Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation that would put an end to automatic pay raises for Members of Congress. As I have noted when I raised this issue in past years, because Congress has the authority to raise its own pay, something that most of our constituents cannot do, it ought to exercise that authority openly, and subject to regular procedures including debate, amendment, and a vote on the record. Regrettably, current law allows Congress to avoid that open debate and public vote. All that is necessary for Congress to get a pay raise is that nothing be done to stop it. The annual pay raise takes effect unless Congress acts to prevent it. This stealth system of pay raises began with a change Congress enacted in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. On occasion, Congress has voted to deny itself the raise, and the traditional vehicle for the pay raise vote is the Treasury or more recently the Financial Services Appropriations bill. But as I have noted before, that vehicle is not always made available to those who want a public debate and vote on the matter. Last year, for example, Congress enacted a consolidated appropriations bill in which all but three appropriations bills were included. The traditional vehicle for the pay raise vote, the Financial Services Appropriations bill, was included in the massive consolidated appropriations bill, along with funding for eight other appropriations bills. Amendments to that consolidated appropriations bill were effectively shut off, thus, in particular, preventing any amendment that would have stopped the automatic pay raise from going into effect three months later in January of 2009. I voted against the consolidated appropriations bill in part because it did not permit an up or down vote on the Member pay raise. Sadly this is not an uncommon situation. As I have noted in the past, getting a vote on the annual congressional pay raise is a haphazard affair at best, and it should not be that way. The burden should not be on those who seek a public debate and recorded vote on the Member pay raise. On the contrary, Congress should have to act if it decides to award itself a hike in pay. This process of pay raises without accountability must end. This issue is not a new question. It was something that our Founders considered from the beginning of our Nation. In August of 1789, as part of the package of 12 amendments advocated by James Madison that included what has become our Bill of Rights, the House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Constitution providing that Congress could not raise its pay without an intervening election. On September 9, 1789, the Senate passed that amendment. In late September of 1789, Congress submitted the amendments to the States. Although the amendment on pay raises languished for 2 centuries, in the 1980s, a campaign began to ratify it. While I was a member of the Wisconsin State Senate, I was proud to help ratify the amendment. Its approval by the Michigan legislature on May 7, 1992, gave it the needed approval by \3/4\ of the States. The 27th Amendment to the Constitution now states: ``No law, varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.'' I honor that limitation. Throughout my 6-year term, I accept only the rate of pay that Senators receive on the date on which I was sworn in as a Senator. And I return to the Treasury any additional income Senators get, whether from a cost-of-living adjustment or a pay raise we vote for ourselves. I don't take a raise until my bosses, the people of Wisconsin, give me one at the ballot box. That is the spirit of the 27th Amendment. At the very least, the stealth pay raises like the one that Congress allowed for 2009 certainly violate the spirit of that amendment. This practice must end and this bill will end it. Senators and Congressmen should have to vote up-or-down to raise their pay, and my bill would require just that. We owe our constituents nothing less. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, legislation that I have cosponsored for the past 2 years. This legislation simply seeks to protect American workers from pay discrimination based on factors such as race, gender, religion, and national origin. I am pleased that the Senate is on the verge of finally passing this important bill after we came so close to passing it last year. For over 2 years, Lilly Ledbetter, the victim of discriminatory pay based on gender, has worked tirelessly to move this legislation forward and today's Senate passage of the Ledbetter bill marks an important victory for her and the many advocates around the country who joined with her. These are challenging economic times for many families in Wisconsin and around the country. Too many workers are struggling to hang onto their jobs, their homes, and provide for their children. We in Congress need to do all we can this year to help create solid family-supporting jobs, but we also need to make sure that people who already have jobs can support their families. We need to pass legislation like the Ledbetter bill to help ensure that workers are treated fairly and earn what they deserve. I know many of my colleagues in the Senate share my disappointment and frustration that, despite all the gains women have made since gaining the right to vote 100 years ago, they still make 77 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts. It is hard to believe that this pay disparity continues to exist in the 21st century. Unfortunately, the pay disparity not only exists but is even larger in my State of Wisconsin. According to data gathered by the Institute for Women's Policy Research, IPWR, women's salaries were only approximately 72 percent of men's salaries in Wisconsin. The wage gap gets even larger when you look at the earnings of minority women throughout Wisconsin. In 1999, African-American women's salaries were only around 63 percent of White men's salaries; while Hispanic women's salaries were only 59 percent of White men's salaries according to an analysis of Wisconsinites' wages by IWPR. These troubling wage gaps exist throughout the country and, thanks to the flawed Supreme Court decision in Ms. Ledbetter's case, it is now even more difficult for hard-working Americans to seek legal redress for this inequity in the workplace. As we heard in testimony before the Judiciary Committee last year, Lilly Ledbetter's experience ``typifies the uphill battle that American workers face'' in efforts to ``right the wrong of pay discrimination.'' After she found out that she was being paid less than her male counterparts, she filed a complaint with the EEOC and then brought a lawsuit in Federal court in Alabama. The Federal district court ruled in her favor, but 2 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Ms. Ledbetter had filed her lawsuit too long after her employer originally decided to give her unequal pay. Under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an individual must file a complaint of wage discrimination within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. Before the Ledbetter decision, the courts had held that each time an employee received a new paycheck, the 180-day clock was restarted because every paycheck was considered a new unlawful practice. The Supreme Court changed this longstanding rule. It held that an employee must file a complaint within 180 days from when the original pay decision was made. Ms. Ledbetter found out about the decision to pay her less than her male colleagues well after 180 days from when the company had made the decision. Under the Supreme Court's decision, it was just too late for Ms. Ledbetter to get back what she had worked for. It did not matter that she only discovered that she was being paid less than her male counterparts many years after the inequality in pay had begun. And it did not matter that there was no way for her to find out she was being paid less until someone told her that was the case. In Ms. Ledbetter's case, to put it simply, the Supreme Court got it wrong. It ignored the position of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the decisions of the vast majority of lower courts that the issuance of each new paycheck constitutes a new act of discrimination. It ignored the fact that Congress had not sought to change this longstanding interpretation of the law. The Court's decision also ignores realities of the American workplace. Perhaps we lose sight of this in Congress, since our own salaries are a matter of public record, but the average American has no way of knowing the salary of his or her peers. As Ms. Ledbetter noted, there are many places across the country where even asking your coworkers about their salary would be grounds for dismissal. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which has been pending in the Senate since shortly after the Supreme Court's erroneous decision, reestablishes a reasonable timeframe for filing pay discrimination claims. It returns the law to where it was before the Court's decision, with the time limit for filing pay discrimination claims beginning when a new paycheck is received, rather than when an employer first decides to discriminate. Under this legislation, as long as workers file their claims within 180 days of a discriminatory paycheck, their complaints will be considered. This bill also maintains the current limits on the amount employers owe once they have been found to have committed a discriminatory act. Current law limits back pay awards to 2 years before the worker filed a job discrimination claim. This bill retains this 2-year limit, and therefore does not make employers pay for salary inequalities that occurred many years ago. Workers thus have no reason to delay filing a claim. Doing so would only make proving their cases harder, especially because the burden of proof is on the employee, not the employer. Opponents say that this bill will burden employers by requiring them to defend themselves in costly litigation. This is simply not the case. Most employers want to do right by their employees and most employers pay their employees fair and equal wages. This legislation is targeted at those employers who underpay and discriminate against their workers, hoping that employees, like Ms. Ledbetter, won't find out in time. The Congressional Budget Office has also reported that restoring the law to where it was before the Ledbetter decision will not significantly affect the number of filings made with the EEOC, nor will it significantly increase the costs to the Commission or to the Federal courts. The impact of pay discrimination continues throughout a person's life, lowering not only wages, but also Social Security and other wage- based retirement benefits. This places a heavy burden on spouses and children who rely on these wages and benefits for life's basic necessities like housing, education, healthcare, and food. This discrimination can add up to thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of dollars in lost income and retirement benefits. In these challenging economic times, Congress must do all it can to ensure that the wages and retirement savings of American men and women are protected and not subject to attack by flawed court decisions or legislative inaction. On matters of pay discrimination, this bill simply returns the law to where it was before the Supreme Court issued its misguided decision in 2007. We need to do more than just correct past mistakes, however we also need to examine the challenges facing working Americans and address those challenges in a constructive and thoughtful way. I look forward to working with my colleagues to strengthen and improve laws that help working families, including creating jobs, expanding access to health care, and improving educational opportunities for all Americans. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate was finally able to prevent a filibuster of this important legislation and that we are now on the verge of passing this bill. I am a proud cosponsor of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and I was disappointed when it failed in the Senate by just four votes last year. This is a significant victory for working families in Wisconsin and around the country. Of course, pay discrimination is not the only issue that women, minorities, people with disabilities, and other protected groups of workers confront, and we need to do more to strengthen and improve other employment conditions, like worker safety, as well. As this new Congress gets underway, I stand ready to work with my colleagues in the Senate to advance legislation that protects employment rights and strengthens job opportunities for all Americans.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the next administration will be faced with the difficult task of building a smarter U.S. foreign policy that restores America's image abroad and security at home. Senator Hillary Clinton's distinguished record and testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee demonstrate that she is the right person to lead this effort. Her experience, intelligence and thoughtfulness make her an excellent choice to be our most senior diplomat and to lead a stronger and more effective State Department. I do share some of the concerns that have been expressed about the potential for a conflict of interest between her work as our incoming Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation. I hope that Senator Clinton will make every effort to avoid even the appearance of such a conflict of interest, if confirmed. Senator Clinton brings many strengths to this position, and I am pleased to support her nomination. It has been a pleasure working with Senator Clinton as a Senate colleague, and I look forward to working closely with her in a new capacity.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I want to take a moment to thank President Obama for his service in the Senate. Our new President has some very difficult challenges ahead, as he faces a serious economic downturn, and many critically important national security issues. But he has already shown his ability to handle tough challenges through his outstanding work here in the Senate since his election in 2004. From the moment he arrived, Barack Obama showed himself to be an outstanding legislator and public servant. I was very pleased to work with him on ethics and lobbying reform issues, first authoring a bill together, and then working together to pass the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. Passing that landmark legislation took a determined, focused effort over many months, and then-Senator Obama showed that he was both a deeply principled, and very effective, member of this body. I was also pleased to work with him on a number of other issues, including the presidential public funding legislation, and I look forward to his continued support on that issue in this new Congress. I was proud to support his efforts, along with many other members, on the efforts to support our wounded warriors, which he championed. And, finally, I thank him for his support of my bill, authored with Majority Leader Harry Reid, to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq. His support helped to build momentum for our effort to redeploy the troops from Iraq and move toward a better national security strategy, and I thank him for it. We will miss his presence here in the Senate, but of course the Nation needs his unparalleled skills, and deep commitment to public service, more than ever as he is now President of the United States. I look forward to continuing to work with him on issues important to the American people, and I thank him once again for his service here in the Senate. Joseph Biden Mr. President, it has been a pleasure to serve with Senator Joe Biden for the last 16 years. He is an outstanding colleague and a good friend, and I know that he will make a terrific Vice President. I have been pleased to work with him on so many issues over the years. For instance, I was proud to support him in his tremendous work on the COPS program. In turn I appreciate his steadfast support of campaign finance reform issues over the years. Most of all, I want to say how much I have enjoyed serving with Senator Biden on the Foreign Relations and Judiciary Committees. I also can attest to his mastery of the complicated issues he faced in both committees. It is a huge challenge to take on the chairmanship of a Senate committee, and to do it well, but to serve with such distinction as chair of two of the Senate's most important committees is very rare, and it speaks volumes about Joe Biden's service in this body. I have always found Senator Biden to be someone who I could talk with seriously about issues of mutual concern, or when we disagree. He is open-minded and he really listens. That quality will surely serve him well in his new position. He also, in my view, can be uniquely persuasive. He is one of the few Senators who I have actually seen change people's minds during a committee debate. In a policy fight involving complex issues, Joe Biden is someone who you want to have on your side. Now Senator Biden becomes Vice President, and I know he will serve the Nation with the same outstanding commitment and skill with which he served the people of Delaware. I thank him for his many years of distinguished service in the Senate, and look forward to continuing to work with him, and President Obama, in the years to come. Hillary Rodham Clinton Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in thanking Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for her outstanding service in the Senate, and wishing her our very best as she becomes our Secretary of State. One of the many reasons I strongly support her nomination for Secretary of State is because I have had the pleasure of working with Senator Clinton, and I know what a skilled legislator and committed public servant she is. We have worked on a number of issues together over the years, including fighting for family farmers and especially the dairy farmers that are so important to both New York and Wisconsin. Finding common ground, we worked together to make sure dairy markets functioned properly, to improve the milk income loss contract or MILC program, and pushing for country-of-origin labeling, or COOL, legislation for dairy products. I was also proud to support the Paycheck Fairness Act, which she authored, and to work with her on many other issues. I also had the opportunity to travel with Senator Clinton and a number of other senators on an official trip to Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait and Pakistan, where we listened to service men and women on the ground, as well as local leaders. On that trip Senator Clinton deeply impressed me with her depth of knowledge on foreign relations and national security issues. Later I was very pleased to have her support for my effort with Majority Leader Harry Reid to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq, and I look forward to continuing to work with her on these critically important issues as she becomes our next Secretary of State. Once again, I thank her for her service in this body, and I wish her all the best as she continues her service to the American people. Ken Salazar Mr. President, I join my colleagues in thanking Ken Salazar for his outstanding service to the people of Colorado over the last 4 years. It has been a pleasure to work with him on a number of issues; he is extremely easy to work with, both someone of integrity and great personal decency. In particular, he has been one of the Senate's leaders when it comes to protecting the rights and freedoms of the American people as we work to strengthen our national security. I was proud to work with him and a bipartisan coalition of Senators on the SAFE Act to change flawed provisions of the PATRIOT Act. I also appreciated his critical support of the NSL Reform Act, to address the serious misuse of the FBI's national security letter authorities. I also know Senator Salazar's deep commitment to public lands and energy resources issues, and I think he will be an excellent Secretary of the Interior. Again, I thank him for his service in this body, and I look forward to continuing to work with him as he assumes the leadership of the Interior Department.