Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, throughout the past few months, I have had the opportunity to talk to literally thousands of Mainers, and the No. 1 issue that has been on their mind is the financial crisis, the poor state of the economy. Public confidence in our Nation's financial system has been shaken badly by the extent, the scope, and the rapidity of the financial meltdown. As a former financial regulator in the State of Maine, a position I held for 5 years, I have become convinced that significant regulatory reforms are required to restore public confidence and to ensure that the absence of regulation does not allow a crisis like the one we are engulfed in now to happen ever again. Therefore, today I will introduce a bill that would close two dangerous gaps in the Government's system for overseeing financial markets. The bill would also establish a formal process for developing additional, comprehensive reforms of our financial regulatory system. Our economy has struggled with a credit crisis spawned by mortgage defaults in the subprime mortgage market and their ripple effects throughout markets for mortgage-backed securities. Complex financial instruments that were poorly understood, not transparent, and, in many cases, not regulated have exacerbated the crisis. What was once thought of as America's mortgage crisis has metastasized into a nightmare of converging forces that could lead to a deep and global recession. As we have so painfully learned, financial markets are truly global, and the hopes and fears that affect these markets move with the speed of light through electronic communications and electronic trading. The consequences in our country have been dire: falling home prices, rising foreclosure rates, plunging consumer sales, increased unemployment, a tremendous erosion of retirement savings, and billions of dollars for emergency stabilization programs. We are even looking at a Federal deficit that could reach the extraordinary figure of $1 trillion. The Maine lobster industry, the paradigm of hardy, small town entrepreneurship, has also felt the blows of the crisis in high finance and a terrible economy. It is not only that consumers have reacted by reducing their purchases of lobsters--although that is one factor--it is also that the lobster industry is an innocent victim of the global financial crisis. It is extraordinary that the global financial crisis is putting the very existence of Maine's centuries-old lobster industry in jeopardy. Here is what happened. In addition to plunging demand, many lobstermen in Maine send their lobsters to Canadian processors. Well, it turns out that those Canadian processors are, in turn, financed largely by financial institutions in Iceland--in Iceland. When the Iceland financial system collapsed, credit was terminated to the Canadian processors, which, in turn, stopped processing Maine lobster. Who would have guessed that the failures of banks in Iceland would claim as victims the lobstermen in the State of Maine? But that shows how integrated our financial system is worldwide. A lobster dealer in my State said: This is as devastating to the State of Maine as Hurricane Katrina washing away all the boats and blowing down all the wharves. Nor is the fallout from the financial crisis confined to our shores. This past weekend, leaders of the G-20 nations who represent 85 percent of the world's economic activity met in Washington to address this crisis. Clearly, we need a coordinated global response to the downturn, but we also must take action to right our own ship. As we close out the 110th Congress and prepare to reconvene for the 111th, we must consider how to protect our financial system from the shortfalls in regulation, reporting, and transparency that helped lay the groundwork for a sudden and traumatic onslaught of bad economic news. Consider that less than a year ago, the American financial system boasted five huge investment bank holding companies: Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley. Today, those institutions no longer exist as we had long known them. They have failed or are being acquired or, as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley demonstrate, have converted themselves to bank holding companies subject to Federal Reserve supervision. What is astonishing, however, is that current Federal law assigns no agency responsibility for supervising these enormous institutions, even though experience has shown their safety and soundness could have vast implications for the financial system and the broader economy. Think about that. Your local credit union, your small community bank is subject to safety and soundness regulations, but these enormous Wall Street financial institutions that arguably have a far greater impact on our economy have not been subject to safety and soundness regulations. Instead, they participated in a completely voluntary program of the Securities and Exchange Commission--a program that was later deemed as inadequate by the SEC Chairman as he canceled it this fall. My legislation would apply safety and soundness regulation to investment bank holding companies by assigning the Federal Reserve this responsibility. Although the five big firms have left the field, this is a necessary step. Any new investment bank holding company that might be organized would fall into the same regulatory void as its predecessors. The SEC would be able to regulate its broker-dealer operations, but no Federal agency would have the explicit authority to examine its operations for safety and soundness or for systemic risk. The collapses at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers illustrate the tremendous hardship that can result under the recent voluntary system. Federal financial officials have also pointed to a ``massive hole'' in their ability to monitor and manage systemic risk. That is the rapidly expanded markets in private, over-the-counter contracts known as ``credit default swaps.'' These are contracts that involve paying for protection against default, loss of value, or another credit event that might affect a financial asset such as a government or corporate bond or a mortgage- backed security. As government officials and financial experts have pointed out, there is nothing perhaps inherently wrong with such contracts. The problem, however, is that credit default swaps are not traded on regulated exchanges, are not officially reported to our Nation's financial regulators, and are not even subject to recordkeeping requirements. Some are visible to bank examiners who may take them into account when considering a bank's risk exposure and others are summarized in voluntary publications, but that is only a partial glimpse into a market whose total national value has been estimated as high as $60 trillion. As the cases of Lehman Brothers and AIG insurance holding company showed this year, serious problems can arise when a major credit event suddenly reveals that massive claims for collateral posting or payment are converging on credit default swap parties who cannot meet their obligations. But under the current system, it is often impossible for regulators and even market participants to know in advance how all the tangled webs of contract commitments overlap and affect any particular party. This leaves regulators unable to take action against excessive debt, inadequate reserves, or other threats. For example, Bear Stearns had a financial leverage ratio of 35 to 1. In other words, the firm borrowed $35 for every dollar of its own money. That level of debt financing can generate fabulous profits for shareholders and mind-boggling bonuses for top executives when investments flourish but can whipsaw disastrously if they drop in value. If your equity capital is $1 and you borrow $35 more to buy an asset worth $36 and the value of that asset declines by only $2, to $34, you are insolvent. Although credit default swaps are contracts rather than asset purchases, they can also overwhelm sellers and leave buyers unable to get payment for the protection they thought they had secured. Excessive leverage and excessive risk exposure can combine to ruin even giants such as Lehman Brothers and AIG. The fallout from such collapses extends far beyond the firms' investors, employers, and business partners--and this is the important point. It would be one thing if the bad decisions made by Wall Street firms only affected those firms, but that is not the case, as we have learned all too well. People in Maine and other Main Street Americans have felt shock and despair in reviewing the statements for their 401(k) accounts. For these people, the fact of their loss is far more important than its cause. But for us who are assigned the role of policymakers, understanding the cause of the problem is critical if we are to prevent its recurrence. We now know that a fundamental source of trouble was the lack of effective oversight, of regulation for safety and soundness for the highly leveraged investment bank holding companies. And we know that the second problem is the lack of transparency and coordination in the enormous market for credit default swaps. My bill would address the second problem in two ways. First, it sets a reporting requirement. For any U.S. entity that buys or sells a credit default swap contract, it must report that fact to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This simple step will go a long way to increasing the transparency and allowing us to identify potential risks. Second, my bill would add the force of law to the clearinghouse initiative being jointly pursued by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the SEC, and the CFTC. The clearinghouse, however, should be codified. We can't rely on a voluntary arrangement. The SEC's top risk-management official recommends such a statutory mandate to ensure participation, and that is what my bill would do. As two NYU finance professors wrote in a recent essay for Forbes: It is time to ``lift the veil'' from these derivatives with more reporting and with centralized clearing operations. Correcting those gaps are important steps toward preventing repetition of the painful financial collapses we have seen. But we must also look in the long term at comprehensive financial reform. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act that was signed into law last month calls for two reports to advance that goal. One is due in January and one in April. Those will be useful, but I believe our deliberations would benefit from having the advice not only of a small panel on a short deadline and of the new administration but also from a special commission modeled on the one created to examine the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Fortunately, a plan for such a commission exists. It has been developed by my colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Senator Cantwell, and that has been incorporated into my bill as well. I believe this issue of restoring confidence to our financial markets through a strong and effective regulatory reform bill is so critical to our Nation--critical for promoting growth and job creation, for protecting retirement savings and public services, for restoring credit to households and small businesses, and for promoting transparency and accountability in financial markets--that we should focus on it in a special session in December. But regardless of the decisions made by our leadership on that issue, I hope the introduction of the Financial Regulation Reform Act of 2008 will prompt a much-needed debate on the fundamental changes needed to modernize and strengthen our system for monitoring and regulating the immensely complicated financial markets that supply the lifeblood for growth for our country. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the energy tax provisions of Senator Dodd's amendment to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. These provisions were included in the tax extenders, H.R. 6049, passed by the Senate last week. I strongly support these provisions, and I am pleased that they are included in the financial rescue plan we are voting on today. The United States needs a balanced, comprehensive national energy policy that addresses our immediate problems and future needs without compromising the health of the environment. In fact, I believe we must embark on a national effort to achieve energy independence by 2020. This effort will require a stronger commitment to renewable energy sources and energy efficiency and conservation. Some of the best ideas about what we need to do now and over the next 5 years to address our Nation's energy crisis are coming from people in my State of Maine. A professor at the University of Maine has a plan for clean, renewable offshore wind power to supply as much as 40 percent of the Nation's energy. Offshore wind production that is out of sight from land could provide an affordable source of renewable energy directly to population centers on each coast while supplying thousands of new jobs. In addition, it would expand Maine's electricity supply so that people could transition away from using oil. Maine is also well positioned to take a leading role in the development of this tidal power. The U.S. wave and tidal energy resource potential that reasonably could be harnessed is about 10 percent of national energy demand. In Maine, a consortium of the University of Maine, Maine Maritime Academy, and industry is poised to become a key test bed site for tidal energy devices. Maine also has a large supply of wood that could be used as an energy source. These stoves dramatically reduce both indoor and outdoor air pollution, use up to 50 percent less wood for the same amount of heat and utilize one of Maine's renewable resources. I am pleased that the energy tax bill includes a provision I authored to provide a $300 tax credit for replacing an old, inefficient wood stove with a cleanburning wood or wood pellet stove. This credit will be an important tool to help people in my home State and throughout the Nation find affordable ways to heat their homes this winter. This legislation provides a credit for home heating systems which have thermal efficiencies greater than 75 percent and which use renewable, biomass fuels. Efficient, clean-burning biomass equipment currently is available that can achieve this thermal efficiency, and I believe that equipment should and would be eligible for tax incentives in this amendment. Mr. President, again I am pleased that we are discussing renewable energy and energy efficiency tax credits today. I look forward to seeing these credits signed into law soon.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the bipartisan legislation we will vote on tonight, that will help to stabilize our financial markets, to prevent catastrophic consequences for our entire economy. Nobody is happy with the crisis we face, with the urgent pressure to take decisive action or with the very limited policy options available to us at this point. I share the anger of many of my constituents over this crisis, and I subscribe to the principles many of them invoke. As the Senator has pointed out, the initial proposal the Treasury Secretary presented to us was deeply flawed. That is why I pushed for strong taxpayer protections to be included in the plan. That is why I insisted that any plan include limitations on excessive compensation and golden parachutes for executives of the Wall Street firms that helped create the current crisis and that now seek Federal assistance. Those controls and safeguards are part of the bipartisan package now before the Senate. That is why I advocated for strong oversight and accountability provisions rather than a blank check for the Secretary of the Treasury. Those oversight and accountability protections, too, have been included in this package. I supported the proposal for a special inspector general to review the way this program will operate. But the fact is, unfortunately, we have to face the reality that the collapse of the housing bubble and the mortgages, the subprime mortgages and the exotic securities that floated along with them, do not just affect the executive suites on Wall Street. In fact, the ramifications cascade throughout our economy, affecting the credit lines needed by small businesses to meet their payroll, the young couple seeking to buy their first home, the automobile dealer trying to finance his inventory, the 55-year-old worker whose 401(k) plan lost a great deal of its value, and even our States and counties. The State of Maine found itself unable to finance a routine $50 million transportation bond last week. How did we get here? Well, the culprits are many. They include the greedy Wall Street traders whose culture rewards risk taking and focuses on short-term problems. They include unscrupulous mortgage brokers who pushed people into mortgages that were totally unsuitable for them. They include the naive or the deceptive borrower who simply did not understand or misrepresented their ability to pay once their mortgage rate reset. They include, at the heart of this scandal, the Government-backed mortgage finance companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that took on huge amounts of risk with paltry levels of capital. Sixteen years ago, some Members of Congress warned of the potential systemic risks Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac presented. Officials in both the Clinton and Bush administrations issued warnings and proposed reforms. In 2005, legislation that would have made a difference was actually considered by the Senate Banking Committee and proposed by Republican members of that committee. The full House considered a bill that would have helped, although, unfortunately, it rejected some strengthening amendments. Unfortunately, these reforms did not get enacted until this July, when the sheer pressure of the mortgage crisis finally forced Congress to act. This is a huge crisis. There are some $1 trillion worth of subprime mortgages in the country. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae hold or guarantee more than 40 percent of America's mortgages and lately have been buying more than 80 percent of new mortgages because the private sector for the mortgage finance market has virtually disappeared. As a former Maine financial securities and banking and insurance regulator, I understand this is a very complex problem. Its roots lie in the past decade of the real estate bubble, the relaxed lending standards, the existence of this huge and exploding subprime mortgage market, the creation of complicated securities tied to mortgages that were not held by the originators of those mortgages, and then the sale of those securities when their risks were poorly disclosed, not well understood, and lightly regulated, if at all. The subprime mortgages were bundled together into mortgage-backed securities that were, in turn, linked to complicated financial instruments that in some cases were not regulated at all. An example are the swaps we have heard discussed. The swaps are not securities so that, as such, they were not regulated by the SEC. While they perform a function very similar to an insurance policy, they are not insurance in the traditional sense, so they escaped regulation by State insurance regulators. The lack of regulation set the stage for deep losses for countless investors and other entities that had entered into the swap contracts. But frustrated and angry though we are, the focus of our attention must be on averting the worsening storm of financial distress, and we must have the much-improved bipartisan package to halt its spread and to mitigate its damage. We have all seen the big headline events, the bank failures, the Government takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the failures of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, the forced sales of Merrill-Lynch and Wachovia. These are the big headline events, and they may seem detached from people's daily lives, but they are not. Millions of Americans are being reminded that the cost and supply of new mortgages, the value of our homes, the availability of student loans, the interest rates on our credit cards, the short-term loans for business payrolls and supplies, the value of our retirement savings, are all tightly connected to the global web of credit and finance. Economists of every ideological leaning agree we face a catastrophic crisis if we do not act. Monday's sudden drop in the stock market, the disappearance of interbank lending, the flight from money market funds, all stand as indicators of trouble and signs of panic. As the economists noted a few days ago: The potential costs of producing nothing, or too little too slowly, include a financial crisis and a deep recession spilling across the world. Time is short, and I am not referring to the time until adjournment. We must act because the crisis will grow worse with delay and because the Treasury does not have unlimited authority or resources to continue case-by-case rescues. The current compromise agreement includes principles for which I have pushed, including strong protections for taxpayers so it is very unlikely that taxpayers will be on the hook for $700 billion. In fact, there is a chance, with proper management of this program, that in some cases the taxpayers could actually make a profit. The bill now includes strong protections, curbs on excessive executive compensation, including golden parachutes, and tough oversight and accountability. We must act now. None of us wants to see the further devastating consequences for our economy. It also benefits from the addition of two new features. The first is temporarily raising the deposit-insurance protection for bank and credit-union customers from the current $100,000 per account per institution to $250,000. This is important to reassure consumers about the safety of the banking system in a time of turmoil, and to provide added protection for people who feel obliged to move assets to safe havens. The second added feature is making the tax-extenders package that was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate in September a part of this stabilization package. Providing additional tax relief for individuals and small businesses in a time of stress and rising prices is in itself a step toward economic stability. I am pleased to note that the tax provisions include energy-related measures such as new language on application of the wood-stove credit. We are not only providing general tax relief, but also targeted measures that will encourage more use of renewable resources and reduce our dependence on imported oil, whose increased cost aggravates the other injuries from which our economy suffers. This bipartisan financial-stabilization package, endorsed by our congressional leadership and by both Presidential candidates, does not eliminate the need to keep reasonable questions in mind. While exchanging Treasury funds for currently depressed or unmarketable mortgage-related assets would obviously be a powerful tool for freeing the channels of credit and investment, many questions remain about how the Government would ensure that mortgages and mortgage-backed securities are carefully appraised so that taxpayers do not overpay or, worse yet, stand liable for debts used to purchase currently unmarketable assets; that the purchased assets are carefully managed; and that taxpayers are adequately protected through such devices as warrants or contingent equity interests in return for their financial exposure. The bill before us now includes a provision that addresses those concerns in a comprehensive fashion. It directs the President, 5 years after the Troubled Asset Relief Program takes effect, to evaluate the ultimate cost, if any, to taxpayers, and to propose a program for recovering any shortfall from the financial industry. Considering that taxpayers may actually make money on the resale of troubled assets purchased by the Treasury, this added level of protection seems to insulate them from risk of losses. The current upheaval in the financial markets certainly has created great strain on the lives of families throughout the country as well as our financial markets. And it threatens a terrible recession here and around the world. The bill before us is not perfect, but it reflects a consensus on the shape of an effective intervention, and it provides robust provisions for accountability and taxpayer protection. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this carefully crafted and urgently needed measure, and in my call for a thorough review of our financial regulatory system so that the current crisis does not occur again.