A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a Federal income tax credit for the purchase of certain nonroad equipment powered by alternative power sources.

Mr. President, today I will introduce the Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007. Just as its name suggests, the Arbitration Fairness Act is designed to return fairness to the arbitration system. This bill is not an anti-arbitration bill. If anything, it is pro- arbitration. I firmly believe that this bill will strengthen the arbitration system by returning arbitration to a more equitable design that reflects the intent of the original arbitration legislation, the Federal Arbitration Act.

President Calvin Coolidge signed the Federal Arbitration Act, FAA, into law on February 12, 1925. Congress passed the FAA to make arbitration an enforceable alternative to the civil courts. Even as early as the 1920's,

there were concerns about the efficiency of the civil court system and a desire to allow a speedier alternative. The intent of the FAA, as expressed in a 1923 hearing before a Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was ``to enable business men to settle their disputes expeditiously and economically.'' In a later hearing on the FAA, it was clarified that the legislation was not intended to apply to the employment contracts of those businesses. This distinction is important because it illustrates that, while arbitration was something that the FAA's original sponsors wanted to promote, they were also careful to make clear that they didn't intend for arbitration to become a weapon to be wielded by the powerful against those with less financial and negotiating power.

Since the FAA's enactment, the use of arbitration has grown exponentially. Arbitration certainly has advantages. It can be a fair and efficient way to settle disputes. I strongly support voluntary, alternative dispute resolution methods, and I believe we ought to encourage their use. But I also believe that arbitration is a fair way to settle disputes between consumers and lenders only when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily by both parties to the dispute after the dispute has arisen. Otherwise arbitration can be used as a weapon by the stronger party against the weaker party.

One of the most fundamental principles of our justice system is the constitutional right to take a dispute to court. Indeed, all Americans have the right in civil and criminal cases to a trial by jury. The right to a jury trial in civil cases in Federal court is contained in the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. Many States provide a similar right to a jury trial in civil matters filed in state court.

I have been concerned for many years that mandatory arbitration clauses are slowly eroding the legal protections that should be available to all Americans. A large and growing number of corporations now require millions of consumers and employees to sign contracts that include mandatory arbitration clauses. Most of these individuals have little or no meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms of their contracts and so find themselves having to choose either to accept a mandatory arbitration clause or to forgo securing employment or needed goods and services. Incredibly, mandatory arbitration clauses have been used to prevent individuals from trying to vindicate their civil rights under statutes specifically passed by Congress to protect them.

There is a range of ways in which mandatory arbitration can be particularly hostile to individuals attempting to assert their rights. For example, the administrative fees--both to gain access to the arbitration forum and to pay for the ongoing services of the arbitrator or arbitrators--can be so high as to act as a de facto bar for many individuals who have a claim that requires resolution. In addition, arbitration generally lacks discovery proceedings and other civil due process protections.

Furthermore, there is no meaningful judicial review of arbitrators' decisions. Under mandatory, binding arbitration, even if a party believes that the arbitrator did not consider all the facts or follow the law, the party cannot file a suit in court. The only basis for challenging a binding arbitration decision is fairly narrow: if there is reason to believe that the arbitrator committed actual fraud, or was biased, corrupt, or guilty of misconduct, or exceeded his or her powers. Because mandatory, binding arbitration is so conclusive, it is a credible means of dispute resolution only when all parties understand the full ramifications of agreeing to it.

Unfortunately, in a variety of contexts--employment agreements, credit card agreements, HMO contracts, securities broker contracts, and other consumer and franchise agreements--mandatory arbitration is fast becoming the rule, rather than the exception. The practice of forcing employees to use arbitration has been on the rise since the Supreme Court's Circuit City decision in 2001. Unless Congress acts, the protections it has provided through law for American workers, investors, and consumers, will slowly become irrelevant.

The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2009, which I am happy to say has already been introduced in the House by Rep. Hank Johnson, reinstates the FAA's original intent by requiring that agreements to arbitrate employment, consumer, franchise, or civil rights disputes be made after the dispute has arisen. The bill does not prohibit arbitration. What it does do is prevent a party with greater bargaining power from forcing individuals into arbitration through a contractual provision. It will ensure that citizens once again have a true choice between arbitration and the traditional civil court system.