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers. Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, for 2009, the mileage reimbursement level permitted for businesses is 55 cents per mile, nearly four times the volunteer rate. During this economic downturn we are asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services, but the 14 cents per mile limit is imposing a very real hardship for charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups. This was an even harsher constraint on volunteer activity when gasoline prices spiked last summer. I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit. One of the first organizations that brought this issue to my attention was the Portage County Department on Aging. Volunteer drivers are critical to their ability to provide services to seniors in Portage County, and the Department on Aging depends on dozens of volunteer drivers to deliver meals to homes and transport people to their medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services. As many of my colleagues know, nutrition is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. As I discovered during my ten years as Chair of the Wisconsin State Senate Committee on Aging, the senior nutrition programs not only provide needed nutrition services, but in many cases, the congregate meals program provides an important community contact point for seniors who may live alone, and the meals program may be the point at which many frail elderly first come into contact with the network of services that can help them. For that reason, the senior nutrition programs are often at the heart of the aging services network, and as such are essential for many critical services that frail elderly may need. Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years, increasing pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for that lagging Federal support. The 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit has made it far more difficult to obtain those volunteer services. Portage County reported that at 14 cents per mile, many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services. If volunteer drivers cannot be found, either those services will be lost, and those most vulnerable in our society will go wanting, or the services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services. The same is true for thousands of other nonprofit and charitable organizations that provide essential services to communities across our Nation. By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. As I noted earlier, for 2009 the comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is 55 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees nearly four times the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence. This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 109th Congress and the 110th Congress, and largely the same as the version I introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses, and provides an offset to ensure that the measure does not aggravate the budget deficit. The most recent estimate of the cost to increase the reimbursement for volunteer drivers is about $1 million over 5 years. Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. That provision increases the criminal monetary penalties for individuals and corporations convicted of tax fraud. The provision passed the Senate in the 108th Congress as part of the JOBS bill, but was later dropped in conference and was not included in the final version of that bill. I also extend my thanks to the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for including my bill in his larger omnibus volunteer driver relief measure, the GIVE Act, last year, and the junior Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, for including my bill in this year's version of the GIVE Act. Both Senators are keenly aware of the need for the change provided by this bill, and I thank them for their leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the tax code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce legislation today that would increase the mileage reimbursement rate for volunteers. Under current law, when volunteers use their cars for charitable purposes, the volunteers may be reimbursed up to 14 cents per mile for their donated services without triggering a tax consequence for either the organization or the volunteers. If the charitable organization reimburses any more than that, they are required to file an information return indicating the amount, and the volunteers must include the amount over 14 cents per mile in their taxable income. By contrast, for 2009, the mileage reimbursement level permitted for businesses is 55 cents per mile, nearly four times the volunteer rate. During this economic downturn we are asking volunteers and volunteer organizations to bear a greater burden of delivering essential services, but the 14 cents per mile limit is imposing a very real hardship for charitable organizations and other nonprofit groups. This was an even harsher constraint on volunteer activity when gasoline prices spiked last summer. I have heard from a number of people in Wisconsin on the need to increase this reimbursement limit. One of the first organizations that brought this issue to my attention was the Portage County Department on Aging. Volunteer drivers are critical to their ability to provide services to seniors in Portage County, and the Department on Aging depends on dozens of volunteer drivers to deliver meals to homes and transport people to their medical appointments, meal sites, and other essential services. As many of my colleagues know, nutrition is one of the most vital services provided under the Older Americans Act and ensuring that meals can be delivered to seniors or that seniors can be taken to meal sites is an essential part of that program. As I discovered during my ten years as Chair of the Wisconsin State Senate Committee on Aging, the senior nutrition programs not only provide needed nutrition services, but in many cases, the congregate meals program provides an important community contact point for seniors who may live alone, and the meals program may be the point at which many frail elderly first come into contact with the network of services that can help them. For that reason, the senior nutrition programs are often at the heart of the aging services network, and as such are essential for many critical services that frail elderly may need. Unfortunately, Federal support for the senior nutrition programs has stagnated in recent years, increasing pressure on local programs to leverage more volunteer services to make up for that lagging Federal support. The 14 cents per mile reimbursement limit has made it far more difficult to obtain those volunteer services. Portage County reported that at 14 cents per mile, many of their volunteers cannot afford to offer their services. If volunteer drivers cannot be found, either those services will be lost, and those most vulnerable in our society will go wanting, or the services will have to be replaced by contracting with a provider, greatly increasing costs to the Department, costs that come directly out of the pot of funds available to pay for meals and other services. The same is true for thousands of other nonprofit and charitable organizations that provide essential services to communities across our Nation. By contrast, businesses do not face this restrictive mileage reimbursement limit. As I noted earlier, for 2009 the comparable mileage rate for someone who works for a business is 55 cents per mile. This disparity means that a business hired to deliver the same meals delivered by volunteers for Portage County may reimburse their employees nearly four times the amount permitted the volunteer without a tax consequence. This doesn't make sense. The 14 cents per mile volunteer reimbursement limit is badly outdated. According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress first set a reimbursement rate of 12 cents per mile as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, and did not increase it until 1997, when the level was raised slightly, to 14 cents per mile, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The bill I am introducing today is identical to a measure I introduced in the 109th Congress and the 110th Congress, and largely the same as the version I introduced in the 107th and 108th Congresses. It raises the limit on volunteer mileage reimbursement to the level permitted to businesses, and provides an offset to ensure that the measure does not aggravate the budget deficit. The most recent estimate of the cost to increase the reimbursement for volunteer drivers is about $1 million over 5 years. Though the revenue loss is small, it is vital that we do everything we can to move toward a balanced budget, and to that end I have included a provision to fully offset the cost of the measure and make it deficit neutral. That provision increases the criminal monetary penalties for individuals and corporations convicted of tax fraud. The provision passed the Senate in the 108th Congress as part of the JOBS bill, but was later dropped in conference and was not included in the final version of that bill. I also extend my thanks to the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, for including my bill in his larger omnibus volunteer driver relief measure, the GIVE Act, last year, and the junior Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, for including my bill in this year's version of the GIVE Act. Both Senators are keenly aware of the need for the change provided by this bill, and I thank them for their leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It will help ensure charitable organizations can continue to attract the volunteers that play such a critical role in helping to deliver services and it will simplify the tax code both for nonprofit groups and the volunteers themselves. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, today I will vote to support final passage of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, S. 22. While I oppose two provisions in the bill, there are many other provisions that I support. Yesterday I voted to oppose bringing an end to debate on the bill since the majority leader used a procedural tactic to prevent Senators from offering amendments. I had hoped that cloture would be defeated so that we could reach agreement to allow a few amendments. One such amendment was one I cosponsored to strike a troublesome provision that would authorize the transfer of Federal land in Alaska's Izembek National Wildlife Refuge--a designated wilderness area and internationally recognized Ramsar site--so that a road could be built. The road is purportedly to allow travel between two Alaskan communities in cases of medical emergencies. However, Congress has already appropriated more than $36 million to provide a hovercraft, which I am told crosses Cold Bay in about 20 minutes and to date has met every medical evacuation need in all weather conditions, over 30. The road, on the other hand, would need to avoid the numerous ponds and priority wetland areas--taking 1 to 2 hours to drive--and would not provide safer, faster, or more cost-effective transportation than the hovercraft. Another provision that troubles me was considered by neither the House nor the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a prerequisite for all the other public lands bills in the package. The Washington County, UT, provision was air-dropped into this legislation. It is unfortunate that the wilderness designations in the provision fall well short of the wilderness-quality land in the county that should be protected. This public lands bill only proposes to designate 44 percent of what is included in the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, which I have been pleased to join Senator Durbin in supporting. Furthermore, this public lands package omits a wilderness unit, Dry Creek, that Senator Bennett has previously agreed to protect in his Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2008, S. 2834. There are two provisions in the public lands bill that will impact Wisconsin. The first is Section 5301, the ``National Trails System Willing Seller Authority.'' This section is based on a bill I cosponsored in the 110th Congress, S. 169, and will allow the Federal Government to purchase lands from willing sellers for two important trails in Wisconsin: the North Country National Scenic Trail and the Ice Age National Scenic Trail. I would like to acknowledge the efforts by the Ice Age Park and Trail Foundation, North Country Trail Association, Partnership for the National Trail System, and the Conservation Fund to help the National Park Service complete these trails. This provision will establish willing seller authority as a uniform policy for the entire National Trail System, allowing these two trails and seven others to benefit from this commonsense policy. Section 7116 of the bill also makes a technical correction to the name of the wilderness area in the Apostle Islands, now to be called the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. Removing the ``A'' from the former name--Gaylord A. Nelson Wilderness--is supported by the National Park Service and Nelson's family. Though this ia a small change, I do want to take the opportunity to again express my deep respect for the former U.S. Senator and Wisconsin Governor and my support for the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore and the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness. In August 2005, I was deeply honored to participate in a ceremony marking the creation of the Gaylord Nelson Wilderness and honoring the remarkable life of Gaylord Nelson, father of Earth Day. I worked with Representative Obey to obtain the wilderness designation for 80 percent of the Apostle Islands, but it was Gaylord who was so essential in the effort to recognize the Apostle Islands as a national treasure and establish the national lakeshore.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I will support the resolution disapproving the remaining $350 billion in funding for the financial bailout. While President-elect Obama's team has signaled some significant improvements in the actual administration of these funds, the three fundamental issues that caused me to oppose the bailout initially remain. The bailout continues to be a huge strain on our budget, with no provision for offsetting its cost to the Federal budget--a cost that will be passed on to our children and grandchildren in the form of increased debt. There is no requirement to help families facing foreclosures on their homes, one of the root causes of the housing crisis. And finally it fails to reform the deeply flawed regulatory structure that permitted the crisis to arise in the first place. While we have heard promises of future legislation, the hammer we hold over the financial sector is the bailout funding. Once that funding is approved, we have lost the leverage needed to enact the tough reforms that will get the financial sector to clean up its act. As I had hoped, a small portion of the financial bailout funds were used to provide temporary help for our automakers and help retain 3 million manufacturing jobs in this country. While I opposed the financial bailout for the reasons I have just spelled out, given that those funds were approved I felt it only right that a tiny percentage of them be used to help millions of working families whose livelihoods depend on a healthy automobile industry. Despite my concerns, I fully expect this second $350 billion for the financial bailout to be approved, and if it is, I certainly expect that the promise of additional financial backing for the automobile industry, and the millions of jobs associated with it, will be forthcoming. As I have noted before, while some of the troubles of the automobile industry were of their own making, a great many of the problems facing domestic automakers are the direct result of policies enacted or ratified in Washington. The collapse of the housing and credit markets, the result of two decades of the reckless disassembly of a sound regulatory system, clearly hit the credit-sensitive auto industry hard. In addition, bipartisan majorities in Congress, led by Democratic and Republican Presidents, approved deeply flawed trade policies that have further disadvantaged the domestic auto industry. Currency manipulation by foreign competitors that has not been adequately addressed by our national leadership, too, has put our domestic producers at an enormous competitive disadvantage. Given Washington's policymaking complicity in the problems facing our domestic automobile industry, should these additional bailout funds for Wall Street move forward, a slice of them should rightly be used to provide some assistance for an industry that means so much for millions of American families.