Floor Statements

I do not know Eric Holder, whom President-elect Barack Obama has nominated to serve as our next Attorney General. I had an interesting conversation with one of the topmost senior people within the Department of Justice, serving in the current administration, who described the nomination as ``a brilliant choice.'' So we will find out whether it was.

Before I came here, I served for 8 years as Governor. At one time, I was State treasurer, as my colleague, the Presiding Officer, was, both treasurer and insurance commissioner for the State of Florida. I served on the Board of Pardons as State treasurer for 6 years and then later on as Governor for another 8 years to consider the recommendations of the Board of Pardons as to whether people should have a sentence commuted or whether they should be pardoned for some crime they had committed. I always got advice from our legal counsel, got advice from the Board of Pardons itself, but in the end the buck stopped with me as the Governor, and I made the decision. Whether it was well received or not, I never blamed my counsel for the advice he or she had given me. At the end of the day, I think that is probably the case at the Federal level as well.

But we look forward to receiving the nomination and having a full hearing, a fair hearing so that this nominee can defend himself, present his case and his credentials to us. I hope what the senior Department of Justice official said to me about this nomination, that it was a brilliant choice, will indeed prove to be the case.

Mr. President, what I want to do is take the next 8 or 9 minutes to talk about the issue we are waiting for, waiting to address here hopefully later this evening, and the issue is whether we are going to provide--not a grant, not a gift, not a bailout to two auto companies, GM and Chrysler, but whether we are going to provide them a loan.

Some of you recall 28 years ago when Chrysler was in difficult straits and their CEO, Lee Iacocca, called on the Federal Government to provide a loan. We did not do that; we provided a loan guarantee. Chrysler made a lot of changes within the company to reduce their costs, to make them a low-cost provider of vehicles, and they came back to health. The loan was repaid. Federal taxpayers actually made

money, about $300 million on the deal, because we had taken--in return for taking on the risk of making that loan, we got warrants, and we converted those warrants into stock, which Treasury sold and made about $300 million.

Today, I think the thing that has been dragging this process down is the question of, as we think about providing a loan to Chrysler and a loan to General Motors, what can we do to make sure that within that company--labor, management, bondholders, lenders, dealers--how do we best ensure that they are going to make the further sacrifices, shared sacrifices, to make GM and Chrysler a lower-cost competitor, so that when they emerge from this process and begin operating with these loans, how can we make sure they will be successful, not just for a couple of months but how are we going to be encouraged that they will be successful for years--actually, for decades, as Chrysler was subsequent to our 1980 involvement.

The two positions that we are looking at--one is a negotiated deal by the White House and by Chairman Dodd and others here in the Senate that says we want to put in place a car czar--sort of like a trustee, if you will, almost like a bankruptcy trustee--whose job it would be to work with the relevant stakeholders, folks I already mentioned--labor, management, lenders, bondholders, dealers and others--to ensure that they make the kinds of sacrifices and reductions that will lead to making GM and Chrysler more vibrant, more competitive when the economy recovers and people start buying cars, trucks, and vans again. So on the one hand, that is what the administration has proposed and what Senator Dodd and others have negotiated with them.

On the other hand, we have some of our friends on the Republican side here in the Senate who believe it is appropriate for the Senate almost to sort of stipulate the conditions of this shared sacrifice, almost for the Senate to serve not exactly but kind of like the bankruptcy judge or almost to be the car czar itself and to put those changes in legislative language.

So those are sort of the two positions where we are, and we have been sort of in a logjam for much of the day. I am encouraged that there is still good will on both sides, and a lot of folks have been involved in these negotiations. Hopefully, we are finally coming closer to some consensus, and not one where we actually have the Congress playing the role of bankruptcy judge but we do take some steps to better ensure that the additional cost savings that are needed are realized so that these companies will be successful for a long period of time.

I rode down on the train today. Before I got on the train, I ran into somebody. Like our Presiding Officer, I like to work out almost every day. I stopped off at the central YMCA in Wilmington. While I was there, this one fellow who had just bought a Chevrolet came up to me.

He said: Tell me that if you all are going to do something, I will still have a dealer to take my car to to have it serviced and for the warranty to be good.

I said: There is nothing I can promise you for sure, but we don't want to just walk away from the industry and see these folks go down.

But I am convinced there are a lot of people who, frankly, would like to drive a car, truck, or van, and they might want to buy a product from Ford, Chrysler, or GM. Before they do that, they want to make sure the dealer and the company will be around for a while, for however long they will own their vehicle, so if they do have a problem and it needs warranty work they will get that; if they have a problem in the years ahead and they need parts, they can get them; if they need service, they will be able to get that as well. That uncertainty is keeping people from buying vehicles.

The other factor is the captive financing arms of the car companies-- GMAC, Chrysler Financial, and Ford Financial. They not only help provide people who want to buy cars with loans to enable them to buy their vehicles, they also help finance dealer inventory. If a dealer wants to finance inventory, they have to get the money from someplace. Sometimes they can get it from the local banks, sometimes they can't. Sometimes they get that financing from the captive finance vehicle of each of the auto companies.

The captive financing arm also will make loans and then they will take those loans and bundle them and securitize them and sell them around the country and around the world to provide more money to be used to either finance auto loans or, in some cases, finance the inventory for dealers to put on their parking lots and showrooms. As we go through this, one of the things we have to do is not only hopefully work out this deal so we figure out who is going to play the role of the Federal bankruptcy judge with respect to these two companies, without going into bankruptcy, so we can make sure these companies will be around and provide warranty work and parts and service, but how do we make sure the captive financing arms start working again as they are supposed to.

We have a lot of banks that haven't been providing the kind of loans to families, small businesses for working capital, for kids to go to college and people to buy homes and cars. We have been working on that for a couple months. Liquidity is freeing up a little bit. But as we deal with that and with the more immediate issue of the near-term survival of Ford and Chrysler and GM, it is important that we also keep in mind the captive finance arms and how we can make sure they are in a position, like banks being able to lend money, the financial arms of the car companies are able to lend money as well. That may be a battle for another day but not very far down the line.

I am encouraged that some progress is being made. I wanted to express my thanks for the people of Delaware. We have a Chrysler plant in my State that has been there for about 60 years. We make the SUVs for Chrysler. We build the Dodge Durangos and the Chrysler Aspens. They were selected as the best SUVs in terms of quality by JD Powers. That plant will be closed in 20 days, a plant that I have worked to keep open for 28 years. It is painful for me and for the people who have worked there, who still work there. But it is going to happen. We have a GM plant not far from there in Wilmington where we make all the Saturn Skys. We not only sell those in this country, we sell them around the world. We export them to South Korea. We sell the Saturn Sky in about 15 or so countries in Europe. It is a very good vehicle. We are proud of the work they do. I have believed over the years in making sure these plants stay alive and make a good product. They do a great job on quality, productivity, and labor-management relations. We are very proud of both plants and their workforce, management and labor people, and the record they have achieved.

