A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to modify the definition of the term "renewable biomass".

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2009, a bill that will curb the ongoing abuse of secrecy orders in Federal courts. The result of this abuse, which often comes in the form of sealed settlement agreements, is to keep important health and safety information hidden from the public.

This problem has been recurring for decades, and most often arises in product liability cases. Typically, an individual brings a cause of action against a manufacturer for an injury or death that has resulted from a defect in one of its products. The injured party often faces a large corporation that can spend a virtually unlimited amount of money defending the lawsuit, prolonging the time it takes to reach resolution. Facing a formidable opponent and mounting medical bills, a plaintiff often has no choice but to settle the litigation. In exchange for the award he or she was seeking, the victim is forced to agree to a provision that prohibits him or her from revealing information disclosed during the litigation.

Plaintiffs get a respectable award, and the defendant is able to keep damaging information from getting out. Because they remain unaware of critical public health and safety information that could potentially save lives, the American public incurs the greatest cost.

This concern about excessive secrecy is warranted by the fact that tobacco companies, automobile manufacturers, and pharmaceutical companies have settled with victims and used the legal system to hide information which, if it became public, could protect the American people from future harms. Surely, there are appropriate uses for such orders, like protecting trade secrets and other truly confidential company information. This legislation makes sure such information is protected. But, protective orders are certainly not supposed to be used for the sole purpose of hiding damaging information from the public, to protect a company's reputation or profit margin.

One of the most famous cases of abuse of secrecy orders involved Bridgestone/Firestone tires. From 1992-2000, tread separations of various Bridgestone and Firestone tires caused accidents across the country, many resulting in serious injuries and even fatalities. Instead of owning up to their mistakes and acting responsibly, Bridgestone/Firestone quietly settled dozens of lawsuits, most of which included secrecy agreements. It was not until 1999, when a Houston public television station broke the story, that the company acknowledged its wrongdoing and recalled 6.5 million tires. By then, it was too late. More than 250 people had died and more than 800 were injured as a result of the defective tires.

If the story ended there, and the Bridgestone/Firestone cases were just an aberration, one might argue that there is no urgent need for legislation. But, unfortunately, the list of abuses goes on. There is the case of General Motors. Although an internal memo demonstrated that GM was aware of the risk of fire deaths from crashes of pickup trucks with ``side saddle'' fuel tanks, an estimated 750 people were killed in fires involving trucks with these fuel tanks. When victims sued, GM disclosed documents only under protective orders, and settled these cases on the condition that the information in these documents remained secret. This type of fuel tank was installed for 15 years before being discontinued.

Evidence suggests that the dangers posed by protective orders and secret settlements continue. On December 11, 2007, at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, Johnny Bradley Jr. described his tragic personal story that demonstrates the implications of court endorsed secrecy. In 2002, Mr. Bradley's

wife was killed in a rollover accident allegedly caused by tread separation in his Cooper tires. While litigating the case, his attorney uncovered documented evidence of Cooper tire design defects. Through aggressive litigation of protective orders and confidential settlements in cases prior to the Bradleys' accident, Cooper had managed to keep the design defect documents confidential. Prior to the end of Mr. Bradley's trial, Cooper Tires settled with him on the condition that almost all litigation documents would be kept confidential under a broad protective order. With no access to documented evidence of design defects, consumers will continue to remain in the dark about this life- threatening defect.

In 2005, the drug company Eli Lilly settled 8,000 cases related to harmful side effects of its drug Zyprexa. All of those settlements required plaintiffs to agree ``not to communicate, publish or cause to be published . . . any statement . . . concerning the specific events, facts or circumstances giving rise to [their] claims.'' In those cases, the plaintiffs uncovered documents which showed that, through its own research, Lilly knew about the harmful side effects as early as 1999. While the plaintiffs kept quiet, Lilly continued to sell Zyprexa and generated $4.2 billion in sales in 2005. More than a year later, information about the case was leaked to the New York Times and another 18,000 cases settled. Had the first settlement not included a secrecy agreement, consumers would have been able to make informed choices and avoid the harmful side effects, including enormous weight gain, dangerously elevated blood sugar levels, and diabetes.

This very issue is currently before a Federal judge in Orlando, FL. There, the court is faced with deciding whether AstraZeneca can keep under seal clinical studies about the harmful side effects of an antipsychotic drug, Seroquel. Plaintiffs' lawyers and Bloomberg News sued to force AstraZeneca to make public documents discovered in dismissed lawsuits. Late last month, the court unsealed some of the documents at question, and is still deciding whether to unseal the remainder of the documents. This is exactly the sort of case where we need judges to consider public health and safety when deciding whether to allow a secrecy order.