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, over the past few days I have introduced a series of bills that are part of my E4 Initiative, dubbed E4 because of its focus on economy, employment, education, and energy. Today I am introducing two bills that are part of this effort: the Community Revitalization Energy Conservation, CREC, Act of 2009 and the Energy and Technology Advancement, ETA, Act of 2009. The newest among my E4 bills is the Community Revitalization Energy Conservation, CREC, Act of 2009. This bill will increase the amount of funding available to State and local governments for the rehabilitation and revitalization of the fledgling green economy, and also expand the types of eligible projects to cover energy efficiency improvements to privately owned buildings. While our country is facing its greatest economic challenge since the Great Depression, we have a tremendous opportunity to create jobs critical to addressing the energy challenges we face. The CREC Act amends the recently authorized Qualified Energy Conservation Bond, QECB, program to increase funding for important public-private partnerships to significantly invest in energy efficiency and conservation, a key national priority. It also offers States and local governments the opportunity to create jobs and stimulate their local economies. First, my bill will more than quadruple the amount of bonds that can be issued under the Qualified Energy Conservation Bond program-- increasing the program from $800 million to $3.6 billion. This will provide the opportunity for private investors to partner with State and local governments to fund energy investments through State and locally issued tax credit bonds. As we give private investors the opportunity to participate in the green economy through Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, we signal to the market that the Federal Government will continue to affirm the importance of investment in energy efficiency and conservation, as well as the development of new energy technologies. Helping these new energy technologies thrive is not only a promising way to develop the next generation of energy technology to reduce our energy consumption, it will also help to spur job creation as State and local governments embark on capital improvements. Increasing the size of the program will support funding for eligible projects including energy efficiency improvements of publicly owned buildings; rural development of electricity from renewable sources; research facilities or grants for renewable technologies such as advanced automobile battery technology and nonfossil fuels; mass commuting facilities that reduce energy consumption; or financing qualified energy production projects such as wind, biomass, geothermal, landfill gas, and solar. Secondly, my bill expands the types of eligible programs to ones that reduce energy consumption in privately owned buildings. It would allow States and local governments to help homeowners and businesses make improvements such as heating-fuel saving measures; electricity-saving measures; on-site renewable energy generating devices; or water-saving measures that reduce the energy use of the owner, renter or water provider. Gains in efficiency savings between 20-30 percent are easily achievable through improving lighting, insulation, HVAC equipment and controls for these items. These measures are often one-time and low maintenance or maintenance free once they have been installed. In terms of costs, implementing efficiency measures only costs about 3 cents per kWh of energy saved while implementing wind and solar projects can cost at least two to three times more. Importantly, my bill will increase the success of these energy efficiency and conservation programs by ensuring the Qualified Energy Conservation Bond program can be used to promote novel payment structures in order to reduce the prohibitive upfront costs that homeowners and businesses must pay for energy efficiency and conservation upgrades. By eliminating expensive up-front costs for homeowners and businesses, we can eliminate one of the main obstacles to making significant energy efficiency gains. Furthermore, we can virtually eliminate what homeowners and businesses have to pay for the efficiency and conservation upgrades by not increasing their out-of- pocket expenses. For example, States and local governments can work with electric and water utilities to bill individuals or businesses monthly for the cost of the efficiency improvements based on the savings they receive. The payment for the efficiency improvements each month will be no more than the monthly energy-savings realized by the improvements, thereby keeping their monthly payments the same as before the energy improvements. The Center on Wisconsin Strategy states that buildings account for 40 percent of total U.S. energy consumption, 70 percent of U.S. electricity consumption, and 43 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, a larger share than either transportation or industry. It is possible that the U.S. could realize more than $200 billion in annual savings from improved building efficiency alone. However, one of the challenges associated with implementing building efficiency measures is its prohibitive cost. Unfortunately, poor households devote a disproportionate share of income to home energy costs, often upwards of 10 percent, because they have less income and tend to live in less efficient buildings and use less efficient appliances. Through building retrofits we have the potential to generate about 10 person years of employment in direct installation of efficiency measures and another 3- 4 person years in the production of relevant materials for every $1 million spent on retrofits Large cities and counties with populations over 100,000 would be eligible for Wisconsin's share, $65.7 million, that my bill would allow for. Eligible local governments in Wisconsin include: Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, and the counties of Milwaukee, Dane, Waukesha, Brown, Racine, Outagamie, Kenosha, Winnebago, Rock, Marathon, Washington, Sheboygan, La Crosse, and Walworth. I commend the city of Milwaukee and the Center on Wisconsin Strategy--they have already begun to develop a program to address retrofitting residential buildings with energy efficiency measures through Me2--Milwaukee Energy Efficiency. COWS' initial estimates suggest if you could retrofit nearly all of the existing housing stock in Milwaukee, an initial investment of just under $250 million could result in annual energy savings of over $80 million. Examples of other cities that are tackling the issue of energy efficiency in residential buildings include Berkeley, CA; Babylon, NY; and Brookhaven, NY. All of these efforts to conserve energy require investments in time and money. By combining efforts on two of the challenges that we currently face--energy and employment--we can create great opportunities. Energy efficiency and conservation are in our national interest for our long term economic well-being, for the health and safety of our citizens and the world as we mitigate the effects of climate change, and for our independence and security. I have urged the Treasury Department to quickly issue regulations for the Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds so the initial program can get up and running. Once regulations are finalized, States and local governments can begin applying to receive an allotment of the bonds to pursue projects that may have been shelved in our struggling economy. The second energy bill I am introducing as part of my E4 Initiative is the Energy and Technology Advancement Act. This bill will increase partnerships between the Federal Government and businesses to help spur the commercialization of energy, forestry, and other technologies--in other words, to increase the ETA, or estimated time of arrival, for bringing new technologies to market. Particularly in the area of energy, we must do more to make new energy solutions, like next generation biofuels, a reality. My bill will help make the Federal Government a better business partner for the many businesses that are researching and developing innovative technology solutions our country needs. We are squandering the Federal investment of billions into research and development by not doing enough to prevent new technologies from sitting on the shelf or being shipped to another country. Helping these new energy technologies get off the ground is not only a promising way to develop the next generation of energy technology that will help break our addition to oil, it will also help to spur job creation and enhance rural development. One obstacle identified by the Forest Service's Wisconsin-based Forest Products Lab which conducts forestry and energy technology research with businesses and others, is lack of Federal support for moving technologies from the research and development phase to commercialization. My bill will bridge this gap by authorizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, which includes the Forest Service, to work with businesses and provide access to resources to assist with getting technologies to market. By encouraging the USDA to act as a ``business incubator,'' we can increase the rate of success and reduce the length of time for bringing technologies to the market. By providing a bridge to move new technologies beyond the research and development phase to commercialization, the Federal Government will accelerate the development of new technologies and create increased opportunities for small businesses, local and State government, and others. All energy, forestry, and other technologies will benefit from my ETA Act because it will help new technologies come to the market. It does so by promoting the Federal Government as a better business incubator, encouraging the USDA to provide business support services, and authorizing USDA employees and private-sector employees to work together in Federal or private experimental or product facilities. My bill will also increase cooperation between the Federal Government and innovative businesses by encouraging the USDA to allow rental of Federal equipment and property for the development of new technology. Lastly, a specific partnership encouraged by my Energy and Technology Advancement Act will spur the commercialization of biofuels. My bill requires the USDA to pursue a biorefinery pilot plant that will allow businesses to partner with the Federal Government to test various biofuels technologies derived from a variety of feedstocks, including woody and agriculture waste. Certainly one of today's greatest challenges--energy--is also one of tomorrow's greatest opportunities. Today, the transportation sector accounts for 70% of our oil consumption. However, there are promising efforts to significantly lessen our dependence on oil by reducing fuel consumption through increased efficiency and by aggressively pursuing renewable fuels, or biofuels. The commercialization of biofuels will also create job opportunities, support rural development and industries such as forestry, and develop the next generation of fuels that are sustainable and from diverse sources. Given our current dire fiscal situation, it is more important then ever that we are careful stewards of taxpayer dollars. Not only are both of these new bills fully offset, so as not to worsen our current Federal deficit; they actually provide over a billion dollars in deficit reduction. That's yet another reason to pass them, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, over the past few days I have introduced a series of bills that are part of my E4 Initiative, dubbed E4 because of its focus on economy, employment, education, and energy. Today I am introducing two bills that are part of this effort: the Community Revitalization Energy Conservation, CREC, Act of 2009 and the Energy and Technology Advancement, ETA, Act of 2009. The newest among my E4 bills is the Community Revitalization Energy Conservation, CREC, Act of 2009. This bill will increase the amount of funding available to State and local governments for the rehabilitation and revitalization of the fledgling green economy, and also expand the types of eligible projects to cover energy efficiency improvements to privately owned buildings. While our country is facing its greatest economic challenge since the Great Depression, we have a tremendous opportunity to create jobs critical to addressing the energy challenges we face. The CREC Act amends the recently authorized Qualified Energy Conservation Bond, QECB, program to increase funding for important public-private partnerships to significantly invest in energy efficiency and conservation, a key national priority. It also offers States and local governments the opportunity to create jobs and stimulate their local economies. First, my bill will more than quadruple the amount of bonds that can be issued under the Qualified Energy Conservation Bond program-- increasing the program from $800 million to $3.6 billion. This will provide the opportunity for private investors to partner with State and local governments to fund energy investments through State and locally issued tax credit bonds. As we give private investors the opportunity to participate in the green economy through Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, we signal to the market that the Federal Government will continue to affirm the importance of investment in energy efficiency and conservation, as well as the development of new energy technologies. Helping these new energy technologies thrive is not only a promising way to develop the next generation of energy technology to reduce our energy consumption, it will also help to spur job creation as State and local governments embark on capital improvements. Increasing the size of the program will support funding for eligible projects including energy efficiency improvements of publicly owned buildings; rural development of electricity from renewable sources; research facilities or grants for renewable technologies such as advanced automobile battery technology and nonfossil fuels; mass commuting facilities that reduce energy consumption; or financing qualified energy production projects such as wind, biomass, geothermal, landfill gas, and solar. Secondly, my bill expands the types of eligible programs to ones that reduce energy consumption in privately owned buildings. It would allow States and local governments to help homeowners and businesses make improvements such as heating-fuel saving measures; electricity-saving measures; on-site renewable energy generating devices; or water-saving measures that reduce the energy use of the owner, renter or water provider. Gains in efficiency savings between 20-30 percent are easily achievable through improving lighting, insulation, HVAC equipment and controls for these items. These measures are often one-time and low maintenance or maintenance free once they have been installed. In terms of costs, implementing efficiency measures only costs about 3 cents per kWh of energy saved while implementing wind and solar projects can cost at least two to three times more. Importantly, my bill will increase the success of these energy efficiency and conservation programs by ensuring the Qualified Energy Conservation Bond program can be used to promote novel payment structures in order to reduce the prohibitive upfront costs that homeowners and businesses must pay for energy efficiency and conservation upgrades. By eliminating expensive up-front costs for homeowners and businesses, we can eliminate one of the main obstacles to making significant energy efficiency gains. Furthermore, we can virtually eliminate what homeowners and businesses have to pay for the efficiency and conservation upgrades by not increasing their out-of- pocket expenses. For example, States and local governments can work with electric and water utilities to bill individuals or businesses monthly for the cost of the efficiency improvements based on the savings they receive. The payment for the efficiency improvements each month will be no more than the monthly energy-savings realized by the improvements, thereby keeping their monthly payments the same as before the energy improvements. The Center on Wisconsin Strategy states that buildings account for 40 percent of total U.S. energy consumption, 70 percent of U.S. electricity consumption, and 43 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, a larger share than either transportation or industry. It is possible that the U.S. could realize more than $200 billion in annual savings from improved building efficiency alone. However, one of the challenges associated with implementing building efficiency measures is its prohibitive cost. Unfortunately, poor households devote a disproportionate share of income to home energy costs, often upwards of 10 percent, because they have less income and tend to live in less efficient buildings and use less efficient appliances. Through building retrofits we have the potential to generate about 10 person years of employment in direct installation of efficiency measures and another 3- 4 person years in the production of relevant materials for every $1 million spent on retrofits Large cities and counties with populations over 100,000 would be eligible for Wisconsin's share, $65.7 million, that my bill would allow for. Eligible local governments in Wisconsin include: Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, and the counties of Milwaukee, Dane, Waukesha, Brown, Racine, Outagamie, Kenosha, Winnebago, Rock, Marathon, Washington, Sheboygan, La Crosse, and Walworth. I commend the city of