I should note that the bill includes two notable changes from versions that have been introduced in previous Congresses. First, the bill creates a new Chapter 4 of Title 9, separating the new provisions concerning arbitration of consumer, employment, franchise, and civil rights disputes from the Federal Arbitration Act. This should give some comfort to those who are concerned that the bill might have an unintended effect on business to business arbitration.

Second, the bill reverses the Supreme Court's April 2009 decision in 14 Park Plaza v. Pyett. In that case, the Court held that arbitration provisions included in collective bargaining agreements can have the effect of preventing employees from pursuing employment discrimination claims in court. Unions have never believed this was the case. The decision once again expands the reach of arbitration, making less effective statutes specifically intended by Congress to protect workers. Therefore, the bill provides that it generally does not apply to arbitration provisions contained in collective bargaining agreements, except that such provisions may not waive employees' rights to take constitutional or statutory claims to court.

In our system of Government, Congress and state legislatures pass laws and the courts are available to citizens to make sure those laws are enforced. But the rule of law means little if the only forum available to those who believe they have been wronged is an alternative, unaccountable system where the law passed by the legislature does not necessarily apply. This legislation both protects Americans from exploitation and strengthens a valuable alternative method of dispute resolution. These are both worthy ends, and I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will join me in working to pass this important bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two pieces of legislation S. 922 and S. 923, that I hope will be the next major step that this Congress takes to help an exciting form of renewable energy to become more established as a viable energy technology. I am referring to helping the expansion of the ocean hydrokinetic energy industry.

Today I am introducing the Marine Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2009 and a companion tax provision. They are companion measures to one that has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington.

For a number of years this Nation has been providing help with research and other assistance to promote the development of energy from our oceans and rivers, using the tides, currents, waves and even the thermal properties of our oceans to generate electricity. With 70 percent of our planet covered with water, and the energy that the sun produces--each day oceans absorb the energy equivalent of 250 billion barrels of oil--and the energy that winds produce and impart to that water, marine hydrokinetic energy has the potential to be a major source of the world's clean, non-carbon emitting power in the future.

The Electric Power Research Institute has estimated that ocean resources in the U.S. could generate 252 million megawatt hours of electricity--6.5 percent of America's entire electricity generation--if ocean energy gained the same financial and research incentives currently enjoyed by other forms of renewable energy.

In 2005 in the Energy Policy Act we started the process of leveling the playing field. Besides authorizing a greater Federal research preference, we granted ocean energy the federal purchase requirement and the federal production incentive. In 2007's Energy Independence and Security Act, we furthered energy research and authorized the funding of research and ocean energy demonstration centers. In 2008, ocean energy finally was qualified to receive a renewable energy Production Tax Credit--unfortunately at a lower rate than some other renewables receive. But the PTC establishes the principle that ocean energy is a valuable future technology to meet electricity generation needs.

Now we are proposing that additional Federal aid be granted to all potential forms of Marine Renewable Energy to allow the industry's growth to advance more rapidly. The bill authorizes the Department of Energy to increase its research and development effort, working to develop new technologies, reduce manufacturing and operating costs of the devices, improve the reliability and survivability of marine energy facilities and make sure that such power can be integrated into the national electricity grid. The bill also encourages efforts to allow marine energy to work in conjunction with other forms of energy, such as offshore wind, and authorizes more federal aid to assess and deal with any environmental impacts. The bill also authorizes establishment of project standards and provides for incentives to help the industry comply with any standards developed.

Allows for the creation of a Federal Marine-Based Energy Device Verification program, so the Government tests and certifies the performance of new marine technologies to reduce market risks for utilities to purchase power from such projects.

Authorizes the Federal Government to set up an adaptive management program, and a fund to help pay for the regulatory permitting and development of new marine technologies.

A separate bill, likely to be referred to the Senate Finance Committee for consideration, authorizes that marine projects benefit from being able to accelerate the depreciation of their project costs over five years--like some other renewable energy technologies currently can do. That should enhance project economic returns for private developers.