There are no records kept of the number of confidentiality orders accepted by State or Federal courts. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that court secrecy and confidential settlements are prevalent. Beyond General Motors, Bridgestone/Firestone, Cooper Tire, Zyprexa and Seroquel, secrecy agreements have also had real life consequences by allowing Dalkon Shield, Bjork-Shiley heart valves, and numerous other dangerous products and drugs to remain in the market. And those are only the ones we know about.

While some states have already begun to move in the right direction, we still have a long way to go. It is time to initiate a Federal solution for this problem. The Sunshine in Litigation Act is a modest proposal that would require federal judges to perform a simple balancing test to ensure that in any proposed secrecy order, the defendant's interest in secrecy truly outweighs the public interest in information related to public health and safety.

Specifically, prior to making any portion of a case confidential or sealed, a judge would have to determine--by making a particularized finding of fact--that doing so would not restrict the disclosure of information relevant to public health and safety. Moreover, all courts, both Federal and State, would be prohibited from issuing protective orders that prevent disclosure to relevant regulatory agencies.

This legislation does not prohibit secrecy agreements across the board. It does not place an undue burden on judges or our courts. It simply states that where the public interest in disclosure outweighs legitimate interests in secrecy, courts should not shield important health and safety information from the public. The time to focus some sunshine on public hazards to prevent future harm is now.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favour of the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, which I am introducing with my colleague and friend on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Susan Collins.

Last year, the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on this legislation, but time ran out before we were able to move the measure to the Senate floor.

I also want to thank my former cosponsor, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon, with whom I and more than 20 other Senators introduced identical legislation in the 110th Congress. We expect about 20 cosponsors again this year, and I want to express my appreciation to them for helping us get an early enough start in the 111th Congress so that we can pass the bill, hopefully, this year.

This legislation makes eminent sense for two reasons: It will help the Federal Government attract the best and the brightest and it is the fair and right thing to do from a human rights perspective.

Let me explain. The Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act would provide the same employee benefit programs to same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees that are now provided to the opposite-sex spouses of Federal employees. In other words, same-sex domestic partners--living in a committed relationship and unrelated by blood would be eligible to participate in health benefits, long-term care, Family and Medical Leave, federal retirement benefits, and all other benefits for which married employees and their spouses are eligible. Federal employees and their domestic partners would also be subject to the same responsibilities that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.

When the domestic partners of Federal employees are granted the same benefits and obligations as the spouses of federal employees, the Federal Government will be able to attract from a larger pool of applicants the best possible employees to carry out the Government's responsibilities to the American people. In the coming years, as a large percentage of federal employees become eligible for retirement, a new generation of employees will be hired, and the Federal Government will be competing with the private sector for the most qualified among them. This legislation will help put the Federal Government on equal footing to compete for those new recruits and then retain them.

From a human rights perspective, this legislation is one more step on the long road to bring the gay and lesbian community equality under the law.

We are not talking about an insignificant number of people. According to UCLA's Williams Institute, over 30,000 federal workers live in committed relationships with same-sex partners who are not Federal employees.

We often hear--and I have often said--that Government should be run more like a business. While the purpose of Government and business are different, I believe Government has a lot to learn from private sector business models including in the matter before us today. The fact is that a majority of U.S. corporations--including more than half of all Fortune 500 companies--already offer benefits to domestic partners.

General Electric, IBM, Eastman Kodak, Dow Chemical, the Chubb Corporation, Lockheed Martin, and Duke Energy are among the major employers that have recognized the economic reward of providing benefits to domestic partners. Overall, almost 10,000 private-sector companies of all sizes provide benefits to domestic partners. The governments of 13 States, including my home State of Connecticut, about 145 local jurisdictions across our country, and some 300 colleges and universities also provide these benefits.

Surveys show that many private sector employers offer these benefits because it is the right thing to do. You can bet each one knows that the policy makes good business sense; it is good management policy, it is good employee policy, and it is good recruitment and retention policy.

In fact, employers have told analysts that they extend benefits to domestic partners to boost recruitment and retain quality employees--as well as to be fair. If we want the Government to be able to compete for the most qualified employees, we are going to have to provide the same benefits that job seekers can find elsewhere.