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. And I thank the Senator from New Jersey. Senator John Warner Mr. President, throughout our Nation's history, the Commonwealth of Virginia has provided leaders of uncommon courage, dedication, and vision. The names that are revered in the Old Dominion are honored across America: Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Mason, and Henry, to name but a few. Today, as the 110th Congress draws to a close, we say farewell to another great Virginian, a great patriot, public servant, and distinguished colleague whose name history will add to that honor roll: the name of our friend and colleague, Senator John Warner. Senator Warner's career mirrors those of the Founding Fathers in many ways. During World War II, when freedom was under attack, he enlisted in the U.S. Navy at just 17 years of age. Following the war, he rejoined civilian life, earned a college degree, and entered law school. At the outbreak of the Korean war, he suspended his studies to serve his Nation once again, this time as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps. After he returned from Korea, he completed his law degree but remained an officer in the Reserves, always ready to answer the call of his Nation. Senator John Warner truly exemplifies the American tradition of the citizen soldier. As a civilian, John Warner continued to serve: as an assistant U.S. attorney, as Under Secretary of the Navy, and as Secretary of the Navy. During his 5 years in the Navy's Secretariat, he demonstrated another American tradition: a commitment to both military strength and diplomacy. It is fitting that one so steeped in the best of America's traditions was chosen by the President, in 1976, to coordinate our Nation's bicentennial celebrations in all 50 States and in 22 foreign countries. It was in 1978 that the wise citizens of Virginia sent John Warner to the U.S. Senate. For 30 years, the people of America have been grateful. The hallmark of Senator Warner's service in the Senate has been his absolute and unwavering commitment to a strong national defense. It has been my honor to serve with him on two committees that bear directly upon that commitment--the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Homeland Security Committee. As the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner has consistently upheld the pledge he took to defend America when he enlisted in the Navy 63 years ago. His support for our men and women in uniform, for their families, and for our veterans is unwavering. He has been an effective and strong advocate for modernizing our military to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Senator Warner also understands that America's future does not just depend upon defending our Nation against attack. I am proud to have worked with him on climate change legislation, and his leadership on the America's Climate Security Act with our friend, Senator Joe Lieberman, demonstrates his commitment to protecting our environment and to securing our energy future. Senator Warner's career has been defined by his involvement in some of the most pressing issues of our time. But he has also worked hard on those seemingly smaller issues that make a big difference in people's lives. As just one example, he joined me in authoring the tax deduction for teachers who spend their own money on classroom supplies. Whether in uniform or in our classrooms, John Warner believes those who serve have earned our gratitude and our support. Also, we remember John Warner's pivotal role at a time when our institution of the Senate was at a threshold of chaos and dysfunction. I refer to his leadership in the so-called Gang of 14, which worked out a compromise on judicial nominations that helped save this institution from what would have otherwise been a very bleak time. Senator Warner has continued and enhanced the best traditions of this Nation and of the Commonwealth of Virginia in countless ways. One that must be mentioned, before I conclude my remarks, is his unfailing civility and courtesy toward his Senate colleagues. Regardless of the significance of the issue or the intensity of the debate or the strength of his colleagues' feelings, Senator Warner has always tempered staunch advocacy for his convictions with the utmost respect for the convictions of others. On a personal note, he has been a wonderful friend and mentor to me, the Senator from Maine. I know all Americans join me today in thanking Senator John Warner for his dedicated decades of service to his country, whether in times of peace or war, and in wishing him all the best in the years to come. Thank you, Mr. President.

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

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

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

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, along with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein. This bill will accelerate research of plug-in hybrid technologies for heavy duty trucks. The Department of Energy, DOE, administers several grants to speed production of hybrid cars, but DOE does not have a single grant specifically intended for trucks. Truck operators in Maine and around the country are being hit hard by high diesel prices. In 1999, a Maine truck driver could purchase $500 of diesel fuel and drive from Augusta, ME, all the way to Albuquerque, NM. Today, a driver who purchases $500 of diesel and leaves Augusta would not even make it to Altoona, PA, and because diesel prices may well continue to increase, the problem is only getting worse. Plug-in hybrid trucks would make them less susceptible to dramatic swings in oil prices. Industries turn their trucks over faster than consumers do their cars and can therefore adopt new technologies faster. This means reducing oil consumption by heavy duty trucks could go a long way toward reduce our Nation's oil consumption. DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that hybrid trucks could reduce fuel use by as much as 60 percent. Current hybrid technology works well for cars because they can be made with lightweight materials and run shorter distances. Trucks need to be able to carry heavy loads and, if they are going to be plug-in hybrids, travel long distances in between charges. So, the battery and other technologies needed to make plug-in trucks a reality are more advanced than for cars. The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act would direct DOE to expand its research in advanced energy storage technologies to include heavy hybrid trucks as well as passenger vehicles. The focus on plug-ins builds on a proven technology for cars that can drastically reduce our use of foreign oil and enhance the efficiency of the electric grid. Grant recipients will be required to complete two phases. In phase one, recipients must build one plug-in hybrid truck, collect data and make comparisons to traditional trucks, and report on the fuel savings. In phase two, recipients must produce 50 plug-in hybrid trucks and report on the technological and market obstacles to widespread production. To help with this second phase, grant applicants can partner with other manufacturers. The bill authorizes $16 million for each of fiscal years 2009-2011 for the grant program. We need a comprehensive approach to addressing the energy crisis. The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act is one vital piece of that approach. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, along with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein. This bill will accelerate research of plug-in hybrid technologies for heavy duty trucks. The Department of Energy, DOE, administers several grants to speed production of hybrid cars, but DOE does not have a single grant specifically intended for trucks. Truck operators in Maine and around the country are being hit hard by high diesel prices. In 1999, a Maine truck driver could purchase $500 of diesel fuel and drive from Augusta, ME, all the way to Albuquerque, NM. Today, a driver who purchases $500 of diesel and leaves Augusta would not even make it to Altoona, PA, and because diesel prices may well continue to increase, the problem is only getting worse. Plug-in hybrid trucks would make them less susceptible to dramatic swings in oil prices. Industries turn their trucks over faster than consumers do their cars and can therefore adopt new technologies faster. This means reducing oil consumption by heavy duty trucks could go a long way toward reduce our Nation's oil consumption. DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that hybrid trucks could reduce fuel use by as much as 60 percent. Current hybrid technology works well for cars because they can be made with lightweight materials and run shorter distances. Trucks need to be able to carry heavy loads and, if they are going to be plug-in hybrids, travel long distances in between charges. So, the battery and other technologies needed to make plug-in trucks a reality are more advanced than for cars. The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act would direct DOE to expand its research in advanced energy storage technologies to include heavy hybrid trucks as well as passenger vehicles. The focus on plug-ins builds on a proven technology for cars that can drastically reduce our use of foreign oil and enhance the efficiency of the electric grid. Grant recipients will be required to complete two phases. In phase one, recipients must build one plug-in hybrid truck, collect data and make comparisons to traditional trucks, and report on the fuel savings. In phase two, recipients must produce 50 plug-in hybrid trucks and report on the technological and market obstacles to widespread production. To help with this second phase, grant applicants can partner with other manufacturers. The bill authorizes $16 million for each of fiscal years 2009-2011 for the grant program. We need a comprehensive approach to addressing the energy crisis. The Heavy Duty Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act is one vital piece of that approach. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I recognize a landmark event at one of our Nation's great success stories in higher education. On October 11, 2008, Husson College in my home State of Maine will become Husson University. This designation is but the latest chapter in a history that is truly inspiring. It began more than a century ago, in 1898, when Chesley Husson founded the Shaw School of Business on the second floor of a building in downtown Bangor, offering instruction in such cutting-edge technologies of the day as typing and telegraphy. From the very start, Husson has remained a private school with an entrepreneurial approach and a commitment to educating young people of limited means. Since then, Husson has grown tremendously, both in the size of its beautiful campus and in the range of the courses and degrees offered. It has grown because, through all those years, Husson has remained true to its founding principles of responding to needs, recognizing opportunities, and delivering real value. Today, Husson offers a university-caliber range of both undergraduate and graduate degrees, including graduate professional degrees in business, health and education. It is home to the New England School of Communications, which offers audio, video, Web and computer programs, marketing, theater, and both print and broadcast journalism, and to the Bangor Theological Seminary, the only accredited graduate school of religion in Northern New England. In addition to its main campus in Bangor, Husson has developed a statewide reach with education centers in South Portland and Presque Isle, the Boat School in Eastport, and Unobskey College in Calais. The Husson story is, however, about more than growth in enrollment, degree offerings, and campus locations. It also is a story of fostering personal growth, of preparing graduates for successful professional careers, and of promoting in each student the development of individual self-worth. Before coming to the Senate, I had the honor of serving as the founding director of the Dyke Center for Family Business. I have never known a school, a faculty, or a student body more focused on preparing for a professional career than at Husson. Husson truly is remarkable in its dedication to this aspiration and its clear sense of purpose. I saw in Husson students an emerging sense of personal pride, a sense of self-worth grounded in knowledge and confidence. This wonderful combination of hands-on learning, personal attention from the faculty, friendships that develop with other students, and self-discovery is the Husson spirit. As I travel throughout Maine and across the Nation I find Husson alumni from every walk of life who possess that invaluable sense of self-worth. Husson is more than a pretty campus in a small city that shines, as Thoreau put it, ``like a star on the edge of night.'' Husson is a network. It is a network that includes teachers, architects, bankers, nurses and therapists, counselors, criminal justice administrators, hospital CEOs and doctors, corporate executives and entrepreneurs, heads of architectural firms, senior law partners and entrepreneurs. It is a network that reaches across the State of Maine and around the world. If there is one thing today's college students do not need to be told, it is that the world is changing every day. A big part of the Husson spirit is anticipating change. Among Husson alumni there are business graduates who have become architects and attorneys, nurses who are hospital CEOs, and teachers who have become ministers. A Husson degree is more than proof that a student can do one thing well. By developing the skills to perfect one profession, Husson graduates learn the discipline, leadership skills, and problem-solving capabilities to change with the times. The Husson spirit is not just about being part of change, but of leading it. The change I recognize today is evidence of that spirit. I congratulate Husson College as it becomes Husson University. The Husson story is remarkable, but I know that the most remarkable chapters have yet to be written.