Milwaukee and the Center on Wisconsin Strategy--they have already begun to develop a program to address retrofitting residential buildings with energy efficiency measures through Me2--Milwaukee Energy Efficiency. COWS' initial estimates suggest if you could retrofit nearly all of the existing housing stock in Milwaukee, an initial investment of just under $250 million could result in annual energy savings of over $80 million. Examples of other cities that are tackling the issue of energy efficiency in residential buildings include Berkeley, CA; Babylon, NY; and Brookhaven, NY. All of these efforts to conserve energy require investments in time and money. By combining efforts on two of the challenges that we currently face--energy and employment--we can create great opportunities. Energy efficiency and conservation are in our national interest for our long term economic well-being, for the health and safety of our citizens and the world as we mitigate the effects of climate change, and for our independence and security. I have urged the Treasury Department to quickly issue regulations for the Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds so the initial program can get up and running. Once regulations are finalized, States and local governments can begin applying to receive an allotment of the bonds to pursue projects that may have been shelved in our struggling economy. The second energy bill I am introducing as part of my E4 Initiative is the Energy and Technology Advancement Act. This bill will increase partnerships between the Federal Government and businesses to help spur the commercialization of energy, forestry, and other technologies--in other words, to increase the ETA, or estimated time of arrival, for bringing new technologies to market. Particularly in the area of energy, we must do more to make new energy solutions, like next generation biofuels, a reality. My bill will help make the Federal Government a better business partner for the many businesses that are researching and developing innovative technology solutions our country needs. We are squandering the Federal investment of billions into research and development by not doing enough to prevent new technologies from sitting on the shelf or being shipped to another country. Helping these new energy technologies get off the ground is not only a promising way to develop the next generation of energy technology that will help break our addition to oil, it will also help to spur job creation and enhance rural development. One obstacle identified by the Forest Service's Wisconsin-based Forest Products Lab which conducts forestry and energy technology research with businesses and others, is lack of Federal support for moving technologies from the research and development phase to commercialization. My bill will bridge this gap by authorizing the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, which includes the Forest Service, to work with businesses and provide access to resources to assist with getting technologies to market. By encouraging the USDA to act as a ``business incubator,'' we can increase the rate of success and reduce the length of time for bringing technologies to the market. By providing a bridge to move new technologies beyond the research and development phase to commercialization, the Federal Government will accelerate the development of new technologies and create increased opportunities for small businesses, local and State government, and others. All energy, forestry, and other technologies will benefit from my ETA Act because it will help new technologies come to the market. It does so by promoting the Federal Government as a better business incubator, encouraging the USDA to provide business support services, and authorizing USDA employees and private-sector employees to work together in Federal or private experimental or product facilities. My bill will also increase cooperation between the Federal Government and innovative businesses by encouraging the USDA to allow rental of Federal equipment and property for the development of new technology. Lastly, a specific partnership encouraged by my Energy and Technology Advancement Act will spur the commercialization of biofuels. My bill requires the USDA to pursue a biorefinery pilot plant that will allow businesses to partner with the Federal Government to test various biofuels technologies derived from a variety of feedstocks, including woody and agriculture waste. Certainly one of today's greatest challenges--energy--is also one of tomorrow's greatest opportunities. Today, the transportation sector accounts for 70% of our oil consumption. However, there are promising efforts to significantly lessen our dependence on oil by reducing fuel consumption through increased efficiency and by aggressively pursuing renewable fuels, or biofuels. The commercialization of biofuels will also create job opportunities, support rural development and industries such as forestry, and develop the next generation of fuels that are sustainable and from diverse sources. Given our current dire fiscal situation, it is more important then ever that we are careful stewards of taxpayer dollars. Not only are both of these new bills fully offset, so as not to worsen our current Federal deficit; they actually provide over a billion dollars in deficit reduction. That's yet another reason to pass them, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to do just that.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed so that we can debate, amend, and consider the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, S. 22. I hope that my colleagues and I will be given the chance to amend this bill as I have reservations about supporting its final passage in its current form. While I appreciate the chairman's efforts to make improvements, I intend to cosponsor an amendment to strike a troublesome provision that would authorize the transfer of Federal land in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge--a designated wilderness area and internationally recognized Ramsar site--so that a road could be built. The road is purportedly to allow travel between two Alaskan communities in cases of medical emergencies. However, Congress has already appropriated more than $36 million to provide a hovercraft, which I am told crosses Cold Bay in about 20 minutes and to date has met every medical evacuation need in all weather conditions--over 30. The road, on the other hand, would need to avoid the numerous ponds and priority wetland areas-- taking one to two hours to drive--and would not provide safer, faster, or more cost-effective transportation than the hovercraft. I am also troubled by the addition of a provision that has been considered by neither the House nor the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a prerequisite for all the other public lands bills in the package. The Washington County provision was air-dropped into this legislation. It is unfortunate that the wilderness designations in the provision fall well short of the wilderness-quality land in the county that should be protected. This public lands bill only proposes to designate 44 percent of what is included in the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, which I have been pleased to join Senator Durbin in supporting. Furthermore, this public lands package omits a wilderness unit, Dry Creek, that Senator Bennett has previously agreed to protect in his Washington County Growth and Conservation Act of 2008, S. 2834. This bill certainly has many good provisions, but I hope we can work to improve this important piece of legislation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today marks the 4-year anniversary of the signing of Sudan's Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which brought an end to the tragic north-south civil war that raged for over two decades; a war, frankly, that for a long time seemed virtually endless. We should keep the CPA in mind as we lament the horrific suffering that endures in eastern Congo, Darfur, Somalia, and Zimbabwe. I am hopeful that 2009 will be a year in which we make significant progress toward peace in all of these countries, and that the United States plays an active role in that progress. The CPA is a remarkable testament to the fact that transformation is possible in even the most seemingly intractable conflicts when there is political will. I am proud of the critical role the United States played in bringing about this historic agreement 4 years ago, and it is a testament to the hard work of Special Envoy Jack Danforth and the leadership of President Bush. Nevertheless, the CPA is not merely about a piece of paper or a moment in history but a commitment to secure lasting peace throughout Sudan. Unfortunately, this process remains unfinished and increasingly fragile, as evidenced by the clashes that broke out in the oil-rich Abyei region last May. Several flashpoints in the states of South Kordofan, Jonglei, and Blue Nile remain highly volatile. There remain too many arms and armed actors in these areas that are capable of undermining the agreement. Both sides, anticipating future clashes, are spending increased resources to build up their militaries. It is not difficult to imagine a minor incident causing renewed fighting in these areas, which could quickly plunge the north and the south back into full-scale war. Such a scenario would not only be devastating for the Sudanese but could have dramatic repercussions for the wider region. With elections under the CPA scheduled for this year, 2009 may well be a watershed year for Sudan. The United States must renew and intensify its support for the implementation of the CPA as part of a comprehensive strategy for Sudan. We must continue to demonstrate, both in terms of our diplomacy and resources, a commitment to rebuild southern Sudan's institutions, and support the approaching elections. Simultaneously, we must work with our international partners to ensure that the UN Mission in Sudan, UNMIS, is doing all it can to monitor and keep the peace in Sudan's flashpoints. I am confident that the Obama administration understands the importance of implementing the CPA and will bring bold leadership and a holistic vision to peace efforts in Sudan. Finally, we cannot ignore how the continued violence and humanitarian crisis in Darfur is a deep stain on the vision of a peaceful Sudan. Efforts at peacebuilding in Sudan will prove futile without a workable political solution for Darfur. Too often in the past, we have made the mistake of focusing on one region of Sudan at the expense of others. This kind of piecemeal approach has proven limited, if not counterproductive at times. In this critical year ahead, we need a comprehensive approach that can pave the way for lasting peace and stability for all of Sudan. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Obama administration to make that a reality.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I honor the life of South Africa's Helen Suzman, a champion of equality and rights for the people of South Africa who suffered under apartheid. For generations to come, her story will be an inspiration to people around the world who have the courage to speak out against injustice. Helen Suzman dedicated her life and 36 years in South Africa's Parliament to fighting institutionalized racism in South Africa. Often she stood alone in defiance of her own Government as it systematically obstructed the rights and freedoms of the majority of South Africans. Particularly during the 13 years when she was the only anti-apartheid member of South Africa's Parliament, Helen Suzman provided the voice of reason that reminded the world of the injustices that persisted in South Africa. Helen Suzman's intelligence, courage, and perseverance helped to end apartheid in South Africa. Her contribution to ending that evil has become a symbol of hope for millions in South Africa and around the world. That is a powerful and inspiring legacy, and it is one I am pleased to recognize and celebrate today.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing the Crane Conservation Act of 2009. I am very pleased that Senator Crapo has once again agreed to lead on this legislation with me. I am always glad to work with my colleagues from across the aisle. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Boxer, Brownback, Cardin, Kerry, Kohl, Landrieu, and Martinez, who are cosponsors of this legislation. The Crane Conservation Act will ensure we do our part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is particularly important to the people of Wisconsin, as our state provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home State. Congress' efforts to help protect and recover species throughout the world began in earnest in 1994 when Congress passed and the President signed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation by authorizing the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute up to $10 million in grants every year to support projects in developing countries. Since 1994, Congress has established the ``multinational species conservation fund'' to cover other species, such as elephants and great apes. Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with 11 of the world's 15 species at risk of extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $5 million of funds per year for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to be distributed as conservation project grants to protect cranes and their habitat in Asia, Africa, and North America. In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this bill proposes that the $25 million in authorized spending over 5 years for the Crane Conservation Act should be offset through the Secretary of Interior's administrative budget. This bill is similar to legislation I have introduced since the 107th Congress and I was very pleased that last Congress the bill passed the House of Representatives and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and was positioned to pass the Senate before stalling late in the last Congress. I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without further conservation efforts. Those efforts have achieved some success in the case of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on earth. By 1890, the whooping crane disappeared from its main migratory route from Idaho through Wyoming and Colorado to New Mexico. In 1944, only 21 birds remained along the migratory route between Montana and Texas' Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, via the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Unfortunately, the breeding grounds for this remaining flock were unknown, but since they were discovered in Canada in 1955, cooperative efforts between the United States and Canada have been under way to recover the species. Today, this flock remains the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes that breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. In 1980, a new course was chartered for recovering the species, and captive breeding efforts began at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Maryland in hopes of rearing chicks for release in the wild--today, captive breeding centers are also located at New Orleans' Audubon Species Survival Center and Canada's Calgary Zoo. These breeding efforts blossomed into efforts to reintroduce a migratory flock of whooping cranes into their historic range in the Eastern United States. In 2001 this became a reality when the first class of whooping cranes followed their ``mother'' (actually an ultra light aircraft) over 1,300 miles to their wintering grounds. The movement of this flock of birds shows how any effort by Congress to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from Wisconsin's Necedah National Wildlife Refuge to Florida's Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge and back, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude of states in this country. Along the journey which traverses through Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia the birds face threats from pollution of traditional watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. However, the birds can also rely on private landowners, the vast majority of whom have enthusiastically welcomed the birds to their rest on their land. Through its extensive outreach and education program, the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership has obtained the consistent support of farmers and other private landowners to make this important recovery program a success. On every front, this partnership is unique. This ongoing recovery effort would not be possible without the cooperative efforts of federal and state governments, landowners, volunteers, and non-governmental organizations. Seven years later, these partnerships support an ever-growing eastern crane population, now numbering over sixty. While over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and the wattled crane of Africa. The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well watered plains or marshes to breed and survive. Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop in population of the sarus crane. Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain. The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in these regions. If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education, and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile habitats. This modest investment can secure the future of these exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2009. This legislation is endorsed by African Wildlife Foundation, American Bird Conservancy, American Veterinary Medical Association, Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Audubon Nature Institute, Born Free USA, Conservation International, Defenders of Wildlife, Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International, Fauna & Flora International, Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society International, International Crane Foundation, International Fund for Animal Welfare, International Rhino Foundation, National Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Refuge Association, The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Wildlife Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, and the World Wildlife Fund. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing the Crane Conservation Act of 2009. I am very pleased that Senator Crapo has once again agreed to lead on this legislation with me. I am always glad to work with my colleagues from across the aisle. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Boxer, Brownback, Cardin, Kerry, Kohl, Landrieu, and Martinez, who are cosponsors of this legislation. The Crane Conservation Act will ensure we do our part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural significance and popular appeal can be seen worldwide. This legislation is particularly important to the people of Wisconsin, as our state provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. But this legislation, which authorizes the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute funds and grants to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will go far beyond the boundaries of my home State. Congress' efforts to help protect and recover species throughout the world began in earnest in 1994 when Congress passed and the President signed the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act. The passage of this act provided support for multinational rhino and tiger conservation by authorizing the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to distribute up to $10 million in grants every year to support projects in developing countries. Since 1994, Congress has established the ``multinational species conservation fund'' to cover other species, such as elephants and great apes. Today, with the legislation I am introducing, I am asking Congress to add cranes to this list. Cranes are the most endangered family of birds in the world, with 11 of the world's 15 species at risk of extinction. Specifically, this legislation would authorize up to $5 million of funds per year for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 to be distributed as conservation project grants to protect cranes and their habitat in Asia, Africa, and North America. In keeping with my belief that we should balance the budget, this bill proposes that the $25 million in authorized spending over 5 years for the Crane Conservation Act should be offset through the Secretary of Interior's administrative budget. This bill is similar to legislation I have introduced since the 107th Congress and I was very pleased that last Congress the bill passed the House of Representatives and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and was positioned to pass the Senate before stalling late in the last Congress. I am offering this legislation due to the serious and significant decline that can be expected in crane populations worldwide without further conservation efforts. Those efforts have achieved some success in the case of the North American whooping crane, the rarest crane on earth. By 1890, the whooping crane disappeared from its main migratory route from Idaho through Wyoming and Colorado to New Mexico. In 1944, only 21 birds remained along the migratory route between Montana and Texas' Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, via the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Unfortunately, the breeding grounds for this remaining flock were unknown, but since they were discovered in Canada in 1955, cooperative efforts between the United States and Canada have been under way to recover the species. Today, this flock remains the only wild flock of North American whooping cranes that breeds in northwest Canada, and spends its winters in coastal Texas. In 1980, a new course was chartered for recovering the species, and captive breeding efforts began at Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Maryland in hopes of rearing chicks for release in the wild--today, captive breeding centers are also located at New Orleans' Audubon Species Survival Center and Canada's Calgary Zoo. These breeding efforts blossomed into efforts to reintroduce a migratory flock of whooping cranes into their historic range in the Eastern United States. In 2001 this became a reality when the first class of whooping cranes followed their ``mother'' (actually an ultra light aircraft) over 1,300 miles to their wintering grounds. The movement of this flock of birds shows how any effort by Congress to regulate crane conservation needs to cross both national and international lines. As this flock of birds makes its journey from Wisconsin's Necedah National Wildlife Refuge to Florida's Chassahowitzka National Wildlife Refuge and back, the birds rely on the ecosystems of a multitude of states in this country. Along the journey which traverses through Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia the birds face threats from pollution of traditional watering grounds, collision with utility lines, human disturbance, disease, predation, loss of genetic diversity within the population, and vulnerability to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. However, the birds can also rely on private landowners, the vast majority of whom have enthusiastically welcomed the birds to their rest on their land. Through its extensive outreach and education program, the Whooping Crane Eastern Partnership has obtained the consistent support of farmers and other private landowners to make this important recovery program a success. On every front, this partnership is unique. This ongoing recovery effort would not be possible without the cooperative efforts of federal and state governments, landowners, volunteers, and non-governmental organizations. Seven years later, these partnerships support an ever-growing eastern crane population, now numbering over sixty. While over the course of the last half-century, North American whooping cranes have begun to make a slow recovery, many species of crane in Africa and Asia have declined, including the sarus crane of Asia and the wattled crane of Africa. The sarus crane stands four feet tall and can be found in the wetlands of northern India and south Asia. These birds require large, open, well watered plains or marshes to breed and survive. Due to agricultural expansion, industrial development, river basin development, pollution, warfare, and heavy use of pesticides prevalent in India and southeast Asia, the sarus crane population has been in decline. Furthermore, in many areas, a high human population concentration compounds these factors. On the Mekong River, which runs through Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, and China, human population growth and planned development projects threaten the sarus crane. Reports from India, Cambodia, and Thailand have also cited incidences of the trading of adult birds and chicks, as well as hunting and egg stealing in the drop in population of the sarus crane. Only three subspecies of the sarus crane exist today. One resides in northern India and Nepal, one resides in southeast Asia, and one resides in northern Australia. Their population is about 8,000 in the main Indian population, with recent numbers showing a rapid decline. In Southeast Asia, only 1,000 birds remain. The situation of the sarus crane in Asia is mirrored by the situation of the wattled crane in Africa. In Africa, the wattled crane is found in the southern and eastern regions, with an isolated population in the mountains of Ethiopia. Current population estimates range between 6,000 to 8,000 and are declining rapidly, due to loss and degradation of wetland habitats, as well as intensified agriculture, dam construction, and industrialization. In other parts of the range, the creation of dams has changed the dynamics of the flood plains, thus further endangering these cranes and their habitats. Human disturbance at or near breeding sites also continues to be a major threat. Lack of oversight and education over the actions of people, industry, and agriculture is leading to reduced preservation for the lands on which cranes live, thereby threatening the ability of cranes to survive in these regions. If we do not act now, not only will cranes face extinction, but the ecosystems that depend on their contributions will suffer. With the decline of the crane population, the wetlands and marshes they inhabit can potentially be thrown off balance. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting legislation that can provide funding to the local farming, education, and enforcement projects that can have the greatest positive effect on the preservation of both cranes and fragile habitats. This modest investment can secure the future of these exemplary birds and the beautiful areas in which they live. Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support the Crane Conservation Act of 2009. This legislation is endorsed by African Wildlife Foundation, American Bird Conservancy, American Veterinary Medical Association, Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Audubon Nature Institute, Born Free USA, Conservation International, Defenders of Wildlife, Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International, Fauna & Flora International, Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society International, International Crane Foundation, International Fund for Animal Welfare, International Rhino Foundation, National Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Refuge Association, The Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, Wildlife Alliance, Wildlife Conservation Society, and the World Wildlife Fund. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I reintroduce a piece of my E4 initiative, so named because it is a collection of proposals that address issues important to the economy, education, employment and energy. This piece of the E4 legislation focuses on the important supporting role that transportation can play in economic development by creating an environment where employers and those seeking employment or better employment are connected together. Having such a system to overcome transportation hurdles can benefit both employers and employees, as well as the local economy and is all the more important in these difficult economic times. In more general terms, investing in our infrastructure like roads, bridges and transit systems can have direct job creation impacts. This is one reason I have fought hard with the rest of the delegation for a fair rate of return for Wisconsin from the highway bill. It is also why in a letter I sent to President-elect Obama and Senate leaders I included highway and transit projects as part of a variety of ready-to- go infrastructure projects that should be included in the forthcoming economic recovery program. In addition to supporting transportation-related jobs, linking workers and businesses that need them can also be an important part of a more comprehensive job creation strategy. This can mean supporting a robust public transportation system or more specific programs designed to link low-income individuals with jobs. I have consistently done the former by supporting public transportation during consideration of the highway bill and Amtrak reauthorizations. But my specific proposal today focuses on the latter and improving the Job Access and Reverse Commute, JARC, program that links low-income workers with employers. I have heard good things about the JARC program and was glad that it was shifted away from earmarks and was made available as a combination formula and competitively awarded program in the last highway bill. The primary program goal is to locally assess the transportation needs of low-income workers and then plan and fund programs to help alleviate transportation-related barriers to employment or better employment. While initially this may have been viewed as a way to support reverse commute projects whereby transit routes were established to allow city center residents to access jobs in the suburbs, the program actually does much more than just this and provides reliable transportation to low-income urban, rural and suburban workers. In Wisconsin, the Federal JARC program is jointly administered by the State departments of transportation and workforce development as the Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program, WETAP. According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, transportation barriers can include a lack of a dependable vehicle or bus service in the area, an absence of local jobs, or childcare transportation problems. The State agencies in Wisconsin have found several different types of projects to be effective depending on the local circumstances. These projects have included the traditional public transit projects such as extending bus lines or supporting van-pooling, along with other programs such as providing cars or car repairs to low-income individuals. Wisconsin has even found that assisting with indirect barriers such as transportation of children to and from childcare facilities is critical in allowing some individuals to improve their job prospects. A recent University of Illinois Chicago, UIC, study found that the societal benefits from this program are $1.65 per dollar spent and estimates lifetime benefits to low income participants of $15 per dollar spent due to their ability to find and retain better paying jobs. While the goals of the Job Access and Reverse Commute program are important and the program has been found to be fairly effective, there are some details that have prevented the program from reaching its full potential. Working closely with transportation officials in Wisconsin and partially based on recommendations from the UIC study, I've come up with some specific ideas to improve the program. With a proven effective program and continuing unmet needs by employers and low-income individuals seeking employment, JARC could use a boost in funding. So that is why my proposal ramps up funding by $100 million over 5 years from the current funding of $165 million to $265 million in fiscal year 2014. My proposal would also allow the Federal share of projects to increase to 80 percent from the current 50 percent level for operating expenses. The 50 percent local and State match wasn't feasible for far too many local governments in Wisconsin and as a result Wisconsin has not been able to spend all its Federal funds. The higher Federal cost share will better balance the need to leverage Federal funds, while ensuring that these critical funds are fully utilized--millions of dollars in an account does nothing to link people to jobs. Besides the challenge in coming up with a 50 percent local cost share, the other main issue that has kept JARC from being as effective as it could be is the paperwork and reporting burden required by the program, especially for the small nonprofit groups that often have never dealt with Federal grant requirements before. My proposal directs the Federal Transit Agency, FTA, to examine the current reporting requirements to see if there are ways to streamline the amount of paperwork required while still ensuring that the program goals are met. My bill also includes a pilot program funded at $10 million a year for 5 years in order to test a few areas that seem very promising, but should be evaluated more fully before broader implementation. The first portion of the pilot program builds off the regulatory streamlining evaluation and allows the FTA to test streamlined reporting requirements to help get the balance between oversight and administrative burden right. The second part of the pilot program focuses on improving education- and employment-related transportation for teens and young adults. Enabling students and young people to reliably get between their high schools or neighborhoods and technical colleges, job training centers or apprenticeships can have a lifelong positive impact. The third section of the pilot program would allow experimentation with combining different transit programs and integrating JARC projects across local political boundaries to provide a more comprehensive local transportation system. Instead of having one transit program to assist the disabled, one targeted toward the elderly and another focused on jobs, this pilot program would encourage funding combined applications to meet these needs together with one comprehensive project. There is even the potential for the Department of Transportation to further coordinate with other departments such as Health and Human Services for healthcare-related transportation. Similarly, the needs of employers for employees do not recognize local political boundaries, so encouraging greater collaboration between local entities to make a more robust interconnected system should ultimately provide more efficient and effective service. While the FTA already provides some technical assistance for the JARC program, my proposal provides a small boost in funding and some additional areas of emphasis. For example, after hearing about the struggles that some small nonprofits have with the reporting requirements, in addition to looking for ways to streamline the requirements, my proposal would direct the FTA to also provide some technical assistance especially targeted to this need. The final element of my proposal is the offset. The new spending authorized in the proposal is fully offset by rescinding highway and bridge earmarks that have not had funds spent from them despite being authorized over a decade ago as part of the TEA-21 highway bill. Helping connect workers and employers is a much better use of these funds than letting them sit unused in some obscure DOT account. Providing reliable transportation to low-income individuals only goes so far--it is the companies and innovators creating the jobs and the individuals seeking to better their lot through education or more challenging employment, that are doing the heavy lifting. That being said, transportation can clearly be a challenge for companies and workers and in the case of the JARC program can play an important supporting role.