Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Energy Assistance Act of 2008, legislation which would assist people who want to invest in energy conservation and alternative energy technologies and help set us on a path toward energy independence. As I visit communities around the State of Maine, I hear time and again that the high cost of energy is causing a crisis for many of our citizens. Rapidly increasing prices for home heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel are a huge burden for many families, truckers, and small businesses. High oil prices affect virtually every corner of the economy, in Maine and throughout the country, and are a significant cause of the current economic downturn. Mr. President, I am concerned that in this difficult economy, investments in energy conservation and alternative energy improvements are simply too costly for many American families and small businesses. For example, under the present code, taxpayers who install energy efficient windows receive a 10 percent tax credit, up to $200, and taxpayers who install solar water heating systems receive a credit of 30 percent, up to a total of $2000. In both instances, the investment which must be made by the taxpayer far exceeds the credit amount. With oil prices as high as they are, most families and small businesses are already scrimping and saving to make ends meet, and they do not have the money to finance the gap between the tax credit we provide and the cost of the investment. Ironically, the higher oil prices climb, the harder it will be for taxpayers to bridge this gap. The legislation I am introducing today calls for additional loan authority to support current Federal programs that help families and small businesses finance energy efficiency improvements. It also would provide much-needed grants for low-income individuals who cannot benefit from either tax credits or low-interest loans. These proposals, taken together, would go a long way toward achieving greater energy efficiency and reducing our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. The loan authority I am proposing would expand existing Federal programs that make low-interest loans to individuals and small businesses for energy efficiency improvements. This new loan authority would be made available through a new energy assistance revolving loan fund within the Treasury Department. Individuals who make less than 115 percent of the median area income would be able to apply for low- interest loans to cover the difference between the tax credits available for energy efficiency improvements and up to 90 percent of the cost of those improvements. The Federal agencies can make these loans directly, or through their lender networks. USDA, HUD, and other Federal agencies already have programs that can make loans of this kind to individuals. Small businesses can seek low- interest loans for energy efficiency improvements under existing loan programs such as the SBA's 7(a) program. The revolving loan fund called for by my bill will enable these agencies to offer more loans to the individuals and small businesses. It is also important that we provide assistance to low-income individuals who do not have the income to benefit from tax credits, or who cannot afford to finance energy improvements even with low-interest loans. These individuals, especially, are still reeling from last winter's high energy prices, and it is critically important that they receive assistance before cold weather sets in again. To help those who are most in need, my bill would provide an additional $500 million in funding this year for grants for energy efficiency, weatherization, and renewable energy technology, and would double funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program. These grants will finance investments that will decrease energy prices for these citizens for years to come and are a wise investment. My legislation also includes several proposals I have long advocated. I have included these proposals so that this bill captures an overall picture of the energy challenges that our Nation faces. For example, this bill extends important tax incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency that have expired, or are about to expire. These provisions include the renewable energy production tax credit, Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, tax benefits for energy efficient buildings, products and power plants, the tax credit for Plug-In Hybrid vehicles, the exemption from the heavy vehicles excise tax for idling reduction units and advanced insulation, and energy efficiency tax credits for homes. My bill would also provide a $500 tax credit to help consumers purchase and install new clean burning stoves, as well as efficient, clean wood pellet stoves, similar to a bill I introduced with Senator Crapo earlier this year. This new tax credit reflects the reality that with oil prices soaring, wood is again the fuel of choice for many families throughout the country, just as it was during the height of the oil crisis in the 1970's. I urge my colleagues to work together in a bipartisan way so that we can help Americans overcome the challenge of high oil prices and restore and strengthen our Nation's economy.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, high energy prices are having a devastating impact on our economy and our people--particularly in large, rural States such as Maine. Eighty percent of Maine homes use oil as their primary heating source, so thousands of families are worried about how they can afford to stay warm next winter. The high cost of energy is also taking a toll on businesses, both large and small. Truckers, paper mills, fishermen, farmers, and countless others are struggling with the high cost of oil, gasoline, and diesel. Many factors affect energy prices, including the value of the dollar, global tensions, and demand in other countries, such as China and India. Supply concerns also enter the picture. Business Week has reported that data on Saudi production potential indicate that the kingdom may be unable to sustain their projected output of 12 million barrels a day past 2010, while International Oil Daily reports that Mexico's crude-oil exports are down 17 percent versus 2007, and ``could represent the start of a precipitous decline.'' Other supply concerns for places like Iran and Nigeria also affect expectations, and prices. These and other considerations have led many of us to advocate a comprehensive energy policy that would promote more exploration and production, more conservation and efficiency, and more alternatives in the energy sector. We need more American production to meet America's needs, while protecting our environment. In short, we need to produce more, use less, and pursue alternatives. It is imperative for both economic and national-security reasons that we reduce our dependence on imported oil and the supply shocks that our dependence entails, that we develop new resources here, and that we promote more efficient use. I have a 10-point energy plan that includes proposals to accomplish those objectives. Those ideas deserve a full debate. I sincerely hope the current procedural obstacles to considering a variety of amendments will be removed. Holding a lengthy debate on our energy problems is a fruitless exercise if the ground rules choke off consideration of the many ways we can tackle those problems by reducing our reliance on imports, by promoting more development of American conventional and alternative fuels, and by advancing efficiency and conservation initiatives. There is, of course, another critical factor in the energy-price crisis that demands careful attention and effective action. That is the role of excessive speculation in energy markets, especially by institutional investors and index funds. Senator Lieberman and I have heard persuasive and troubling evidence in three hearings of our Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on this issue. We heard testimony from Federal officials, from exchange officials, from academics, from institutional investors, and from a bakery owner and a farm representative. The evidence that we found of greatest concern involves the impact of noncommercial investors who do not produce or take delivery of oil or agricultural products--unlike commercial participants such as oil producers and heating oil dealers, farmers and cereal companies. Instead, these noncommercial investors use futures contracts and related transactions solely for financial gain. Speculation in commodity markets by noncommercial investors has grown enormously. In just the last 5 years, the total value of their futures- contract and commodity index-fund investments has soared from $13 billion to $260 billion. Many experts have concluded that these massive new holdings of oil- futures contracts by pension funds, university endowments, and other institutional investors have driven prices beyond levels that normal marketplace factors would produce. These investors' intentions may be simply to provide good returns, a hedge against inflation, and asset diversification, but the effect of their activity appears to be driving up prices for traditional users of commodity markets, not to mention American families and businesses that are affected by the ultimate price increases. I worked with Senator Lieberman to produce a comprehensive and bipartisan bill, the Commodity Speculation Reform Act of 2008, which we and Senator Cantwell introduced on July 10. Our bill, S. 3248, takes some very strong steps toward countering excessive speculation. First, it would remedy staffing shortfalls at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by adding 100 staff to improve its market oversight and enforcement capabilities. This is a vital step. The CFTC tells us that more than three billion futures and options contracts were traded last year, up from 37 million in 1976. Yet the Commission is operating with fewer employees than it had 30 years ago. Second, our bill closes the so-called ``swaps loophole,'' which currently allows financial institutions to evade position limits on commodity contracts that regulators use to prevent unwarranted price swings or attempts at manipulation. Third, our bill directs the CFTC to establish position limits that will apply to an investor's total interest in a commodity, regardless of whether they originate on a regulated exchange, the over-the-counter market, or on foreign boards of trade that deal in U.S. commodities. I would note that our bill instructs the CFTC to set and administer these position limits. That task is currently delegated to the exchanges, subject to Commission review. The regulated commodity exchanges have good reputations as self-policing operations, but we believe as a matter of principle that regulators should be setting speculative position limits. Fourth, our bills instructs the CFTC to permit no foreign boards of trade to deal in U.S.-linked commodity contracts unless they agree to reporting and data-accessibility standards at least equivalent to that required of U.S.-regulated exchanges. This is not a matter of telling other countries what to do: foreign boards of trade request ``no- action'' letters from the CFTC so they can maintain trading terminals here while remaining regulated by their own authorities. The CFTC has recently taken positive steps to require comparable reporting, and our bill codifies those improvements. These are powerful measures, but they are also carefully designed. We recognize that producers, handlers, and purchasers of commodities who use those markets to lock in prices, hedge risks, and see clues for price trends require some level of participation by non-commercial, financial investors. Thus, our bill does not prevent financial investors from participating in commodity markets. It simply places some limits on their activity by directing the CFTC to set position limits across trading venues at a level no higher than that needed to ensure that commercial participants can always find counter-parties for their contract needs. The bill pending before the Senate parallels key provisions of the bill that Senators Lieberman and Cantwell and I introduced. The majority leader's bill has some additional features, such as the working groups to study the regulatory framework for commodity-market regulation and to consult on internationally agreed standards, that deserve support. Two aspects of the majority leader's bill, however, raise some concerns, and I have filed two amendments to address them. Senator Lieberman has joined me as an original cosponsor of the amendments. The first simply extends the reach of S. 3268 to include agricultural as well as energy commodities, mirroring our bill's approach. We believe this is important because high energy prices affect the costs of fertilizing, producing, harvesting, transporting, processing, and distributing commodities. Consumers know this is a real problem, and price data prove it: the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the annualized rate of food-price inflation in the second quarter of 2008 was 8.5 percent. Meanwhile, the Bureau's energy price index for the second quarter was climbing at an amazing annualized rate of nearly 54 percent. Energy and food commodities are linked, and both have been subject to large-scale, noncommercial speculation. When we note that the BLS rate of price increase for nonfood, nonenergy items was only 2.5 percent, it is clear that both agricultural and energy future markets need protection against excessive speculation. My second amendment replaces the definition of commercially related hedging in the majority leader's bill with the language from our bill. This will not impair the CFTC's ability to monitor and police hedging activity across trading venues, but it will reduce an apparent potential for unintended consequences. We have heard concerns that the bill's restrictive language about hedge-trade proximity and equivalence to the initial commercial transaction could make bona fide hedging impossible or more difficult and expensive for the intermediaries who provide that service. My amendment is fully consistent with the intentions of the pending bill, but mitigates the risk that we might unintentionally impede hedging that has a genuine commercial basis. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will consider a full range of amendments to the majority leader's bill. I urge my colleagues to support my amendments--and then to support the underlying bill. We can all agree that excessive speculation is not the only factor affecting energy and food prices. But it is one that we can influence, and action is already long overdue. Housing