The legislation in total authorizes up to $250 million a year of Federal funding for research. It is in keeping with the goals of the Obama administration to markedly increase funding for prospective renewable energy technologies that can help reduce U.S. and global carbon emissions and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels for energy production.

The technology this bill could foster could be of immense benefit to coastal regions and the U.S. power grid overall. In my home State of Alaska, for example, there are nearly 150 communities located along the State's 34,000 miles of coastline plus dozens more on the major river systems, which may benefit from the economies that gaining power from the free fuels of nature's currents and waves provides. In a State where rural electricity is currently averaging 65 cents per kilowatt hour when generated from diesel fuels--ocean energy offers the potential to sharply reduce all costs and vastly improve the local economy and thus the economy of the entire Nation.

There are a number of difficult challenges ahead to realize the potential of marine renewable energy from building reliable devices at economical costs. But these bills are another step toward getting on with the task of identifying and meeting those challenges. The potential is well worth the cost.

I hope this body will quickly include these provisions in comprehensive energy legislation and help this new industry to advance for the benefit of all Americans.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2009. I am very pleased to be joined by my colleagues and good friends, Senators Voinovich, Chambliss, Ensign and Hutchison, who share my commitment that every dime sent by taxpayers to Washington, DC is spent wisely.

The President has said several times that he intends to go through the Federal budget line-by-line--ending programs that we do not need and making the ones we do need work better and cost less. It is in this same spirit that I introduce this legislation.

The United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2009 creates an 8 member bipartisan Commission, made up of 4 Senators and 4 Representatives. The Commission will look at the effectiveness and efficiency of all federal programs, but will especially focus on unauthorized and ineffective programs. The bill is modeled after the sunset process that the State of Texas instituted in 1977 to identify and eliminate waste, duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies. This process has led to the elimination of dozens of agencies that have outlived their usefulness and has saved Texas taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

The job of the Commission is to ask the fundamental question: ``Is an agency or program still needed?''

The Commission has two major responsibilities. First, the Commission must submit a legislative proposal to Congress at least once every 10 years that includes a review schedule of at least 25 percent of unauthorized Federal programs and at least 25 percent of ineffective federal programs or where effectiveness cannot be shown by the Office of Management and Budget's, OMB, Performance Assessment Rating Tool, PART. The Commission's schedule will abolish each program if Congress fails to either reauthorize the program or consider the Commission's recommendations within 2 years.

Second, the Commission must conduct a review of each program identified in its review schedule and send its recommendations for Congressional review. Congress will then have 2 years to consider and pass the Commission's recommendations or to reauthorize the program before it is abolished.

Congress has two bites of the apple when it comes to evaluating federal spending. First, when it authorizes a program and second when it appropriates the money for it. Yet, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, annually finds that Congress spends billions of taxpayers' money on agencies and programs despite the fact that their authorization had expired. Many of these expired programs and agencies--perhaps most-- deserve reauthorization. Nonetheless, Congress should aggressively determine whether these programs and agencies are working as intended and the Commission will help serve this purpose.

In addition, the Commission will use OMB's PART, which is a tool to assess and improve program performance. PART looks at all factors that affect and reflect program performance including program purpose and design, performance measurement, evaluations and strategic planning, program management, and program results. Using PART, OMB has scored over 1,000 government programs and found that 20 percent were not performing--they were found to be ineffective or their effectiveness could not be determined.

The Commission's work will be guided by 10 criteria, including the program's effectiveness and efficiency, achievement of performance goals, and whether the program has fulfilled its legislative intent.

Unfortunately Congress has a tendency to create commissions and then ignore their work and continue on with business as usual. This bill solves this problem. It requires Congress to consider, debate, and vote on the Commission's report under expedited procedures.

The United States Authorization and Sunset Commission Act of 2009 is an important step to getting our fiscal house in order and to making sure that Congress gets back to the hard work of oversight to determine if programs actually fulfill their stated purpose or yield some unintended or counterproductive results. Periodic assessments are essential to good Government and this is what the Commission will provide to Congress and to taxpayers across the country. For this reason, I ask that my colleagues join me in cosponsoring the United States Authorization and Sunset Commission 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 with my good friend from Vermont, Senator Sanders, to introduce legislation that will help our environment and our economy by providing a 25 percent tax credit towards the purchase of environmentally friendly lawn, garden, and forestry power equipment.