The experts tell us that 19 percent of an employee's compensation comes in the form of benefits, including benefits for family members. Employees who do not get benefits for their families are,

therefore, not being paid equally. Of course, the supporters of this legislation understand that covering domestic partners will add some increment to the total cost of providing federal employee benefits. And we understand that we have to be particularly careful about government spending right now and perform rigorous cost benefit analyses of all, not just new, federal expenditures.

Based on the experience of private companies and state and local governments, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that benefits to same-sex domestic partners of federal employees would increase the cost of those programs by less than one-half of one percent. The Office of Personnel Management says the cost of health benefits for domestic partners over 10 years would be $670 million. In the name of fairness and raising the appeal of federal employment, this is affordable legislation.

Among the many stories I have heard about the impact of this inequality on real people, I particularly remember the words of Michael Guest, who was ambassador to Romania in the Bush Administration and Dean of the Foreign Service Institute before he left public service. In his resignation letter, Mr. Guest made a moving and eloquent case for extending benefits to same sex partners. I believe Ambassador Guest was the first publicly gay man to be confirmed for an U.S. ambassadorship from the U.S. When he resigned the Foreign Service in 2007, he said, and I quote here from his farewell address to his colleagues ``. . . I have felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner--who is my family--and service to my country. That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary's leadership and a shame for this institution and our country.''

Those are convincing words from a talented and loyal former public servant--who once described the Foreign Service as the career he was ``born for . . . what I was always meant to do.'' It is a great loss to the nation that he felt compelled to leave the Foreign Service-- particularly at a time when our nation so desperately needs talented diplomats to help meet the challenges we face abroad. He may have left public service for many reasons--but one of them should not have been that his federal employee benefits did not allow him to care for the needs of his family in an adequate manner.

The Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act makes good economic sense. It is sound policy. And it is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission MedPAC Reform Act, legislation to elevate MedPAC to an executive branch entity and give it the resources and authority to implement Medicare payment policies. It is a fact that the quality of U.S. health care is mediocre

and its costs are unsustainable. Nonetheless, a modern health care delivery system is within our reach and something that we can start to achieve this year. Payment reforms, particularly in Medicare, are the cornerstone for driving quality improvement and improving the efficiency of our health care system. However, Congress must adopt a mechanism to implement and maintain Medicare reimbursement policies that are based on the best evidence and driven by the right incentives. This is simply not the case today.

Currently, Congress has the sole authority to change the cost curve for Medicare. Unfortunately, this process is riddled with political influence and is slowed by an inadequate structure to research, analyze, test, and implement successful delivery system reforms. Given the role of Medicare in determining market norms among all health care payers, both public and private, the federal government has an opportunity to realign our nation's health care system to drive quality improvement and greater efficiency.

The federal government already has a well-respected, independent entity--the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, MedPAC--that currently advises Congress on Medicare payment policies. MedPAC, established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33), employs a number of mechanisms to inform Congress on issues affecting the Medicare program. Specifically, MedPAC analyzes provider reimbursement, beneficiary access to care, and quality of care; delivers this information to Congress through regular reports and recommendations; engages in public meetings to discuss policy issues and formulate its recommendations to the Congress; and seeks input on Medicare issues in non-public forums through frequent meetings with a wide variety of parties.

Despite MedPAC's reputation for providing thoughtful, evidence-based recommendations to improve Medicare's payment policies, MedPAC has no power to implement its recommendations. That power rests solely with Congress. Unfortunately, Members of Congress face unyielding pressure from the health care industry to pick and choose which MedPAC recommendations they consider, despite the evidence. This routinely leads to the passage of laws that put the special interests of industry over the needs of patients.

MedPAC has proven, through its objectivity and its open and deliberative process, that they have the appropriate expertise to change the cost curve for Medicare and strengthen it for the future. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission Reform Act of 2009 helps to achieve this goal. Specifically, this legislation would restructure MedPAC as an independent executive branch entity, like the Federal Reserve Board. This would provide MedPAC the appropriate authority to implement its recommendations for Medicare provider reimbursement policies.

In addition to extending the terms and requirements of the Commissioners to be full-time employees of the Commission, this legislation also establishes three new advisory councils to assist them in their decision-making--a Council of Health and Economic Advisors, a Consumer Advisory Council, and a Federal Health Advisory Council with representatives from the health care industry.