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce a straight-forward bill that is a first step toward helping American workers and businesses. This bill is part of my E-4 Initiative, which focuses on issues affecting the economy, energy, education and employment. The Skills Standards Certification Evaluation Act will require the Secretaries of Labor, Education and Commerce to evaluate skills standards certification programs that have been developed with federal funding. Skills Standards Certifications have emerged over the past two decades in response to job growth in high-technology and varied industries. The training or classes usually take weeks or months, rather than years. Often, they are developed in response to the needs of one industry or even one company, though the skills are often applicable more widely. As the President-elect and Congress work to save and create jobs through additional funding for infrastructure, green jobs, and similar programs, among other things, it is even more critical that employers be able to find qualified workers for a variety of positions. Workers who can easily demonstrate their skills quickly and easily will be able to benefit from such investments early on. Over the past two decades, the Federal Government has taken conflicting approaches to skills standards certifications. That is why, as part of the Skills Standards Certification Evaluation Act, I require a recommendation from the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce on how Congress ought to move forward with funding for these certification programs. Both the national, top-down, and a local, bottom-up approach have been tried, and a thorough evaluation will make clear how we can move forward to get the most out of the funding the Federal Government provides. These certifications have a tremendous benefit for workers. First, because the training is often condensed into a few weeks with a flexible schedule, it allows people to complete certifications without leaving a current job and without the financial cost of attending a full-time program that lasts a year or more. In addition, these programs allow workers to clearly demonstrate a certain set of skills, and may open more doors for higher-paying employment. Because these programs can be completed without leaving work, they also allow workers to advance within a career or company to more skilled positions and better wages and benefits. For employers, Skills Standards Certifications can simplify the search for employees. I have heard from numerous Wisconsin employers, especially small businesses with limited resources, that it is hard to find employees with the skills they need, or who will be dedicated and loyal. Skills Standards Certifications clearly show the qualification of an individual, of course, but also tell the employer that he or she is dedicated enough to invest in the course to earn the certificate. Very few people will spend the time and money to enroll in such a program if they don't intend to use the certificate. Lastly, these programs can help state and local governments quantify their skilled workforce, which can be invaluable when marketing the area to businesses and investment. This bill is a small first step in what I hope can be a continuing effort to help hard-working Americans obtain and use high-demand work skills.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce a straight-forward bill that is a first step toward helping American workers and businesses. This bill is part of my E-4 Initiative, which focuses on issues affecting the economy, energy, education and employment. The Skills Standards Certification Evaluation Act will require the Secretaries of Labor, Education and Commerce to evaluate skills standards certification programs that have been developed with federal funding. Skills Standards Certifications have emerged over the past two decades in response to job growth in high-technology and varied industries. The training or classes usually take weeks or months, rather than years. Often, they are developed in response to the needs of one industry or even one company, though the skills are often applicable more widely. As the President-elect and Congress work to save and create jobs through additional funding for infrastructure, green jobs, and similar programs, among other things, it is even more critical that employers be able to find qualified workers for a variety of positions. Workers who can easily demonstrate their skills quickly and easily will be able to benefit from such investments early on. Over the past two decades, the Federal Government has taken conflicting approaches to skills standards certifications. That is why, as part of the Skills Standards Certification Evaluation Act, I require a recommendation from the Secretaries of Labor and Commerce on how Congress ought to move forward with funding for these certification programs. Both the national, top-down, and a local, bottom-up approach have been tried, and a thorough evaluation will make clear how we can move forward to get the most out of the funding the Federal Government provides. These certifications have a tremendous benefit for workers. First, because the training is often condensed into a few weeks with a flexible schedule, it allows people to complete certifications without leaving a current job and without the financial cost of attending a full-time program that lasts a year or more. In addition, these programs allow workers to clearly demonstrate a certain set of skills, and may open more doors for higher-paying employment. Because these programs can be completed without leaving work, they also allow workers to advance within a career or company to more skilled positions and better wages and benefits. For employers, Skills Standards Certifications can simplify the search for employees. I have heard from numerous Wisconsin employers, especially small businesses with limited resources, that it is hard to find employees with the skills they need, or who will be dedicated and loyal. Skills Standards Certifications clearly show the qualification of an individual, of course, but also tell the employer that he or she is dedicated enough to invest in the course to earn the certificate. Very few people will spend the time and money to enroll in such a program if they don't intend to use the certificate. Lastly, these programs can help state and local governments quantify their skilled workforce, which can be invaluable when marketing the area to businesses and investment. This bill is a small first step in what I hope can be a continuing effort to help hard-working Americans obtain and use high-demand work skills.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I reintroduce a piece of my E4 initiative, so named because it is a collection of proposals that address issues important to the economy, education, employment and energy. This piece of the E4 legislation focuses on the important supporting role that transportation can play in economic development by creating an environment where employers and those seeking employment or better employment are connected together. Having such a system to overcome transportation hurdles can benefit both employers and employees, as well as the local economy and is all the more important in these difficult economic times. In more general terms, investing in our infrastructure like roads, bridges and transit systems can have direct job creation impacts. This is one reason I have fought hard with the rest of the delegation for a fair rate of return for Wisconsin from the highway bill. It is also why in a letter I sent to President-elect Obama and Senate leaders I included highway and transit projects as part of a variety of ready-to- go infrastructure projects that should be included in the forthcoming economic recovery program. In addition to supporting transportation-related jobs, linking workers and businesses that need them can also be an important part of a more comprehensive job creation strategy. This can mean supporting a robust public transportation system or more specific programs designed to link low-income individuals with jobs. I have consistently done the former by supporting public transportation during consideration of the highway bill and Amtrak reauthorizations. But my specific proposal today focuses on the latter and improving the Job Access and Reverse Commute, JARC, program that links low-income workers with employers. I have heard good things about the JARC program and was glad that it was shifted away from earmarks and was made available as a combination formula and competitively awarded program in the last highway bill. The primary program goal is to locally assess the transportation needs of low-income workers and then plan and fund programs to help alleviate transportation-related barriers to employment or better employment. While initially this may have been viewed as a way to support reverse commute projects whereby transit routes were established to allow city center residents to access jobs in the suburbs, the program actually does much more than just this and provides reliable transportation to low-income urban, rural and suburban workers. In Wisconsin, the Federal JARC program is jointly administered by the State departments of transportation and workforce development as the Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program, WETAP. According to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, transportation barriers can include a lack of a dependable vehicle or bus service in the area, an absence of local jobs, or childcare transportation problems. The State agencies in Wisconsin have found several different types of projects to be effective depending on the local circumstances. These projects have included the traditional public transit projects such as extending bus lines or supporting van-pooling, along with other programs such as providing cars or car repairs to low-income individuals. Wisconsin has even found that assisting with indirect barriers such as transportation of children to and from childcare facilities is critical in allowing some individuals to improve their job prospects. A recent University of Illinois Chicago, UIC, study found that the societal benefits from this program are $1.65 per dollar spent and estimates lifetime benefits to low income participants of $15 per dollar spent due to their ability to find and retain better paying jobs. While the goals of the Job Access and Reverse Commute program are important and the program has been found to be fairly effective, there are some details that have prevented the program from reaching its full potential. Working closely with transportation officials in Wisconsin and partially based on recommendations from the UIC study, I've come up with some specific ideas to improve the program. With a proven effective program and continuing unmet needs by employers and low-income individuals seeking employment, JARC could use a boost in funding. So that is why my proposal ramps up funding by $100 million over 5 years from the current funding of $165 million to $265 million in fiscal year 2014. My proposal would also allow the Federal share of projects to increase to 80 percent from the current 50 percent level for operating expenses. The 50 percent local and State match wasn't feasible for far too many local governments in Wisconsin and as a result Wisconsin has not been able to spend all its Federal funds. The higher Federal cost share will better balance the need to leverage Federal funds, while ensuring that these critical funds are fully utilized--millions of dollars in an account does nothing to link people to jobs. Besides the challenge in coming up with a 50 percent local cost share, the other main issue that has kept JARC from being as effective as it could be is the paperwork and reporting burden required by the program, especially for the small nonprofit groups that often have never dealt with Federal grant requirements before. My proposal directs the Federal Transit Agency, FTA, to examine the current reporting requirements to see if there are ways to streamline the amount of paperwork required while still ensuring that the program goals are met. My bill also includes a pilot program funded at $10 million a year for 5 years in order to test a few areas that seem very promising, but should be evaluated more fully before broader implementation. The first portion of the pilot program builds off the regulatory streamlining evaluation and allows the FTA to test streamlined reporting requirements to help get the balance between oversight and administrative burden right. The second part of the pilot program focuses on improving education- and employment-related transportation for teens and young adults. Enabling students and young people to reliably get between their high schools or neighborhoods and technical colleges, job training centers or apprenticeships can have a lifelong positive impact. The third section of the pilot program would allow experimentation with combining different transit programs and integrating JARC projects across local political boundaries to provide a more comprehensive local transportation system. Instead of having one transit program to assist the disabled, one targeted toward the elderly and another focused on jobs, this pilot program would encourage funding combined applications to meet these needs together with one comprehensive project. There is even the potential for the Department of Transportation to further coordinate with other departments such as Health and Human Services for healthcare-related transportation. Similarly, the needs of employers for employees do not recognize local political boundaries, so encouraging greater collaboration between local entities to make a more robust interconnected system should ultimately provide more efficient and effective service. While the FTA already provides some technical assistance for the JARC program, my proposal provides a small boost in funding and some additional areas of emphasis. For example, after hearing about the struggles that some small nonprofits have with the reporting requirements, in addition to looking for ways to streamline the requirements, my proposal would direct the FTA to also provide some technical assistance especially targeted to this need. The final element of my proposal is the offset. The new spending authorized in the proposal is fully offset by rescinding highway and bridge earmarks that have not had funds spent from them despite being authorized over a decade ago as part of the TEA-21 highway bill. Helping connect workers and employers is a much better use of these funds than letting them sit unused in some obscure DOT account. Providing reliable transportation to low-income individuals only goes so far--it is the companies and innovators creating the jobs and the individuals seeking to better their lot through education or more challenging employment, that are doing the heavy lifting. That being said, transportation can clearly be a challenge for companies and workers and in the case of the JARC program can play an important supporting role.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we are all aware of the serious challenges our economy faces in the short term and the urgency of our need to promote job creation and economic development. I am committed to engaging in this broad effort with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. But it is essential that our efforts not just be short term fixes--they must not only aim to create jobs and investment opportunities in the short term, they must be part of strategic efforts to strengthen our Nation's innovation capabilities and sustain long term economic development in a changing and competitive global environment. There is no better way to do this than by stimulating and supporting small business innovation, especially in areas of national priority. As part of this effort, today I am introducing the Strengthening Our Economy Through Small Business Innovation Act of 2009. Job growth, innovation and economic development are driven by our small businesses. Small businesses also tend to be based in our cities and communities and so they are major contributors to our local economies. Half of our county's payroll jobs and most of our new job opportunities are provided by small businesses. Small businesses are proven innovators and drive commercialization of cutting edge technologies. Not only are small businesses our major source of employment, they employ about one third of our country's scientists and engineers and generate more patents on a per capita basis than large businesses and universities. They also are effective partners with universities to enhance product creation, develop university income and attract university graduates and faculty through increased innovative job opportunities. Over the last 25 years, through the Small Business Innovation and Research program, SBIR, and, more recently, the Small Business Technology Transfer program, STTR, up to 2.5 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively, of Federal R&D funds from 11 Federal agencies have been specifically allocated to our Nation's small businesses to fund innovation. These small business allocations are not sufficient. We must diversify and strengthen innovation capabilities and our economic base, and to accomplish this we must extend and increase R&D allocations to our Nation's innovative small businesses. My bill does 3 things. First, it extends the SBIR and STTR programs for a further 14 years so that small businesses, as well as universities and non-profit research organizations that collaborate with small businesses, can continue to leverage Federal research and development funding. Second, it significantly increases the allocation of funds and the awards from large Federal research and development budgets to small businesses through the SBIR and STTR programs. It would increase the SBIR allocation from its current 2.5 percent to 10 percent and the STTR allocation from 0.3 percent to 1.0 percent over a 3-year period. It would increase SBIR phase I awards from $100,000 to $300,000 and phase II awards from $750,000 to $2.2 million. Third, it identifies specific funding priorities for energy innovation; safe and secure water; domestic security; and transportation. The SBIR program is tested, successful and worthy of extension. In its comprehensive study of the SBIR program, the National Research Council found that the program ``is sound in concept and effective in practice''; was ``stimulating technological innovation''; ``linking universities to the public and private markets''; ``increasing private sector commercialization