Ms. COLLINS

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

Ms. COLLINS. Ten minutes.

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

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, this legislation will provide essential training, equipment, and support to our troops as they engage in combat overseas and in exercises at home. It also offers an important opportunity for continued debate as to our Nation's strategy in Iraq, especially the cost of reconstruction in Iraq. I am particularly pleased the legislation we are now debating contains an amendment that Senators Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, and I offered to alleviate the burden on the American taxpayers of our operations in Iraq. It is time for the Iraqis to pay more of the costs of securing, rebuilding, and stabilizing their own country. During the Armed Services Committee markup, I joined Senators Nelson and Bayh in authoring the provisions that are in this bill which shift to the Iraqi Government the costs of securing and rebuilding Iraq in order to lift that burden from the shoulders of the American taxpayers. While our country is struggling with a soaring deficit, the Iraqi Government is awash in oil revenues. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has estimated that Iraq's oil profits will reach $70 billion this year. That is far more than the Government of Iraq anticipated when it established its budget of $47 billion. Similarly, on August 5, the Government Accountability Office issued a report that provided an in-depth examination of Iraqi revenues, expenditures, and surpluses. This GAO report underscores the need for our amendment requiring the Iraqi Government to assume greater responsibility for its own costs. The report verifies the stronger financial position of the Iraqis due to the unanticipated windfall brought about by record-high oil revenues. According to the GAO, Iraq is likely to receive between $67 billion and $79 billion in revenues from oil sales in 2008 alone--twice the average of revenues between 2005 and 2007. Yet the Iraqis still have not adequately invested in reconstruction efforts in their own country. In fact, they have spent just 28 percent of the $12 billion investment budget. In addition, the Iraqis had approximately $29 billion in surplus funds that actually went unused during the past 2 years. When Americans are struggling with the high cost of energy, a weakening economy, and a burdensome deficit, there is simply no reason for the American taxpayers to continue paying for the major reconstruction projects, for the salaries, training, and equipping of the Iraqi security forces, or the cost of fuel in a country that has the second largest oil reserves and a burgeoning budget surplus. Our bipartisan amendment would shift these costs to the Iraqis. Specifically, our amendment prohibits America's tax dollars from being spent on major reconstruction projects in Iraq. It requires the Iraqis to assume the responsibility of paying for the salaries, training, and equipping of Iraq's security forces, including the army, the police, and the Sons of Iraq; it initiates negotiations between our Government and the Iraqi Government on a plan to cover other expenses, such as the fuel used by American forces when they are in-country. Our proposal was approved unanimously by the Senate Armed Services Committee, and it represents a significant bipartisan change in our policy in Iraq. The fact is, the American taxpayers cannot wait for the administration to act. We must require this significant reform by changing the law. Asking the Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security and for the reconstruction of their own country will give them a sense of ownership, and it makes common sense given Iraq's growing budget surplus. That is the purpose of our provision, and I urge my colleagues to support the proposal that we have incorporated into the Defense authorization bill. The legislation before us also includes a strong commitment to strengthening Navy shipbuilding by including more than $14 billion for shipbuilding programs. It fully supports the Navy's shipbuilding priorities. The declining size of our naval fleet is of great concern to me. This legislation is an important step toward reversing that troubling decline. The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Roughead, has put forth a plan for a 313-ship Navy. It would address longstanding congressional concerns that naval shipbuilding has been inadequately funded. The instability and inadequacy of previous naval shipbuilding budgets has had a number of troubling effects on our shipbuilding industrial base and has contributed to significant cost growth in the Navy's shipbuilding programs. The 313-ship plan, combined with more robust funding by Congress, will begin to reverse the decline in Navy shipbuilding. This bill authorizes funding for construction of a third Zumwalt class destroyer. The DDG-1000 represents a significant advancement in Navy surface combatant technology. It is critical that the construction of the first two DDG-1000 destroyers continue on schedule without further delay. It is equally important that Congress provide full funding for the third ship. The dedicated and highly skilled workers at our Nation's surface combatant shipyards, such as the Bath Iron Works in my great State of Maine, are simply too valuable to jeopardize with any cuts or delays in this program. To date, the Navy has spent more than $11 billion on research, development, detailed design, and advanced procurement for this program. In addition, industry, including not just our shipyards but also a multitude of vendors in over 48 States, has made significant investments in preparation for building this new class of ship. It is critically important in these tight budget times that we not throw away the investment our country has made as the Navy prepares to build the destroyer for the 21st century. That is why I am so concerned that the House version of the Defense authorization bill eliminates funding for the construction of a third ship, and even more troubling, does not provide sufficient funding for the construction of any surface combatant. Mr. President, as the threats from around the world continue to grow, it is vitally important that the Navy have the best fleet available to counter those threats, keep the sealanes open, and to defend our Nation. Bath Iron Works and the shipyards of this country are ready to build whatever ships the Navy needs. But it is vitally important that there not be a gap in shipbuilding that jeopardizes our industrial base. I am pleased with the funding provided in this bill. I look forward to resolving this important issue in conference. Earlier this year, the Navy proposed to truncate the DDG-1000 program after just two ships. In July, after further evaluation, the Navy realized the terrible effect that such a decision would have on the industrial base and on our shipyards, in particular. It would have created a gap in work for Bath Iron Works because of the delays and costs inherent in restarting the DDG-51 line. It is important to note that Bath Iron Works is prepared to build whatever ships the Navy needs, but that there must be a stable work plan to sustain the industrial base. The best way to achieve that goal, and to take advantage of the billions of dollars already invested in the DDG-1000, is to proceed with the third ship at this time even if the Navy ultimately decides to build more DDG-51s. The House version of this bill would also require that the next- generation class of amphibious ships be powered by nuclear propulsion systems, even though the shipyard that currently builds those ships does not have either the facilities or certifications required to construct nuclear-powered ships. This provision could dramatically increase the costs of future amphibious force vessels, with some estimates stating it could be as much as $800 million more per ship. This would reduce the overall number of ships that could be built at a time when the Navy is seeking to revitalize and modernize its fleet. It is completely contradictory to the Chief of Naval Operations 313-ship plan. I am pleased that our Senate bill also includes funding for additional littoral combat ships. While this program has suffered a number of setbacks, the Navy, with the help of Congress, has taken significant steps in order to begin to get this program under control. These ships are important for the Navy in order to counter new, asymmetric threats, and the Navy needs to get these ships to the fleet soon. I am pleased that the Senate Armed Services Committee also agreed to my request for $25 million in additional funding to continue the modernization program for the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers. This program provides significant savings to the Navy by applying some of the technology that is being developed for the DDG-1000 destroyer and back fitting the DDG-51, which may reduce the crew size by 30 to 40 sailors. The Senate's fiscal 2009 Defense authorization bill also includes funding for other defense-related projects that benefit Maine and our national security. The bill also authorizes $20.6 million for construction of a new drydock support facility at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME. This drydock, and its accompanying support facility, are essential for the shipyard's future work on Virginia-class submarines, the Navy's newest attack submarine. Funding is provided for machine guns and grenade launchers, both of which are manufactured by the highly skilled workers at Saco Defense in Saco, ME. In addition, the legislation provides $1.5 million to the University of Maine for the continued research and development of modular ballistic tent insert panels. These panels provide crucial protection to servicemembers in temporary dining and housing facilities in mobile forward operating bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill also authorizes an additional $1.5 million for the University of Maine's work on high temperature sensors that is important to the Air Force. These sensors are capable of sensing physical properties such as temperature, pressure, corrosion and vibration in critical aerospace components. The legislation also provides $3.5 million for further development of the ripsaw ground vehicle, an innovative unmanned tank-like vehicle, manufactured by Howe and Howe Technologies in North Berwick, ME. This technology will have the ability to provide force security for our troops by taking them directly out of harm's way. Finally, I am pleased that this bipartisan Defense bill also authorizes a 3.9 percent across-the-board pay increase for servicemembers, half a percent above the President's budget request. This bill provides the necessary resources to our troops and our Nation and recognizes the enormous contributions made by the State of Maine. The bill provides the necessary funding for our troops, and I offer it my full support.