We want to make sure our Chrysler plant, as they are shut down and a lot of people are going to be losing jobs, we want to make sure the folks who work there, the people who build the Durangos and Aspens, we think those are hands that can also build windmill turbines for the windmill farm we will put off the coast of Rehobeth Beach starting a year or two from now. Those are hands that can build solar energy panels and can build homes with geothermal heating and cooling, can build a new nuclear powerplant on the other side of the Delaware River. There is plenty they can do in terms of providing clean energy, in terms of providing us with a reduction in fossil fuels, and to enable us to build products that we can sell around the world to reduce our trade deficit. I think it is important, as we face a very sad closure of our Chrysler plant in Newark, that we have in place not just in Newark but in all kinds of plants around the country training programs that will help people who have a good work record. They want to be gainfully employed. They have good skills. Let's make sure they have the opportunity to find jobs where they can make a real contribution.

I see we are joined by the Senator from Utah who may or may not want to speak. He is approaching the Presiding Officer. It is always good to work with him. His presence always augers well for us doing something constructive. Keep up the good work.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I want to take the next several minutes, as we are getting together back in the Capitol, to discuss the possible future assistance the Federal Government might provide to our auto industry.

Coming down on the train, several people said to me--some for and some against the proposal--that they were not comfortable with the idea of giving money to the auto industry, and I said neither am I. I am not interested in giving money to the auto industry any more than I wanted to give money to the financial services industry.

I invite the people who are following this issue to go back in time to 1979, 1980, when Chrysler was going through a difficult time, and Lee Iacocca was the CEO of the company then. He called for Federal assistance. I think at the time they were interested in a Federal loan to Chrysler. We weren't interested in doing that then, but we agreed to provide loan guarantees so that if Chrysler could find financing elsewhere, the Federal Government would provide a backstop in the form of a guarantee of the loans; otherwise, Chrysler would not have been able to obtain the needed financing. We called on Chrysler to make some difficult decisions to reduce costs and make sure that in the long haul they would be successful and viable as a company.

At the time, Lee Iacocca told us: If we could make that Chrysler K Car, that is our ticket to salvation and redemption and profitability. He said we don't have the financial wherewithal to get there. The Federal Government agreed to provide a lifeline in the form of a loan guarantee. A number of States, including my State of Delaware, agreed to provide loans--direct loans in this case--to Chrysler. We negotiated a collateralized loan to Chrysler in 1980. In return for the Federal taxpayers taking on the risk in 1980 of the loan guarantees, we asked for an ability to participate in an upside. We wanted to make sure not just the shareholders and employees would benefit but that the taxpayers would benefit. We agreed to make loan guarantees in return for getting warrants--not warrants for anybody's arrest but a warrant that is a financial instrument that can be used to turn into stock and provide the potential, at least, for the Federal taxpayer to make some positive return on this investment.

As it turned out, when the deal was closed and Jimmy Carter signed the legislation in the early part of 1980, the stock for Chrysler was about $5 a share. Under the terms of the agreement, the Federal Government was able to purchase Chrysler stock for $13 a share. It didn't sound like a very good deal at the time. Nonetheless, we had that option to buy Chrysler stock at a future date at $13 a share. Later, Chrysler built the K Car and returned to profitability. They made money and the value of the shares appreciated. The time came when the Federal Government decided to go to Chrysler and say we would like to use our warrants and buy the stock at $13 a share. Then we turned around and sold them for $30 a share after that. The difference between the $13 and the $30 we sold them for led to an appreciation or accumulation of about $310 million for taxpayers. The loan the State of Delaware made to Chrysler--the collateralized loan I negotiated as State treasurer--was paid in full. Not only did we get the principal back, but we made interest for the taxpayers of my State. The same thing occurred to the taxpayers of other States. Meanwhile, Chrysler agreed to make a number of concessions that there be a sharing of sacrifices made by labor and management and others to help make that company viable for the longer haul. Lee Iacocca worked for $1 a year.

The long and short of it is that it worked. That was in 1980. It worked for over a quarter century. Chrysler has gotten themselves into trouble because they began relying more and more on large inefficient vehicles--SUVs, trucks, and relatively few fuel-efficient cars or fuel- efficient light trucks or SUVs. In the end, by this time last year, roughly 70 percent of what Chrysler was building was energy-inefficient cars. During the CAFE increases last year, among the companies that pushed back initially was Chrysler. They have had to begin pivoting, if you will, to move from a product line where up to 70 percent of the vehicles were light trucks and SUVs, relatively few cars, and not many very fuel efficient, to one where not just the light trucks and vans and SUVs were energy efficient but also the cars. You cannot do that. Chrysler cannot do it, and Ford and GM cannot move within a year, or even 2 years, from a product line that is woefully inefficient in terms of fuel economy to one that is highly efficient. It has taken a period of time.

I am encouraged by the progress they are making at Chrysler. They are a couple of years out from being where they need to be, given the marketplace and what consumers are asking for.

Meanwhile, over at Ford, about 2 years ago, they largely redefined the company, including the logo, to begin a major transformation. Under the leadership of Bill Ford and Alan Mullaley, former head of Boeing, who was brought in to run Ford a couple years ago, they began a transformation not 12 months ago but more like 2 years ago to move to vehicles such as the Focus and Fusion. They are in a better position now as people are buying fewer vehicles and are looking for energy- efficient vehicles. There is some neat, nifty technology and items for the vehicles as well, with the partnership they have worked out with Microsoft.

Over at GM, meanwhile, GM is hopefully about to introduce, in a year or year and a half, what I call the most advertised car that has never been built, the Chevrolet Volt. I saw it unveiled at the Detroit Auto Show about a year and a half ago--a plug-in hybrid, flex fuel vehicle with the potential of getting not just 40 miles out from the garage in the homes in the morning,

but a potential for getting 80 to even 90 miles per gallon by using an alternative onboard fuel system, a propulsion system, not to propel the car but to recharge the battery. Unfortunately, we have not built the battery yet. Nobody has built a battery yet that can do that or designed one that will work at minus 10 degrees Fahrenheit or 110 degrees Fahrenheit. They have worked for 10 years under all kinds of conditions. Efforts are underway in many countries to win a race to build that battery. The Federal Government has provided a fair amount of financial support, investing in technology to make sure we get to the finish line ahead of our foreign competitors. It is an important race. GM, I think, stands to benefit from this, and so do the folks who work there and those who have shares with GM. So do the rest of us, frankly.

Let me come back to what I said earlier, about the conversation I had with several people on the train coming from Wilmington today. They said to me: We didn't like the fact that you gave all that money to the banks, and we don't like the idea of giving all that money to the auto industry. If you look at what we have done with the financial institutions, we have, under the legislation, created a so-called TARP. Under that legislation we authorize the Treasury to invest in the banks, to take an equity position. With the moneys we have infused or invested into most of these banks, we bought preferred stock. That preferred stock pays initially 5 percent per year, and later 9 percent if it is not bought back by the banks. In addition, we get options, much as we did with Chrysler in 1980, that could be converted into shares of stock that we can benefit from--not just we but the taxpayers can benefit from.

The idea there was to make the investment with the possibility that if there is an upside or rebound by the financial institutions that asked for this investment, the taxpayers have the opportunity to participate in the profits, as we did with respect to Chrysler all those years ago. The money that we are now talking about, or will be debating, whether to make available for working capital for the auto companies--let me add that only Chrysler and GM have indicated an interest in drawing down this money. Ford said: We think we are OK. Maybe later we will need a line of credit. For now, we think we are all right.

That is good news. So what we are working on is an approach where we, just as we invested in the financial institutions in order to get back preferred stock that pays 5 to 9 percent and also carries the possibility of warrants that we can turn into profit-making stock shares later, we want to do the same thing with our auto industry.