Lastly, MedPAC's authority to analyze health services research is also enhanced in this legislation by providing them with additional resources and staff to bolster their current analytical role. Given the limitations of the current Medicare demonstration process, this legislation provides new authority and resources to MedPAC to design and evaluate new payment models through Medicare demonstrations.

I strongly feel that establishing MedPAC as an independent executive branch agency--which can only happen through an act of Congress--is the type of bold step forward that can truly transform our delivery system. Congress has proven itself to be inefficient and inconsistent in making decisions about provider reimbursement under Medicare. If we want serious improvements in our health care delivery system, then Congress should leave the reimbursement rules to the independent health care experts. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of a policy that truly improves Medicare today and in the future.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Special Disability Workload Liability Resolution Act, legislation that will resolve Medicare's longstanding liability to state Medicaid programs for individuals who were covered by Medicaid when they should have been covered by Medicare.

For the past several decades, hundreds of thousands of disabled people have had their health care paid for by Medicaid; however, their health care was actually the responsibility of Medicare. Therefore, states have been left financially responsible for individuals whose care should have been paid for entirely by the Federal Government. Both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, and the Social Security Administration, SSA, acknowledge Medicare's responsibility for these beneficiaries. The Social Security Administration is in the process of correcting the cash insurance payments that were due to disabled individuals. However, CMS has not acted to establish a means of satisfying Medicare's liability.

This is unacceptable. Nearly every state is struggling to balance its budget in the midst of this terrible economic crisis, and it is estimated that the Medicare program owes the states an estimated $4 billion. This figure continues to grow as the SSA corrects additional cases. When it is determined that a state owes the Federal Government money for Medicaid expenses, states have only 60 days to pay this debt. Yet, now that the situation is reversed, the Federal Government has not even established a timeline with which to pay its debt to the States.

The legislation I am introducing today, the Special Disability Workload Liability Resolution Act, would provide $4 billion in Federal funding to settle this debt to the States. It requires the Social Security Administration and CMS to develop an accurate payment methodology to reimburse states within 6 months of the bill's enactment. Resolving this Federal debt would inject critical funds into State and local economies and help maintain state jobs.

This bill is based on language successfully included in the Senate- passed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but it was dropped in conference. It is my hope that my colleagues will once again support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Snowe, Nelson of Nebraska, and Wicker. The legislation that we are introducing today is aptly named The Safe Roads Act of 2009, as it will go a long way toward improving the safety of our Nation's roads by closing loopholes that have allowed commercial truck and bus drivers to use and abuse drugs and continue to drive without receiving required treatment necessary to return to duty. The bill is designed to save lives by preventing unnecessary deaths on our Nation's roads.

Nearly every day Americans can open their newspapers to learn about a death caused by drivers under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Sometimes, these drivers are behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler or a commercial bus, which due to their size and weight bring a destructive force on any road. On May 8th of this year, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported about a commercial bus driver involved in an accident on Interstate 40 near Forrest City, AR, in 2007 that resulted in four fatalities. The driver was reportedly under the influence of amphetamines, one of the substances tested for under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, FMCSA, testing regulations. The driver of this commercial vehicle has been sentenced to jail and four lives were lost as a result of the accident.

Some other similar accidents involving truck drivers that have occurred in recent years include: in October 2008, Kane County, IL, a truck driver rear-ended a passenger vehicle killing a woman. The truck driver was indicted for reckless homicide and driving under the influence of narcotics.

In January 2008, in Franklin County, AL, a truck driver was arrested for being under the influence of drugs or alcohol after crossing the center line and killing a woman in a head-on accident.

In July 2007, in Little Rock, AR, a truck driver killed a family of five in a crash. The driver admitted smoking crack cocaine a few hours before the crash.

In May 2007, Centre County, PA, a truck driver ran over a car killing a woman. The driver faces charges including homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence of suspected methamphetamines.

While drug abuse among the at least 3.4 million truck drivers in the industry is estimated by FMCSA to only represent 2 to 5 percent of the entire truck driving workforce, that still represents roughly 68,000 truck drivers that have a drug or alcohol abuse problem. That is a high and unacceptable risk that needs to be addressed in a serious fashion. Our goal is to prevent accidents of this nature, and I would like to briefly explain how we intend to do so.

