A bill for the relief of Shirley Constantino Tan.

Mr. President, today I introduce the Energy Assistance Fund Act of 2009, legislation which will 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 costs of energy create hardship for many of our citizens. Unpredictable, and often increasing, prices for home heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel are a huge burden for many families, truckers, and small businesses.

I am concerned that in a 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 and skylights or solar water heating systems receive a 30 percent tax credit. In both instances, the investment which must be made by the taxpayer far exceeds the credit amount. In the current economic climate, 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.

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. 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 national average median 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 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 we have asked them to serve.

I urge my colleagues to work together in a bipartisan way so that we can help Americans overcome the challenge of our dependence on foreign oil and restore and strengthen our Nation's economy.

Mr. President, I rise to join with my senior colleague from Maine in sponsoring the Commercial Truck Highway Safety Demonstration Program Act, an important bill that addresses a significant safety problem in our State.

Under current law, trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are allowed to travel on the portion of Interstate 95 designated as the Maine Turnpike, which runs from Maine's border with New Hampshire to Augusta, our capital city. At Augusta, the Turnpike designation ends, but 1-95 proceeds another 200 miles north to Houlton. At Augusta, however, heavy trucks must exit the modern four-lane, limited-access highway and are forced onto smaller, two-lane secondary roads that pass through cities, towns, and villages.

Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are permitted on interstate highways in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York as well as the Canadian provinces of New Brunswick and Quebec. The weight limit disparity on various segments of Maine's Interstate Highway System is a significant impediment to commerce, increases wear-and-tear on our secondary roads, and, most important, puts our people needlessly at risk.

Senator Snowe and I have introduced this legislation several times in recent years. We remain concerned about the safety of our citizens who are needlessly put at risk when heavy trucks are forced off the main interstate and onto secondary roads through our

towns and communities. Unfortunately, Maine has experienced two tragic deaths in the past few years due to accidents involving heavy trucks in this situation.

One of these tragic accidents took the life of Susan Abraham, a bright and talented 17-year-old high-school student from Hampden, Maine, when her car was struck by a heavy truck on Route 9. The truck driver could not see Susan's small car turning onto that two-lane road as he rounded a corner. It was an accident, but one that would have been avoided had the truck remained on the Interstate highway. Interstate 95 runs less than three-quarters of a mile away, but Federal law prevented the truck from using that modern, divided highway, a highway that was designed to provide ample views of the road ahead.

That preventable tragedy took place almost one year to the day after Lena Gray, an 80-year-old resident of Bangor, was struck and killed by a tractor-trailer as she was crossing a downtown street. Again, that accident would not have occurred had that truck been allowed to use I- 95, which runs directly through Bangor.

The problem Maine faces due to the disparity in truck weight limits affects many communities, but it is clearly evident in the eastern Maine cities of Bangor and Brewer. In this region, a two-mile stretch of Interstate 395 connects two major State highways that carry significant truck traffic across Maine. I-395 affords direct and safe access between these major corridors, but because of the existing Federal truck weight limit, many heavy trucks are prohibited from using this multi-lane, limited access highway.

Instead, these trucks, which sometimes carry hazardous materials, are required to maneuver through the downtown portions of Bangor and Brewer on two-lane roadways. Truckers are faced with two options; the first is a 3.5 mile diversion through downtown Bangor that requires several very difficult and dangerous turns. The second route is a 7.5 mile diversion that includes 20 traffic lights and requires travel through portions of downtown Bangor as well. Congestion is a significant issue, and safety is seriously compromised as a result of these required diversions.

In June 2004, Wilbur Smiths Associates, a nationally recognized transportation consulting firm, completed a study to examine the impact a Federal weight exemption on non-exempt portions of Maine's Interstate Highway System would have on safety, pavement, and bridges. The study found that extending the current truck weight exemption on the Maine Turnpike to all interstate highways in Maine would result in a decrease of 3.2 fatal crashes per year. A uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways would reduce highway miles, as well as the travel times necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in safety, economic, and environmental benefits.

Moreover, Maine's extensive network of local roads would be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic.

Most important, however, a uniform truck weight limit will keep trucks on the interstate where they belong, rather than on roads and highways that pass through Maine's cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

In addition to the safety of motorists and pedestrians, there is a homeland security aspect to this as well. An accident or attack involving a heavy truck carrying explosive fuel or a hazardous chemical on a congested city street would have devastating consequences. That risk can be alleviated substantially by allowing those trucks to stay on the open highway.