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 5276 to the National Defense Authorization Act, an amendment that would establish a government-wide Contingency Contracting Corps. Through numerous hearings and investigations, the Senate Homeland Security Committee has documented many costly failures in contracting and acquisition management related to Federal operations following Hurricane Katrina and in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, other IGs, and the Government Accountability Office have also reported on serious problems in Federal contracting. Many of these well-documented problems might have been avoided or mitigated if the government had a reserve cadre of skilled acquisition professionals who could be dispatched to areas in urgent need to assist with procurement and contract-management tasks. Last year, I introduced S. 680, the Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 2007, with Senators Lieberman, Carper, Coleman, and McCaskill as original cosponsors. The Senate passed this bill unanimously last November 7, including a title that would establish a government-wide Contingency Contracting Corps. Unfortunately, House leaders have failed to take up our unanimously passed bill. Just a few days before the Senate action, the Army released the report of a special commission on procurement headed by former Under Secretary of Defense Jacques Gansler. The Gansler Report noted that while contracting workload had increased by 350 percent since 1995, the Army's contract-oversight staff had declined by almost 50 percent. The report's recommendations for more people, better training, organizational reform, and other improvements offer us a case study of the challenges facing the Federal acquisition process. ``First and most important is the people,'' Dr. Gansler said while presenting his report. He was right, and that truth is at the core of the amendment that Senator Lieberman and I now offer. The need for a Contingency Contracting Corps is urgent. The Federal Government purchases more than $440 billion of goods and services each year. Some of these purchases are pursuant to contracts issued under the stress and urgency of military operations or an emergency response. Purchasing on such a prodigious scale and across a vast array of departments and programs can create abundant opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. And doing so under the stress of military or disaster-recovery operations without sufficient staff skilled in working in those conditions can multiply the potential for trouble. Unfortunately, our government moved into the 21st century with 22 percent fewer Federal civilian acquisition personnel than it had at the start of the 1990s. And as noted, the decline in the DOD acquisition workforce was even more pronounced. We have seen that the urgent demands of natural disasters, a terrorist attack, or active military operations can overwhelm any agency's acquisition workforce. This amendment would provide the equivalent of a rapid-reaction force or strike team to ensure that emergency acquisition activities are performed swiftly, effectively, and economically. The Corps would draw on volunteers from civilian and uniformed Federal-acquisition professionals. It would be managed by the OFPP Administrator. The Administrator would be authorized to prescribe additional training and determine when the Corps would be deployed. Any deployments would be made in consultation with the heads of the affected agencies, and in the case of military or civilian DOD employees, with the concurrence of the Defense Department. The Contingency Contracting Corps is not a substitute for the many other reforms needed to improve government-wide acquisition, but it can help our Nation deal with urgent demands by temporarily reallocating trained acquisition staff from their regular duties to areas of pressing need. The Corps would help guard against the wasteful and excessive spending that too often occurs in exigent circumstances. I urge my colleagues to adopt this much-needed, carefully constructed, and bipartisan amendment. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of amendment No. 5277 to the National Defense Authorization Act, an amendment that will improve stewardship of taxpayer dollars while promoting more transparency and competition in the procurement of goods and services by our government. Senator Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, joins me in sponsoring this amendment. Our amendment, the Accountability in Government Contracting Act, is a bipartisan response to contracting problems identified by the Homeland Security Committee that pose increasing dangers of waste, fraud, and abuse as Federal contracting continues to grow. The amendment consists of provisions that passed the Senate unanimously last November as part of S. 680. Many of that bill's provisions were included in last year's defense authorization. The remaining provisions are offered in this amendment, with modifications based on discussions with other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Joining Senator Lieberman and me in this effort are Senators Coleman, Carper, Akaka, McCaskill, and Tester. The Federal Government purchases about $440 billion in goods and services each year. The rising costs of military operations, natural disasters, homeland security precautions, and other vital programs will drive those expenditures to even higher levels in the years ahead. This prodigious level of purchasing creates abundant opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse. We have seen far too many outrageous failures in government contracting, such as unusable trailers for hurricane victims, shoddy construction of schools and clinics in Afghanistan, or the installation in Iraq of showers for our troops that pose electric-shock hazards. All of these failures and more demand strong steps to protect taxpayer dollars and deliver better acquisition outcomes. Obstacles to improvement include personnel shortages, resource constraints, poor program administration, and inadequate accountability an transparency in the contracting process. The resource challenges go far beyond funding, and start with a simple lack of trained personnel. The Federal Government moved into the 21st century with 22 percent fewer Federal civilian acquisition personnel than it had at the start of the 1990s. The Department of Defense, which has the largest acquisition budget, has been disbursing enormous amounts of money to contractors since the first Gulf war, but saw its acquisition workforce shrink by more than 50 percent between 1994 and 2005. Among the current, attenuated Federal acquisition workforce, nearly 40 percent were eligible to retire at the end of the last fiscal year. Meanwhile, the number and scale of federal purchases continue to rise, making this human-capital crisis even more dire. Other challenges to fair, effective, and open competition and oversight include inadequate definition of requirements, overuse of letter contracts that fail to include all critical terms until after performance is complete, excessive tiering of subcontracts, and insufficient publicly available data on Federal contracts. Our amendment offers sensible, practical reforms to address these problems. A critical feature of this legislation will help recruit, retain, and develop an adequate Federal acquisition workforce. It establishes an acquisition internship program that will provide professional training and development for careers in Federal procurement and acquisition management to at least 200 college graduates per year. Another provision would require that government chief acquisition officers have extensive management experience--a requirement lacking in current law. Our amendment also promotes more competition for government contracts--a positive step for both contractors and taxpayers. Competition for government contracts helps to control costs, encourage innovation, and improve quality. Unfortunately, the tide has been running the wrong way. While the dollar volume of Federal contracting has nearly doubled since the year 2000, fewer than half of all ``contract actions''--new contracts and payments against existing contracts--are now subject to full and open competition, down from more than three-quarters in the year 2000. Our Homeland Security Committee investigations of federal contracting problems in the Hurricane Katrina disaster and in our military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have confirmed the obvious concerns about this trend. We need more competition, less sole-source contracting, and tougher management of Federal contracts. Our amendment mandates enhanced competition for each task or delivery order over the simplified acquisition threshold. It further encourages competition for those orders by requiring Internet postings of notices of all sole-source task-or-delivery orders above the simplified acquisition threshold, within 14 business days after the award. Another provision takes aim at abuse of interagency and enterprise- wide contracts, which account for 40 percent of Federal contract spending. It requires the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to survey, review, and provide guidance on procedures for creating, using, and continuing these interagency acquisitions. This step should eliminate some of the redundancies that have been discovered in these complex arrangements--redundancies that reduce the government's purchasing power and waste tax dollars. I shall briefly note some other important provisions of the amendment. The amendment will rein in the practice of hastily awarding letter contracts missing key terms, such as price, scope or schedule, and then failing to supply those terms until the contractor delivers the good or service--thereby placing all risk of failure on the government. In Iraq and Katrina contracting, we saw the perils of failing to supply the ``missing term'' promptly. For example, in July 2006, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction identified 194 individual task orders valued at $3.4 billion that were classified as ``undefinitized contract actions.'' The government has allowed too much money and too many contract actions to linger in this status. The amendment corrects this flaw by requiring clear guidance in the Federal Acquisition Regulation and strong justification for making such contracts or orders. Contracting for Hurricane Katrina and in Iraq has also involved excessive tiering of subcontractors, driving up costs and complicating contract administration. The amendment mandates regulatory guidance for minimizing tiering to ensure that every layer of subcontracting adds value or serves a valid purpose in meeting Federal requirements. In our committee investigation of debris removal after Hurricane Katrina, a disaster that required clearing away nearly 100 million cubic yards of debris, we found that some contracts involved five or six tiers of subcontractors, often with little or no apparent added value. This provision would put in place government-wide requirements to control this practice and its potential for wasting tax dollars. Another important provision requires the OFPP to review and report on existing policies and to recommend needed changes to ensure that Federal agencies are not contracting out essential core responsibilities of government. The risks of such activity were made starkly clear in our committee's recent discovery that a contractor wrote parts of FEMA's request for proposals for the TOPOFF 5 emergency- management exercise and was then allowed to bid on the contract. This clear conflict of interest