Our bill will establish within the FMCSA a national drug and alcohol database and clearinghouse listing positive alcohol and drug test results or test refusals by commercial truck and bus drivers. The bill will expand current drug and alcohol testing regulations to require Medical Review Officers, MROs, and other FMCSA-approved agents conducting already-required testing to report positive test results and test refusals to the FMCSA drug and alcohol clearinghouse. Employers seeking new employees would then be required to not only follow the laws already in place for testing prospective employees, but they would also be required to examine the prospective employees' record in the FMCSA clearinghouse to determine if the prospective employee has recently failed or refused to take a drug and alcohol test. If the prospective employee has a positive test result or test refusal in the clearinghouse, an employer would not be allowed to hire the prospective employee unless it can be proven that he or she has not violated

the requirements of the testing program, or that he or she has fully completed a return-to-duty program as required by the testing program.

There are major loopholes that exist today in the current drug and alcohol testing regime. Drivers have a tendency to ``job-hop'' after failing drug and alcohol tests, moving from one company to another without reporting past drug and alcohol test failures. Some States have since closed this loophole by establishing clearinghouses similar to our proposal, but not all States have these laws, and they do not do anything to prevent drivers with past drug and alcohol test failures from moving State-to-State to seek and gain employment. Our legislation would go to considerable lengths in closing both of these well-known and well-reported loopholes. Our bill would also provide extensive privacy protection for individuals whose data is collected at the clearinghouse or accessed from the clearinghouse. The bill would provide individuals with the means to challenge records in the clearinghouse and rights of actions against those who misuse information contained in the clearinghouse or accessed from the clearinghouse.

The Government Accountability Office, GAO, and the FMCSA have acknowledged these loopholes. Both have published reports describing a national clearinghouse as a feasible, cost-effective measure to address this problem and improve highway safety. In addition, a clearinghouse is something that Congress has examined since implementing drug and alcohol testing requirements in 1995. In 1999, Congress required the FMCSA to evaluate the viability of a national clearinghouse database for positive test results and test refusals, and in 2004 the results of their study supported a need for such a system and revealed the safety benefits that would come from it. As recently as last year, the GAO released a report to Congress titled `Motor Carrier Safety: Improvements to Drug Testing Programs Could Better Identify Illegal Drug Users and Keep Them off the Road' that recommended the establishment of a national database and clearinghouse of drivers who have tested positive or refused to test. There is a clear need to close these well-known loopholes, and I believe our bill goes a long way in that direction.

It is my hope that Congress will support this legislation and move forward quickly to enact this legislation. I believe it is an imperative step to enhance drug and alcohol testing requirements and improve pre-employment background reviews to reduce the number of accidents and needless deaths resulting from drivers that are under the influence of these types of substances.

I want to thank Senators Snowe, Nelson of Nebraska, and Wicker for their hard work, leadership and support on this very important safety issue, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to support its swift passage.

Mr. President, there is an old saying about ``not seeing the forest for the trees'' that applies to the current myopic policies on biomass from Federal lands. Right now, instead of helping to provide part of the solution to our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, biomass from Federal lands allowed to build up in the woods or worse become fuel for catastrophic fires. Instead of being part of the solution for energy independence, it is creating a problem for forest management and communities that border on Federal forests.

I rise today to introduce a bill that would allow woody debris and plant material--or ``biomass''--from Federal lands to become part of the solution to America's energy problems and to create new economic opportunities to help sustain our rural communities. This legislation would amend the Clean Air Act to modify the definition of the term ``renewable biomass'' contained in the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard so that biomass from Federal lands is eligible as a fuel source under this standard.

Today, biomass from Federal lands cannot be counted as a renewable transportation fuel. The change I am proposing would help tackle a number of critical problems--expanding the universe of biomass that can be used for fuel, helping pay for programs to reduce dangerous levels of dead and dying trees that fuel wildfires, thinning unhealthy, second growth forests, providing low-carbon fuels to address climate change, and create jobs in increasingly difficult economic times.

The reason we need this legislation goes back to the 2007 energy bill--the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In that legislation, the Congress dramatically expanded the Federal mandate for the use of renewable biofuels, such as ethanol from corn and cellulose, and biodiesel. Unfortunately, this legislation included a definition of renewable biomass that is now part of the Clean Air Act which excluded slash and thinning byproducts from Federal lands--all Federal lands. This occurred despite the bipartisan work we had undertaken here in the Senate and in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to come up with a more commonsense definition. The result is that biomass from millions of acres of Federal lands are arbitrarily excluded from serving as feedstock for the very renewable biofuels that the mandate requires.