The Presiding Officer will recall a year or so ago when we passed CAFE legislation. In it we passed section 136, which said we want to provide as much as $25 billion so that the auto companies can modernize their plants for the principal purpose of building more energy- efficient vehicles. We feel that is what is needed--high quality and good productivity. But that is one of the major things needed to be competitive in the world today: energy-efficient cars, trucks, vans, and so forth.

That $25 billion is not going to be available, apparently, right away to go into plant modernization.

The idea is to take as much as $15 billion of that $25 billion to make available to Chrysler and General Motors. The idea is not to give them this money; the idea is to invest this money in ways they can use it for working capital to get them through the next several months and, in the meantime, to require, under the guidance of what has been called a czar or an oversight board whose job would be to act almost as a bankruptcy judge, to make sure that further savings are realized by both Chrysler and GM but to ensure there is some further givebacks not just from labor, not just from management, not just from bondholders, not just from dealers, and not just from lenders but all the above. It is a concept that makes sense. The idea of here is $15 billion, and we hope you can get better and repay the money down the line, is not what we are interested in doing.

We want to improve the likelihood that we will get back every dime we lend of this $15 billion and more, if needed, later on. But we want to make sure the companies, particularly Chrysler, Ford, and GM, make the additional changes they need to increase the likelihood that they will be viable for a long period of time.

I close by saying we are seeing a real transformation in our economy. We used to be a big manufacturing country. We are less so today. Some people say that is fine, we will be a service economy, we will provide financial services and legal services, we will have insurance companies, maybe we will grow some food to feed ourselves and some of the rest of the world. But at the end of the day, we still need to make things. We still need to make things that people here and around the world want to buy.

One of the things I believe we need to make are cars, trucks, and vans. It has been that way for a long time. It needs to continue to be that way going forward.

I have had the privilege of representing and working for the people of Delaware, gosh, since 1976, when they elected me their State treasurer. We have had two auto assembly plants in my State for 50, 60 years--a Chrysler plant and a GM plant. The Chrysler plant is going to close at the end of this month. It is painful to me, and I know all the people who work there, the retirees, all who bought their vehicles and supported the plants in ways large and small over the years. But the writing is on the wall. My fear is that is going to happen.

As this happens and we see plants such as our plant in Newark, DE, the Chrysler plant, close, it is important we also remember the people who are losing their jobs there, the folks who have not enough experience, enough time to retire and be eligible for benefits. As they prepare to close the doors at the Chrysler plant in Newark, DE, I wish to make sure the folks who are losing their livelihood have the opportunity to be trained for other jobs in my State or other States that will enable them to be gainfully employed, to make a decent income for themselves and to support their families.

One of the things we can do, in addition to providing, if you will, a loan guarantee or direct loan with strong conditions to these auto companies, is remember our responsibilities to those who are left behind and those left behind without the prospect of ever working again in the auto industry.

There are some countries around the world--Finland comes to mind, Denmark, and a couple others--that do a good job. As industries grow up, mature, the nature of the job market, the industries in those countries change. Some countries around the world do a very good job of helping people whose skills for building, whether it is cars or buggies or buggy whips, are no longer appropriate--retraining people, supporting them for a period of time, giving them the social support net they need but then training them for jobs that need to be done, in this case, in the 21st century.

There you have it, some thoughts. My hope is we will come back and have a robust debate for the remainder of this week, and before this week is over we will vote not to give away $15 billion to Chrysler or to GM but that we will vote to be willing, as we did in 1980, to make an investment that has a potential upside, not just for the people who work in the companies, not just for the people who own shares of those companies but also for the American taxpayers. If we do take on this risk, there needs to be a reward for the taxpayers whose money is at risk.

Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I wish to commemorate I Love to Write Day. The designation of November 15 as I Love to Write Day allows the Nation to focus much-needed attention on the value and importance of practicing writing skills at every age.

I Love to Write Day was created by Delaware author John Riddle in 2002. John came up with the idea for I Love to Write Day while driving from his home in Delaware to the Blue Ridge Mountain Christian Writers Conference in Ashville, NC. That first year, more than 11,000 schools across the country signed up to participate in I Love to Write Day events and activities.

Since Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner officially declared November 15th as I Love to Write Day in 2002, nine other Governors have joined in recognizing it, and more than 20,000 schools participated last year.

This year, Children's Way Foundation teamed up with Mr. Riddle to bring together 50,000 elementary schools throughout the country to provide students with the opportunity to discover and develop the talent of writing.

John Riddle currently resides in Bear, DE, and knows the value of writing first hand. For the last 30 years, he has been a freelance author writing for magazines, trade journals and Web sites, and is the author of 34 books. He is a frequent presenter at writers conferences all across the country and spoke last year at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

Writing is vital to improve communication skills and to challenge minds. It is a skill that is helpful in every career and the ability to communicate effectively through writing not only enhances one's educational opportunities but also serves as a lifelong asset. It doesn't matter if you write a poem, a letter, an essay, or a novel; just as long as you are getting your thoughts down on paper you are engaging your mind. I applaud Mr. Riddle's efforts to get people writing and hope that I Love to Write Day continues to be a success throughout the Nation.

Madam President, I rise today to recognize National Mentoring Month. The designation of January as National Mentoring Month allows us to focus national attention on the need for mentors, as well as how each of us--individuals, businesses, schools and community groups--can work together to ensure brighter futures for our young people.

Mentors serve as role models, advocates, friends and advisers. Numerous studies show that mentors help young people augment social skills, enhance emotional well-being, improve cognitive skills and plan for the future. For some children, having a caring adult mentor to turn to for guidance and encouragement can make the crucial difference between success and failure in life.

As a longtime mentor myself, I certainly know that there are few things more rewarding than making a difference in the life of a child. Mentoring programs are not only advantageous to our students, but they are also rewarding to the mentor. In Delaware, mentoring has become an integral part of our school system and is one of the keys to improving academic achievement among at-risk students.

As Governor, I helped recruit 10,000 mentors as part of a statewide effort and was actively involved in encouraging individuals, churches, service clubs, students and corporations to help mentor Delaware's at- risk children. However, at the national level, 15 million children are still in need of mentors, and it is imperative that we continue to expand grant programs.

I am proud that Congress has been working toward increasing the funding for mentoring. I have cosponsored two pieces of legislation that support mentoring including the Mentoring America's Children Act, which was introduced by Senator Clinton. This bill is based on joint recommendations of the MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America and the National Collaboration for Youth. The act would broaden the reach of mentoring programs to include a number of specific populations of young people--including children in foster care and those living in communities with high rates of youth suicide. The Mentoring America's Children Act would also help students gain professional skills by implementing internship programs during the school year.

The second piece of legislation I have cosponsored is the Mentoring for All Act. This bill, introduced by Senator Kerry, would create a competitive grant fund to strengthen and grow mentoring infrastructure across the country and provide additional support and funding to direct service mentoring organizations, both at the national and local levels.

In addition to cosponsoring these two bills, I also signed onto a letter to Senators Harkin and Specter encouraging increased funding for mentoring to be added into the fiscal year 2009 budget. The letter encourages the Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education to include $100 million in their appropriations bills for mentoring.