threatened both the integrity of the competitive process and objective implementation of Federal policy. The amendment also restricts the de-facto outsourcing of program- management responsibility when a large contractor becomes a ``lead systems integrator'' for a multipart project and requires the OFPP to craft a government-wide definition of lead systems integrators. The Accountability in Government Contracting Act combines practical, workable, and targeted reforms to improve a complex process that expends hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars every year. As the SIGIR said of these proposals in a Homeland Security Committee hearing last year, ``these kinds of reforms are exactly what will save taxpayer dollars ... and address very directly the problems that we have been experiencing in contracting in Iraq.'' My amendment will pay recurring dividends for years to come in higher quality proposals, in avoidance of wasteful and excessive spending, and in better results for our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend Senator Wyden in introducing a bill that will ban the sale of certain novelty lighters that children can mistake for toys, often with tragic consequences for themselves and their families. In Arkansas last year, two boys, ages 15 months and 2 years, died when the toddler accidentally started a fire with a lighter shaped like a motorcycle. In Oregon, a fire started with a dolphin-shaped lighter left one child dead and another brain-damaged. A North Carolina 6-year- old boy was badly burned by a lighter shaped like a cell phone. Sadly, the U.S. Fire Administration has other stories of the hazards presented by novelty lighters. When you learn that one looks like a rubber duck toy--and quacks--you can imagine the potential for harm. As a co-chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am proud to note that this spring, my home State of Maine became the first State to outlaw the sale of novelty lighters. My State's pioneering law stems from a tragic 2007 incident in a Livermore, Maine, grocery store. While his mother was buying sandwiches, six-year-old Shane St. Pierre picked up what appeared to be a toy flashlight in the form of a baseball bat. When he flicked the switch, a flame shot out and burned his face. Shane's dad, Norm St. Pierre, a fire chief in nearby West Paris, began advocating for the novelty-lighter ban that became Maine law in March 2008. The Maine State Fire Marshal's office supported that legislation, and a national ban has the support of the Congressional Fire Services Institute's National Advisory Committee, the National State Fire Marshals Association, and the National Volunteer Fire Council. The bill is straightforward. It treats novelty lighters manufactured after January 1, 1980, as banned hazardous substances unless the Consumer Product Safety Commission determines a particular lighter has antique or significant artistic value. Otherwise, sale of lighters with toy-like appearance, special audio or visual features, or other attributes that would appeal to children under 10 would be banned. The novelty lighters targeted in this legislation serve no functional need. But they are liable to attract the notice and curiosity of children, whose play can too easily turn into a scene of horror and death. The sale of lighters that look like animals, cartoon characters, food, toys, or other objects is simply irresponsible and an invitation to tragedy. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple measure that can save children from disfigurement and death.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Small Marine Business and Fishing Guide Relief Act that Senator Coleman is introducing today. This legislation will provide much-needed relief to charter boat captains and other operators of small marine businesses in Maine by exempting them from having to obtain a Transportation Worker Identification Credential, or TWIC, which costs $132.50 for each employee. Under current law, any individual who holds a Coast Guard license, as most charter boat captains do, must also obtain a TWIC. The purpose of the requirement was to ensure that port operators and the Coast Guard could inspect a tamper-resistant identification document to verify the identity of those who have access to secure areas of ports and large vessels. Charter boat captains, however, do not have secure areas on their boats and usually do not need unescorted access to port facilities. Therefore, they have no need for a TWIC. For these small businesses, requiring them to obtain a TWIC essentially amounts to an unnecessary and costly government regulation. Many small businesses are struggling in these lean economic times, particularly with high marine fuel prices and tourists who have less to spend their discretionary income on charter tours in the Gulf of Maine. With these businesses' declining profit margins, they cannot afford an additional $132 identification card for their employees. Even with this exemption, charter captains with a Coast Guard license will have undergone an extensive background check for the same crimes that are reviewed when an individual applies for a TWIC. So waiving the TWIC requirement for them would not reduce the background information available for review before these individuals are licensed as charter captains. To be sure, the Transportation Worker Identification Credential will play a critical role in our Nation's maritime security by limiting access to secure areas of ports and large vessels. It must ``be implemented, however, in a manner that does not unnecessarily and unproductively impede legitimate business operations.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Carper in introducing a bill that will improve agency performance and Congressional oversight of major Federal information-technology, IT projects. The well-publicized cost and performance problems with the Census Bureau's handheld computers for the 2010 Census--with its troubling implications for the next House reapportionment and for the allocation of Federal funds--represent only the most recent and conspicuous failure in a long trail of troubles that also includes critical IT projects like the FBI's virtual case file initiative. Former IBM executive and Carnegie-Mellon University technology expert Watts Humphrey makes the point succinctly: ``Software failures are common, and the biggest projects fail most often.'' During the 108th Congress, the Committee on Governmental Affairs investigated the botched automated recordkeeping project for the Federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan TSP. This project was terminated in 2001 after a 4-year contract produced $36 million in waste that was charged to the accounts of TSP participants and beneficiaries. A second vendor needed an additional $33 million to bring the system online, years overdue and costing more than double its original estimate. In a 2004 letter from the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board to the Governmental Affairs Committee, the board characterized the project as ``ill-fated `` and acknowledged the importance of careful planning, task definition, communication, proper personnel, and risk management--all of which were lacking on that project. Large IT project failures have cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars in wasted expenditures. The waste is troubling, but even more troubling is the fact that when Federal IT projects fail, they can undermine the Government's ability to defend the Nation, enforce its laws, or deliver critical services to citizens. Again and again, we have seen IT project failures grounded in poor planning, ill-defined and shifting requirements, undisclosed difficulties, poor risk management, and lax monitoring of performance. Unfortunately, as the Government Accountability Office, GAO, tells us in a new report, Federal IT projects still fall short in their use of effective oversight techniques to monitor development and to spot signs of possible trouble. The GAO reports that the Federal Government will spend over $70 billion in fiscal year 2008 on IT projects. Most of that spending is concentrated in two dozen agencies that have 778 major projects underway. These Federal entities range from Cabinet departments like Commerce, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, to agencies like NASA, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Agency for International Development. The GAO observes that ``Effectively managing projects involves pulling together essential cost, schedule, and performance goals in a meaningful, coherent fashion so that managers have an accurate view of the program's development status.'' This set of goals becomes the project ``baseline.'' When the GAO conducted a study of a random sample of those major Federal IT projects, however, they found that 85--nearly half the sample--had been ``rebaselined.'' Eighteen of those projects have been rebaselined three or more times. For example, the Department of Defense Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System has been rebaselined four times; a Veterans Affairs Health Administration Center project has been rebaselined six times. Rebaselining can reflect funding changes, revisions in project scope or goals, and other perfectly reasonable project modifications. But as the GAO notes, ``[rebaselining] can also be used to mask cost overruns and schedule delays.'' All major Federal agencies have rebaselining policies, but the GAO concludes that they are not comprehensive and that ``none of the policies are fully consistent with best practices.'' The bill that Senator Carper and I are introducing will go far toward addressing the weaknesses identified by the GAO and will reduce the risks that important Federal IT projects will drag on far beyond deadlines, fail to deliver intended capabilities, or waste taxpayers' money. We are pleased to have Senators Lieberman, Coleman, and McCaskill join us as cosponsors in this effort. Our bill will improve both agency and Congressional oversight of large Federal IT projects. For all major investments, the bill requires agencies to track the earned value management index, a key cost and performance measure, and to alert Congress should that measure fall below a defined threshold. The bill requires additional reports to Congress as well as specific corrective actions should those same indicators continue to worsen. Further, because the bill's performance thresholds are based on original cost baselines, rebaselining can no longer serve as a tactic to hide troubled projects. If severe shortfalls remain uncorrected, the bill can even suspend commitment of funds to a project until the agency takes the required corrective actions. Our bill does not envision making Congress a micromanager of Federal projects--especially in so complex a field as information technology. But it will ensure that, for these important investments, agencies will be required to track key performance metrics, inform Congress of shortfalls in those metrics, and provide Congress with followup reports, independent cost estimates, and analyses of project alternatives when the original projects have run off course. The bill also provides that each covered agency identify to Congress their top mission-critical projects. Those ``core investments'' would