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the Senator from Vermont, my friend and colleague, in discussing the need for legislation which we have introduced to increase funding for the low income heating assistance program. As my colleague from Vermont has described, our citizens in the Northeast are facing a crisis this winter. In the State of Maine, 80 percent of homes rely on home heating oil. The average home in Maine uses between 800 and 1,000 gallons of heating oil to get through the winter season. My constituents are looking at paying as much as $5,000 this winter to keep warm. And this is in a State that ranks 37th in per capita income. This is a true crisis. It is clear that we need to do a great deal to solve the overall energy crisis facing this country. We need to produce more, use less, and pursue alternatives. But we also need to look for short-term help for our citizens. The legislation we have cosponsored, S. 3186, would provide an additional $2.5 billion for the low income heating assistance program, known as the LIHEAP program. Most of our colleagues are pretty familiar with this program. But let me remind them that it is a Federal grant program that provides vital funding to help very low-income citizens meet their home energy needs. The level of funding our legislation would provide would bring the program up to the fully authorized amount of $5.1 billion. That is the least we can do. Due to record high oil costs, the situation for our most vulnerable citizens, particularly the low income and elderly, is especially dire. In my State of Maine, people face a crisis as they look ahead and try to figure out how they are going to stay warm this winter. Nationwide, over the last few years, the numbers of households receiving assistance under the LIHEAP program increased by 26 percent, from 4.6 million to 5.8 million. But during that same period, Federal funding increased by only 10 percent. The result is that the average grant declined from $349 to $305 at a time of record high prices. The large rapid increase in energy prices, combined with lower levels of funding available per family, has imposed a tremendous hardship on those who can afford it least. Our bill would provide an additional $2.5 billion as emergency funding, and the term ``emergency'' could not be more accurate, because that is exactly what we face. Our Nation is in an energy emergency. Families are already being forced to choose between paying for food and paying for heat for this coming winter. One woman in Maine told me she has to turn over half of her Social Security check to meet the budget plan she is on for meeting her obligations to the oil dealer to stay warm--half of her Social Security check. She literally is deciding if she can afford to fill the prescription she needs, can she buy the healthy food she needs. I am worried that we are going to see seniors this winter suffering from hypothermia. I am worried we are going to see deaths from carbon monoxide from bringing in unsafe grills trying to stay warm. I am worried we are going to see household fires as people try to stay warm. I tell my colleagues, we must act and we must act now. If we can increase the funding and help people purchase the fuel they need now, it will make a real difference. As the Senator from Vermont has said, and he is not exaggerating, this is a matter of life and death. That is not an exaggeration. We must act. I also want to mention another program that cries out for more funding, and that is the Weatherization Program. We are going to proceed separately on the weatherization front, but we must not forget that if we can help people weatherize their homes, we can help them, on average, reduce their fuel consumption by 31 percent. It is one of the few things we can do right now that would make a difference this winter. I wish to see us double funding for weatherization. The payback is enormous. It would make a real difference. Before the current price spike, the Department of Energy estimated that weatherization saved the average household $358 per year. This winter, with the cost of fuel doubled what it was last winter, the savings will be that much higher as well. So let's do both. Let's give speedy approval to the legislation we have introduced to increase the funding for the LIHEAP program so it reaches $5.1 billion. And then let us, through the emergency supplemental bill that I hope will be coming to the floor, do a substantial increase in the Weatherization Program as well. It was so shortsighted of President Bush to propose the termination of the Weatherization Program. That makes no sense whatsoever. The Energy Department's spending bill before the Appropriations Committee restores some of the money, but it is still below the level that was spent on weatherization last winter. We should be greatly increasing funding for weatherization as well. I have been working with the Senators from Minnesota, both Senator Klobuchar and Senator Coleman, to lead a bipartisan effort. My friend from Vermont and the Presiding Officer have also signed onto that, calling upon the appropriators to increase weatherization funding as well. If we could provide an additional $40 million to the Weatherization Program, it would help another 15,000 households who are in need of weatherization. Let me end my comments by saying it is imperative we act both on the legislation to increase funding for the LIHEAP program and then proceed to also increase funding for weatherization as well. It is the least we can do to help some of the most vulnerable citizens avoid a true crisis this winter. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, high energy prices are having a devastating impact on our economy and our people--especially in large, rural States like Maine. Truckdrivers, loggers, fishermen, farmers, and countless others are struggling with the high cost of oil and gasoline. In Maine, where 80 percent of homes are heated with oil, many families do not know how they can afford to stay warm next winter. The high cost of energy is also taking a toll on businesses, both large and small. Katahdin Paper recently announced plans to shut down its plant in Millinocket due to the cost of oil. If this occurs--and everyone is working to prevent it--the community would be devastated by the loss of more than 200 good jobs. Many factors affect energy prices, including the value of the dollar, global tensions, and demand in other countries, such as China and India. But Senator Lieberman and I have heard persuasive and troubling evidence in hearings of our Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that another factor is also at work--excessive speculation in futures markets for energy commodities. At issue is the activity of noncommercial traders who do not produce or take delivery of oil or agricultural products, unlike commercial traders such as oil producers and heating oil dealers, farmers and cereal companies. Instead, these noncommercial investors use futures contracts and related transactions solely for financial gain. Speculation in commodity markets by noncommercial investors has grown enormously. In just the last 5 years, the total value of their futures- contract and commodity index-fund investments has soared from $13 billion to $260 billion. These massive new holdings of oil-futures contracts by pension funds, university endowments, and other institutional investors appear to be driving up prices beyond what they would otherwise be. These investors' intentions may be simply to provide good returns, a hedge against inflation, and diversification, but many experts believe their activities are distorting commodity markets. I have worked with Senator Lieberman to produce a comprehensive and bipartisan bill, the Commodity Speculation Reform Act of 2008, which we are introducing today. Our bill takes some very strong steps toward countering excessive speculation. First, it would remedy staffing shortfalls at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by adding 100 staff to improve its market oversight and enforcement capabilities. This is a vital step. The CFTC tells us that more than 3 billion futures and options contracts were traded last year, up from 37 million in 1976. Yet the Commission is operating with fewer employees than it had 30 years ago. Second, our bill closes the so-called ``swaps loophole,'' which currently allows financial institutions to evade position limits on commodity contracts that regulators use to prevent unwarranted price swings or attempts at manipulation. Third, our bill directs the CFTC to establish position limits that will apply to an investor's total interest in a commodity, regardless of whether they originate on a regulated exchange, the over-the-counter market, or on foreign boards of trade that deal in U.S. commodities. Fourth, our bill instructs the CFTC to permit no foreign boards of trade to deal in U.S.-linked commodity contracts unless they agree to reporting and data- accessibility standards at least equivalent to that required of U.S.-regulated exchanges. This is not a matter of telling other countries what to do: foreign boards of trade request ``no- action'' letters from the CFTC so they can maintain trading terminals here while remaining regulated by their own authorities. The CFTC has recently taken positive steps to require comparable reporting, and our bill codifies those improvements. These are powerful measures, but they are also prudently designed. We recognize that producers, handlers, and purchasers of commodities who use those markets to lock in prices, hedge risks, and see clues for price trends require some level of participation by non- commercial, financial investors. Our bill does not prevent financial investors from participating in commodity markets. It simply places some limits on their presence by directing the CFTC to set position limits across trading venues at a level no higher than that needed to ensure that commercial participants can always find counterparties for their contract needs. These and other provisions of our bill--which applies to agricultural as well as energy commodities--will provide a stronger regulator, improved flows of information, new and more consistent protections against excessive speculation, and assurance to both businesses and consumers that our markets in basic commodities are transparent, competitive, and effectively policed. The Commodity Speculation Reform Act of 2008 represents a balanced and bipartisan approach. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Lieberman and me in supporting it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, high energy prices are having a devastating impact on our economy and our people--especially in large, rural States like Maine. Truckdrivers, loggers, fishermen, farmers, and countless others are struggling with the high cost of oil and gasoline. In Maine, where 80 percent of homes are heated with oil, many families do not know how they can afford to stay warm next winter. The high cost of energy is also taking a toll on businesses, both large and small. Katahdin Paper recently announced plans to shut down its plant in Millinocket due to the cost of oil. If this occurs--and everyone is working to prevent it--the community would be devastated by the loss of more than 200 good jobs. Many factors affect energy prices, including the value of the dollar, global tensions, and demand in other countries, such as China and India. But Senator Lieberman and I have heard persuasive and troubling evidence in hearings of our Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that another factor is also at work--excessive speculation in futures markets for energy commodities. At issue is the activity of noncommercial traders who do not produce or take delivery of oil or agricultural products, unlike commercial traders such as oil producers and heating oil dealers, farmers and cereal companies. Instead, these noncommercial investors use futures contracts and related transactions solely for financial gain. Speculation in commodity markets by noncommercial investors has grown enormously. In just the last 5 years, the total value of their futures- contract and commodity index-fund investments has soared from $13 billion to $260 billion. These massive new holdings of oil-futures contracts by pension funds, university endowments, and other institutional investors appear to be driving up prices beyond what they would otherwise be. These investors' intentions may be simply to provide good returns, a hedge against inflation, and diversification, but many experts believe their activities are distorting commodity markets. I have worked with Senator Lieberman to produce a comprehensive and bipartisan bill, the Commodity Speculation Reform Act of 2008, which we are introducing today. Our bill takes some very strong steps toward countering excessive speculation. First, it would remedy staffing shortfalls at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by adding 100 staff to improve its market oversight and enforcement capabilities. This is a vital step. The CFTC tells us that more than 3 billion futures and options contracts were traded last year, up from 37 million in 1976. Yet the Commission is operating with fewer employees than it had 30 years ago. Second, our bill closes the so-called ``swaps loophole,'' which currently allows financial institutions to evade position limits on commodity contracts that regulators use to prevent unwarranted price swings or attempts at manipulation. Third, our bill directs the CFTC to establish position limits that will apply to an investor's total interest in a commodity, regardless of whether they originate on a regulated exchange, the over-the-counter market, or on foreign boards of trade that deal in U.S. commodities. Fourth, our bill instructs the CFTC to permit no foreign boards of trade to deal in U.S.-linked commodity contracts unless they agree to reporting and data- accessibility standards at least equivalent to that required of U.S.-regulated exchanges. This is not a matter of telling other countries what to do: foreign boards of trade request ``no- action'' letters from the CFTC so they can maintain trading terminals here while remaining regulated by their own authorities. The CFTC has recently taken positive steps to require comparable reporting, and our bill codifies those improvements. These are powerful measures, but they are also prudently designed. We recognize that producers, handlers, and purchasers of commodities who use those markets to lock in prices, hedge risks, and see clues for price trends require some level of participation by non- commercial, financial investors. Our bill does not prevent financial investors from participating in commodity markets. It simply places some limits on their presence by directing the CFTC to set position limits across trading venues at a level no higher than that needed to ensure that commercial participants can always find counterparties for their contract needs. These and other provisions of our bill--which applies to agricultural as well as energy commodities--will provide a stronger regulator, improved flows of information, new and more consistent protections against excessive speculation, and assurance to both businesses and consumers that our markets in basic commodities are transparent, competitive, and effectively policed. The Commodity Speculation Reform Act of 2008 represents a balanced and bipartisan approach. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Lieberman and me in supporting it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the outstanding work of our Nation's nurse practitioners--most especially the 850 or so nurse practitioners in Maine who have practiced independently since the mid-1990s. Nurse practitioners in Maine are credentialed as participating providers and serve as primary care providers in managed care organizations in my State. Similar to my colleagues from New Mexico, Iowa and Alaska, a large percentage of Mainers live in rural areas. As such, residents are often a considerable distance from health care facilities and may be hindered from getting care because of transportation and other obstacles. Nurse practitioners fill the void for high quality primary health care in our underserved areas. We need to encourage medical home demonstrations that allow nurse practitioners to fully participate in these models.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the remaining Republican time be allocated to the following list for up to 15 minutes each, with Senator Grassley controlling the remaining time: Senators Enzi, Chambliss, Stevens, Hatch, Cornyn, and Coleman.

Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Economic Recovery Act of 2008. I think it is evident our economy is struggling to overcome the twin effects of record-high energy prices and a steep downturn in the housing market. Earlier this year, this Congress acted to provide rebates to taxpayers to help them cope with the effects of the downturn in the economy. The hope was also that the impact of these rebate checks would be to stimulate the economy. It is evident much more needs to be done, so the legislation I am introducing today is aimed at reinvigorating our economy. It is my proposal for a second economic stimulus package. Over the course of the past several years, we have seen the price of oil climb by more than 400 percent, from about $30 per barrel in 2003, to more than $133 per barrel this morning. This escalation in energy costs threatens to plunge our economy into a recession, and it is imposing a tremendous hardship on middle-income and low-income families, on our truckdrivers, our farmers, our fishermen, our schools, virtually everyone. Big factories and mills, as well as small businesses, have also been harmed by high energy prices. In fact, a week ago we learned a mill in Millinocket, ME, is going to be forced to shut down because it can no longer afford the oil that is essential to the operations of that paper mill. We are working with Governor Baldacci to try to find alternatives. But it is a prime example of the tremendously harmful impact high energy prices are having on the economy of our State and indeed States throughout the Nation. Gasoline is already topping $4 a gallon 2 weeks into the summer driving season. Maine families fear the cost of staying warm next winter because home heating oil prices have reached record highs. At the same time, the cost of diesel fuel is pushing some of America's independent truckers to the brink of bankruptcy. Consider this astonishing fact. In 1999, a Maine truck driver could go from Augusta, ME, all the way to Albuquerque, NM, on $500 worth of diesel. Today, $500 worth of diesel will not get that truck driver to Altoona, PA. What a difference a few years makes. Of course, with diesel prices continuing to increase, the problem is only getting worse. Meanwhile, weaknesses in the housing market are making it impossible for millions of Americans to get the financing they need to stay in their homes when their adjustable rate mortgages reset. Many of these families are being forced into foreclosure, leaving behind vacant properties and creating a ripple effect that is pulling down home values even further. This problem hurts communities across the Nation, and it requires an effective Federal response. The legislation I am introducing today would provide much-needed help to Americans who are struggling with high energy costs and the weak housing market. Let me outline the provisions of the economic stimulus package I am proposing. First, the Economic Recovery Act proposes a series of initiatives to promote increased energy efficiency that would help consumers save money on their energy bills, and help advance the goal of energy independence for our Nation. Second, the bill provides relief from truck weight regulations that are injuring truckers in the State of Maine. Third, it proposes a new program to finance transportation infrastructure that is based on the model of the Build American Bonds Bill. Fourth, it would increase funding under the Workforce Investment Act so we can help displaced and unemployed or underemployed workers. Fifth, it proposes tax incentives designed to help America's small businesses. And, sixth, it would help to restore stability in the housing market by expanding the FHA Secure Program, which would help homeowners refinance mortgages that are in danger of foreclosure. We have focused a lot on the housing problems and the turmoil in the housing and financial markets. Indeed, that is an important factor in the decline of our economy. As I have indicated, I think more needs to be done. But I am convinced high energy prices are an even greater cause of the economic downturn. We must act to protect ourselves from rapid increases in oil prices and in the long term achieve energy independence. One way to help achieve both those goals is to encourage greater efficiency. My bill would double the funding for the Department of Energy's Weatherization Program, reaching $1.4 billion by the year 2010. The bill would also provide $112 million each year for the valuable Energy Star Program, which helps consumers choose energy-efficient appliances, and would extend the renewable electricity tax credit through 2011 and the residential investment tax credit for solar and energy-efficient buildings through 2012. My bill also includes a $500 credit to consumers who replace their old wood-burning stove with a new, cleaner-burning model using wood or wood pellets. This complements a proposal I introduced in February. We must take action to address the impact rising diesel prices are having on the trucking industry, which is struggling. The rapid increase in the price of diesel is making it more difficult for our Nation's truckers to stay on the road. It is also increasing the cost of delivering goods that communities throughout our country rely on. We can help trucks to operate more efficiently if we ease Federal trucking regulations that prohibit trucks that carry more than 80,000 pounds from traveling on the Federal interstate system. My bill includes a provision that would create a 2-year pilot project that would permit trucks carrying up to 100,000 pounds, which is the weight level that is permitted on Maine's highways, to travel on the Interstate Highway system when diesel prices are at or above $3.50 a gallon. The savings on fuel consumption will benefit the trucking industry, the consumer, and our Nation at a time when we are looking for ways to decrease our dependency on foreign oil. Let me tell you, the current system simply makes no sense at all. In Maine, the trucks that have 100,000 pounds of cargo are forced to leave the Interstate in Augusta, ME, a road that is built to accommodate the heaviest trucks, and instead are forced to go on secondary roads through towns and villages, stopping at railroad crossings. That wastes fuel, and is less safe than keeping them on the Interstate. The trip takes much longer because they are on secondary and slower roads that often are not the most direct routes to the destination. So that simply makes no sense at all. Any proposal to stimulate the economy should help to fund transportation infrastructure projects. They are a proven means of fostering economic growth and are a lasting investment; an investment we need. This past winter has been so difficult and so hard on the roads in Maine. I do not think I have ever seen so many frost heaves and so much wear and tear that the very difficult cold and snowy winter has had on our roads and highways as I have seen this spring in Maine. The legislation I have introduced calls for a $50 billion investment through new transportation bonds for roads, bridges, transit, rail, and waterways. Now, I wish to give credit where credit is due. This proposal which I put into the economic stimulus package was first introduced by Senator Wyden. I was very pleased to be a cosponsor of his bill. I have included our proposal as part of this broader package. Not only will this funding serve as the catalyst for thousands of good jobs today, we all know construction jobs are good jobs, but it also will improve our transportation infrastructure, which is critical to economic development over the long term. This is an investment that makes sense. Many of these transportation projects are ready to go. They only need the funding. We must also act to provide assistance to those who have lost their jobs in this economic downturn. Now, that means extending unemployment compensation benefits. I hope we are going to do that soon. But in addition, we need to invest in our workers. In the last 4 months, we have seen 340,000 jobs lost across the country. Today, we have more than 1.6 million additional unemployed workers, compared to 2001; 800,000 more than a year ago. The national unemployment rate has jumped to 5.5 percent. In my home State, 33,600 Mainers are looking for work. In view of this increase in unemployment, it makes no sense whatsoever that the President's budget actually proposes another cut in the Workforce Investment Act. In fact, overall, the President's budget would cut $1.5 billion from the Department of Labor's workforce programs. We must invest in America's workforce. Yet since fiscal year 2001, funding for the Workforce Investment Act programs has been reduced by nearly $1.7 billion in real terms. My bill would provide $1 billion in additional Workforce Investment Act funding that would enable us to train nearly 300,000 additional workers. The bill would also increase funding for the Dislocated Workers program and for Youth and Adult training programs. Support for job training, investing in our workers is critical, but it is also important that we provide relief to the job creators in our economy, and that is our small businesses. The fact is, small businesses create 80 percent of the net new jobs in America. During economic downturns, however, they struggle with cash flow and they must forgo investments they need to grow and remain competitive. That is why I am proposing some tax incentives to help small businesses. First, we should make the Section 179 expensing limit for small companies permanent so they can count on it. Second, we should renew a provision of tax law that allows restaurant owners to depreciate their equipment more quickly, over 15 years. Finally, we must take action to steady the housing market. More than 50 million Americans hold mortgages at present and, fortunately, most of them are current with their payments. But 7 million of these mortgages are so-called subprime loans, and most of them are adjustable rate mortgages that reset to higher, often unaffordable rates after only 2 or 3 years of very low introductory rates. What we are finding is a lot of first-time homeowners simply did not understand the risk they were taking with subprime loans. As a result, approximately 1.3 million of these 7 million subprime mortgages are delinquent and could soon be in foreclosure. This number is expected to rise as more mortgages reach the reset date. I am not interested in bailing out speculators, people who took a gamble that housing prices were going to increase. What I am talking about are homeowners who were peddled an unsuitable mortgage product. We need to help them. Foreclosures inflict losses all around--on the families who lose their homes; on the neighborhoods where values fall as empty houses proliferate; on borrowers who face tighter requirements and higher costs, as perceptions of lending risk increase; and on those who work in the construction or real estate industry, dependent on a strong housing market. One source of help--and this is what I am proposing in my bill--would be to bolster the FHASecure program administered by the Federal Housing Administration. This program allows eligible homeowners to avoid foreclosure by assisting them with refinancing so they can afford to make their mortgage payments. My bill would expand this program to make it easier for lenders to accept voluntary write-downs of distressed mortgages and allow borrowers whose incomes are not sufficient to meet the terms of their existing mortgages to refinance their homes on terms they could afford. My bill also grants the FHA expanded authority to adjust insurance premiums, depending on the individual borrower's risk profile, to ensure the solvency of the FHA insurance fund. These provisions could help FHA reach hundreds of thousands of additional homeowners by the end of the year, and to do so without taxpayer subsidies. The legislation I am introducing today includes comprehensive proposals that, taken together, would go a long way toward addressing the two factors truly harming our economy--high energy prices and a weakening housing market. I urge my colleagues to work together in a bipartisan way, to look at the ideas that I and others have proposed so we can work together on a second stimulus package to address these concerns and to help restore and strengthen our Nation's economy.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Economic Recovery Act of 2008. I think it is evident our economy is struggling to overcome the twin effects of record-high energy prices and a steep downturn in the housing market. Earlier this year, this Congress acted to provide rebates to taxpayers to help them cope with the effects of the downturn in the economy. The hope was also that the impact of these rebate checks would be to stimulate the economy. It is evident much more needs to be done, so the legislation I am introducing today is aimed at reinvigorating our economy. It is my proposal for a second economic stimulus package. Over the course of the past several years, we have seen the price of oil climb by more than 400 percent, from about $30 per barrel in 2003, to more than $133 per barrel this morning. This escalation in energy costs threatens to plunge our economy into a recession, and it is imposing a tremendous hardship on middle-income and low-income families, on our truckdrivers, our farmers, our fishermen, our schools, virtually everyone. Big factories and mills, as well as small businesses, have also been harmed by high energy prices. In fact, a week ago we learned a mill in Millinocket, ME, is going to be forced to shut down because it can no longer afford the oil that is essential to the operations of that paper mill. We are working with Governor Baldacci to try to find alternatives. But it is a prime example of the tremendously harmful impact high energy prices are having on the economy of our State and indeed States throughout the Nation. Gasoline is already topping $4 a gallon 2 weeks into the summer driving season. Maine families fear the cost of staying warm next winter because home heating oil prices have reached record highs. At the same time, the cost of diesel fuel is pushing some of America's independent truckers to the brink of bankruptcy. Consider this astonishing fact. In 1999, a Maine truck driver could go from Augusta, ME, all the way to Albuquerque, NM, on $500 worth of diesel. Today, $500 worth of diesel will not get that truck driver to Altoona, PA. What a difference a few years makes. Of course, with diesel prices continuing to increase, the problem is only getting worse. Meanwhile, weaknesses in the housing market are making it impossible for millions of Americans to get the financing they need to stay in their homes when their adjustable rate mortgages reset. Many of these families are being forced into foreclosure, leaving behind vacant properties and creating a ripple effect that is pulling down home values even further. This problem hurts communities across the Nation, and it requires an effective Federal response. The legislation I am introducing today would provide much-needed help to Americans who are struggling with high energy costs and the weak housing market. Let me outline the provisions of the economic stimulus package I am proposing. First, the Economic Recovery Act proposes a series of initiatives to promote increased energy efficiency that would help consumers save money on their energy bills, and help advance the goal of energy independence for our Nation. Second, the bill provides relief from truck weight regulations that are injuring truckers in the State of Maine. Third, it proposes a new program to finance transportation infrastructure that is based on the model of the Build American Bonds Bill. Fourth, it would increase funding under the Workforce Investment Act so we can help displaced and unemployed