Changing the definition of ``renewable biomass'' for the renewable fuels standard is very important to states like Oregon, where the Federal Government owns much of the land and where our forests are choked and overstocked. Critical work needs to take

place in these forests and utilizing the excess biomass--small diameter trees, limbs and debris--for energy will help us get that work accomplished while getting us the added benefit of green energy. These byproducts are often a critical energy source for rural Americans, who use them in environmentally-friendly wood pellet stoves. But more importantly, they are part of the future of clean, renewable fuels--as further development of cellulosic ethanol will allow us to use these waste materials reclaimed literally from the forest and mill floors. Conversely, by excluding biomass from Federal lands, the existing mandate places ever more weight on the use of biomass from other sources, including the use of food-based corn and grains and private forests.

My bill seeks to utilize biomass from Federal lands in an environmentally responsible way. It will protect those natural resources that need to be protected, while allowing renewable biomass from Federal lands to contribute to our Nation's energy mix. First, my bill would allow biomass from National Forests and Bureau of Land Management forests to qualify as renewable biomass under the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard, but it would continue to exclude old growth and biomass from National Parks, Wilderness Areas and other environmentally protected areas. Second, the bill would require Federal land managers to ensure that the quantities of biomass harvested even from these eligible National Forest and BLM lands are sustainable. While biomass holds great potential as a clean source of energy, I want to ensure that it gets harvested at levels that are truly sustainable and that biofuels and bioenergy projects dependent on renewable biomass are sized appropriately so that we protect our forests and natural resources and ensure that biofuels production facilities will not wither and die because of inadequate feedstock supplies.

I want to be clear that my legislation only addresses the question of how the Renewable Fuel Standard treats biomass from Federal lands. It does not and it is not intended to reopen or overhaul the Renewable Fuels Standard as a whole. It is simply a targeted fix for our Federal public lands.

As we move forward with new energy legislation and work on developing additional green energy solutions, I want to ensure that renewable biomass is genuinely one of those solutions, including biomass from Federal lands. It is my hope that beyond fixing the definition in the Clean Air Act for the Renewable Fuels Standard, Congress will include a comparable definition in legislation addressing climate change and renewable electricity production requirements.

I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to advance a biomass definition that balances sound energy policy with practical and sensible use of our forests.

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

Mr. President, there is an old saying about ``not seeing the forest for the trees'' that applies to the current myopic policies on biomass from Federal lands. Right now, instead of helping to provide part of the solution to our Nation's dependence on foreign oil, biomass from Federal lands allowed to build up in the woods or worse become fuel for catastrophic fires. Instead of being part of the solution for energy independence, it is creating a problem for forest management and communities that border on Federal forests.

I rise today to introduce a bill that would allow woody debris and plant material--or ``biomass''--from Federal lands to become part of the solution to America's energy problems and to create new economic opportunities to help sustain our rural communities. This legislation would amend the Clean Air Act to modify the definition of the term ``renewable biomass'' contained in the Federal Renewable Fuel Standard so that biomass from Federal lands is eligible as a fuel source under this standard.

Today, biomass from Federal lands cannot be counted as a renewable transportation fuel. The change I am proposing would help tackle a number of critical problems--expanding the universe of biomass that can be used for fuel, helping pay for programs to reduce dangerous levels of dead and dying trees that fuel wildfires, thinning unhealthy, second growth forests, providing low-carbon fuels to address climate change, and create jobs in increasingly difficult economic times.

The reason we need this legislation goes back to the 2007 energy bill--the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In that legislation, the Congress dramatically expanded the Federal mandate for the use of renewable biofuels, such as ethanol from corn and cellulose, and biodiesel. Unfortunately, this legislation included a definition of renewable biomass that is now part of the Clean Air Act which excluded slash and thinning byproducts from Federal lands--all Federal lands. This occurred despite the bipartisan work we had undertaken here in the Senate and in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to come up with a more commonsense definition. The result is that biomass from millions of acres of Federal lands are arbitrarily excluded from serving as feedstock for the very renewable biofuels that the mandate requires.

Changing the definition of ``renewable biomass'' for the renewable fuels standard is very important to states like Oregon, where the Federal Government owns much of the land and where our forests are choked and overstocked. Critical work needs to take

place in these forests and utilizing the excess biomass--small diameter trees, limbs and debris--for energy will help us get that work accomplished while getting us the added benefit of green energy. These byproducts are often a critical energy source for rural Americans, who use them in environmentally-friendly wood pellet stoves. But more importantly, they are part of the future of clean, renewable fuels--as further development of cellulosic ethanol will allow us to use these waste materials reclaimed literally from the forest and mill floors. Conversely, by excluding biomass from Federal lands, the existing mandate places ever more weight on the use of biomass from other sources, including the use of food-based corn and grains and private forests.