The legislation that Senator Snowe and I are introducing addresses the safety issues we face in Maine because of the disparities in truck weight limits. The legislation directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a commercial truck safety pilot program in Maine. Under the pilot program, the truck weight limit on all Maine highways that are part of the Interstate Highway System would be set at 100,000 pounds for three years. During the waiver period, the Secretary would study the impact of the pilot program on safety and would receive the input of a panel on which State officials, and representatives from safety organizations, municipalities, and the commercial trucking industry would serve. The waiver would become permanent if the panel determined that motorists were safer as a result of a uniform truck weight limit on Maine's Interstate Highway System.

Maine's citizens and motorists are needlessly at risk because too many heavy trucks are forced off the interstate and onto local roads. The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing is a commonsense approach to a significant safety problem in my State. Our efforts are widely supported by public officials throughout Maine, including the Governor, the Maine Department of Transportation, the Maine Secretary of State, and the Maine State Police. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, California. She is the loving mother of 12 year old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joreine, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.

I have decided to introduce a private bill on Ms. Tan's behalf because I believe her removal from the U.S. would cause undue hardship for her and her family. Without this legislation, this family will be separated or they will be relocated to a third country where Ms. Tan's safety and her children's well-being may be at risk. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Before coming to the U.S., Ms. Tan experienced tragic hardship in the Philippines after her mother and sister were murdered by her cousin. Ms. Tan was only 14 years old at the time and the violent assault left her with a bullet wound in the head. Although the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short sentence and his impending release from jail in 1990 compelled her to leave the country out of fear for her safety. Ms. Tan legally entered the U.S. on a visitor's visa in 1989.

Ms. Tan faces deportation today in part because of the negligence demonstrated by her previous counsel. Ms. Tan applied for asylum in 1995. After years of appeals, the attorney received a brief from the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, outlining the Government's position on Ms. Tan's case. The attorney, however, failed to submit a reply brief in her client's favor and, in May 2002, the case was dismissed and Ms. Tan was granted an order of voluntary departure from the U.S.

Ms. Tan should have received notice of the voluntary removal order from her attorney. However, the attorney had moved offices, did not receive the order, and failed to inform Ms. Tan of the information. As a result, Ms. Tan did not depart the U.S. and the voluntary removal order against her became a deportation order.

The first time that Ms. Tan received notice of the deportation order was on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers appeared at her home and took her into custody.

In effect, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to adequately represent herself in U.S. immigration proceedings as a result of her attorney's negligence. Ms. Tan has since filed a complaint against her former attorney with the State Bar of California. A previous complaint has also been filed against the same attorney with the California Bar for similar misconduct.

One of the most compelling reasons for permitting Ms. Tan to remain in the U.S. is the impact that her deportation would have on her two U.S. citizen minor children, Jashley and Joreine.

These children are currently seventh graders at Cabrillo Elementary School in Pacifica, California, where they have made the honor roll. In letters to me from two teachers at Cabrillo Elementary, Jashley and Joreine were described as ``ideal'' students--``the kinds of kids that make my job feel easy.'' One of the teachers described their mother, Ms. Tan, as a highly-involved, ``model'' parent, one who ``attends every conference, drives on field trips and consistently checks in with her boys' teachers and the rest of our staff to make sure Jashley and Joreine continue to be successful.''

However, if Ms. Tan is forced to leave the United States, this family has stated that they would follow her to the Philippines or relocate to a third country to avoid their separation. This means that Jashley and Joreine will have to cut their education short and have to leave the U.S.--their birthplace and the only country they know to be home.

All too often, young U.S. citizen children like Jashley and Joreine are being put in this position when one or both of their parents may be removed from the United States. A January 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that, over the last 10 years, 108,434 immigrants who were the parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from this country.

A separate report completed this year by Dorsey & Whitney LLP to the Urban Institute affirms what many of us know--that the removal or deportation of a parent is deeply traumatic and causes long-lasting harm to U.S. citizen children. For families that have no choice but to leave the United States as a unit in order to stay together, this has life-altering consequences for U.S. citizen children. Besides the fact that these children lose the opportunities that come with being raised in the United States, these children are more prone to anxiety, depression, eating and sleeping disorders, post- traumatic stress disorder, and behavior changes.