or underemployed workers. Fifth, it proposes tax incentives designed to help America's small businesses. And, sixth, it would help to restore stability in the housing market by expanding the FHA Secure Program, which would help homeowners refinance mortgages that are in danger of foreclosure. We have focused a lot on the housing problems and the turmoil in the housing and financial markets. Indeed, that is an important factor in the decline of our economy. As I have indicated, I think more needs to be done. But I am convinced high energy prices are an even greater cause of the economic downturn. We must act to protect ourselves from rapid increases in oil prices and in the long term achieve energy independence. One way to help achieve both those goals is to encourage greater efficiency. My bill would double the funding for the Department of Energy's Weatherization Program, reaching $1.4 billion by the year 2010. The bill would also provide $112 million each year for the valuable Energy Star Program, which helps consumers choose energy-efficient appliances, and would extend the renewable electricity tax credit through 2011 and the residential investment tax credit for solar and energy-efficient buildings through 2012. My bill also includes a $500 credit to consumers who replace their old wood-burning stove with a new, cleaner-burning model using wood or wood pellets. This complements a proposal I introduced in February. We must take action to address the impact rising diesel prices are having on the trucking industry, which is struggling. The rapid increase in the price of diesel is making it more difficult for our Nation's truckers to stay on the road. It is also increasing the cost of delivering goods that communities throughout our country rely on. We can help trucks to operate more efficiently if we ease Federal trucking regulations that prohibit trucks that carry more than 80,000 pounds from traveling on the Federal interstate system. My bill includes a provision that would create a 2-year pilot project that would permit trucks carrying up to 100,000 pounds, which is the weight level that is permitted on Maine's highways, to travel on the Interstate Highway system when diesel prices are at or above $3.50 a gallon. The savings on fuel consumption will benefit the trucking industry, the consumer, and our Nation at a time when we are looking for ways to decrease our dependency on foreign oil. Let me tell you, the current system simply makes no sense at all. In Maine, the trucks that have 100,000 pounds of cargo are forced to leave the Interstate in Augusta, ME, a road that is built to accommodate the heaviest trucks, and instead are forced to go on secondary roads through towns and villages, stopping at railroad crossings. That wastes fuel, and is less safe than keeping them on the Interstate. The trip takes much longer because they are on secondary and slower roads that often are not the most direct routes to the destination. So that simply makes no sense at all. Any proposal to stimulate the economy should help to fund transportation infrastructure projects. They are a proven means of fostering economic growth and are a lasting investment; an investment we need. This past winter has been so difficult and so hard on the roads in Maine. I do not think I have ever seen so many frost heaves and so much wear and tear that the very difficult cold and snowy winter has had on our roads and highways as I have seen this spring in Maine. The legislation I have introduced calls for a $50 billion investment through new transportation bonds for roads, bridges, transit, rail, and waterways. Now, I wish to give credit where credit is due. This proposal which I put into the economic stimulus package was first introduced by Senator Wyden. I was very pleased to be a cosponsor of his bill. I have included our proposal as part of this broader package. Not only will this funding serve as the catalyst for thousands of good jobs today, we all know construction jobs are good jobs, but it also will improve our transportation infrastructure, which is critical to economic development over the long term. This is an investment that makes sense. Many of these transportation projects are ready to go. They only need the funding. We must also act to provide assistance to those who have lost their jobs in this economic downturn. Now, that means extending unemployment compensation benefits. I hope we are going to do that soon. But in addition, we need to invest in our workers. In the last 4 months, we have seen 340,000 jobs lost across the country. Today, we have more than 1.6 million additional unemployed workers, compared to 2001; 800,000 more than a year ago. The national unemployment rate has jumped to 5.5 percent. In my home State, 33,600 Mainers are looking for work. In view of this increase in unemployment, it makes no sense whatsoever that the President's budget actually proposes another cut in the Workforce Investment Act. In fact, overall, the President's budget would cut $1.5 billion from the Department of Labor's workforce programs. We must invest in America's workforce. Yet since fiscal year 2001, funding for the Workforce Investment Act programs has been reduced by nearly $1.7 billion in real terms. My bill would provide $1 billion in additional Workforce Investment Act funding that would enable us to train nearly 300,000 additional workers. The bill would also increase funding for the Dislocated Workers program and for Youth and Adult training programs. Support for job training, investing in our workers is critical, but it is also important that we provide relief to the job creators in our economy, and that is our small businesses. The fact is, small businesses create 80 percent of the net new jobs in America. During economic downturns, however, they struggle with cash flow and they must forgo investments they need to grow and remain competitive. That is why I am proposing some tax incentives to help small businesses. First, we should make the Section 179 expensing limit for small companies permanent so they can count on it. Second, we should renew a provision of tax law that allows restaurant owners to depreciate their equipment more quickly, over 15 years. Finally, we must take action to steady the housing market. More than 50 million Americans hold mortgages at present and, fortunately, most of them are current with their payments. But 7 million of these mortgages are so-called subprime loans, and most of them are adjustable rate mortgages that reset to higher, often unaffordable rates after only 2 or 3 years of very low introductory rates. What we are finding is a lot of first-time homeowners simply did not understand the risk they were taking with subprime loans. As a result, approximately 1.3 million of these 7 million subprime mortgages are delinquent and could soon be in foreclosure. This number is expected to rise as more mortgages reach the reset date. I am not interested in bailing out speculators, people who took a gamble that housing prices were going to increase. What I am talking about are homeowners who were peddled an unsuitable mortgage product. We need to help them. Foreclosures inflict losses all around--on the families who lose their homes; on the neighborhoods where values fall as empty houses proliferate; on borrowers who face tighter requirements and higher costs, as perceptions of lending risk increase; and on those who work in the construction or real estate industry, dependent on a strong housing market. One source of help--and this is what I am proposing in my bill--would be to bolster the FHASecure program administered by the Federal Housing Administration. This program allows eligible homeowners to avoid foreclosure by assisting them with refinancing so they can afford to make their mortgage payments. My bill would expand this program to make it easier for lenders to accept voluntary write-downs of distressed mortgages and allow borrowers whose incomes are not sufficient to meet the terms of their existing mortgages to refinance their homes on terms they could afford. My bill also grants the FHA expanded authority to adjust insurance premiums, depending on the individual borrower's risk profile, to ensure the solvency of the FHA insurance fund. These provisions could help FHA reach hundreds of thousands of additional homeowners by the end of the year, and to do so without taxpayer subsidies. The legislation I am introducing today includes comprehensive proposals that, taken together, would go a long way toward addressing the two factors truly harming our economy--high energy prices and a weakening housing market. I urge my colleagues to work together in a bipartisan way, to look at the ideas that I and others have proposed so we can work together on a second stimulus package to address these concerns and to help restore and strengthen our Nation's economy.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. This bill addresses the most significant environmental challenge facing our country. The scientific evidence clearly demonstrates the human contribution to climate change. According to recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, increases in greenhouse gas emissions have already increased global temperatures, and likely contributed to more extreme weather events such as droughts and floods. These emissions will continue to change the climate, causing warming in most regions of the world, and likely causing more droughts, floods, and many other societal problems. In the United States alone, emissions of the primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, have risen more than 20 percent since 1990. Climate change is the most daunting environmental challenge we face and we must develop reasonable solutions to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I have observed in person the dramatic effects of climate change and had the opportunity to be briefed by the preeminent experts. In 2006, on a trip to Antarctica and New Zealand, for example, I learned more about research by scientists at the University of Maine. Distinguished National Academy of Sciences member George Denton took us to sites in New Zealand that had been buried by massive glaciers at the beginning of the 20th century, but are now ice free. Fifty percent of the glaciers in New Zealand have melted since 1860--an event unprecedented in the last 5,000 years. We could clearly see the glacial moraines, where dirt and rocks had been pushed up in piles around the glacial terminus in 1860. I thought it was remarkable to stand in a place where some 140 years ago I would have been covered in tens or hundreds of feet of ice, and then to look far up the mountainside and see how distant the edge of the ice is today. In Antarctica, I visited the Clean Air Station at the South Pole. Being the farthest place on Earth from major emissions sources, the South Pole has the cleanest air on Earth, and thus provides an excellent place to measure the background quality of the Earth's air. By analyzing carbon dioxide in ice cores, scientists have been able to create reliable measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide going back over hundreds of thousands of years. The measurements of carbon dioxide at Clean Air Station provide a reliable comparison to document the impact of human activity on increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in recent years compared to the last hundreds of thousands of years. The melting is even more dramatic in the Northern Hemisphere. In the last 30 years, the Arctic has lost sea ice cover over an area 10 times as large as the State of Maine, and at this rate will be ice free by 2050. In 2005 in Barrow, AK, I witnessed a melting permafrost that is causing telephone poles, planted years ago, to lean over for the first time ever. I also learned about the potential impact of sea level rise during my trips to these regions. If the West Antarctica Ice Sheet were to collapse, for example, sea level would rise 15 feet, flooding many coastal cities. In their 2007 report, the IPCC found that due even just to gradual melting of ice sheets, the average predicted sea level rise by 2100 will be 1.6 feet, but could be as high as 1 meter, or almost 3 feet. In Maine a 1-meter rise in sea level will cause the loss of 20,000 acres of land, include 100 acres of downtown Portland--including Commercial Street, a major business thoroughfare along the water. Already in the past 94 years, a 7 inch rise in sea level has been documented in Portland. The time has come to take meaningful action to respond to climate change. My colleagues worked tirelessly in recent months to develop legislation that will preserve our environment for future generations while providing reasonable emission reduction goals, offsets, and incentives for the industries covered by the bill. I applaud the leadership of my colleagues from Virginia, Connecticut, and California in bringing this bill to the floor this week. Rural Cooperatives

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Innovation and Job Creation Act, a bill which aims to spur the adoption of new technologies and practices that can accelerate economic growth and build a secure foundation for good, high-paying jobs. I am pleased that Senator Clinton joins me in offering this legislation. We are all familiar with the fiscal challenges our Nation will face in the coming years. Over the next 2 decades, more than 75 million members of the Baby Boom generation will leave the workforce and enter retirement. The loss of their participation in the workforce, coupled with our Social Security obligations and rising healthcare costs, will put enormous strains on our economy. So too will competition from other countries, brought about by increased international trade and globalization. If we do not act to strengthen our competitiveness, our nation's ability to create good, high-paying jobs will be severely tested. Indeed, there are already troubling signs that our economy's competitive edge has been dulled, and we are losing ground to other nations. In just the last 4 months, we've seen 340,000 jobs lost across the country. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 1.6 million more workers unemployed today than in 2001, and 800,000 more workers unemployed than just one year ago. Our trade deficit is now 6.5 percent of GDP--the highest in history--while manufacturing continues its decades-long decline, accounting for only 12.1 percent of GDP in 2006. We now import more high-technology products than we sell to other nations, and even in agriculture, where America has long been the world leader, our trade surplus is dropping toward zero. Even the service sector is not immune from the effects of international competition. With the increased telecommunications capacity provided by trans-oceanic fiber-optic networks, geographic proximity to the market is no longer necessary for services such as back-office operations, call-centers, and software development. As the Brookings Institute pointed out in a series of recent white papers on the topic of Innovation, ``the growth of international trade and the globalization of production make it increasingly important for the United States to innovate to maintain its standard of living.'' They explain that low-wage countries will always find it easier to compete with America for labor-intensive work that is difficult-to- automate, but that does not mean that we must surrender whole industries to China and India, nor does it mean that we must fear the inevitable loss of high value-added jobs that depend upon research and development, and advanced technology. Rather, it means that we must build upon what has always given America its competitive edge--innovation. This means taking what has already been invented, and putting it to use. It is only by doing this that we can raise our productivity rate, and ultimately, continue to create the high-paying jobs that Americans need and deserve. Last year, with the passage of the America COMPETES Act, we took an important step toward bolstering research and education that can serve as the foundation for future innovation. But we must go beyond this, to help enterprises understand innovative technologies and services that can make them more competitive, and to help them overcome the barriers they face in adopting these innovations. That is what the bill Senator Clinton and I are introducing today aims to do. The bill creates a National Innovation Council in the Executive Office of the President, to take the lead in coordinating existing Federal efforts on innovation, and to help support those efforts at the State and local level. Six Federal programs that share innovation-based missions would be relocated to the NIC. These are: The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (the ``MEP''), the Technology Innovation Program, Partnerships for Innovation, the Industry-University Cooperative Research Center Program, the Engineering Research Center Program, and the Workforce Innovations in Regional Economic Development program, known as the ``WIRED'' program. The operation and funding of these existing programs would be unaltered by my legislation, but the NIC would lead these programs to coordinate their activities where feasible. The NIC would operate several grant programs to support efforts to spread innovation and create good jobs. Chief among these would be a grant program to support innovation-based economic development partnerships in every State. The NIC would also provide grants for the diffusion of technology in every state, operating through the existing MEP program. The NIC would also oversee a new ``Cluster Development'' program which would operate alongside the six existing programs I have already mentioned. I want to focus for a moment on this aspect of my proposal since cluster development is so essential to our ability to keep and create good, high-paying jobs in the face of international competition. ``Clusters'' are geographic areas where interrelated economic activity is taking place. Businesses that locate in a cluster build the foundation they all rely on to succeed, even as they compete with one another. Because of this, clusters are often at the heart of strong regional economies. Silicon Valley in California, Route 128 around Boston, and the Research Triangle Park in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, are famous examples of clusters in the high-tech sector. But cluster development is not just a phenomenon of the high-tech industry--successful clusters can and do arise in any sector of the economy. Think insurance in Connecticut, theme parks in Florida, movies in Hollywood, and boatbuilding in Maine. Each of these ``clusters'' is built around a skilled labor force that can command good wages, and is ready to compete with the best the world has to offer. In Maine, cluster development has been championed by Karen Mills, the primary author of the Brookings Institute's white paper ``Clusters and Competitiveness.'' From her work in helping Maine secure $15 million in WIRED funding to further develop the composite and boatbuilding clusters in a project that hopes to create 2,500 high-quality jobs over the next 5 to 7 years, to her current position as chair of Maine's Council on Competitiveness and the Economy, Karen's hard work and dedication on cluster development is unsurpassed. The WIRED grant has enabled Maine to make great progress on cluster development, but more must be done nationally. As Karen explained in the Brookings white paper, our Nation's network of cluster initiatives is ``thin and uneven,'' and consequently ``many U.S. industry clusters are not as competitive as they could be, to the detriment of the nation's capacity to sustain well-paying jobs.'' Because of this, ``too many workers are losing decent jobs, and too many regions are struggling economically.'' The Cluster Development program we are proposing in this bill is modeled after the Department of Labor's WIRED program. It would identify geographic regions where cluster activity is taking place or can develop, and provide assistance to local and regional efforts to build on those clusters. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this and other proposals to bolster innovation, strengthen our Nation's competitiveness, and most of all, help preserve the foundation for high-quality jobs in the face of the coming economic challenges.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Innovation and Job Creation Act, a bill which aims to spur the adoption of new technologies and practices that can accelerate economic growth and build a secure foundation for good, high-paying jobs. I am pleased that Senator Clinton joins me in offering this legislation. We are all familiar with the fiscal challenges our Nation will face in the coming years. Over the next 2 decades, more than 75 million members of the Baby Boom generation will leave the workforce and enter retirement. The loss of their participation in the workforce, coupled with our Social Security obligations and rising healthcare costs, will put enormous strains on our economy. So too will competition from other countries, brought about by increased international trade and globalization. If we do not act to strengthen our competitiveness, our nation's ability to create good, high-paying jobs will be severely tested. Indeed, there are already troubling signs that our economy's competitive edge has been dulled, and we are losing ground to other nations. In just the last 4 months, we've seen 340,000 jobs lost across the country. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 1.6 million more workers unemployed today than in 2001, and 800,000 more workers unemployed than just one year ago. Our trade deficit is now 6.5 percent of GDP--the highest in history--while manufacturing continues its decades-long decline, accounting for only 12.1 percent of GDP in 2006. We now import more high-technology products than we sell to other nations, and even in agriculture, where America has long been the world leader, our trade surplus is dropping toward zero. Even the service sector is not immune from the effects of international competition. With the increased telecommunications capacity provided by trans-oceanic fiber-optic networks, geographic proximity to the market is no longer necessary for services such as back-office operations, call-centers, and software development. As the Brookings Institute pointed out in a series of recent white papers on the topic of Innovation, ``the growth of international trade and the globalization of production make it increasingly important for the United States to innovate to maintain its standard of living.'' They explain that low-wage countries will always find it easier to compete with America for labor-intensive work that is difficult-to- automate, but that does not mean that we must surrender whole industries to China and India, nor does it mean that we must fear the inevitable loss of high value-added jobs that depend upon research and development, and advanced technology. Rather, it means that we must build upon what has always given America its competitive edge--innovation. This means taking what has already been invented, and putting it to use. It is only by doing this that we can raise our productivity rate, and ultimately, continue to create the high-paying jobs that Americans need and deserve. Last year, with the passage of the America COMPETES Act, we took an important step toward bolstering research and education that can serve as the foundation for future innovation. But we must go beyond this, to help enterprises understand innovative technologies and services that can make them more competitive, and to help them overcome the barriers they face in adopting these innovations. That is what the bill Senator Clinton and I are introducing today aims to do. The bill creates a National Innovation Council in the Executive Office of the President, to take the lead in coordinating existing Federal efforts on innovation, and to help support those efforts at the State and local level. Six Federal programs that share innovation-based missions would be relocated to the NIC. These are: The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (the ``MEP''), the Technology Innovation Program, Partnerships for Innovation, the Industry-University Cooperative Research Center Program, the Engineering Research Center Program, and the Workforce Innovations in Regional Economic Development program, known as the ``WIRED'' program. The operation and funding of these existing programs would be unaltered by my legislation, but the NIC would lead these programs to coordinate their activities where feasible. The NIC would operate several grant programs to support efforts to spread innovation and create good jobs. Chief among these would be a grant program to support innovation-based economic development partnerships in every State. The NIC would also provide grants for the diffusion of technology in every state, operating through the existing MEP program. The NIC would also oversee a new ``Cluster Development'' program which would operate alongside the six existing programs I have already mentioned. I want to focus for a moment on this aspect of my proposal since cluster development is so essential to our ability to keep and create good, high-paying jobs in the face of international competition. ``Clusters'' are geographic areas where interrelated economic activity is taking place. Businesses that locate in a cluster build the foundation they all rely on to succeed, even as they compete with one another. Because of this, clusters are often at the heart of strong regional economies. Silicon Valley in California, Route 128 around Boston, and the Research Triangle Park in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, are famous examples of clusters in the high-tech sector. But cluster development is not just a phenomenon of the high-tech industry--successful clusters can and do arise in any sector of the economy. Think insurance in Connecticut, theme parks in Florida, movies in Hollywood, and boatbuilding in Maine. Each of these ``clusters'' is built around a skilled labor force that can command good wages, and is ready to compete with the best the world has to offer. In Maine, cluster development has been championed by Karen Mills, the primary author of the Brookings Institute's white paper ``Clusters and Competitiveness.'' From her work in helping Maine secure $15 million in WIRED funding to further develop the composite and boatbuilding clusters in a project that hopes to create 2,500 high-quality jobs over the next 5 to 7 years, to her current position as chair of Maine's Council on Competitiveness and the Economy, Karen's hard work and dedication on cluster development is unsurpassed. The WIRED grant has enabled Maine to make great progress on cluster development, but more must be done nationally. As Karen explained in the Brookings white paper, our Nation's network of cluster initiatives is ``thin and uneven,'' and consequently ``many U.S. industry clusters are not as competitive as they could be, to the detriment of the nation's capacity to sustain well-paying jobs.'' Because of this, ``too many workers are losing decent jobs, and too many regions are struggling economically.'' The Cluster Development program we are proposing in this bill is modeled after the Department of Labor's WIRED program. It would identify geographic regions where cluster activity is taking place or can develop, and provide assistance to local and regional efforts to build on those clusters. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this and other proposals to bolster innovation, strengthen our Nation's competitiveness, and most of all, help preserve the foundation for high-quality jobs in the face of the coming economic challenges.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Wisconsin and Maryland in introducing legislation to reauthorize the Collins-Feingold Dental Health Improvement Act, which was first signed into law as part of the Health Care Safety Net Act Amendments of 2002. The legislation we are introducing today will extend the authorization of this program, which provides grant funding to States to strengthen the dental workforce in our Nation's rural and underserved communities, for an additional 5 years. While oral health in America has improved dramatically over the last 50 years, these improvements have not occurred evenly across our population, particularly among low-income individuals and families. Too many Americans today lack access to dental care. While there are clinically proven techniques to prevent or delay the progression of dental health problems, an estimated 47 million Americans live in areas lacking adequate dental services. As a consequence, these effective treatment and prevention programs are not being implemented in many of our communities. Astoundingly, as many as 11 percent of our Nation's rural population has never been to a dentist. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that our dental workforce is graying. More than 20 percent of dentists nationwide will retire in the next 10 years, and the number of dental graduates may not be enough to replace their retirees. As a consequence, many states are facing a serious shortage of dentists, particularly in rural areas. In Maine, there is one general practice dentist for every 2,300 people in the Portland area. The numbers drop off dramatically, however, in other parts of our state. In Aroostook County, for example, where I am from, there is only one dentist for every 5,500 people. Of the 23 dentists practicing in Aroostook County, only a few are taking on any new cases. The Collins-Feingold Dental Health Improvement Act, which is now Section 340G of the Public Health Service Act, authorized a State grant program administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration at the Department of Health and Human services that is designed to improve access to oral health services in rural and underserved areas. States can use these grants to fund a wide variety of programs. For example, they can use the funds for loan forgiveness and repayment programs for dentists practicing in underserved areas. They can also use the grant funds to establish or expand community or school-based dental facilities or to set up mobile or portable dental clinics. To assist in their recruitment and retention efforts, States can use the funds for placement and support of dental students, residents and advanced dentistry trainees. Or, they can use the grant funds for continuing dental education, through distance-based education and practice support through teledentistry. Congress appropriated $2 million for this program for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 and just under $5 million for fiscal year 2008. Thirty-six States have applied for grants from this program, but so far, the funding available has only been sufficient to fund programs in 18 States. Clearly there is sufficient interest and need for this program to justify its extension, particularly given all of the recent reports documenting the very serious need to improve access to oral health care. Those 18 States that have been awarded funding under this program are doing great things to improve access to oral health services. Colorado, Georgia and Massachusetts are using the grant funds for loan forgiveness and repayment programs for dentists who practice in underserved areas and who agree to provide services to patients regardless of their ability to pay. Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi and a number of other states are using the funds for recruitment and retention efforts. Delaware, Rhode Island and Vermont, which, like Maine, don't have dental schools, are using the funds to expand dental residency programs in their States. The legislation we are introducing today will authorize an additional $50 million over the next 5 years for this important program. The American Dental Association, the American Dental Education Association, and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry have all endorsed the legislation, and I encourage all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commercial Truck Fuel Savings Demonstration Act of 2008, which would help address the growing crisis of energy costs for our Nation's trucking industry. Our Nation faces record high energy prices, affecting almost every aspect of daily life. The rapidly growing price of diesel is putting an increasing strain on our trucking industry. The U.S. average on diesel prices reached $3.50 a gallon in February 2008 and prices have not gone below this amount since that time. The average price of diesel this week is $4.50. Escalating fuel costs are especially devastating in states where the cost of diesel fuel is exacerbated by Federal weight limit restrictions that prohibit trucks that carry more than 80,000 pounds from traveling on the Federal interstate system. For example, under current law, trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on the portion of Interstate 95 designated as the Maine Turnpike, which runs from Maine's border with New Hampshire to Augusta, our capital city. At Augusta, the State Turnpike designation ends, but I-95 proceeds another 200 miles north to Houlton. At Augusta, however, heavy trucks must exit the modern four-lane, limited-access highway and are forced onto smaller, two-lane secondary roads that pass through cities, towns, and villages. The Commercial Truck Fuel Savings Demonstration Act of 2008, which I am introducing today, will provide immediate savings to our truckers. My bill creates a 2-year year pilot program that would permit trucks carrying up to 100,000 pounds to travel on the Federal interstate system whenever diesel prices are at or above $3.50 a gallon. This legislation does not mandate that each state participate in the pilot program, but gives each state the opportunity, during this time of high fuel costs, to offer relief to their trucking industries. Permitting trucks to carry up to 100,000 pounds on Federal highways would lessen the fuel cost burden on truckers in three ways: First, raising the weight limit would allow trucking companies to put more cargo in each truck, thereby reducing the numbers of trucks needed to transport goods: Second, trucks carrying up to 100,000 pounds would no longer need to move off the main Federal highways where trucks are limited at 80,000 pounds and take less direct routes on local roads requiring considerably more diesel fuel and extended periods of idling during each trip; and third, trucks traveling on the interstate system would save on fuel costs due to the much superior road design of the interstate system as compared to the rural and urban state road systems. I recently met with Kurt Babineau, a small business owner and second generation logger and trucker from my State who has been struggling with the increasing costs of running his operation. Mr. Babineau's operation works just east of central Maine on the outskirts of the town of Mattawamkeag. All of the pulpwood his business produces, which is roughly 50 percent of his total harvest, is transported to Verso Paper, which is located in the southwestern part of the State, in the town of Jay. The distance his trucks must travel is 165 miles and a round trip takes approximately 8 hours to complete. If Mr. Babineau's trucks were permitted to use Interstate 95, this would reduce the distance his trucks must travel to approximately 100 miles and would shave one hour off the time it takes his trucks to make their delivery to Verso Paper, saving his operation both time and fuel. The results of less fuel consumption from decreased distance traveled would create significant savings for Mr. Babineau's operation. His trucks average 4 miles to the gallon, which calculates to approximately 11.8 gallons an hour. Permitting trucks to travel on Interstate 95 would save Mr. Babineau 118 gallons of fuel each week. The current cost of diesel fuel in his area is approximately $4.42 per gallon, and therefore, combined with time saved on wages for drivers, his savings would estimate to nearly $697 a week. If you applied this savings to one year of trucking for Mr. Babineau's company alone, it would save his operation over $33,400 a year and 5,664 gallons of fuel over the same period. These savings are not only beneficial to Mr. Babineau's business, his employees, and the consumer, but also to our Nation, as we look for ways to decrease on our overall fuel consumption. Trucking is the cornerstone of our economy as most of our goods are transported by trucks at some point in the supply chain. Some independent truckers in my state already have been forced out of business due to rising fuel costs and more businesses are facing a similar fate if Congress does not act soon to address our growing energy crisis. The Commercial Truck Fuel Savings Demonstration Act offers an immediate and cost effective way to help our Nation's struggling trucking industry. I am pleased that Senator Snowe has joined me as an original cosponsor of the bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Commercial Truck Fuel Savings Demonstration Act of 2008, which would help address the growing crisis of energy costs for our Nation's trucking industry. Our Nation faces record high energy prices, affecting almost every aspect of daily life. The rapidly growing price of diesel is putting an increasing strain on our trucking industry. The U.S. average on diesel prices reached $3.50 a gallon in February 2008 and prices have not gone below this amount since that time. The average price of diesel this week is $4.50. Escalating fuel costs are especially devastating in states where the cost of diesel fuel is exacerbated by Federal weight limit restrictions that prohibit trucks that carry more than 80,000 pounds from traveling on the Federal interstate system. For example, under current law, trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on the portion of Interstate 95 designated as the Maine Turnpike, which runs from Maine's border with New Hampshire to Augusta, our capital city. At Augusta, the State Turnpike designation ends, but I-95 proceeds another 200 miles north to Houlton. At Augusta, however, heavy trucks must exit the modern four-lane, limited-access highway and are forced onto smaller, two-lane secondary roads that pass through cities, towns, and villages. The Commercial Truck Fuel Savings Demonstration Act of 2008, which I am introducing today, will provide immediate savings to our truckers. My bill creates a 2-year year pilot program that would permit trucks carrying up to 100,000 pounds to travel on the Federal interstate system whenever diesel prices are at or above $3.50 a gallon. This legislation does not mandate that each state participate in the pilot program, but gives each state the opportunity, during this time of high fuel costs, to offer relief to their trucking industries. Permitting trucks to carry up to 100,000 pounds on Federal highways would lessen the fuel cost burden on truckers in three ways: First, raising the weight limit would allow trucking companies to put more cargo in each truck, thereby reducing the numbers of trucks needed to transport goods: Second, trucks carrying up to 100,000 pounds would no longer need to move off the main Federal highways where trucks are limited at 80,000 pounds and take less direct routes on local roads requiring considerably more diesel fuel and extended periods of idling during each trip; and third, trucks traveling on the interstate system would save on fuel costs due to the much superior road design of the interstate system as compared to the rural and urban state road systems. I recently met with Kurt Babineau, a small business owner and second generation logger and trucker from my State who has been struggling with the increasing costs of running his operation. Mr. Babineau's operation works just east of central Maine on the outskirts of the town of Mattawamkeag. All of the pulpwood his business produces, which is roughly 50 percent of his total harvest, is transported to Verso Paper, which is located in the southwestern part of the State, in the town of Jay. The distance his trucks must travel is 165 miles and a round trip takes approximately 8 hours to complete. If Mr. Babineau's trucks were permitted to use Interstate 95, this would reduce the distance his trucks must travel to approximately 100 miles and would shave one hour off the time it takes his trucks to make their delivery to Verso Paper, saving his operation both time and fuel. The results of less fuel consumption from decreased distance traveled would create significant savings for Mr. Babineau's operation. His trucks average 4 miles to the gallon, which calculates to approximately 11.8 gallons an hour. Permitting trucks to travel on Interstate 95 would save Mr. Babineau 118 gallons of fuel each week. The current cost of diesel fuel in his area is approximately $4.42 per gallon, and therefore, combined with time saved on wages for drivers, his savings would estimate to nearly $697 a week. If you applied this savings to one year of trucking for Mr. Babineau's company alone, it would save his operation over $33,400 a year and 5,664 gallons of fuel over the same period. These savings are not only beneficial to Mr. Babineau's business, his employees, and the consumer, but also to our Nation, as we look for ways to decrease on our overall fuel consumption. Trucking is the cornerstone of our economy as most of our goods are transported by trucks at some point in the supply chain. Some independent truckers in my state already have been forced out of business due to rising fuel costs and more businesses are facing a similar fate if Congress does not act soon to address our growing energy crisis. The Commercial Truck Fuel Savings Demonstration Act offers an immediate and cost effective way to help our Nation's struggling trucking industry. I am pleased that Senator Snowe has joined me as an original cosponsor of the bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Wisconsin and Maryland in introducing legislation to reauthorize the Collins-Feingold Dental Health Improvement Act, which was first signed into law as part of the Health Care Safety Net Act Amendments of 2002. The legislation we are introducing today will extend the authorization of this program, which provides grant funding to States to strengthen the dental workforce in our Nation's rural and underserved communities, for an additional 5 years. While oral health in America has improved dramatically over the last 50 years, these improvements have not occurred evenly across our population, particularly among low-income individuals and families. Too many Americans today lack access to dental care. While there are clinically proven techniques to prevent or delay the progression of dental health problems, an estimated 47 million Americans live in areas lacking adequate dental services. As a consequence, these effective treatment and prevention programs are not being implemented in many of our communities. Astoundingly, as many as 11 percent of our Nation's rural population has never been to a dentist. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that our dental workforce is graying. More than 20 percent of dentists nationwide will retire in the next 10 years, and the number of dental graduates may not be enough to replace their retirees. As a consequence, many states are facing a serious shortage of dentists, particularly in rural areas. In Maine, there is one general practice dentist for every 2,300 people in the Portland area. The numbers drop off dramatically, however, in other parts of our state. In Aroostook County, for example, where I am from, there is only one dentist for every 5,500 people. Of the 23 dentists practicing in Aroostook County, only a few are taking on any new cases. The Collins-Feingold Dental Health Improvement Act, which is now Section 340G of the Public Health Service Act, authorized a State grant program administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration at the Department of Health and Human services that is designed to improve access to oral health services in rural and underserved areas. States can use these grants to fund a wide variety of programs. For example, they can use the funds for loan forgiveness and repayment programs for dentists practicing in underserved areas. They can also use the grant funds to establish or expand community or school-based dental facilities or to set up mobile or portable dental clinics. To assist in their recruitment and retention efforts, States can use the funds for placement and support of dental students, residents and advanced dentistry trainees. Or, they can use the grant funds for continuing dental education, through distance-based education and practice support through teledentistry. Congress appropriated $2 million for this program for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 and just under $5 million for fiscal year 2008. Thirty-six States have applied for grants from this program, but so far, the funding available has only been sufficient to fund programs in 18 States. Clearly there is sufficient interest and need for this program to justify its extension, particularly given all of the recent reports documenting the very serious need to improve access to oral health care. Those 18 States that have been awarded funding under this program are doing great things to improve access to oral health services. Colorado, Georgia and Massachusetts are using the grant funds for loan forgiveness and repayment programs for dentists who practice in underserved areas and who agree to provide services to patients regardless of their ability to pay. Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi and a number of other states are using the funds for recruitment and retention efforts. Delaware, Rhode Island and Vermont, which, like Maine, don't have dental schools, are using the funds to expand dental residency programs in their States. The legislation we are introducing today will authorize an additional $50 million over the next 5 years for this important program. The American Dental Association, the American Dental Education Association, and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry have all endorsed the legislation, and I encourage all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Public Safety Employer- Employee Cooperation Act. I have been a cosponsor of this legislation in previous Congresses, and I am pleased that the bill, which I first joined several years ago in cosponsoring, is finally coming to the Senate floor. This bill would ensure that the people we most count on to protect and serve the public--our firefighters, our police officers, our emergency medical personnel, and other first responders--can exercise their rights to organize and bargain collectively with their employers. Currently, 20 American States do not effectively provide for this right despite the fact that it applies across nearly every other area of the American economy. All first responders should have an effective process to address job issues and practices with the State and local governments they serve. Now, some have argued that this bill interferes with the proper authority of States and municipalities, but, in fact, the bill simply requires States to allow public safety officers to bargain over wages, hours, and working conditions. My State of Maine has a very similar law in place already. This bill does not in any way dictate outcomes of this process. It gives State--not Federal--courts the authority to enforce contract rights that arise from collective bargaining. I also wish to emphasize that the bill does not authorize actions that might threaten public safety. In fact, it prohibits both strikes and walkouts. Further, it does not interfere with any existing collective bargaining agreements, nor does it impinge on any area traditionally reserved to management decisionmaking. Mr. President, I have heard some of my colleagues say this bill will somehow harm the volunteer firefighters who are so important in rural States, such as mine and the State of the Presiding Officer. I think it is important we spell out why that is not the case. In fact, there is no collective bargaining established by this bill for volunteers, volunteer fire departments. This is a bill about collective bargaining rights of employees who are paid for their work. Volunteers, by definition, are not employees. Any suggestion that cities and towns are going to be required to bargain with and possibly pay their volunteer firefighters is simply wrong. Volunteers are expressly not covered by this bill and will have no right to collective bargaining. All volunteer departments would have no bargaining complications. Furthermore, professional firefighters would still be encouraged to volunteer. I am touched by the fact that some of the professional firefighters in my town act as volunteer firefighters for their hometowns. They may be employed by a larger city in Maine, such as Bangor, Lewiston or Portland, but they may live in a very small town outside the city, where they volunteer on the all-volunteer firefighting force. There is nothing in this bill that discourages anyone from serving as a volunteer firefighter. In many towns, as I mentioned, volunteer firefighters are actually professional firefighters who volunteer during their off-duty hours. Our legislation preserves that kind of relationship by actually prohibiting States from putting limits on professional firefighters who want to volunteer during their off-duty hours. This bill addresses concerns that were raised by some of the volunteer firefighters because the protections in the House-passed bill weren't clear enough. The Senate version of this bill will dispel any ambiguity in the House-passed version and make clear that a professional firefighter can, in fact, volunteer to be part of a volunteer force. The Senate drafters of this bill worked with groups representing volunteer firefighters. I note that the National Volunteer Fire Council supports the language in the Senate substitute that protects the volunteer firefighters. I believe this bill is a balanced, constructive measure that will help first responders and improve public safety, without improperly or unduly burdening States. It has won the endorsement of the International Association of Firefighters, and it is particularly appropriate that we are turning to this bill during National Police Week, when so many police officers are also in town. I believe all Americans gained a new appreciation for the service and the sacrifices of our first responders on that terrible day, September 11, 2001. On that day, 343 New York City firefighters and paramedics, 28 New York Police Department officers, and 37 Port Authority officers died doing what they loved. They died trying to rescue others. Such heroism occurs, usually, with far less tragic results in towns and cities across our country every day. The least we can do to repay the sacrifice and service, the selflessness of our first responders is to ensure that all public safety officers have the right to bargain on their pay and safety standards and working conditions. This legislation makes sense. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to put America's public safety workers on an equal footing with their counterparts in other jobs.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I may respond to my good friend--and he is a good friend who knows this issue very well and considers bills very carefully, which I have always admired about the Senator from Wyoming. First, let me say it is clear the House bill does not do a good job in this area. I think the House bill is very ambiguous and doesn't make clear what I described. So I think we are in agreement about the House bill. I will take a second look at the substitute language, as the Senator has suggested. But I know the drafters of the bill, Senators Gregg and Kennedy, worked very closely with the National Council of Volunteer Firefighters, and I doubt they would have signed off on the language--which it is my understanding that they have--if, in fact, it did not protect the volunteer firefighters. Thirdly, my intent is not to impose any sort of obligation on volunteer firefighters. They are, by definition, not employees, so I don't think they come under this bill. In addition, I do wish to make sure anyone who is a professional firefighter, and employed in that profession, is not precluded from also acting as a volunteer firefighter, as so many professional firefighters in Maine and across this country do. I will take another look at the language, but I do know Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy have worked very closely with the Volunteer Firefighters Council, and they believe the substitute language does cure what I think all of us would agree was a problem in the House bill. Again, I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I will take another look at the language.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish today to support the amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid. It embodies a policy change that I have advocated for many months. In January, I wrote to the Secretary of Energy and urged the administration to stop filling the SPR while oil prices are so high. The Reid amendment would suspend acquisition for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, until the end of the year or until the price of a barrel of oil goes below $75. The SPR is an emergency stockpile and an essential safeguard against major disruptions in global oil markets. However, the SPR already contains nearly 700 million barrels of oil, 97 percent of its current storage capacity. This is more than sufficient to meet a crisis. Mr. President, our Nation faces record-high energy prices affecting almost every aspect of daily life. The prices of gasoline, home heating oil, and diesel are creating tremendous hardships for American families, truckers, and small businesses. High energy prices are a major cause of the economic downturn. Last week, crude oil was trading at over $120 per barrel. The administration's decision to fill the SPR when oil prices are so high defies common sense. In 2005, the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and I joined forces on a bipartisan amendment directing the Department of Energy to better manage the Reserve by requiring the Department to avoid purchases when prices are high so as not to drive up prices further by taking oil off the market. I don't believe the Department of Energy is abiding by this law. If it were, the Department would not be making purchases while prices are so high. It simply does not make sense for the Department of Energy to be purchasing oil for the Reserve at a time when oil prices exceed $120 per barrel. The Federal Government is taking oil off the market and thus driving up prices at a time when consumers are struggling to pay their fuel bills. If the administration stopped purchasing oil for the SPR, the Energy Information Administration has estimated that the impact on gas prices would be between 4 and 5 cents a gallon. Other experts believe it is considerably higher. At a hearing before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in December, one energy expert, Philip Verleger, said, ``DOE's actions added between 5 and 20 percent to the price of oil.'' It is a bad deal for taxpayers for the Department of Energy to be purchasing oil when prices are so high. There are other short-term steps we must take to address the energy crisis--for example, regulating energy futures markets and repealing tax breaks for major oil companies--but suspending filling the SPR is a key step that I hope we approve tomorrow. In the long term, our challenge to address energy prices is, of course, to reduce our reliance on imported oil. We need to pursue the goal of energy independence just as fervently as the Nation embraced President Kennedy's goal in 1961 of putting a man on the Moon. Energy independence, stable energy costs, and environmental stewardship are goals that are within our reach. I urge my colleagues to get us started on the effort by supporting this proposal to suspend filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. There are 28 States, including Maine, that already have a renewable electricity standard. We should follow their lead and establish a national renewable electricity standard. I do wish to say, in enacting a standard, we need to make sure the benefits of renewable electricity reach rural areas, and that means building adequate transmission capabilities. I know the new Presiding Officer, the Senator from Vermont, is also very committed to this goal. No. 7, we should invest in cellulosic ethanol and renewable fuels. I want to distinguish between cellulosic ethanol versus corn-based ethanol. We have oversubsidized corn-based ethanol. It is causing tremendous distortions. It is causing shortages in food supplies. It is driving up the cost. I have talked with a baker in Lewiston, ME, who cannot buy rye flour anymore because it has been displaced by farmers switching to grow corn. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the very promising development of cellulosic ethanol which could be made, for example, from switchgrass and from wood chips, waste wood, for example. That is why I am proposing to expand tax credits for cellulosic biomass. At the same time, those fuels have a much smaller life cycle environmental footprint than does corn-based ethanol and traditional fuels. We can do so much in this area. I am proud researchers at the University of Maine have been at the forefront of developing commercially viable technologies to produce ethanol from cellulosic sources. In addition to cellulosic ethanol, my 10-point energy plan calls for the expansion of other sources of clean renewable energy. During the height of the oil crisis in the 1970s, many Maine families turned to wood as an affordable way to heat their homes. With oil prices soaring, wood is once again the fuel of choice for an increasing number of consumers. Unfortunately, many of the wood stoves that were purchased three decades ago are outdated, they are inefficient, they waste fuel, and they contribute to air pollution. The good news is the new style wood stoves emit 70 percent fewer emissions, and they produce as much energy with 30 percent less wood. This is a real breakthrough that allows consumers to get more energy out of their wood stoves and also to reduce the air pollution from wood stoves. In fact, I saw a demonstration where you could not see any emissions at all coming from these new clean-burning wood stoves because there is a second burn of the emissions so they are far more efficient. Unfortunately, making that change from an old dirty, inefficient wood stove to a modern, clean, and safer wood stove or a wood pellet stove is expensive. That is especially difficult for many families today. That is why I have introduced legislation to provide a tax credit so consumers can afford to trade in to these better wood stoves, and I am delighted the authors of the housing bill we recently passed agreed to include, at my behest and at the urging of others, a $300 tax credit for consumers who purchase these new clean-burning wood or pellet stoves. Wood is a renewable resource and its increased use for home heating is inevitable in these times of high oil prices. We now have the technology that makes their use better for the environment and for human health, as well as safer and more affordable. No. 8, we need to promote tidal, geothermal, solar, and wind energy. Other clean renewable energy sources include the tide in our oceans and the moderate temperatures that can be tapped under our land. The U.S. wave and tidal energy resource potential that could reasonably be harnessed is about 10 percent of national energy demands. We have to put all these sources together and look at the broader comprehensive picture. Once again, I am very proud that a consortium of the University of Maine, the Maine Maritime Academy, and industry is poised to become a key test bed for improved tidal energy devices. It still is more costly than traditional electricity production, and that is why we need to provide some tax incentives to spur this kind of alternative development in tidal, geothermal, solar, and wood energy. No. 9, we need to improve vehicle efficiency and alternatives to gasoline. We must provide more efficient transportation options. Last year, we took a giant step forward because Congress enacted, and the President signed into law, a long overdue increase in fuel economy standards for automobiles, SUVs, and light trucks that will save a million barrels of oil a day. That is a great start, but we can do even more. The amount of gasoline used in transportation amounts to 9.2 million barrels of oil a day. That is almost half our national consumption of 20 million barrels of oil each day. Currently, we import about 12 million barrels of oil a day. So if we reduce the consumption of oil products for transportation purposes, it goes a long way toward reducing our reliance on foreign oil and decreasing overall energy prices, or at least stabilizing them for consumers. Flex-fuel vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles can help us meet the challenge of energy independence and lower prices. We should extend the existing tax credits for alternative fuel vehicles and consider providing a tax credit for consumers who modify their existing vehicles to be flex-fuel capable. We need to put more money into research, into plug-in hybrid vehicles, and expand the tax credits in that area as well. Plug-in hybrids hold great promise. If all the new vehicles that are added to the American fleet for the next 10 years were plug-in hybrids, an additional 80 billion gallons of gasoline could be saved each year. That translates into almost 2 billion barrels of oil. It is significant. It cannot happen overnight, but let's put in place the policy that will help us get there. We also must do more to help existing vehicles be more energy efficient. The Energy bill I have introduced would direct the Department of Transportation to create a national tire fuel efficiency program that would include tire testing and labeling, energy-efficient tire promotions through incentives and information, and the creation of minimum fuel economy standards for tires. That makes a difference as well. Heavy-duty vehicles also deserve our attention. They move our economy. The Energy bill I have introduced would help keep them on the move while helping to reduce both fuel consumption and emissions. It would require the Department of Transportation to develop a testing and assessment program to determine what is feasible to improve the efficiency of heavy-duty vehicles and then develop appropriate fuel economy standards. Additionally, we should provide a Federal tax credit for the purchase of idling-reduction technology for heavy vehicles, such as big trucks. That could save a trucker almost $1,600 in fuel costs and $2,000 in maintenance costs each year. It seems almost every week I read or hear or talk with another trucker in Maine who has gone out of business because of the cost of diesel. Think if through these policies we could help those truckers save that kind of money in fuel costs and maintenance each year. It would make the difference for many truckers between staying in business or being forced out of business. Finally, the 10th point of my plan involves public transportation. Public transportation is difficult in a State such as the Presiding Officer's and mine. There are only three cities in Maine that have regular public transportation. But it is important for the overall goal nationally of energy independence that we focus on public transportation for those areas where it is feasible. It is one of the most efficient ways we can get more passenger miles per gallon of gasoline. The energy legislation I have introduced would promote the development of the use of public transportation by subsidizing fares, encouraging employers to assist their employees with fares, as we do in the Senate, where we subsidize the employees who use the subway, and by authorizing funding to build energy-efficient and environmentally friendly modes of transportation, such as clean buses and light rail. The bill would direct the Department of Transportation to designate 20 transit-oriented developmental corridors in urban areas by the year 2015 and 50 by the year 2025. These corridors could be developed with the aid of grants to State and local governments to construct or improve facilities for motorized transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. We have to look at everything. In these times of high energy prices, when American families are struggling with the costs of filling their gas tanks and heating their homes, we must act in the short term to provide them some relief, and we must embrace fervently a national effort to achieve energy independence. This Nation has demonstrated time and time again throughout our history our ability to rise to the challenge. I remember when President Kennedy, in the 1960s, challenged our Nation to be the first to land a man on the Moon and how everyone rallied toward that challenge and we achieved the goal that the President set forth for us. Let's now establish another goal and embrace it as fervently. Let's establish the goal of energy independence by the year 2020. It is vital to our economic, our environmental, and our national security. If we embrace this goal, Mr. President, I am confident we can achieve it. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, our Nation faces record high energy prices, affecting almost every aspect of daily life. The price of gasoline, home heating oil, and diesel is creating tremendous hardships for American families, for truckdrivers, and for small businesses. High energy prices are a major cause of the current economic downturn. It is clear we need a dramatic change in our energy policy to protect ourselves from rapid increases in oil prices, without sacrificing our environment for future generations. We must rally around a national effort to achieve energy independence for our economic, environmental, and national security. I have recommended that we establish a national goal of energy independence by the year 2020. I don't know if we can get all the way to energy independence by that year, but I do know if we do not establish a goal, if we do not strive to achieve energy independence by a date certain, we will never get there. I believe that had our country embraced this goal in the 1970s, when we were reacting to the embargo, we would be nearly at energy independence right now. I am proposing today a 10-point plan to get us started on this important effort. It is a plan that includes both actions that we can take in the short run to help mitigate the impact of high prices, as well as actions to achieve energy independence in the long term. Many causes appear to be responsible for the skyrocketing increase in oil prices: the timing of Government purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; speculative trading on futures markets; increased global demand for crude oil; instability in the Middle East, Mexico, and Venezuela; supply decisions of the OPEC cartel; insufficient U.S. refining capacity; and the declining value of the dollar. We will always use oil for part of our energy needs, but we need to decrease our reliance on foreign oil and be smarter about managing our supplies. It is appropriate that Senator Levin is in the chair as I discuss the first step that I believe we should take right now to help curb the increase in oil prices. The administration's decision to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when oil prices are at all-time highs defies common sense. As the Presiding Officer is well aware, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an emergency stockpile of oil that already contains some 700 million barrels. In 2005, the Presiding Officer, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, and I joined forces on a bipartisan amendment that directed the Department of Energy to better manage the Strategic Petroleum Reserve by requiring the Department to avoid purchases when prices are high. There are two reasons why that should be done. First, the Federal Government should not be removing oil from the marketplace at a time when there is a lot of pressure on supplies, as there is right now. Second, it makes absolutely no sense for the Department of Energy to be buying oil at the height of the market. That is a bad deal for us as taxpayers. Unfortunately, I don't believe the Department of Energy is abiding by the Levin-Collins law. We questioned the Department at a recent hearing before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and there was no indication that the kind of analysis the law requires is being done. So I have called upon the President to stop filling the reserve until prices drop. It simply does not make sense for the administration to be making purchases right now. The Energy Information Administration has estimated that the impact on gas prices of these purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is between 4 and 5 cents a gallon. Other experts believe it is considerably higher than that. At the hearing I mentioned, one energy expert said: DOE's actions added between 5 and 20 percent to the price of oil. The Department of Energy should stop purchasing oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and it should stop immediately. There is simply no compelling homeland security or national security reason for these purchases to be made now. No. 2, we need to extend Federal regulation to the oil futures markets. Excessive speculation on futures markets is likely another factor pushing up oil prices. Unfortunately, there is a lack of publicly available data to track the effect of speculation on prices, and manipulation can go undetected on certain electronic markets that are unregulated. Experts testifying before our Investigations Subcommittee all agreed that greater transparency and better reporting of trades could help prevent abuses such as were documented in the natural gas markets in 2006. One of the experts testified that he believed the current high oil prices are inflated by as much as 100 percent--driven by excessive speculation. Other experts think it is not that high. But shouldn't we know and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees the trading of agricultural commodities on the futures markets and also oversees the regulation of the energy futures markets as well? That would not prevent these markets from performing their important risk-hedging functions, but it would allow regulators to spot and act quickly upon evidence of deliberate attempts to distort prices and excessive speculation. No. 3, we should curtail the tax breaks for major oil industry companies and, instead, redirect those funds to consumers and to alternative energy. With net profits of a single oil company reaching almost $10 billion in a single quarter, we simply should not expect taxpayers who are struggling to pay their energy bills to continue to subsidize the oil industry. Congress should act to repeal the needless tax breaks for big oil companies and instead use those billions of dollars to fund the remaining proposals that will move us toward energy independence. During consideration of this year's budget resolution, the Senator from Michigan and I joined forces again to provide for the rescission of needless tax breaks for major oil companies. Our proposal would redirect the revenue to support renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives. Our amendment was accepted as part of the Senate budget resolution. We need to build on that momentum and quickly take up legislation to enact this proposal once and for all. The fourth step we can take in the short-term: One program with an immediate impact is the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, better known as the LIHEAP program. It is the Federal grant program that provides vital funding to help our low-income and elderly citizens meet their home energy needs. Nationwide, over the last 4 years, the number of households receiving assistance under this program increased by 26 percent, but during that period, Federal funding increased by only 10 percent. So the obvious result is that, at a time of record high prices, the average benefit under the LIHEAP program actually dropped. We need to fully fund this program. I tell my colleagues that while it is a glorious spring here in Washington, Maine and many other States are still struggling with temperatures that drop into the thirties at night. We need to fully fund the LIHEAP program at the authorized level of $5.1 billion. And for the long term, we should also restructure this program to make it more flexible so that States can take a reasonable approach to low-income energy issues and better balance energy bill assistance so we can provide some grants to winterize the homes of those who qualify for low-income heating assistance. No. 5--and now I am getting into the long-term aspects of this plan-- we need to improve energy efficiency. Let me discuss the six steps toward the goal of energy independence. First is to make more efficient use of the energy to heat and power our homes, our offices, and our buildings. I have introduced a comprehensive energy bill that would double funding for the Department of Energy's weatherization program. On average, weatherizing a home reduces heating bills by 31 percent, and overall energy bills by $358 per year. The legislation would also provide predictable funding for the valuable Energy Star Program, which helps consumers buy energy- efficient appliances. It would extend the renewable energy tax credit through 2011 and the residential investment tax credit for solar and energy-efficient buildings through 2012. It also includes an energy efficiency performance standard for utilities that would help them improve their efficiency. According to the Alliance to Save Energy, an energy efficient performance standard for utilities could save consumers $64 billion and avoid the need to build 400 powerplants, preventing 320 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Making buildings, appliances, and utilities more energy efficient would dramatically reduce our use of oil and save money for consumers at the same time. No. 6, we need to implement a renewable electricity standard. Another component in my 10-point energy plan would revamp the way we produce electricity in this country. We need a national renewable electricity standard that would require the utilities to generate at least 15 percent of their electricity from environmentally sound, renewable energy sources by the year 2020. This would move us away from a reliance on coal and natural gas for electricity and diversify our energy supply to provide more price stability. (Mr. Sanders assumed the Chair.)

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Research & Development Tax Credit Improvement Act of 2008, legislation which would extend the R&D tax credit for 5 years, phase-out the Basic Credit, and raise the rate of the Alternative Simplified Credit from 12 percent to 20 percent by 2010. Those who have followed the ongoing discussions regarding the R&D tax credit will recognize that the legislation I am introducing shares the framework of a proposal already put forward by the senior Senator from the State of Utah, my good friend Orrin Hatch. Senator Hatch has done a superb job building a consensus around the need to transition to the Alternative Simplified Credit, and to raise that credit to provide a real incentive to the many companies that are unable to benefit from the Basic Credit structure. I applaud his efforts in this regard, and I thank him for lending his support to the bill I am introducing today. I also want to note the contribution of the distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, who has worked side-by-side with Senator Hatch on the Research and Development tax credit. The chief distinction between our two bills is the duration of the credit. The Hatch-Baucus bill proposes a permanent credit, while my bill would extend the R&D tax credit for five years. I certainly share the goal of providing a permanent R&D tax credit, but I fear that the cost of doing so puts it beyond our reach. Yet we simply cannot continue to play ``stop-and-go'' with this critical research incentive. Since the R&D tax credit was first enacted in 1981, Congress has had to extend it a dozen times, and it expired again at the end of last year. The constant uncertainty about the status of the credit has made it impossible for companies to plan their research investments, and has seriously diminished the credit's role as an incentive for research and development here in the U.S. A 5-year extension would give companies enough time to plan their research investments with the credit in mind, restoring the incentive- effect the R&D credit has always been intended to provide. Just as important, the time frame I am proposing, coupled with the increase in the rate to 20 percent will allow for a smooth transition away from the Basic Credit to the Alternative Simplified Credit. The Basic Credit has served its purpose, but it has become hopelessly outmoded. Under the Basic Credit methodology, companies wishing to calculate their R&D credit must measure their current investments against a base that is stuck in the past--literally the tax years between 1984 and 1988. This period is simply not relevant to today's investment decisions, and because of that, fewer and fewer companies get any benefit at all from the Basic Credit. By contrast, the Alternative Simplified Credit methodology allows companies to calculate their credit using a rolling average of their domestic investments over their three most-recent tax years. The value of doing this is evidenced by the fact that most companies have already switched to the Alternative Simplified Credit, even though it has been on the books for less than a year-and-a-half, and even though the credit rate is only 12 percent compared to the Basic Credit rate of 20 percent. The five-year extension I am proposing will allow for a smooth transition to the Alternative Simplified Credit, and will bring the R&D tax credit up-to-date. Companies which still rely on the Basic Credit will be allowed to continue that credit for another two years, just as is contemplated by the legislation that Senators Hatch and Baucus have worked so hard on. Investment in research and development is critical to the breakthroughs we need to keep our economy competitive, and to create the good, high-paying jobs the American people deserve. The R&D tax credit provides an important incentive for this investment, but it needs to be updated so more companies can benefit from it. While making the credit permanent is a worthwhile goal, the 5-year extension I am proposing today is ``do-able'', and I urge my colleagues to support it.