be subject to additional upfront planning, reporting, and performance monitoring requirements. This will help ensure that agencies apply extra vigilance to these projects at the planning stage and not just when execution begins. In addition to tracking cost and schedule slippage, agencies making core IT investments must provide a complete ``business case'' that outlines the need for the project and its associated costs and schedules; produce a rigorous, independent, third-party estimate of the project's full, life-cycle costs; have the agency CIO certify the project's functional requirements; track these functional requirements; and report to Congress any changes in functional requirements, including whether those changes concealed a major cost increase. To help agencies deliver IT projects on time and on budget, the bill also provides two new support mechanisms. First, agency heads would be required to establish an internal IT- management program, subject to OMB guidelines, to improve project planning, requirements development, and management of earned value and risk. Second, the Director of OMB and its E-Gov Administrator will be required to establish an IT strike force of experts and independent consultants who can be assigned to help agencies reform troubled projects. In addition, the E-Gov Administrator can recommend that agency heads mentor or replace an IT project manager, reinforce the management team, terminate the project, or hire an independent contractor to report on the project. These and other provisions will help improve project planning, avoid problems in project execution, provide early alerts when problems arise, and promote prompt corrective action. In projects where difficulties persist, our bill provides strong remedies. For projects that exhibit a performance shortfall of 20 percent or more, the agency head involved must not only alert Congress but also provide a summary of a concrete plan of action to correct the problem. If the shortfall exceeds 40 percent, agencies have 6 months to take required remedial steps or else suspend further project spending until those steps are completed. If the provisions of this bill had been in force during the past decade, early indicators of trouble and prompt warnings to Congress might have helped prevent much of the added cost, decreased functionality, and increased anxiety we now see surrounding the handheld computers that were intended to streamline the 2010 Census. The additional scrutiny of plans and costs required by this bill might have saved some of the billions wasted on other IT projects that ultimately landed on high-risk lists. Our bill creates a measured, methodical plan to ensure that Federal agencies apply best practices to IT projects, supply timely reports of problems, and devise corrective actions sooner rather than later. Our Government and our citizens will benefit from these improvements. I urge every Senator to support this constructive and bipartisan bill.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to join my friend Senator Wyden in introducing a bill that will ban the sale of certain novelty lighters that children can mistake for toys, often with tragic consequences for themselves and their families. In Arkansas last year, two boys, ages 15 months and 2 years, died when the toddler accidentally started a fire with a lighter shaped like a motorcycle. In Oregon, a fire started with a dolphin-shaped lighter left one child dead and another brain-damaged. A North Carolina 6-year- old boy was badly burned by a lighter shaped like a cell phone. Sadly, the U.S. Fire Administration has other stories of the hazards presented by novelty lighters. When you learn that one looks like a rubber duck toy--and quacks--you can imagine the potential for harm. As a co-chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am proud to note that this spring, my home State of Maine became the first State to outlaw the sale of novelty lighters. My State's pioneering law stems from a tragic 2007 incident in a Livermore, Maine, grocery store. While his mother was buying sandwiches, six-year-old Shane St. Pierre picked up what appeared to be a toy flashlight in the form of a baseball bat. When he flicked the switch, a flame shot out and burned his face. Shane's dad, Norm St. Pierre, a fire chief in nearby West Paris, began advocating for the novelty-lighter ban that became Maine law in March 2008. The Maine State Fire Marshal's office supported that legislation, and a national ban has the support of the Congressional Fire Services Institute's National Advisory Committee, the National State Fire Marshals Association, and the National Volunteer Fire Council. The bill is straightforward. It treats novelty lighters manufactured after January 1, 1980, as banned hazardous substances unless the Consumer Product Safety Commission determines a particular lighter has antique or significant artistic value. Otherwise, sale of lighters with toy-like appearance, special audio or visual features, or other attributes that would appeal to children under 10 would be banned. The novelty lighters targeted in this legislation serve no functional need. But they are liable to attract the notice and curiosity of children, whose play can too easily turn into a scene of horror and death. The sale of lighters that look like animals, cartoon characters, food, toys, or other objects is simply irresponsible and an invitation to tragedy. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple measure that can save children from disfigurement and death.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Small Marine Business and Fishing Guide Relief Act that Senator Coleman is introducing today. This legislation will provide much-needed relief to charter boat captains and other operators of small marine businesses in Maine by exempting them from having to obtain a Transportation Worker Identification Credential, or TWIC, which costs $132.50 for each employee. Under current law, any individual who holds a Coast Guard license, as most charter boat captains do, must also obtain a TWIC. The purpose of the requirement was to ensure that port operators and the Coast Guard could inspect a tamper-resistant identification document to verify the identity of those who have access to secure areas of ports and large vessels. Charter boat captains, however, do not have secure areas on their boats and usually do not need unescorted access to port facilities. Therefore, they have no need for a TWIC. For these small businesses, requiring them to obtain a TWIC essentially amounts to an unnecessary and costly government regulation. Many small businesses are struggling in these lean economic times, particularly with high marine fuel prices and tourists who have less to spend their discretionary income on charter tours in the Gulf of Maine. With these businesses' declining profit margins, they cannot afford an additional $132 identification card for their employees. Even with this exemption, charter captains with a Coast Guard license will have undergone an extensive background check for the same crimes that are reviewed when an individual applies for a TWIC. So waiving the TWIC requirement for them would not reduce the background information available for review before these individuals are licensed as charter captains. To be sure, the Transportation Worker Identification Credential will play a critical role in our Nation's maritime security by limiting access to secure areas of ports and large vessels. It must ``be implemented, however, in a manner that does not unnecessarily and unproductively impede legitimate business operations.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Carper in introducing a bill that will improve agency performance and Congressional oversight of major Federal information-technology, IT projects. The well-publicized cost and performance problems with the Census Bureau's handheld computers for the 2010 Census--with its troubling implications for the next House reapportionment and for the allocation of Federal funds--represent only the most recent and conspicuous failure in a long trail of troubles that also includes critical IT projects like the FBI's virtual case file initiative. Former IBM executive and Carnegie-Mellon University technology expert Watts Humphrey makes the point succinctly: ``Software failures are common, and the biggest projects fail most often.'' During the 108th Congress, the Committee on Governmental Affairs investigated the botched automated recordkeeping project for the Federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan TSP. This project was terminated in 2001 after a 4-year contract produced $36 million in waste that was charged to the accounts of TSP participants and beneficiaries. A second vendor needed an additional $33 million to bring the system online, years overdue and costing more than double its original estimate. In a 2004 letter from the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board to the Governmental Affairs Committee, the board characterized the project as ``ill-fated `` and acknowledged the importance of careful planning, task definition, communication, proper personnel, and risk management--all of which were lacking on that project. Large IT project failures have cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars in wasted expenditures. The waste is troubling, but even more troubling is the fact that when Federal IT projects fail, they can undermine the Government's ability to defend the Nation, enforce its laws, or deliver critical services to citizens. Again and again, we have seen IT project failures grounded in poor planning, ill-defined and shifting requirements, undisclosed difficulties, poor risk management, and lax monitoring of performance. Unfortunately, as the Government Accountability Office, GAO, tells us in a new report, Federal IT projects still fall short in their use of effective oversight techniques to monitor development and to spot signs of possible trouble. The GAO reports that the Federal Government will spend over $70 billion in fiscal year 2008 on IT projects. Most of that spending is concentrated in two dozen agencies that have 778 major projects underway. These Federal entities range from Cabinet departments like Commerce, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, to agencies like NASA, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Agency for International Development. The GAO observes that ``Effectively managing projects involves pulling together essential cost, schedule, and performance goals in a meaningful, coherent fashion so that managers have an accurate view of the program's development status.'' This set of goals becomes the project ``baseline.'' When the GAO conducted a study of a random sample of those major Federal IT projects, however, they found that 85--nearly half the sample--had been ``rebaselined.'' Eighteen of those projects have been rebaselined three or more times. For example, the Department of Defense Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System has been rebaselined four times; a Veterans Affairs Health Administration Center project has been rebaselined six times. Rebaselining can reflect funding changes, revisions in project scope or goals, and other perfectly reasonable project modifications. But as the GAO