This is the situation facing the Tan family. While her marriage was legally performed under California law at the time, Ms. Tan cannot take steps to legally adjust her immigration status

through the regular family-based immigration channels.

I do not believe that it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family--including two U.S. citizen minor children--to make the choice between being separated and relocation to a country where they may face serious hardships.

The Tan family has built a stable and supportive home for themselves in the Pacifica, California community. Ms. Tan's spouse has worked for 17 years at Biddle-Shaw Insurance Services, Inc., where her employer describes her as ``hard-working . . . trustworthy and dependable.'' This couple owns their own home, and over many years they were active members of the Good Shepherd Catholic Church. At Good Shepherd, Jay was a member of the School Board and Ms. Tan was a consummate volunteer. I received a heartfelt letter from the Pastor at Good Shepherd that describes Ms. Tan as a ``dedicated mother'' and attests to the family's spirit of volunteerism and commitment at the church.

In fact, I have received 45 letters from friends and community members and 3 letters from organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, Love Exiles, and Immigration Equality, in support of Ms. Tan remaining in the U.S. I have also been contacted by Representative Jackie Speier's office in support of this case. This family has also received substantial attention from the media in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan today will enable this entire family to us continue to remain in the U.S. and make positive contributions to their community in Pacifica, California.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing a private relief bill on behalf of Shirley Constantino Tan. Ms. Tan is a Filipina national living in Pacifica, California. She is the loving mother of 12 year old U.S. citizen twin boys, Jashley and Joreine, and the spouse of Jay Mercado, a naturalized U.S. citizen.

I have decided to introduce a private bill on Ms. Tan's behalf because I believe her removal from the U.S. would cause undue hardship for her and her family. Without this legislation, this family will be separated or they will be relocated to a third country where Ms. Tan's safety and her children's well-being may be at risk. I believe Ms. Tan merits Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of relief as a private bill.

Before coming to the U.S., Ms. Tan experienced tragic hardship in the Philippines after her mother and sister were murdered by her cousin. Ms. Tan was only 14 years old at the time and the violent assault left her with a bullet wound in the head. Although the cousin who committed the murders was eventually prosecuted, he received a short sentence and his impending release from jail in 1990 compelled her to leave the country out of fear for her safety. Ms. Tan legally entered the U.S. on a visitor's visa in 1989.

Ms. Tan faces deportation today in part because of the negligence demonstrated by her previous counsel. Ms. Tan applied for asylum in 1995. After years of appeals, the attorney received a brief from the Board of Immigration Appeals, BIA, outlining the Government's position on Ms. Tan's case. The attorney, however, failed to submit a reply brief in her client's favor and, in May 2002, the case was dismissed and Ms. Tan was granted an order of voluntary departure from the U.S.

Ms. Tan should have received notice of the voluntary removal order from her attorney. However, the attorney had moved offices, did not receive the order, and failed to inform Ms. Tan of the information. As a result, Ms. Tan did not depart the U.S. and the voluntary removal order against her became a deportation order.

The first time that Ms. Tan received notice of the deportation order was on January 28, 2009, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers appeared at her home and took her into custody.

In effect, Ms. Tan was denied the opportunity to adequately represent herself in U.S. immigration proceedings as a result of her attorney's negligence. Ms. Tan has since filed a complaint against her former attorney with the State Bar of California. A previous complaint has also been filed against the same attorney with the California Bar for similar misconduct.

One of the most compelling reasons for permitting Ms. Tan to remain in the U.S. is the impact that her deportation would have on her two U.S. citizen minor children, Jashley and Joreine.

These children are currently seventh graders at Cabrillo Elementary School in Pacifica, California, where they have made the honor roll. In letters to me from two teachers at Cabrillo Elementary, Jashley and Joreine were described as ``ideal'' students--``the kinds of kids that make my job feel easy.'' One of the teachers described their mother, Ms. Tan, as a highly-involved, ``model'' parent, one who ``attends every conference, drives on field trips and consistently checks in with her boys' teachers and the rest of our staff to make sure Jashley and Joreine continue to be successful.''

However, if Ms. Tan is forced to leave the United States, this family has stated that they would follow her to the Philippines or relocate to a third country to avoid their separation. This means that Jashley and Joreine will have to cut their education short and have to leave the U.S.--their birthplace and the only country they know to be home.