My bill seeks to utilize biomass from Federal lands in an environmentally responsible way. It will protect those natural resources that need to be protected, while allowing renewable biomass from Federal lands to contribute to our Nation's energy mix. First, my bill would allow biomass from National Forests and Bureau of Land Management forests to qualify as renewable biomass under the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard, but it would continue to exclude old growth and biomass from National Parks, Wilderness Areas and other environmentally protected areas. Second, the bill would require Federal land managers to ensure that the quantities of biomass harvested even from these eligible National Forest and BLM lands are sustainable. While biomass holds great potential as a clean source of energy, I want to ensure that it gets harvested at levels that are truly sustainable and that biofuels and bioenergy projects dependent on renewable biomass are sized appropriately so that we protect our forests and natural resources and ensure that biofuels production facilities will not wither and die because of inadequate feedstock supplies.

I want to be clear that my legislation only addresses the question of how the Renewable Fuel Standard treats biomass from Federal lands. It does not and it is not intended to reopen or overhaul the Renewable Fuels Standard as a whole. It is simply a targeted fix for our Federal public lands.

As we move forward with new energy legislation and work on developing additional green energy solutions, I want to ensure that renewable biomass is genuinely one of those solutions, including biomass from Federal lands. It is my hope that beyond fixing the definition in the Clean Air Act for the Renewable Fuels Standard, Congress will include a comparable definition in legislation addressing climate change and renewable electricity production requirements.

I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives to advance a biomass definition that balances sound energy policy with practical and sensible use of our forests.

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

President, I rise to speak on the introduction of the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act. I want to also acknowledge that I am joined in introducing this legislation by Senators Dorgan, Grassley, and Johnson. The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 was enacted at a time when there was significant concentration in the livestock and poultry industry. That law has since provided livestock producers, the family farmers and ranchers of our country, with a remedy to protect themselves against manipulative and anti-competitive practices in the marketplace. However, since the early 1920s our domestic livestock industry has changed significantly and so too have the ways in which producers market their livestock. Gone are the days when a simple handshake between buyer and seller was all you needed. Changes in marketing have introduced new ways for bad actors to manipulate prices and this legislation is designed to strengthen the laws originally enacted in the Packers and Stockyards Act.

It is no secret that the packing industry in the U.S. has again become increasingly consolidated. In 1985, the four largest packers accounted for 39 percent of all cattle slaughtered in the U.S. Twenty years later, the top four firms controlled over 69 percent of the domestic cattle slaughter and this statistic does not even include the acquisitions that have taken place in the industry since 2007. Being big in agriculture is not bad, but it does present opportunities for a select few to manipulate the market for their own gain. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act strikes at the heart of one particular anti- competitive practice. Over the years, livestock producers, feeders, and packers have been given a number of new marketing tools for price discovery and hedging risk. One of those tools is the forward contract where a buyer and seller agree to a transaction at a specified point of time in the future. However, certain types of forward contracting agreements have become ripe for price manipulation. This is because a growing number of packing operations own their own livestock or control them through marketing agreements. These firms then can buy from themselves when prices are high and buy from others when prices are low. Captive supplies are animals that packers own and control prior to slaughter. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act prohibits certain arrangements that provide packers with the opportunity use their captive supplies to manipulate local market prices. First, the legislation requires that forward contracts contain a ``firm base price'' which is derived from an external source. Though not outlined in the legislation, commonly used external sources of price include the live cattle futures market or wholesale beef market. This ensures that both buyers and sellers have a basis for how pricing in a contract will be derived at the time

the contract is agreed upon. Second, the bill requires that forward contracts be traded in open, public markets. This guarantees that multiple buyers and sellers can witness bids as well as offer their own. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act also ensures that trading of contracts be done in a manner that provides both small and large buyers and sellers access to the market. Contracts are to be traded in sizes approximate to the common number of cattle or pigs transported in a trailer, but the law does not prohibit trading from occurring in multiples of those contracts for larger livestock orders.