There are literally millions of students in our schools who would benefit greatly from having another positive role model in their lives. I pledge to continue to fight for increased funding of mentoring programs all year, not just during National Mentoring Month. I am proud and grateful to our Nation's mentors who realize that less than an hour of our time each school week can make a lifetime of difference to a child and to each of us.

Madam President, I rise today in recognition of Dr. Valerie Woodruff--like me a native of West Virginia--upon her retirement as secretary of the Delaware Department of Education. Valerie, known to her many admirers in the First State as Val, has dedicated the past 43 years of her career to education and served the last 10 as Delaware's secretary of education, a position I was privileged to nominated her to when I served as Delaware's Governor from 1993-2001.

After receiving her bachelor's degree in secondary education from the Alderson Broaddus College in Philippi, WV, Val began her career in education as an English and social studies teacher at Bohemia Manor High School. She taught for 3 years before becoming a guidance counselor and beginning to work towards her master's degree.

After receiving her master's degree in 1971 from the University of Delaware in guidance and counseling, Val moved to Delaware and became a guidance counselor at Delcastle Technical High School near Wilmington. Five years later, she became the school's assistant principal. During her time at Delcastle, she also served on the Governor's Advisory Council for Career and Vocational Education.

Val worked on her doctorate degree in vocational education and curriculum development at Temple University while serving as assistant principal, then went on to become the principal at Middletown High School in 1984. She was an excellent principal, and her work did not go unnoticed. In June of 1990, she was selected as Principal of the Year by the Delaware Association of Secondary School Principals. During her watch at Middletown High School, the first school-based wellness center was established there. Today, in no small part because of her leadership, every public high school has a wellness center where students receive help and support to enable them to succeed in school and in life.

Later, Dr. Woodruff served as the associate secretary for improvement and assistance in the areas of curriculum and instruction at the department of education for 7 years. In 1999, I nominated her be secretary of education, overseeing the implementation of our State's education improvement plan which focuses on rigorous academic standards; objectively measuring student progress toward those standards; and holding schools, school districts, students, educators and parents accountable for improving student achievement. Val has emerged as a national leader among our Nation's chief school officers and has worked closely with her peers and with the U.S. Department of Education to develop and modify the Leave No Student Behind law and to narrow the achievement in Delaware and across America.

Val has a long list of accomplishments and is leaving big shoes to fill for the next secretary of education. She is a member of many prestigious boards including the board of directors of the Council of Chief State School Officers on which she was president from 2005-2006, the Southern Regional Education Board on which she was the first K-12 educator to be elected vice-chair, and the Delaware Workforce Investment Board.

Dr. Woodruff also currently serves on the Vision 2015 Steering and Implementation Committee and is on the President's Policy Council for the Alliance for Excellent Education. In addition, she is a valued member of the Delaware Mentoring Council and of the Delaware State Chamber of Commerce Partnership.

Through her tireless efforts, Valerie Woodruff has made a positive difference in the lives of tens of thousands of students in Delaware and, in doing so, has enhanced the quality of life in our State for years to come. Upon her retirement, she will leave behind a legacy of commitment to education and to public service for generations to follow. I thank her for the friendship that we share, and I congratulate her on a truly remarkable and distinguished career. In closing, on behalf of the people of Delaware, I want to wish Val and her family the very best in all that lies ahead for each of them.

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

Mr. President, this bill represents years of hard work and partnership between Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle and across the country. I am so pleased that we will finally be able to send it to the President for his signature.

Amtrak has enjoyed a huge resurgence in recent years. Infrastructure has been repaired, ontime performance has surpassed the airlines, and people are coming back to the train.

When the final numbers for fiscal year 2008, which ended yesterday, are calculated, ridership is expected to reach over 28.7 million passengers and revenues over $1.7 billion for the year. That represents an increase of almost 3 million riders and $200 million in revenues over the previous year.

Passing this bill today will capitalize on this enthusiasm for passenger rail and will show that Congress hears the demand for more.

Today, Amtrak operates approximately 44 routes over 22,000 miles of track, 97 percent of which is owned by freight rail companies. Those freight tracks are increasingly congested and not built with modern passenger rail in mind. Where the Federal Government does own the tracks, we have failed to maintain them as we should.

Amtrak was created in 1970 after the freight railroads asked the Federal Government to take over passenger rail service because they were losing so much money.

Some in the Nixon administration believed they were temporary caretakers for a railroad that would be dead within a few years. So there was little effort to repair the rails or cars or to create a true modern passenger rail system.

But Amtrak limped along for decades. In spite of the lack of commitment at the Federal level, the American people were unwilling to give up on rail. Amtrak was a lifeline for people in remote rural communities that were not served by airports and for business and other travelers in the Northeast corridor.

Then, starting in the late 1990s, interest in rail began to grow. People got tired of sitting in traffic or waiting at airports for delayed flights. Local governments realized rail stations often increased property values and attracted people to their community.

New leadership at Amtrak put the focus on repairing old cars and rail, leading to smoother, ontime travel.

Still, Washington was slow to catch on. President Bush proposed no funding for Amtrak for years and even suggested putting the railroad into bankruptcy and letting a judge determine what to do with it. He also failed to make bipartisan appointments to the Amtrak Board, leaving it without a quorum for a time.

Congress, however, recognized the importance of investing in age rail infrastructure and joined with Presidents David Gunn and, later, Alex Kummant to increase the Federal investment.

But without an authorization, like the bill we will pass soon, there was no clear, consistent direction. Amtrak had to wait for the yearly spending bills to get funding and a sense of where Congress wanted that investment to go.

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act--this legislation changes that. It authorizes Amtrak through 2013. It also represents a fundamental shift away from the Federal Government providing operating support more toward providing capital investment in rail.

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act creates a funding model for new rail infrastructure much like the one we have used so successfully for highways and airports.

Right now, State and local governments have to shoulder all the costs if they want to build or expand passenger rail within their boundaries.

When I was Governor of Delaware, we might consider several approaches to relieving congestion along a corridor. We would quickly realize that if we built or expanded a roadway, the Federal Government would pay 80 percent of the cost. If we built a transit line, we could secure around 50 percent of the cost from the Federal Government.

But if we chose to invest in intercity passenger rail--even if it was the most effective, cheapest option--the Federal Government would provide no support at all. I have to imagine that this policy has led more than one State to choose the wrong project.

Under the new model in the legislation before us today, the Federal Government could fund up to 80 percent of the cost of new passenger rail service. With this increased Federal commitment comes a requirement for renewed State commitment.

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act establishes advisory commissions for the Northeast corridor and State-supported routes with representatives from Amtrak, the States along the route, and the Federal Railroad Commission.

These commissions will provide advice and oversight of the corridor and determine the proper costs and access fees for the routes they oversee.

I understand that some of my colleagues expressed some criticism for Amtrak on Monday. Just like them, I would like to see Amtrak perform better. That is why I am happy that this bill includes so many reforms, which I will get into in a minute. But the criticisms issued on Monday deserve some attention.

It is important to recognize that we have spent more than a generation watching passenger rail infrastructure fall into disrepair and reducing or canceling train service across the Nation.

Some are happy to utilize this neglect, and the inevitable reduction in the quality of train service, against the railroad. That very neglect becomes an excuse for some elected officials to further neglect and eventually abandon passenger rail altogether.