All too often, young U.S. citizen children like Jashley and Joreine are being put in this position when one or both of their parents may be removed from the United States. A January 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that, over the last 10 years, 108,434 immigrants who were the parents of U.S. citizen children were removed from this country.

A separate report completed this year by Dorsey & Whitney LLP to the Urban Institute affirms what many of us know--that the removal or deportation of a parent is deeply traumatic and causes long-lasting harm to U.S. citizen children. For families that have no choice but to leave the United States as a unit in order to stay together, this has life-altering consequences for U.S. citizen children. Besides the fact that these children lose the opportunities that come with being raised in the United States, these children are more prone to anxiety, depression, eating and sleeping disorders, post- traumatic stress disorder, and behavior changes.

This is the situation facing the Tan family. While her marriage was legally performed under California law at the time, Ms. Tan cannot take steps to legally adjust her immigration status

through the regular family-based immigration channels.

I do not believe that it is in our Nation's best interest to force this family--including two U.S. citizen minor children--to make the choice between being separated and relocation to a country where they may face serious hardships.

The Tan family has built a stable and supportive home for themselves in the Pacifica, California community. Ms. Tan's spouse has worked for 17 years at Biddle-Shaw Insurance Services, Inc., where her employer describes her as ``hard-working . . . trustworthy and dependable.'' This couple owns their own home, and over many years they were active members of the Good Shepherd Catholic Church. At Good Shepherd, Jay was a member of the School Board and Ms. Tan was a consummate volunteer. I received a heartfelt letter from the Pastor at Good Shepherd that describes Ms. Tan as a ``dedicated mother'' and attests to the family's spirit of volunteerism and commitment at the church.

In fact, I have received 45 letters from friends and community members and 3 letters from organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, Love Exiles, and Immigration Equality, in support of Ms. Tan remaining in the U.S. I have also been contacted by Representative Jackie Speier's office in support of this case. This family has also received substantial attention from the media in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Enactment of the legislation I am introducing on behalf of Ms. Tan today will enable this entire family to us continue to remain in the U.S. and make positive contributions to their community in Pacifica, California.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the No Child Left Inside Act of 2009, which will provide new support for environmental education in our Nation's classrooms. I thank Senators Collins, Cardin, Dodd, Durbin, Gillibrand, Kerry, Lautenberg, Lincoln, Menendez, Murray, Sanders, and Whitehouse for agreeing to be original cosponsors of this bill. Given the major environmental challenges we face today, teaching our young people about their natural world should be a priority, and this legislation is an important first step.

For more than three decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the 21st century economy, many schools throughout the Nation now offer some form of environmental education.

Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge. Many schools are being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs. Fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or popular. State and local administrators, teachers, and environmental educators point to two factors behind this recent and disturbing shift: the unintended consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act and a lack of funding for these critical programs.

The legislation that I am introducing today would address these two concerns. First, it would provide a new professional development initiative to ensure that teachers possess the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to effectively teach environmental education in the classroom, including the use of innovative interdisciplinary and field- based learning strategies. Second, the bill would create incentives, through new funding, for states to develop a peer-reviewed comprehensive statewide environmental literacy plan to make sure prekindergarten, elementary, and secondary school students have a solid understanding of our planet and its natural resources. Lastly, the No Child Left Inside Act provides support for school districts to initiate, expand, or improve their environmental education curriculum, and for rigorous national studies to be conducted regarding the effectiveness of environmental education on improving student academic achievement and behavior. This legislation has broad support among national and state environmental groups and educational groups.

The American public recognizes that the environment is already one of the dominant issues of the 21st century. In 2003, a National Science Foundation panel noted that ``in the coming decades, the public will more frequently be called upon to understand complex environmental issues, assess risk, evaluate proposed environmental plans and understand how individual decisions affect the environment at local and global scales. Creating a scientifically informed citizenry requires a concerted, systemic approach to environmental education . . .'' In the private sector, business leaders also increasingly believe that an environmentally literate workforce is critical to their long-term success. They recognize that better, more efficient environmental practices improve the bottom line and help position their companies for the future.

Climate change, conservation of precious natural resources, maintaining clean air and water, and other environmental challenges are pressing and complex issues that influence human health, economic development, and national security. A federal study released earlier this month found that students participating in environmental air quality education programs took action that resulted in improved air quality in their communities. The study concludes by recommending increased support for environmental education programs. Finding widespread agreement about the specific steps we need to take to solve these problems is difficult. Environmental education will help ensure that our Nation's children have the knowledge and skills necessary to address these critical issues. In short, the environment should be an important part of the curriculum in our schools.