notes, ``[rebaselining] can also be used to mask cost overruns and schedule delays.'' All major Federal agencies have rebaselining policies, but the GAO concludes that they are not comprehensive and that ``none of the policies are fully consistent with best practices.'' The bill that Senator Carper and I are introducing will go far toward addressing the weaknesses identified by the GAO and will reduce the risks that important Federal IT projects will drag on far beyond deadlines, fail to deliver intended capabilities, or waste taxpayers' money. We are pleased to have Senators Lieberman, Coleman, and McCaskill join us as cosponsors in this effort. Our bill will improve both agency and Congressional oversight of large Federal IT projects. For all major investments, the bill requires agencies to track the earned value management index, a key cost and performance measure, and to alert Congress should that measure fall below a defined threshold. The bill requires additional reports to Congress as well as specific corrective actions should those same indicators continue to worsen. Further, because the bill's performance thresholds are based on original cost baselines, rebaselining can no longer serve as a tactic to hide troubled projects. If severe shortfalls remain uncorrected, the bill can even suspend commitment of funds to a project until the agency takes the required corrective actions. Our bill does not envision making Congress a micromanager of Federal projects--especially in so complex a field as information technology. But it will ensure that, for these important investments, agencies will be required to track key performance metrics, inform Congress of shortfalls in those metrics, and provide Congress with followup reports, independent cost estimates, and analyses of project alternatives when the original projects have run off course. The bill also provides that each covered agency identify to Congress their top mission-critical projects. Those ``core investments'' would be subject to additional upfront planning, reporting, and performance monitoring requirements. This will help ensure that agencies apply extra vigilance to these projects at the planning stage and not just when execution begins. In addition to tracking cost and schedule slippage, agencies making core IT investments must provide a complete ``business case'' that outlines the need for the project and its associated costs and schedules; produce a rigorous, independent, third-party estimate of the project's full, life-cycle costs; have the agency CIO certify the project's functional requirements; track these functional requirements; and report to Congress any changes in functional requirements, including whether those changes concealed a major cost increase. To help agencies deliver IT projects on time and on budget, the bill also provides two new support mechanisms. First, agency heads would be required to establish an internal IT- management program, subject to OMB guidelines, to improve project planning, requirements development, and management of earned value and risk. Second, the Director of OMB and its E-Gov Administrator will be required to establish an IT strike force of experts and independent consultants who can be assigned to help agencies reform troubled projects. In addition, the E-Gov Administrator can recommend that agency heads mentor or replace an IT project manager, reinforce the management team, terminate the project, or hire an independent contractor to report on the project. These and other provisions will help improve project planning, avoid problems in project execution, provide early alerts when problems arise, and promote prompt corrective action. In projects where difficulties persist, our bill provides strong remedies. For projects that exhibit a performance shortfall of 20 percent or more, the agency head involved must not only alert Congress but also provide a summary of a concrete plan of action to correct the problem. If the shortfall exceeds 40 percent, agencies have 6 months to take required remedial steps or else suspend further project spending until those steps are completed. If the provisions of this bill had been in force during the past decade, early indicators of trouble and prompt warnings to Congress might have helped prevent much of the added cost, decreased functionality, and increased anxiety we now see surrounding the handheld computers that were intended to streamline the 2010 Census. The additional scrutiny of plans and costs required by this bill might have saved some of the billions wasted on other IT projects that ultimately landed on high-risk lists. Our bill creates a measured, methodical plan to ensure that Federal agencies apply best practices to IT projects, supply timely reports of problems, and devise corrective actions sooner rather than later. Our Government and our citizens will benefit from these improvements. I urge every Senator to support this constructive and bipartisan bill.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking up the conference report on legislation to accomplish the urgent task of preventing dangerous consumer products--especially those intended for children--from entering the country or reaching store shelves. The conference report contains a wide variety of measures that, taken together, deserve our support because they will greatly bolster defenses against hazards that must not reach American homes. I want to commend the chief sponsor of the bill, Senator Pryor, for his leadership on this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with him. We all remember last year's alarming and, too often, tragic stories of product hazards and recalls that demonstrated the need to strengthen protections for consumers, particularly children. Unfortunately, those dangers continue. In 2008, new Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, recalls have included 19,000 baby rattles that present choking hazards, 685,000 wireless helicopter toys whose batteries can catch fire, and 91,000 horseshoe-shaped magnet toys whose coating contains high levels of lead. Lead, as we know, is a particular concern because of its use in plastics and paints can expose children to the risk of serious nervous system damage and other health effects. The conference report's dramatic reduction in the permissible lead content in products marketed for children under 12--starting at 600 parts per million and ratcheting down to 100 parts per million over 3 years--is just one example of the bill's aggressive pursuit of safety. Even with these tighter restrictions on lead content, we must continue to pay special attention to imported products that violate our safety rules. As we have seen with the lead issue, the bulk of toys sold in American stores come from China, where cases of careless or unscrupulous factories or suppliers using cheaper lead paints in violation of factory or official standards make clear the need to upgrade our ability to police safety violations in global supply chains. I am, therefore, pleased that the conference report contains four key provisions from the Senate-passed bill, S. 2663, that emerged from an in-depth investigation conducted by my staff on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Combined with important enhancements to CPSC authorities and funding provided in the conference report, these four provisions will ensure that unsafe imported consumer products, including toys and clothing that endanger our Nation's children, are effectively screened at the border and, when necessary, destroyed. Last August, I asked my HSGAC staff to review the effectiveness of Federal safety standards governing children's toys and clothing. The committee investigators conducted numerous interviews of manufacturers' representatives, retailers, consumer advocacy groups, and Federal regulatory agencies, and visited a manufacturer's testing lab and two ports. Their findings confirmed several weaknesses in our current consumer product safety regime; namely; the CPSC is understaffed, inadequately resourced, and lacks crucial authorities needed to fulfill its mission; voluntary standards applicable to many classes of products can be useful in quickly addressing safety issues, but lack the full force of law; and the inability to effectively enforce safety standards at our ports limits our Nation's ability to stop hazardous imported products from entering the American marketplace. My staff investigation made it clear that our border inspections regime must target and intercept foreign products that fail to meet U.S. safety standards. As our committee found, Customs and Border Protection currently lacks the authority to seize and destroy dangerous imported products even if the agency suspects that an unscrupulous importer turned away at one port might attempt to bring these products in through another U.S. port. The committee's investigation also revealed that coordination and information sharing between CBP and CPSC were often ad-hoc--providing CBP with little useful information that would allow its agents to target shipments that are more likely to contain dangerous goods. The provisions that I authored, and worked with Senators Inouye, Stevens, and Pryor to include in the bipartisan reform bill that the Senate passed, specifically target problems with unsafe imports by ensuring that CPSC and U.S. Customs and Border Protection work effectively together to keep unsafe consumer products out of our country. These provisions: authorize CBP to seize and destroy dangerous consumer products entering our ports, long before they reach store shelves or American homes; enhance information sharing between CPSC and CBP so that inspectors at our Nation's ports can focus their resource on the most risky shipments, targeting products, manufacturers, and importers with poor consumer-safety records; task CPSC with developing a comprehensive risk assessment tool to help CBP quickly evaluate imported products that might violate our Nation's safety standards; and direct the CPSC to develop a plan to ensure that Commission employees are assigned to the National Targeting Center at CBP to increase interagency collaboration in evaluating the potential risks of inbound shipments for potential safety issues. I am pleased that the conferees retained these provisions in their report. They will help the CPSC and Customs and Border Protection identify dangerous products that enter our ports and prevent them from reaching American homes. Other measures in this conference report--increased staffing and funding for the CPSC, tougher civil and criminal penalties for violations of safety laws, a ban on reselling recalled products, enhanced whistleblower protections, safety certifications, and product tracking labels--will also strengthen the Consumer Product Safety Commission's ability to protect American consumers. With the new authorities in this bill, the CPSC will be able to work more effectively with importers, retailers, consumers, and industry associations to develop and enforce product-safety standards. This legislation will make a real difference in protecting America's children and other consumers from hazardous toys and other products. I urge my colleagues to adopt the conference report.

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, 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.