At the same time, I have always found it interesting how many of our constituents are willing to put up with

trains that come infrequently, at inconvenient times, and move slowly. It shows that even a train that sometimes doesn't run as well as it should is needed in an era of extreme traffic congestion and high oil prices.

The junior Senator from Alabama spoke against this bill on Monday, indicating that he did not think Amtrak would ever work in his State. He mentioned that the train from Birmingham to Washington, DC, came but once a day, moved slowly, and cost $440 round trip. The Crescent train does, in fact, come infrequently and move more slowly than it should. And there are parts of this bill that will address both issues--from the Federal-State partnership to invest in new rail corridors to the reevaluation of the route system to the language ensuring that passenger trains can move faster on freight tracks.

But I asked a member of my staff to look into the cost of this train and found two interesting pieces of information. First, if you buy a ticket with a week's notice, a round-trip ticket from Birmingham to DC is not $440 but $286. And with 2 week's notice, it goes down to $228. The second interesting fact that I learned about the train from Birmingham to Washington was today's train is sold out.

My colleague also mentioned that his constituents are spending a larger percentage of their income on gasoline than other Americans. The high cost of gasoline is a burden we are all facing and one that deserves our utmost attention and focus. But walking away from Amtrak and other alternatives to driving will only make the situation worse.

A report called ``Driven to Spend,'' written by the Surface Transportation Policy Project and the Center for Neighborhood Technology in 2006, found that metropolitan areas with fewer transportation options tended to impose higher transportation costs on their residents.

For example, at a time when gas was around $2.50 per gallon, the average family in the Wilmington-Philadelphia area spent $3,381 less per year--or 5 percent less of their income--than a family in Houston.

We should work together to offer all of our constituents more convenient, cheaper transportation options that includes roads, passenger rail, and transit.

As I alluded to earlier, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act includes several reforms aimed at reducing Amtrak's operating costs and creating a more efficient system.

Amtrak's long-distance trains would be subject to a review process based on new standards for financial performance, ontime performance, and customer satisfaction, laid out by the Federal Railroad Administration. Based on those standards, Amtrak will be required to create and implement performance improvement plans for the 5 long- distance routes with the worst performance.

In future years, the remaining 10 long-distance routes would undergo the same restructuring process.

Additionally, this legislation would look at the cause of poor ontime performance outside of the Northeast corridor. If it is found that the problem is caused by a freight railroad, the Surface Transportation Board is given new authority to address the issue.

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act also allows the Federal Government to explore competition for providing passenger rail service in a responsible way. One provision in the bill permits freight railroads to bid to operate some passenger trains that run on their tracks.

Another provision allows a private entity to bid to provide service on a corridor, though Congress would have to act again before that bid could be acted on.

Moreover, States wishing to use operators other than Amtrak for State-supported services would be permitted to do so and would have access to Amtrak facilities and equipment for that particular route.

This important bill has been combined with another very important bill, the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. This is the first major reform of the rail safety program since the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act expired in 1998.

This bill requires railroads to install positive train control systems by 2015. These systems are designed to prevent train derailments and collisions, like the one that occurred in southern California last month, taking the lives of 25 people.

The package would also limit the amount that certain rail employees, such as locomotive engineers, can work to 276 hours a month. Current law allows railroads to require more than 400 hours of work per month, or approximately 13 hours every single day.

This package--the Amtrak reauthorization and rail safety bill--is truly bipartisan and shows that Congress is catching up to our constituents. Americans have been pleading for more rail service for years, and their need only increased with the recent spike in oil prices.

A recent study by Reconnecting America finds that 30 percent of those living within half a mile of a rail station use it regularly. Unfortunately, only 1 in 20 people lives that close to a rail station.

With the passage of this bill, Congress is showing that we understand the need for convenient, reliable passenger rail service across this country, and we are renewing our commitment to giving Americans affordable alternatives to driving.

With a modern passenger rail system, we can get people out of traffic, prevent a few trips to the gas station and reduce the amount of pollution in our air. Not bad for one bill.

I say to my leader, from my days as a naval flight officer, how privileged I have been having served in Southeast Asia, to serve under his leadership when he was Secretary of the Navy and I was a young naval flight officer, pleased to serve under his leadership then, and delighted to be able to follow his leadership here again today on the important legislation we have been voting and debating here.

I wish to comment on what Senator Cardin said. You provided an example for us. You provided an example for us how we are supposed to treat other people. You treat other people the way you wish to be treated. You are an embodiment of the Golden Rule.

If you look in the Bible, it talks about the two great commandments. The second one is to love they neighbor as thyself; treat other people the way you want to be treated. You certainly embody that. I, personally, am going to miss you. I know a lot of others are as well.

You talk about passing the mantle to Senator Cardin. Your mantle is so heavy, it is amazing to me you can even walk around, all you have done and all you have accomplished.

But you are the best. It has been an honor to serve with you, again, here in this capacity.

It was a P-3.

Mr. President, I would like to talk a little bit about the legislation Senator Warner, Senator Cardin, Senator Lautenberg, and others have crafted. It has been described as legislation that will accomplish three things: One, to eventually provide better transit service for folks in this part of the country, to help--whether you happen to work here, live here or visit here, the opportunity in years ahead, to get out of our cars, trucks and vans, leave them wherever they are, at home, in the parking lot or at work and take transit.

It will help the quality of our air. It will help reduce congestion in this part of our country. It will reduce our reliance on foreign oil. It works on all different kinds of levels.

I know Senator Warner has done good work, along with Senators Cardin and Mikulski and Senator Webb. I also wished to say to Senator Lautenberg how much I appreciate his leadership in crafting the legislation, the Amtrak legislation, the rail safety legislation that is before us today.

On the rail safety legislation, this is the first time in 10 years that we have actually come back and taken up a major reform of rail safety. The legislation provides some money--about $1.5 billion--for rail safety programs over the next 5 years.

The best thing it does is with respect to something called positive train control systems. A terrible accident, a commuter train and freight train accident out in California earlier this month, could have been prevented had those trains been fitted with--especially, the commuter rail train--a positive train control system. This legislation requires the installation of that kind of system in all trains by the year 2015. I would argue that it should be

sooner. My hope is it will be in a number of trains before that date, but it should be on all trains by that date. In the situation in California, apparently the engineer may have been text messaging and missed a stop signal, ran the stop signal and ran right into a freight train, killed a lot of people, including him. Had we had this positive train control system in place, all that damage and heartache would have been spared.

Another major provision of this legislation on the rail safety side deals with hours of service. I used to think we flew a lot of hours. I spent a lot of time when I was on Active Duty in the Navy. People who work on trains spend a lot of time operating the trains as well. Currently, they are able to work up to 400 hours per month. Under current law, they are allowed to work up to 400 hundred hours per month compared to about 100 hours for commercial airline pilots. This legislation drops that limit by about a third, down to around 275 hours per month. That is still a lot of hours to work in a month but better than what they had been working with for years.

The last piece I want to mention on rail safety deals with the highway-rail grade crossing. This is a case where you don't have a rail overpass or a road going under a railroad bridge but a situation where you have the rail and the highway meeting at the same level. This legislation requires the 10 States with the most highway-rail grade crossing collisions to develop plans to address the problem within a year of enactment. It also requires each railroad to submit information to an inventory of highway-rail crossings, including information about warning devices and signage.