I travel to Wyoming nearly every weekend and have heard the same concerns from many of our ranchers. They want to be competitive in the market and sell the best animals possible so that they can continue the work that so many in their family have done for so many years. However, this problem is not isolated to Wyoming. Livestock producers from coast to coast are finding that with consolidation there are fewer and fewer buyers for their animals and their options for marketing too are being lost. This legislation not only increases openness in forward contracting but preserves the right for ranchers to choose the best methods for selling their animals without worry that their agreements will be subject to manipulation. The bill does not apply to producer cooperatives who often own their processing facility. The legislation also carefully targets the problem--large packers owning captive supplies--by also exempting packers that only own one facility and those that do not report for mandatory price reporting. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act does not apply to agreements based on quality grading nor does it affect a producer's ability to negotiate contracts one-on-one with buyers. Therefore, sellers can still choose from a variety of methods including the spot market, futures market, or other alternative marketing arrangements.

This bill is common sense and ensures that our ranchers have access to a competitive market in these difficult economic times. Ranchers aren't asking for a handout. What I am asking for is a level-playing field and an equal opportunity for our ranchers to succeed. I am pleased to say that I am joined by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in working to address this problem. I encourage my other colleagues to support the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act and to join me in giving ranchers an honest chance to make a living.

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

Mr President, I rise to speak about the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act, which I am introducing today along with my friends

Senators Sam Brownback and Tom Udall. This bipartisan legislation continues our tradition of protecting threatened and endangered species around the world and comes at a critical time in the survival of these animals.

Of the 37 wild felid species worldwide, all are currently recognized as species in need of protection under the World Conservation Union, IUCN, Red List, the lists of species in CITES appendices I, II, and III, or the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Of the 35 wild canid species worldwide, nearly 50 percent are recognized as in need of such protection in one of these categories.

This legislation would create the Great Cats and Rare Canids Conservation Fund and builds on the success of the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, NSCF, which presently provides funding to protect tigers, rhinoceroses, elephants, great apes, and marine turtles. The Great Cats and Rare Canids Conservation Fund would support the conservation of wild felid and canid populations outside the United States by providing financial resources to conserve 15 such species that are vital for their ecological value and are listed as endangered or threatened on the IUCN Red List of Endangered Species. The great cats and rare canids included in this bill are umbrella species that, if conserved appropriately, protect their corresponding landscapes and other species dependent on those ecosystems.

Among the species protected under this act are the majestic jaguar of South and Central America, the elusive snow leopard, the cheetah, the African wild dog, and other rare carnivore species. These species are threatened by habitat loss, poaching, disease, and pollution.

The struggle of the African wild dog is one example of the plight these large carnivores face. The less than 2,500 adults that remain not only have to combat the widespread misconception that they are livestock killers, but are extremely susceptible to diseases common in domesticated animals. They have lost 89 percent their habitat and are now found in only 14 of the 39 countries that comprise their historic range.

The snow leopard is another example. Like all great cats, the snow leopard needs a large tract of uninterrupted land in which to live, but the snow leopard's habitat in China has been fragmented due to human encroachment. The cats are also under extreme poaching pressures as their fur is sold on the black market.

In addition to protecting the species already listed in the Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been mandated to complete a study within two years of the bill's enactment to determine what other critically endangered species could become eligible for conservation assistance. The findings of this study will enable the United States to provide conservation assistance to protect additional great cat and rare canid species that are determined to need conservation assistance in the future.

Our bill would authorize $5 million in annual spending for the conservation of more than a dozen species of great cats and rare canines. The Great Cats and Rare Canids Conservation Fund would leverage private conservation dollars from corporate and non-government sources in order to address the critical need to conserve these threatened large carnivores. Historically, for every $1 invested by the Federal Government in the programs that are part of the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, there is at least a $3 match by private donations.

These funds enable the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to partner with nonprofit groups and foreign entities to undertake a range of conservation programs where threatened and endangered species live. Typical activities to protect the different species in the Multinational Species Conservation Fund include new educational programs for local populations to increase awareness of these species and prevent interactions that could be harmful to people and animals, as well as increased monitoring and law enforcement activities to prevent poaching and illegal animal trafficking. Great cats are particularly at risk from hunting for trade purposes while rare canids are susceptible to disease, and this bill will allow the establishment of programs to address these species-specific threats.

The genesis of the Great Cats and Rare Canids program is nearly a decade old, and the bill under consideration today was also introduced in the past two Congresses. In that time, these species have continued to decline in numbers. I do not think our children and grandchildren will forgive us if we stand by and let these magnificent animals drift into extinction. With a relatively small investment, we can invigorate ongoing conservation efforts around the world.