of innovations'' at an ``impressive'' rate; and ``providing widely distributed support for innovation activity.'' The study concluded that: [T]he program is proving effective in meeting Congressional objectives. It is increasing innovation, encouraging participation by small companies in R&D, providing support for small firms owned by minorities and women, and resolving research questions for mission agencies in a cost effective manner. Should the Congress wish to provide additional funds for the program in support of these objectives, those funds could be employed effectively by the nation's SBIR. The NRC's study also found that universities and other non-profit research institutions would benefit significantly from the increase in both the SBIR and the STTR programs. In particular, the STTR allocation increase will directly benefit universities and efforts to bring university-based research into the commercial marketplace, as a partnership with a non-profit research institution, such as a university, is a requirement of all STTR award recipients. Many of the small businesses that receive SBIR funding are rooted in the university infrastructure so investigators and graduates from universities will have opportunities to be part of commercial developments. More than two-thirds of SBIR companies report that at least one founder was previously an academic. About one-third of SBIR company founders were most recently employed as academics before founding the company. Over a third of SBIR projects cite direct university involvement with 27 percent of projects having university faculty as contractors on the project, 17 percent using universities themselves as subcontractors, and 15 percent employing graduate students. In its report accompanying reauthorization legislation, the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee recently concluded that: increases in the SBIR allocation will invest money in research, contracting, internships, and other collaborative activities done with universities, with the contracting and patenting activities with SBIR companies being a sizable source of revenue for universities as well. The university- industry partnerships that SBIR creates are crucial in that they provide an applied research and commercialization focus that otherwise likely would not be present in university research. More specifically, the partnerships are important in exposing faculty and the next generation of scientists and engineers to commercial research and development. SBIR businesses provide graduate and undergraduate students with hands-on experience and job opportunities that universities would be unable to provide alone. Our country not only faces immediate economic and employment challenges, it faces major challenges in transportation, energy, domestic security and water quality and safety. Targeted research and development will be critical. Congress, with non-partisan expert guidance, has a role to play in guiding our national research and development priorities and, in this case, stimulating small business innovation and job creation in specific areas of critical national need. The National Academies of Science and other independent government research organizations provide us with carefully researched and considered recommendations on how we can address these priorities, so my bill draws on their recommendations to develop innovative energy technologies; enhance water quality and security; strengthen domestic security; and address transportation priorities. This is not only a good investment in short term job creation; it is an imperative investment in our Nation's long term innovation prospects and economic development. The costs of my bill would be fully offset by cancellation of the airborne laser program. CBO estimates that cancelling that program will produce savings of over $2.6 billion.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the 111th Congress begins, I am reintroducing a number of different bills designed to fuel job creation and spur economic development. My initiative, dubbed E4 because of its focus on economy, employment, education, and energy, seeks to respond to economic and job development needs both in my State of Wisconsin and around the country. These challenging economic times call for a comprehensive set of solutions including providing new job training opportunities for workers, fostering innovation among small businesses, protecting the existing family-supporting jobs in our nation, and boosting educational opportunities for young Americans. Today I am introducing the Connecting Education and Emerging Professions Act of 2009, which provides competitive grants to States and local school districts to promote better collaboration between high schools and local businesses and workforce development groups. This E4 education initiative is designed to help prepare America's students for future success in the workforce and post-secondary education as well as enhance America's competitiveness in the global economy as we prepare to enter the second decade of the twenty-first century. Helping to ensure that all American students have access to a high- quality education is critical to boosting America's competitiveness and helping to ensure that our country is better equipped to respond to the economic challenges currently before us. Investment in our young people now will pay off in the future when these individuals are better prepared to compete for the highly skilled jobs of tomorrow. If the United States is to remain competitive on an international stage and continue to lead the world in innovation and development, we need to make certain that our young people are well prepared to meet current and future economic challenges. Improving educational opportunities in the United States is going to require a comprehensive set of policy strategies and I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress this year as we get to work on a variety of education issues including expanding access to education from pre-K through college. We also face the monumental task of reauthorizing and reforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, better known as No Child Left Behind, NCLB. As we consider the ESEA reauthorization, we should make substantial changes to the testing mandates that were imposed through NCLB and provide support to states that develop smarter accountability systems with enhanced assessments that measure higher-order thinking skills among students. We also need to look at ways to strengthen and reform our Nation's public secondary schools as part of the ESEA reauthorization. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to help support innovative changes that are taking place in some of our Nation's high schools and help even more States and local communities make improvements to their local high schools. My CEEP bill seeks to address a couple of interrelated issues related to secondary education. The first issue is the alarmingly high dropout rate in our nation's high schools. While numbers vary slightly, a growing body of research indicates that the United States has a graduation rate of approximately 70 percent and that about one-third of our country's high school students will not graduate on time. Graduation rates for minority and low-income students are even lower, in many cases, alarmingly lower. In addition, many of our nation's urban school districts report very high dropout rates, including the Milwaukee Public School District. According to the Cities in Crisis report released in 2008 by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, the Milwaukee Public Schools has a graduation rate of 46.1 percent. Unfortunately, there are at least a dozen large urban districts that have even lower graduation rates than Milwaukee. One of our top education priorities as a Nation must be to address the low graduation rates nationwide in urban, suburban, and rural school districts. We must also work to close the huge opportunity gap that is created by the large disparity in graduation rates between our minority and non-minority students as well as between low-income and more affluent students. Solving this problem will require a broad, comprehensive solution involving the federal, state and local governments. It is my hope that when Congress finally reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we pay particular attention to the needs of our nation's high schools and our students. While many factors contribute to high dropout rates, disengagement from classroom instruction can contribute to a student's decision to drop out. Some students feel that high school is not relevant to their lives and do not see how completing high school will translate into future career and academic success. In this increasingly competitive twenty-first century where postsecondary education is now required for many entry-level jobs, it is up to us to show our nation's students why it is so important that they graduate from high school. Another issue that this bill seeks to address is the growing sense among employers and postsecondary institutions that our nation's high school students who do graduate are unprepared for success either in the workforce or in college. Employers in various economic sectors, including technology, manufacturing, health care, construction, and others, report difficulty in identifying qualified candidates for skilled positions. Recent surveys also indicate that many employers are dissatisfied with the overall preparation of secondary school graduates. In order for companies in the United States to be competitive in a global economy, we must have a highly skilled workforce. Adequate preparation at the high school level can help prepare students for entry into our rapidly changing global economy where new emerging industries are cropping up in Wisconsin and around the country. To address these two interrelated issues, my bill would provide 5- year competitive education grants to states and school districts to foster collaboration and discussions between schools, businesses, and others about the emerging industry workforce needs and how to prepare our high school students to meet those needs, both academically and practically. States and local school districts must use this money to form partnerships with local or regional businesses, postsecondary institutions, workforce development boards, labor organizations, nonprofit organizations and others. These partnerships will have the responsibility of surveying local, regional, and statewide emerging industries and deciding what are the academic and work-based skills that our high school students need in order to be successful in these emerging industries. The partnerships will then work together to develop new and engaging curriculums and programs designed to teach the academic and work-based skills that are necessary to succeed in these new emerging industries. Once the partnership has designed a curriculum or program and received approval from the Federal Department of Education, the partnership will work to implement the program in qualifying schools. During the implementation phase, the partnership will come together to implement hands-on learning and work opportunities for students including internships, apprenticeships, job shadowing, and other career and technical education programs. These hands-on learning and work opportunities will be based on the emerging industry pathways curriculum or program that the eligible partnership has designed and will offer students practical academic experiences and skill-building lessons that they can use in the workplace or in postsecondary education. This legislation seeks to help schools, businesses, colleges, and the students who would be served by this legislation talk with each other to build new programs that would help boost student engagement in learning and student attendance and graduation rates while also preparing students for success in the workforce or in college after they graduate. There are a number of successful local and state programs around Wisconsin that this legislation would help support and that served as valuable examples as I developed this legislation. Wisconsin's Department of Public Instruction, Department of Workforce Development, and various local school districts have all been working to boost Wisconsin's career and technical education offerings and gear these offerings towards emerging industries. My bill seeks to help Wisconsin and other states build on these efforts and engage in additional conversations with interested stakeholders to design new curriculums and programs to prepare students for emerging industries. I look forward to moving this legislation forward this year as the new Congress begins to debate how best to boost educational opportunities for all of our Nation's children. We have a significant achievement gap and graduation gap in urban, rural, and suburban schools throughout the country and it is imperative that we work together to promote innovative ideas that will close these gaps. Some of our Nation's schools are experiencing high dropout rates in part because students aren't connecting with what they are being taught. At the same time, we're seeing an emergence of new industries, like those aiming to capitalize on alternative energies and energy efficiency, that need employers with skills and training in their field. If we help schools connect their students with businesses, workforce development boards, and colleges that offer career and academic opportunities in these new and exciting fields, we can help to lower the alarming dropout rates while helping these emerging industries thrive. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we are all aware of the serious challenges our economy faces in the short term and the urgency of our need to promote job creation and economic development. I am committed to engaging in this broad effort with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. But it is essential that our efforts not just be short term fixes--they must not only aim to create jobs and investment opportunities in the short term, they must be part of strategic efforts to strengthen our Nation's innovation capabilities and sustain long term economic development in a changing and competitive global environment. There is no better way to do this than by stimulating and supporting small business innovation, especially in areas of national priority. As part of this effort, today I am introducing the Strengthening Our Economy Through Small Business Innovation Act of 2009. Job growth, innovation and economic development are driven by our small businesses. Small businesses also tend to be based in our cities and communities and so they are major contributors to our local economies. Half of our county's payroll jobs and most of our new job opportunities are provided by small businesses. Small businesses are proven innovators and drive commercialization of cutting edge technologies. Not only are small businesses our major source of employment, they employ about one third of our country's scientists and engineers and generate more patents on a per capita basis than large businesses and universities. They also are effective partners with universities to enhance product creation, develop university income and attract university graduates and faculty through increased innovative job opportunities. Over the last 25 years, through the Small Business Innovation and Research program, SBIR, and, more recently, the Small Business Technology Transfer program, STTR, up to 2.5 percent and 0.3 percent, respectively, of Federal R&D funds from 11 Federal agencies have been specifically allocated to our Nation's small businesses to fund innovation. These small business allocations are not sufficient. We must diversify and strengthen innovation capabilities and our economic base, and to accomplish this we must extend and increase R&D allocations to our Nation's innovative small businesses. My bill does 3 things. First, it extends the SBIR and STTR programs for a further 14 years so that small businesses, as well as universities and non-profit research organizations that collaborate with small businesses, can continue to leverage Federal research and development funding. Second, it significantly increases the allocation of funds and the awards from large Federal research and development budgets to small businesses through the SBIR and STTR programs. It would increase the SBIR allocation from its current 2.5 percent to 10 percent and the STTR allocation from 0.3 percent to 1.0 percent over a 3-year period. It would increase SBIR phase I awards from $100,000 to $300,000 and phase II awards from $750,000 to $2.2 million. Third, it identifies specific funding priorities for energy innovation; safe and secure water; domestic security; and transportation. The SBIR program is tested, successful and worthy of extension. In its comprehensive study of the SBIR program, the National Research Council found that the program ``is sound in concept and effective in practice''; was ``stimulating technological innovation''; ``linking universities to the public and private markets''; ``increasing private sector commercialization of innovations'' at an ``impressive'' rate; and ``providing widely distributed support for innovation activity.'' The study concluded that: [T]he program is proving effective in meeting Congressional objectives. It is increasing innovation, encouraging participation by small companies in R&D, providing support for small firms owned by minorities and women, and resolving research questions for mission agencies in a cost effective manner. Should the Congress wish to provide additional funds for the program in support of these objectives, those funds could be employed effectively by the nation's SBIR. The NRC's study also found that universities and other non-profit research institutions would benefit significantly from the increase in both the SBIR and the STTR programs. In particular, the STTR allocation increase will directly benefit universities and efforts to bring university-based research into the commercial marketplace, as a partnership with a non-profit research institution, such as a university, is a requirement of all STTR award recipients. Many of the small businesses that receive SBIR funding are rooted in the university infrastructure so investigators and graduates from universities will have opportunities to be part of commercial developments. More than two-thirds of SBIR companies report that at least one founder was previously an academic. About one-third of SBIR company founders were most recently employed as academics before founding the company. Over a third of SBIR projects cite direct university involvement with 27 percent of projects having university faculty as contractors on the project, 17 percent using universities themselves as subcontractors, and 15 percent employing graduate students. In its report accompanying reauthorization legislation, the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee recently concluded that: increases in the SBIR allocation will invest money in research, contracting, internships, and other collaborative activities done with universities, with the contracting and patenting activities with SBIR companies being a sizable source of revenue for universities as well. The university- industry partnerships that SBIR creates are crucial in that they provide an applied research and commercialization focus that otherwise likely would not be present in university research. More specifically, the partnerships are important in exposing faculty and the next generation of scientists and engineers to commercial research and development. SBIR businesses provide graduate and undergraduate students with hands-on experience and job opportunities that universities would be unable to provide alone. Our country not only faces immediate economic and employment challenges, it faces major challenges in transportation, energy, domestic security and water quality and safety. Targeted research and development will be critical. Congress, with non-partisan expert guidance, has a role to play in guiding our national research and development priorities and, in this case, stimulating small business innovation and job creation in specific areas of critical national need. The National Academies of Science and other independent government research organizations provide us with carefully researched and considered recommendations on how we can address these priorities, so my bill draws on their recommendations to develop innovative energy technologies; enhance water quality and security; strengthen domestic security; and address transportation priorities. This is not only a good investment in short term job creation; it is an imperative investment in our Nation's long term innovation prospects and economic development. The costs of my bill would be fully offset by cancellation of the airborne laser program. CBO estimates that cancelling that program will produce savings of over $2.6 billion.