In short, this legislation is going to save lives. It is going to save money. It is going to provide a much better situation for people who are running and operating trains, people who are traveling on trains, and for those of us who are driving around in our cars, trucks, and vans, trying to get across a rail crossing.

Next I would like to turn to Amtrak, an issue that is near and dear to my heart. In our State, we have a lot of folks who take the train. Amtrak has a train station in Wilmington, DE, and that train station is about the 11th or 12th busiest in the country. A lot of people depend on Amtrak in my State, as they do up and down the Northeast corridor.

I used to serve on the Amtrak board of directors when I was Governor of Delaware. I rode Amtrak as a passenger. As someone who represents a State where we do a lot of repairs on locomotives, we do a lot of the repair work on the passenger and dining cars and so forth, I wanted to talk in sort of broad terms about this legislation.

Mr. President, what is the situation with the time?

In that case, we better recess. I will have the opportunity later to pick up my remarks and talk about the Amtrak provisions in this bill.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, ovarian cancer, the fifth most fatal cancer among women in the United States, is a serious and underrecognized threat to women's health.

This year alone, there will be an estimated 21,650 new cases of ovarian cancer in the United States and it will cause more than 15,000 deaths. In Delaware, there were 322 cases of ovarian cancer between 1999 and 2003--the most recent data--and 211 deaths during that time.

Unfortunately, there is no screening test currently available for the early detection of ovarian cancer despite the fact that it is highly treatable when detected early.

Increased public awareness of this disease, its risk factors and its subtle symptoms can save the lives of women across Delaware. Moreover, women's doctors must learn to recognize the warning signs of ovarian cancer, which are often the only early indication of illness.

Throughout this past September, the Delaware Chapter of the National Ovarian Cancer Coalition has promoted ovarian cancer awareness activities and encouraged every Delaware woman to become educated about the symptoms and risk factors of ovarian cancer.

More ovarian cancer research will help to develop reliable diagnostics, better therapies and prevention strategies, offering women in Delaware and throughout the United States an opportunity to win their battle against this tragic gynecologic cancer.

It is time for all women and their doctors to become more aware of the warning signs of ovarian cancer and to become better educated about early treatment options, because lives depend on it.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Lieberman to introduce the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2008.

Although the name of the bill may not sound very exciting, let me assure you that this piece of legislation could be one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress passes this session.

Every day, massive amounts of information is transmitted across the global information infrastructure. Some of this information is routine e-mail between co-workers making lunch plans or a couple making plans for who will pick up the kids at school. Much of it, however consists of highly sensitive military and commercial secrets. As everyone can attest to, increasing global interconnectivity has greatly increased our productivity and ability to communicate. However, it has also increased our responsibility to make sure this information is protected.

The Federal Government stores within its databases some of our Nation's most critical military, economic, and commercial secrets. Great harm could be caused if it were to fall into the wrong hands. Knowing this, nation-states and criminal groups are spending a good deal of money and time trying to access it.

According to a report released back in March by the Department of Defense, the U.S. Government and our allies around the world have come under attack in the past year on a number of occasions by hackers from addresses that appear to originate from within the Chinese government. These hackers were able to compromise information systems at government agencies, defense-related think tanks, contractors, and financial institutions. Germany's domestic intelligence agency, the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution, has accused China of sponsoring these attacks ``almost daily'' in an attempt to ``intensively gather political, military, corporate-strategic and scientific information in order to bridge their technological gaps as quickly as possible.''

The threat of a nation-state cyber attack is very real. Last year in Estonia, an attack by Russian hackers was coordinated through online chat rooms and Web sites. This ``Cyber War,'' as the media called it, shut down Web sites of a number of Estonian organizations, including the Estonian parliament, banks, ministries, newspapers, and broadcasters.

But we don't have to look overseas to find threats to our information security. Sometimes, we only have to look in our own backyards. Just last year, the Veterans Affairs Department had an external hard drive stolen, exposing sensitive personal information on nearly 2 million individuals. But this isn't the only example. Not by a long shot. The Departments of Defense, Transportation, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Education, Agriculture, and State have all had sensitive information compromised by current or former employees. These incidents are simply unacceptable.

The original Federal Information Security Management Act, or FISMA, came out of a recognition a few years ago of the critical importance of protecting our information systems. Since then, agencies have made extraordinary progress in implementing crucial information security measures. They should be acknowledged and congratulated for their efforts. However, I am concerned that, 5 years after the passage of FISMA, agencies may have fallen into the trap of complacency and are just checking boxes to show compliance with requirements written into a bill.

The bill Senator Lieberman and I have put forward today will help address this issue. Our bill empowers Chief Information Security Officers to deny access to the agency network if proper security policies are not being

followed. If we are going to hold these hardworking individuals accountable in Congress for information security, then we should give them the authority to do so.

Our bill requires that individuals hired to be Chief Information Security Officers be qualified to monitor, detect, and respond to cyber intrusions rather than someone who spends much of their time checking boxes and filling out paperwork.

Our bill will increase collaboration and teamwork and ensure that Chief Information Security Officers continue to keep up to date on the latest technologies and security threats by establishing a Chief Information Security Officers Council. The council will be an open forum where senior officials can be open and honest about security breaches and work together to solve them. This council will be chaired by the National Cyber Security Center Director and will break down the artificial boundaries that have previously existed in cyberspace.

Our bill will also require the Department of Homeland Security to conduct an annual operational evaluation of agency networks. This evaluation will test whether those who want to cause mischief or do us harm can access our sensitive information, much like we test whether terrorists can enter our nuclear facilities or military bases. This evaluation will provide agency leadership and Congress with a better picture of where our weaknesses are and where we need to focus our attention and resources.

Most importantly, our bill will strengthen information security requirements in contracts when agencies purchase services or products from private vendors. No longer should agencies and Congress have to clean up a security mess after an incident has already happened. Instead, we need to start focusing on purchasing more secure services and products that will help prevent these intrusions from happening in the first place.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to get these important and necessary reforms enacted before it is too late. I think everyone can agree that computers, the Internet, and cutting-edge technology have greatly benefited our government and our society. But we also need to recognize that it has greatly increased the threats we face on a daily basis.

In times like these we need to accept our responsibility to protect sensitive information and be held accountable when we fail.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Lieberman to introduce the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2008.

Although the name of the bill may not sound very exciting, let me assure you that this piece of legislation could be one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress passes this session.

Every day, massive amounts of information is transmitted across the global information infrastructure. Some of this information is routine e-mail between co-workers making lunch plans or a couple making plans for who will pick up the kids at school. Much of it, however consists of highly sensitive military and commercial secrets. As everyone can attest to, increasing global interconnectivity has greatly increased our productivity and ability to communicate. However, it has also increased our responsibility to make sure this information is protected.

The Federal Government stores within its databases some of our Nation's most critical military, economic, and commercial secrets. Great harm could be caused if it were to fall into the wrong hands. Knowing this, nation-states and criminal groups are spending a good deal of money and time trying to access it.

According to a report released back in March by the Department of Defense, the U.S. Government and our allies around the world have come under attack in the past year on a number of occasions by hackers from addresses that appear to originate from within the Chinese government. These hackers were able to compromise information systems at government agencies, defense-related think tanks, contractors, and financial institutions. Germany's domestic intelligence agency, the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution, has accused China of sponsoring these attacks ``almost daily'' in an attempt to ``intensively gather political, military, corporate-strategic and scientific information in order to bridge their technological gaps as quickly as possible.''

