be made in consultation with the heads of the affected agencies, and in the case of military or civilian DOD employees, with the concurrence of the Defense Department.

The Contingency Contracting Corps is not a substitute for the many other reforms needed to improve government-wide acquisition, but it can help our Nation deal with urgent demands by temporarily reallocating trained acquisition staff from their regular duties to areas of pressing need. The Corps would help guard against the wasteful and excessive spending that too often occurs in exigent circumstances.

I urge my colleagues to adopt this much-needed, carefully constructed, and bipartisan amendment.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 5277 to the National Defense Authorization Act, an amendment that will improve stewardship of taxpayer dollars while promoting more transparency and competition in the procurement of goods and services by our government. Senator Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, joins me in sponsoring this amendment.

Our amendment, the Accountability in Government Contracting Act, is a bipartisan response to contracting problems identified by the Homeland Security Committee that pose increasing dangers of waste, fraud, and abuse as Federal contracting continues to grow.

The amendment consists of provisions that passed the Senate unanimously last November as part of S. 680. Many of that bill's provisions were included in last year's defense authorization. The remaining provisions are offered in this amendment, with modifications based on discussions with other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Joining Senator Lieberman and me in this effort are Senators Coleman, Carper, Akaka, McCaskill, and Tester.

The Federal Government purchases about $440 billion in goods and services each year. The rising costs of military operations, natural disasters, homeland security precautions, and other vital programs will drive those expenditures to even higher levels in the years ahead.

This prodigious level of purchasing creates abundant opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. We have seen far too many outrageous failures in government contracting, such as unusable trailers for hurricane victims, shoddy construction of schools and clinics in Afghanistan, or the installation in Iraq of showers for our troops that pose electric-shock hazards. All of these failures and more demand strong steps to protect taxpayer dollars and deliver better acquisition outcomes.

Obstacles to improvement include personnel shortages, resource constraints, poor program administration, and inadequate accountability an transparency in the contracting process.

The resource challenges go far beyond funding, and start with a simple lack of trained personnel. The Federal Government moved into the 21st century with 22 percent fewer Federal civilian acquisition personnel than it had at the start of the 1990s. The Department of Defense, which has the largest acquisition budget, has been disbursing enormous amounts of money to contractors since the first Gulf war, but saw its acquisition workforce shrink by more than 50 percent between 1994 and 2005.

Among the current, attenuated Federal acquisition workforce, nearly 40 percent were eligible to retire at the end of the last fiscal year. Meanwhile, the number and scale of federal purchases continue to rise, making this human-capital crisis even more dire.

Other challenges to fair, effective, and open competition and oversight include inadequate definition of requirements, overuse of letter contracts that fail to include all critical terms until after performance is complete, excessive tiering of subcontracts, and insufficient publicly available data on Federal contracts.

Our amendment offers sensible, practical reforms to address these problems.

A critical feature of this legislation will help recruit, retain, and develop an adequate Federal acquisition workforce. It establishes an acquisition internship program that will provide professional training and development for careers in Federal procurement and acquisition management to at least 200 college graduates per year. Another provision would require that government chief acquisition officers have extensive management experience--a requirement lacking in current law.

Our amendment also promotes more competition for government contracts--a positive step for both contractors and taxpayers.

Competition for government contracts helps to control costs, encourage innovation, and improve quality. Unfortunately, the tide has been running the wrong way. While the dollar volume of Federal contracting has nearly doubled since the year 2000, fewer than half of all ``contract actions''--new contracts and payments against existing contracts--are now subject to full and open competition, down from more than three-quarters in the year 2000.

Our Homeland Security Committee investigations of federal contracting problems in the Hurricane Katrina disaster and in our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have confirmed the obvious concerns about this trend.

We need more competition, less sole-source contracting, and tougher management of Federal contracts. Our amendment mandates enhanced competition for each task or delivery order over the simplified acquisition threshold.

It further encourages competition for those orders by requiring Internet postings of notices of all sole-source task-or-delivery orders above the simplified acquisition threshold, within 14 business days after the award.

Another provision takes aim at abuse of interagency and enterprise- wide contracts, which account for 40 percent of Federal contract spending. It requires the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to survey, review, and provide guidance on procedures for creating, using, and continuing these interagency acquisitions. This step should eliminate some of the redundancies that have been discovered in these complex arrangements--redundancies that reduce the government's purchasing power and waste tax dollars.

I shall briefly note some other important provisions of the amendment.

The amendment will rein in the practice of hastily awarding letter contracts missing key terms, such as price, scope or schedule, and then failing to supply those terms until the contractor delivers the good or service--thereby placing all risk of failure on the government. In Iraq and Katrina contracting, we saw the perils of failing to supply the ``missing term'' promptly. For example, in July 2006, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction identified 194 individual task orders valued at $3.4 billion that were classified as ``undefinitized contract actions.''

The government has allowed too much money and too many contract actions to linger in this status. The amendment corrects this flaw by requiring clear guidance in the Federal

Acquisition Regulation and strong justification for making such contracts or orders.

Contracting for Hurricane Katrina and in Iraq has also involved excessive tiering of subcontractors, driving up costs and complicating contract administration. The amendment mandates regulatory guidance for minimizing tiering to ensure that every layer of subcontracting adds value or serves a valid purpose in meeting Federal requirements.

In our committee investigation of debris removal after Hurricane Katrina, a disaster that required clearing away nearly 100 million cubic yards of debris, we found that some contracts involved five or six tiers of subcontractors, often with little or no apparent added value. This provision would put in place government-wide requirements to control this practice and its potential for wasting tax dollars.

Another important provision requires the OFPP to review and report on existing policies and to recommend needed changes to ensure that Federal agencies are not contracting out essential core responsibilities of government. The risks of such activity were made starkly clear in our committee's recent discovery that a contractor wrote parts of FEMA's request for proposals for the TOPOFF 5 emergency- management exercise and was then allowed to bid on the contract. This clear conflict of interest threatened both the integrity of the competitive process and objective implementation of Federal policy.

The amendment also restricts the de-facto outsourcing of program- management responsibility when a large contractor becomes a ``lead systems integrator'' for a multipart project and requires the OFPP to craft a government-wide definition of lead systems integrators.

The Accountability in Government Contracting Act combines practical, workable, and targeted reforms to improve a complex process that expends hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars every year. As the SIGIR said of these proposals in a Homeland Security Committee hearing last year, ``these kinds of reforms are exactly what will save taxpayer dollars ... and address very directly the problems that we have been experiencing in contracting in Iraq.''

My amendment will pay recurring dividends for years to come in higher quality proposals, in avoidance of wasteful and excessive spending, and in better results for our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support it.