I know my constituents in Rhode Island, as well as the residents of other States, want their children to be environmentally literate and have a connection with the natural world. In Rhode Island, organizations such as the Rhode Island Environmental Education Association, Roger Williams Park Zoo, Save the Bay, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society as well as countless schools, teachers, and other groups across the country, reach out to children each and every day to offer educational and outdoor experiences that these children may never otherwise have, helping to inspire them to learn. Despite these extraordinary efforts, environmental education remains out of reach for too many kids. I am proud to sponsor this important legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact the No Child Left Inside Act of 2009.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to once again introduce legislation that seeks not only to rectify an impediment to international commerce flowing through Maine, but more importantly, will offer a measure of safety and security that many of my constituents in Maine do not currently possess.

As many of our colleagues know, expanding upon the current federal truck weight limitation of 80,000 pounds is often looked upon as too dangerous, flaunting the safety of drivers who may be faced with a truck weighing as much as 145,000 pounds. While my record reflects my long commitment to safety on our roadways, I ask my colleagues not to overlook the safety of pedestrians as well.

Take the situation we face in Maine, where we currently have a limited exemption along the southern portion of the Maine Turnpike. Many trucks traveling to or from the Canadian border or into upstate Maine are not able to travel on our Interstates as a result of the 80,000 pound weight limit. This forces many of them onto secondary roads, many of which are two-lane roads running through small towns and villages in Maine. Tanker trucks carrying fuel teeter past elementary schools, libraries, weaving through traffic to reach locations like our Air National Guard station. Not only is it an inefficient method of bringing necessary fuel to Guardsmen that provide our national security, but imagine if you will one of those tanker trucks rupturing on Main Street, potentially causing serious damage to property, causing traffic chaos, and most importantly, killing or injuring drivers and pedestrians.

This is not a far-fetched scenario. In fact, two pedestrians were killed last year in Maine as a result of overweight trucks on local roadways, one tragic instance occurring within sight of the nearby Interstate. So I ask you, is the so-called safety argument truly a legitimate reason for opposition as my constituents and many others across small American communities are taking their lives in their hands when merely crossing Main Street?

What is the result of redirecting such traffic onto local roads? According to study conducted by the Maine Department of Transportation, traffic fatalities involving trucks weighing 100,000 pounds are 10 times greater on secondary roads in Maine than on the exempted Interstates. Serious injuries are seven times more likely. Not to mention the exorbitant cost of maintaining these secondary roads, forced to handle these massive trucks. These roads were not designed to handle this kind of traffic. Our Interstates were, yet these trucks are consistently prevented from traveling on them.

As you can see, safety is indeed the issue. Unfortunately, I believe the opponents of such legislation who continually cite safety as the reason behind their opposition are missing the point.

Another argument against allowing such trucks access to these Interstates is the classic ``slippery slope'', that if you allow one State to have such an exemption, pretty soon you'll have to give EVERY State such an exemption. Well, I would like to remind the opponents of this bill that we're already almost there. A total of 46 States possess some type of variance, already have some type of exemption, and 4 States allow trucks weighing over 130,000 pounds on some roads within their State! To offer a clear picture of this, if you are driving a truck weighing 100,000 pounds, you can leave Gary, Indiana, just outside of Chicago, and can

operate that vehicle all the way to Portland, ME. There, of course, they have to unload the additional weight--this case, 20,000 pounds--to continue on the Interstate, or travel the remainder of the way through the State on these local roads, endangering the populace and other drivers.

Conversely, you can operate a truck weighing 90,000 pounds from Kansas City, Missouri and travel to Seattle, WA. So I ask you, is this truly a legitimate reason for opposition while my constituents are taking their lives in their hands when merely crossing Main Street? Perhaps, for the sake of fairness, every State should rescind their current variances, instead requiring that all States operate at the present federal level of 80,000 pounds. I suspect if that were the case many of our opponents would no longer be so stalwart in their reluctance to support waivers.

Lastly, and most importantly, I would especially like to thank Senator Collins for her steadfast effort as, side-by-side, we continue to seek a resolution to this issue so vital to our State's economic competitiveness and to the safety of Maine's people.