The threat of a nation-state cyber attack is very real. Last year in Estonia, an attack by Russian hackers was coordinated through online chat rooms and Web sites. This ``Cyber War,'' as the media called it, shut down Web sites of a number of Estonian organizations, including the Estonian parliament, banks, ministries, newspapers, and broadcasters.

But we don't have to look overseas to find threats to our information security. Sometimes, we only have to look in our own backyards. Just last year, the Veterans Affairs Department had an external hard drive stolen, exposing sensitive personal information on nearly 2 million individuals. But this isn't the only example. Not by a long shot. The Departments of Defense, Transportation, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Education, Agriculture, and State have all had sensitive information compromised by current or former employees. These incidents are simply unacceptable.

The original Federal Information Security Management Act, or FISMA, came out of a recognition a few years ago of the critical importance of protecting our information systems. Since then, agencies have made extraordinary progress in implementing crucial information security measures. They should be acknowledged and congratulated for their efforts. However, I am concerned that, 5 years after the passage of FISMA, agencies may have fallen into the trap of complacency and are just checking boxes to show compliance with requirements written into a bill.

The bill Senator Lieberman and I have put forward today will help address this issue. Our bill empowers Chief Information Security Officers to deny access to the agency network if proper security policies are not being

followed. If we are going to hold these hardworking individuals accountable in Congress for information security, then we should give them the authority to do so.

Our bill requires that individuals hired to be Chief Information Security Officers be qualified to monitor, detect, and respond to cyber intrusions rather than someone who spends much of their time checking boxes and filling out paperwork.

Our bill will increase collaboration and teamwork and ensure that Chief Information Security Officers continue to keep up to date on the latest technologies and security threats by establishing a Chief Information Security Officers Council. The council will be an open forum where senior officials can be open and honest about security breaches and work together to solve them. This council will be chaired by the National Cyber Security Center Director and will break down the artificial boundaries that have previously existed in cyberspace.

Our bill will also require the Department of Homeland Security to conduct an annual operational evaluation of agency networks. This evaluation will test whether those who want to cause mischief or do us harm can access our sensitive information, much like we test whether terrorists can enter our nuclear facilities or military bases. This evaluation will provide agency leadership and Congress with a better picture of where our weaknesses are and where we need to focus our attention and resources.

Most importantly, our bill will strengthen information security requirements in contracts when agencies purchase services or products from private vendors. No longer should agencies and Congress have to clean up a security mess after an incident has already happened. Instead, we need to start focusing on purchasing more secure services and products that will help prevent these intrusions from happening in the first place.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to get these important and necessary reforms enacted before it is too late. I think everyone can agree that computers, the Internet, and cutting-edge technology have greatly benefited our government and our society. But we also need to recognize that it has greatly increased the threats we face on a daily basis.

In times like these we need to accept our responsibility to protect sensitive information and be held accountable when we fail.

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

Mr. President, I wish to recognize Ray Johnson who is retiring on September 1, 2008, from the Delaware State Pension Office after an amazing 39 years and 10 months of service to the people of Delaware. Ray literally has dedicated his life to helping tens of thousands of State employees, educators, and others prepare for their retirement. It is now my privilege to thank him for his dedication to them, to commend him for a life well lived, and to wish him the very best of luck throughout his own retirement.

I met Ray on my first day as State treasurer in November of 1976 at a time when the State Pension Office was part of the State Treasurer's Office. He was one of the original Pension Office employees, having served for the office since its creation. Because of his long tenure with the office, Ray has served as the go-to person for just about any issue that ever arose within the office. His deep understanding and knowledge of the workings of the office, whether it be in the investment sector or the calculation of retirement benefits, made him a valuable resource for not only the people he served but to his coworkers, as well.

Ray began his career in public service on November 1, 1968, as the first senior accountant for the State Budget Commission. There, he developed the initial accounting system to track and recoup previous advancements made from something called the Advanced Land Acquisition and Advanced Planning Funds. His efforts recouped millions of dollars, resulting in additional interest earnings that were used to make advanced purchase deposits on many of the State's public park lands that are enjoyed by our residents and visitors today.

In 1971, Ray was selected to be the fiscal administrative officer for the newly created State Pension Office. In that role, he developed many of the rules, regulations, and procedures that are still used there some 35 years later.

In the late 1980s, Ray helped lead the effort to computerize the State Pension Office, enabling its staff to become more productive and to provide better service to 25,000 employees, as well as to 5,000 pensioners and their families. Many of the administrative policies developed by Ray are still in place today and continue to make a positive difference in the lives of one generation of retirees after another.

It was not just Ray's depth of knowledge and his years of experience that attracted people to him in the Pension Office. It was his giving and caring personality, as well. He always brought a ready smile to the workplace each day. Ray was hard pressed ever to refuse help to anyone who requested it. He would answer calls and questions at all times of day and mentored new workers in his free time. Ray served as a father- figure to many employees, too, dispensing advice to those who asked for it or, sometimes, just lending a sympathetic ear. His compassion for and loyalty to his work, to his colleagues, and to those they served made him an especially worthy recipient of the Pension Administration Award--the highest award given in the Pension Office and an award bestowed upon him by the vote of his peers.

Ray continually worked to better the retirement system for the people he served as well as the people with whom he worked. For example, when Ray moved to the State Pension Office in 1971, all calculations for retirement benefits were done by hand--a long, tedious process for the employees. Ray recognized the inefficiency of this system and took it upon himself to automate the calculation of benefits, a step that would reduce the workload for many of his coworkers, as well as provide the people they served with a more accurate method of determining benefits.

One of the special things about Ray was that he was not only interested in helping any person he could, but he strove to help every person who had a concern or issue. If he did not have the answer--which was rare--he would search tirelessly for one from any resource he could and would never allow anyone in need to go without some form of assistance. If a person had questions about retirement and his call was answered by Ray, he or she was sure to complete that conversation with a solution or, at the very least, a direction of where to go to find a solution.

In addition to his extensive knowledge of State pension law and of the workings of the State Pension Office, Ray's success in his career can largely be attributed to his genuine love for his work. He was always truly interested in the workings of the State Pension Office and found it both challenging and satisfying. Ray embraced and took full advantage of the opportunity to develop the State Pension Office from the ground up. A very humble human being, he took pride in his tireless efforts to make the office what it is today. He worked diligently to make Delaware's retirement system a model for the Nation, not just because it was his job, but because he genuinely cared about every person who contacted that office with questions and concerns about their retirement.

Of all of these accolades, Ray says:

Although I have been involved in recommending, developing,

or implementing many enhancements in policies and processes

during my tenure, I am most satisfied in knowing that I have

been able to serve the Office, fellow staff members, and the

taxpayers of the state to the best of my ability and have

helped make the retirement process more efficient, effective,

and easier for all involved.

Ray Johnson is one of the most dedicated and hard-working people with whom I have ever had the honor of working. He has earned every day the admiration and affection of his colleagues and the gratitude of the people they have served for four decades. His loyalty and his sense of service have been and remain a source of inspiration to me and to those around him. It is with a genuine sense of honor and joy that I extend my heartfelt congratulations to Ray. I wish him a long and happy retirement to share and enjoy with his equally accomplished wife Claudia and their children, Randy and Donna. On behalf of the people of Delaware, let me thank the three of you for sharing with the people of the First State your husband and your father.