There are an estimated 50 million acres of lawns and managed turf grass in the U.S. and the small engines used in power equipment predominantly used today to maintain these lawns emit a variety of pollutants that can be harmful to people and the environment. By promoting the use of alternative fuels, we can reduce the carbon footprint of lawn and garden equipment and reduce air and water pollution.

The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, recently finalized a new emission control program to reduce hydrocarbon emissions and evaporative emissions from the small, spark-ignition engines that are commonly used in lawn, garden, and forestry equipment. I applaud the EPA for setting these new emissions standards because they eventually will reduce the harmful health effects of ozone and carbon monoxide. I also appreciate the work being done in the State of California to set the stage for these tougher standards and to provide State funds for rebates to consumers who purchase the cleanest types of lawn and garden equipment.

We can do more, though, to advance the use of cleaner, alternative fueled equipment. Currently, the cleanest, alternative powered equipment typically costs dramatically more to produce--in part due to their relatively low volumes--compared to higher volume products powered by traditional technologies. Our bill is designed to help partially close this price differential so that consumers can afford the very cleanest products and help advance the most cutting-edge, new technologies.

That is why the bill we are introducing today would reduce air pollution even further than the EPA or California standards by providing an immediate incentive for people to go beyond the current powered equipment emission standards and purchase cleaner, alternatively powered or alternative fuel engines and equipment that emit half of the emission levels called for by the EPA and that operate on little or no fossil fuels. In line with past tax credits that were successful in advancing new technologies and boosting consumer demand for environmentally friendly products like hybrid vehicles and energy efficient home appliances, our new tax credit would give Americans a powerful incentive to buy clean, alternative energy power equipment.

I want to thank the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute and the National Audubon Society for their early endorsements of this bill. As the Senate prepares to take a thorough look at our energy and environmental policies this year, I look forward to working with my colleagues to find new ways to further reduce the air emissions and fossil fuel consumption of our Nation's lawn, garden, and forestry equipment.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend from Vermont, Senator Sanders, to introduce legislation that will help our environment and our economy by providing a 25 percent tax credit towards the purchase of environmentally friendly lawn, garden, and forestry power equipment.

There are an estimated 50 million acres of lawns and managed turf grass in the U.S. and the small engines used in power equipment predominantly used today to maintain these lawns emit a variety of pollutants that can be harmful to people and the environment. By promoting the use of alternative fuels, we can reduce the carbon footprint of lawn and garden equipment and reduce air and water pollution.

The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, recently finalized a new emission control program to reduce hydrocarbon emissions and evaporative emissions from the small, spark-ignition engines that are commonly used in lawn, garden, and forestry equipment. I applaud the EPA for setting these new emissions standards because they eventually will reduce the harmful health effects of ozone and carbon monoxide. I also appreciate the work being done in the State of California to set the stage for these tougher standards and to provide State funds for rebates to consumers who purchase the cleanest types of lawn and garden equipment.

We can do more, though, to advance the use of cleaner, alternative fueled equipment. Currently, the cleanest, alternative powered equipment typically costs dramatically more to produce--in part due to their relatively low volumes--compared to higher volume products powered by traditional technologies. Our bill is designed to help partially close this price differential so that consumers can afford the very cleanest products and help advance the most cutting-edge, new technologies.

That is why the bill we are introducing today would reduce air pollution even further than the EPA or California standards by providing an immediate incentive for people to go beyond the current powered equipment emission standards and purchase cleaner, alternatively powered or alternative fuel engines and equipment that emit half of the emission levels called for by the EPA and that operate on little or no fossil fuels. In line with past tax credits that were successful in advancing new technologies and boosting consumer demand for environmentally friendly products like hybrid vehicles and energy efficient home appliances, our new tax credit would give Americans a powerful incentive to buy clean, alternative energy power equipment.

I want to thank the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute and the National Audubon Society for their early endorsements of this bill. As the Senate prepares to take a thorough look at our energy and environmental policies this year, I look forward to working with my colleagues to find new ways to further reduce the air emissions and fossil fuel consumption of our Nation's lawn, garden, and forestry equipment.

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