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the 111th Congress begins, I am reintroducing a number of different bills designed to fuel job creation and spur economic development. My initiative, dubbed E4 because of its focus on economy, employment, education, and energy, seeks to respond to economic and job development needs both in my State of Wisconsin and around the country. These challenging economic times call for a comprehensive set of solutions including providing new job training opportunities for workers, fostering innovation among small businesses, protecting the existing family-supporting jobs in our nation, and boosting educational opportunities for young Americans. Today I am introducing the Connecting Education and Emerging Professions Act of 2009, which provides competitive grants to States and local school districts to promote better collaboration between high schools and local businesses and workforce development groups. This E4 education initiative is designed to help prepare America's students for future success in the workforce and post-secondary education as well as enhance America's competitiveness in the global economy as we prepare to enter the second decade of the twenty-first century. Helping to ensure that all American students have access to a high- quality education is critical to boosting America's competitiveness and helping to ensure that our country is better equipped to respond to the economic challenges currently before us. Investment in our young people now will pay off in the future when these individuals are better prepared to compete for the highly skilled jobs of tomorrow. If the United States is to remain competitive on an international stage and continue to lead the world in innovation and development, we need to make certain that our young people are well prepared to meet current and future economic challenges. Improving educational opportunities in the United States is going to require a comprehensive set of policy strategies and I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress this year as we get to work on a variety of education issues including expanding access to education from pre-K through college. We also face the monumental task of reauthorizing and reforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, better known as No Child Left Behind, NCLB. As we consider the ESEA reauthorization, we should make substantial changes to the testing mandates that were imposed through NCLB and provide support to states that develop smarter accountability systems with enhanced assessments that measure higher-order thinking skills among students. We also need to look at ways to strengthen and reform our Nation's public secondary schools as part of the ESEA reauthorization. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to help support innovative changes that are taking place in some of our Nation's high schools and help even more States and local communities make improvements to their local high schools. My CEEP bill seeks to address a couple of interrelated issues related to secondary education. The first issue is the alarmingly high dropout rate in our nation's high schools. While numbers vary slightly, a growing body of research indicates that the United States has a graduation rate of approximately 70 percent and that about one-third of our country's high school students will not graduate on time. Graduation rates for minority and low-income students are even lower, in many cases, alarmingly lower. In addition, many of our nation's urban school districts report very high dropout rates, including the Milwaukee Public School District. According to the Cities in Crisis report released in 2008 by the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, the Milwaukee Public Schools has a graduation rate of 46.1 percent. Unfortunately, there are at least a dozen large urban districts that have even lower graduation rates than Milwaukee. One of our top education priorities as a Nation must be to address the low graduation rates nationwide in urban, suburban, and rural school districts. We must also work to close the huge opportunity gap that is created by the large disparity in graduation rates between our minority and non-minority students as well as between low-income and more affluent students. Solving this problem will require a broad, comprehensive solution involving the federal, state and local governments. It is my hope that when Congress finally reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we pay particular attention to the needs of our nation's high schools and our students. While many factors contribute to high dropout rates, disengagement from classroom instruction can contribute to a student's decision to drop out. Some students feel that high school is not relevant to their lives and do not see how completing high school will translate into future career and academic success. In this increasingly competitive twenty-first century where postsecondary education is now required for many entry-level jobs, it is up to us to show our nation's students why it is so important that they graduate from high school. Another issue that this bill seeks to address is the growing sense among employers and postsecondary institutions that our nation's high school students who do graduate are unprepared for success either in the workforce or in college. Employers in various economic sectors, including technology, manufacturing, health care, construction, and others, report difficulty in identifying qualified candidates for skilled positions. Recent surveys also indicate that many employers are dissatisfied with the overall preparation of secondary school graduates. In order for companies in the United States to be competitive in a global economy, we must have a highly skilled workforce. Adequate preparation at the high school level can help prepare students for entry into our rapidly changing global economy where new emerging industries are cropping up in Wisconsin and around the country. To address these two interrelated issues, my bill would provide 5- year competitive education grants to states and school districts to foster collaboration and discussions between schools, businesses, and others about the emerging industry workforce needs and how to prepare our high school students to meet those needs, both academically and practically. States and local school districts must use this money to form partnerships with local or regional businesses, postsecondary institutions, workforce development boards, labor organizations, nonprofit organizations and others. These partnerships will have the responsibility of surveying local, regional, and statewide emerging industries and deciding what are the academic and work-based skills that our high school students need in order to be successful in these emerging industries. The partnerships will then work together to develop new and engaging curriculums and programs designed to teach the academic and work-based skills that are necessary to succeed in these new emerging industries. Once the partnership has designed a curriculum or program and received approval from the Federal Department of Education, the partnership will work to implement the program in qualifying schools. During the implementation phase, the partnership will come together to implement hands-on learning and work opportunities for students including internships, apprenticeships, job shadowing, and other career and technical education programs. These hands-on learning and work opportunities will be based on the emerging industry pathways curriculum or program that the eligible partnership has designed and will offer students practical academic experiences and skill-building lessons that they can use in the workplace or in postsecondary education. This legislation seeks to help schools, businesses, colleges, and the students who would be served by this legislation talk with each other to build new programs that would help boost student engagement in learning and student attendance and graduation rates while also preparing students for success in the workforce or in college after they graduate. There are a number of successful local and state programs around Wisconsin that this legislation would help support and that served as valuable examples as I developed this legislation. Wisconsin's Department of Public Instruction, Department of Workforce Development, and various local school districts have all been working to boost Wisconsin's career and technical education offerings and gear these offerings towards emerging industries. My bill seeks to help Wisconsin and other states build on these efforts and engage in additional conversations with interested stakeholders to design new curriculums and programs to prepare students for emerging industries. I look forward to moving this legislation forward this year as the new Congress begins to debate how best to boost educational opportunities for all of our Nation's children. We have a significant achievement gap and graduation gap in urban, rural, and suburban schools throughout the country and it is imperative that we work together to promote innovative ideas that will close these gaps. Some of our Nation's schools are experiencing high dropout rates in part because students aren't connecting with what they are being taught. At the same time, we're seeing an emergence of new industries, like those aiming to capitalize on alternative energies and energy efficiency, that need employers with skills and training in their field. If we help schools connect their students with businesses, workforce development boards, and colleges that offer career and academic opportunities in these new and exciting fields, we can help to lower the alarming dropout rates while helping these emerging industries thrive. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to thank the senior Senator from Wisconsin for his hard work to address antitrust issues in the rail industry along with other industries as Chairman of the Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee. I have been pleased to support his efforts to bring antitrust scrutiny to the large freight railroads since he first introduced a version of this legislation in 2006. As Senator Kohl well knows, this is a vitally important issue for rail customers and ultimately consumers both in Wisconsin and across the country. Over the past several years, I have heard more and more comments and concerns from freight rail customers at my town hall meetings in Wisconsin and my meetings in Washington. The concerns have come from constituents who rely on freight railroads to transport their goods or receive raw materials. The comments I have heard have been diverse by industry, ranging from forestry, energy, farming, and petrochemical companies to various manufacturers, and by size, from family owned enterprises to large corporations. The problems they have described do not seem to be isolated incidents, but instead suggest a systematic continuing problem. There are several general concerns that seem to apply no matter which class of railroad is discussed. While outright refusals of transport may be rare, several of my constituents have found it difficult to get timely estimates of costs for carriage for their cargo. This seems to especially be a problem for short distances or small loads, or if the cargo is only on the originating railroads' tracks for a short distance. Many have said that they feel like second-class citizens, denied the better service and dedicated trains that the long-haul receive. I have also heard about problems with changes to transportation schedules, and problems with rail car delivery and ancillary services such as scales. Many rail customers seem to feel that as railroads continued to merge over the past two decades, service, especially for small customers, has declined dramatically. Again, this seems to especially affect small railroad customers who are dependant on rail transport, but face difficulty in receiving cars to fill, moving filled cars in a timely manner or weighing their loads. Of course cost is also an issue, but it is not just the cost of transportation. Some rail customers feel that the Surface Transportation Board, STB, complaint process is too costly, slow and tilted in favor of the railroads over the customers. They contend that these hurdles to exposing anticompetitive practices have the effect of perpetuating the unfair treatment and excessive rates they experience. Senator Kohl's proposal would remove the current railroad antitrust exemptions so that railroads would be covered like other segments of industry. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission would then have the authority to review mergers and block anti- competitive mergers. The legislation would also expand the ability of State Attorneys General and private parties to halt anti-competitive behavior and seek up to treble damages for any such violations. I believe this is a very reasonable and measured proposal as evidenced by the bill being passed out of the Judiciary Committee in the previous Congress by voice vote. I look forward to supporting Senator Kohl's efforts to move the legislation through committee again and push for its passage into law during the current Congress. While I hope that providing the Department of Justice the authority to review possible antitrust violations as proposed in the current bill will improve the situation for many shippers, it may have to go hand- in-hand with reforms at the STB as were contemplated in the previous Congress by Senator Rockefeller's Railroad Competition and Service Improvements Act of 2007.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, the people of Rhode Island, and people across the Nation in mourning the passing of Senator Claiborne Pell. It was my honor to serve with him here in the Senate. My first term in the Senate coincided with his last years of distinguished service in this body. In particular, I enjoyed the opportunity to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee during his time as chairman. He was known on the committee, and throughout the Senate on both sides of the aisle, for his unfailingly kind manner and his outstanding commitment to public service, and rightly so. Senator Pell had many accomplishments during his life in public service, including his authorship of legislation that created the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for Humanities, but his work to create what came to be known as Pell grants was perhaps his greatest achievement. Pell grants have helped millions of Americans attend college who otherwise may not have been able to attend due to cost. Higher education is one of the most important investments our Federal Government can make, and Senator Pell, who was deeply concerned about the emergence of a widening educational gap between low-income and more affluent Americans, worked to try to ensure that individuals from low-income families are not denied postsecondary education because they cannot afford it. As this new Congress begins, it is my hope that we can carry forward Senator Pell's legacy and boost Federal need-based grant programs to help ensure the doors of higher education are open to all Americans regardless of their financial circumstances. Senator Pell's success in creating these grants, and giving so many Americans access to higher education, and to a better life, is a remarkable legacy. I am proud that I had the chance to serve with Senator Pell, and I join Americans across the country in honoring his memory.