Let me close by saying that I envy--just a little bit--all of the free time he will now have for fishing and relaxing with long walks on the beach with those he loves. It is my hope that he

will enjoy his own retirement as much as those whom he helped now enjoy their own.

Mr President, I rise today with my colleagues on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to introduce the Information Technology Oversight Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act of 2008.

With a long name like that, you would hope that it is addressing a very serious problem. Well I assure you, that it is.

Every year agencies spend billions of dollars on IT investments that--if planned and implemented properly--can increase productivity, reduce costs, and improve efficiency. As everyone knows, information technology has become a cornerstone of the way we conduct business. Just look at the rise in popularity of Blackberries, not only outside these walls, but right here in the Senate.

In fiscal year 2009, agencies are planning to spend almost $71 billion to improve their financial systems for better reporting, streamline their grant processes, and reduce wasteful paper applications. And this is a good thing.

However, the Government Accountability Office has reported for several years that many of these investments are poorly planned, poorly performing--or in some cases--both. Yet, agencies continue to fund these risky investments without any oversight or accountability. In fact, I was surprised to hear GAO report that $25.2 billion is at danger of being wasted because agencies failed to properly plan or manage their investments.

Mr. President, $25.2 billion may not be a very large sum of money when you compare it to what we spend every year, but I assure you that it is a very real sum of money to those families who can't pay for the gas they need to get to work, or who are struggling to put food on their table.

To illustrate my point further, this chamber had to include emergency funding in the last supplemental appropriations bill to bail out the Census Bureau's 2010 operations. They had been planning for more than a decade to use advanced handheld computers to verify addresses and follow up with households who don't send their census forms in on time. My colleagues and I on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee heard, however, that Census Bureau officials failed to define what they need out of the handheld project and, as a result, the contractor was having trouble delivering a product that could work. We held two hearings to try and get to the bottom of the problem and find a solution but, at the end of the day, the Census Bureau had to scrap the handheld project and go with the same expensive and inefficient ``pen and paper'' counting method that they have used for centuries. The cost of this failure on the part of the Census Bureau is expected to total in the billions.

This extra money that the Census Bureau will need to spend between now and 2010 could have been used to improve the quality of the final count by outreaching to historically-undercounted groups. In fact, it could have been used for any number of worthwhile purposes.

My colleagues and I on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, which I chair, have held three hearings on the issue of troubled IT projects now, including one this morning. And what we've learned is that some agencies can't keep the expected cost of their investments down or deliver on time as promised. Nor do these agencies, in many cases, have qualified IT experts they can turn to before a project spirals out of control. The bill Senators Lieberman, Collins and I have put forward today addresses these issues.

Our bill starts by requiring agencies to inform Congress when an investment begins to see increased costs, schedule delays, or performance deficiencies outside of 20 percent of the original plan.

Our bill would also require agencies to inform Congress if an investment exceeds 40 percent of their original plan, and require the agency head to conduct an analysis that determines whether we should continue to fund this investment or just pull the plug.

Many agencies today simply rewrite their plans when they run into trouble. They don't tell Congress that anything is wrong and the troubled projects just keep getting funded year in and year out.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, our bill recognizes that, many times, agencies lack the experience necessary to manage complex IT investments. To remedy this, we propose that OMB create what my staff and I have come to call an ``IT Strike Team.'' This team would be comprised of known individuals inside and outside government who have records of successfully managing complex IT projects. If an agency or OMB recognizes that an investment is beginning to experience problems, the team would come in make sure the project is brought online or scrapped before more money is wasted.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to get these important and necessary reforms enacted. I think I speak for all of us when I say that investing in IT systems is important. But these investments shouldn't come with wasted time and money that they all too often bring. In tight fiscal times like these, we need to make sure the money we do invest is spent wisely.

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

Mr President, I rise today with my colleagues on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to introduce the Information Technology Oversight Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act of 2008.

With a long name like that, you would hope that it is addressing a very serious problem. Well I assure you, that it is.

Every year agencies spend billions of dollars on IT investments that--if planned and implemented properly--can increase productivity, reduce costs, and improve efficiency. As everyone knows, information technology has become a cornerstone of the way we conduct business. Just look at the rise in popularity of Blackberries, not only outside these walls, but right here in the Senate.

In fiscal year 2009, agencies are planning to spend almost $71 billion to improve their financial systems for better reporting, streamline their grant processes, and reduce wasteful paper applications. And this is a good thing.

However, the Government Accountability Office has reported for several years that many of these investments are poorly planned, poorly performing--or in some cases--both. Yet, agencies continue to fund these risky investments without any oversight or accountability. In fact, I was surprised to hear GAO report that $25.2 billion is at danger of being wasted because agencies failed to properly plan or manage their investments.

Mr. President, $25.2 billion may not be a very large sum of money when you compare it to what we spend every year, but I assure you that it is a very real sum of money to those families who can't pay for the gas they need to get to work, or who are struggling to put food on their table.

To illustrate my point further, this chamber had to include emergency funding in the last supplemental appropriations bill to bail out the Census Bureau's 2010 operations. They had been planning for more than a decade to use advanced handheld computers to verify addresses and follow up with households who don't send their census forms in on time. My colleagues and I on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee heard, however, that Census Bureau officials failed to define what they need out of the handheld project and, as a result, the contractor was having trouble delivering a product that could work. We held two hearings to try and get to the bottom of the problem and find a solution but, at the end of the day, the Census Bureau had to scrap the handheld project and go with the same expensive and inefficient ``pen and paper'' counting method that they have used for centuries. The cost of this failure on the part of the Census Bureau is expected to total in the billions.

This extra money that the Census Bureau will need to spend between now and 2010 could have been used to improve the quality of the final count by outreaching to historically-undercounted groups. In fact, it could have been used for any number of worthwhile purposes.

My colleagues and I on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, which I chair, have held three hearings on the issue of troubled IT projects now, including one this morning. And what we've learned is that some agencies can't keep the expected cost of their investments down or deliver on time as promised. Nor do these agencies, in many cases, have qualified IT experts they can turn to before a project spirals out of control. The bill Senators Lieberman, Collins and I have put forward today addresses these issues.

Our bill starts by requiring agencies to inform Congress when an investment begins to see increased costs, schedule delays, or performance deficiencies outside of 20 percent of the original plan.

Our bill would also require agencies to inform Congress if an investment exceeds 40 percent of their original plan, and require the agency head to conduct an analysis that determines whether we should continue to fund this investment or just pull the plug.

Many agencies today simply rewrite their plans when they run into trouble. They don't tell Congress that anything is wrong and the troubled projects just keep getting funded year in and year out.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, our bill recognizes that, many times, agencies lack the experience necessary to manage complex IT investments. To remedy this, we propose that OMB create what my staff and I have come to call an ``IT Strike Team.'' This team would be comprised of known individuals inside and outside government who have records of successfully managing complex IT projects. If an agency or OMB recognizes that an investment is beginning to experience problems, the team would come in make sure the project is brought online or scrapped before more money is wasted.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to get these important and necessary reforms enacted. I think I speak for all of us when I say that investing in IT systems is important. But these investments shouldn't come with wasted time and money that they all too often bring. In tight fiscal times like these, we need to make sure the money we do invest is spent wisely.

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