Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program of research, development, demonstration and commercial application to advance offshore wind turbine technology. This bill will advance the goal of the Department of Energy to produce 20 percent of our Nation's electricity from wind resources by 2030.

Mr. President, 61 percent of U.S. wind resources is in deepwater, greater than 60 meters, 197 feet, depth. Winds at these locations are stronger and more consistent than closer to shore or on land. But, it will take technological advances to harness this energy efficiently and cost-effectively.

This bill will focus national efforts to develop offshore wind technologies. This should be a national priority because it can produce clean, renewable energy for major U.S. population centers. The 28 coastal U.S. States use 78 percent of the electricity in the U.S. For example, Maine's offshore wind resource is close to the 55 million people who live in New England, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. This is 18 percent of the total U.S. population.

Developing cost-competitive offshore wind technology will require improvements in the efficiency, reliability, and capacity of offshore wind turbines and reductions in the cost of manufacturing, construction, deployment, generation, and maintenance of offshore wind energy systems. That is why my bill directs the Secretary of Energy to support existing university centers and establish new centers to support research, development, demonstration and commercial application. The bill authorizes $50 million annually tbo over 10 years for the design, demonstration, and deployment of advanced wind turbine foundations and support structures, blades, turbine systems, components, and supporting land- and water-based infrastructure for application in shallow water, transitional depth, and deep water offshore. The bill authorizes full-scale testing and establishment of regional demonstrations of offshore wind components and systems to validate technology and performance; assessments of U.S. offshore wind resources, environmental impacts and benefits, siting and permitting issues, exclusion zones, and transmission needs for inclusion in a publically accessible database; design, demonstration, and deployment of integrated sensors, actuators and advanced materials, such as composite materials; advanced blade manufacturing activity, such as automation, materials, and assembly of large-scale components, to stimulate the development of a U.S.-blade manufacturing capacity; methods to assess and mitigate the effects of wind energy systems on marine ecosystems and marine industries; and other research areas as determined by the Secretary.

This bill would support critical renewable energy research that would help reduce our use of fossil fuels and improve our energy security. I urge my colleagues to support the Offshore Wind Energy Research, Development, Demonstration and Commercial Application Act.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program of research, development, demonstration and commercial application to advance offshore wind turbine technology. This bill will advance the goal of the Department of Energy to produce 20 percent of our Nation's electricity from wind resources by 2030.

Mr. President, 61 percent of U.S. wind resources is in deepwater, greater than 60 meters, 197 feet, depth. Winds at these locations are stronger and more consistent than closer to shore or on land. But, it will take technological advances to harness this energy efficiently and cost-effectively.

This bill will focus national efforts to develop offshore wind technologies. This should be a national priority because it can produce clean, renewable energy for major U.S. population centers. The 28 coastal U.S. States use 78 percent of the electricity in the U.S. For example, Maine's offshore wind resource is close to the 55 million people who live in New England, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. This is 18 percent of the total U.S. population.

Developing cost-competitive offshore wind technology will require improvements in the efficiency, reliability, and capacity of offshore wind turbines and reductions in the cost of manufacturing, construction, deployment, generation, and maintenance of offshore wind energy systems. That is why my bill directs the Secretary of Energy to support existing university centers and establish new centers to support research, development, demonstration and commercial application. The bill authorizes $50 million annually tbo over 10 years for the design, demonstration, and deployment of advanced wind turbine foundations and support structures, blades, turbine systems, components, and supporting land- and water-based infrastructure for application in shallow water, transitional depth, and deep water offshore. The bill authorizes full-scale testing and establishment of regional demonstrations of offshore wind components and systems to validate technology and performance; assessments of U.S. offshore wind resources, environmental impacts and benefits, siting and permitting issues, exclusion zones, and transmission needs for inclusion in a publically accessible database; design, demonstration, and deployment of integrated sensors, actuators and advanced materials, such as composite materials; advanced blade manufacturing activity, such as automation, materials, and assembly of large-scale components, to stimulate the development of a U.S.-blade manufacturing capacity; methods to assess and mitigate the effects of wind energy systems on marine ecosystems and marine industries; and other research areas as determined by the Secretary.

This bill would support critical renewable energy research that would help reduce our use of fossil fuels and improve our energy security. I urge my colleagues to support the Offshore Wind Energy Research, Development, Demonstration and Commercial Application Act.

Mr. President. I rise to introduce the National Women's History Museum Act of 2009, a bill that would clear the way to locate a long-overdue historical and educational resource in our nation's capital city.

In each of the last three Congresses, the Senate has approved earlier versions of this bill by unanimous consent. I appreciate that past support, and I appreciate the cosponsorship today from 19 of my colleagues, Senators Lieberman, Grassley, Mikulski, Boxer, Feinstein, Murray, Snowe, Landrieu Lincoln, Voinovich, Cantwell, Stabenow, Murkowski, Pryor, McCaskill, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Hagan, and Sheehan.

American women have made invaluable contributions to our country in government, business, medicine, law, literature, sports, entertainment, the arts, and the military. The need for a museum recognizing the contributions of American women is of long standing.

A Presidential commission on commemorating women in American history concluded that, ``Efforts to implement an appropriate celebration of women's history in the next millennium should include the designation of a focal point for women's history in our Nation's capital.''

That report was issued in 1999. A decade later, although Congress has commendably made provisions for the National Museum for African American History and Culture, the National Law Enforcement Museum, and the National Museum of the American Indian, there is still no institution in the capital region dedicated to women's role in our country's history.

The proposed legislation calls for no new federal program and no new claims on the budget. It would simply direct the General Services Administration to negotiate and enter into an occupancy agreement with the National Women's History Museum, Inc. to establish a museum on a tract of land near the Smithsonian Museums located at 12th Street, SW, and Independence Avenue, SW.

The National Women's History Museum is a nonprofit, non-partisan, educational institution based in the District of Columbia. Its mission is to research and present the historic contributions that women have made to all aspects of human endeavor, and to present the contributions that women have made to the nation in their various roles in family, the economy, and society.

This museum would help ensure that future generations understand what we owe to the many generations of American women who have helped build, sustain, and advance our society. They deserve a building to present the stories of pioneering women like abolitionist Harriet Tubman, founder of the Girl Scouts Juliette Gordon Low, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and astronaut Sally Ride.

That women's roll of honor would also include a distinguished predecessor in my Senate seat, the late Senator Margaret Chase Smith, the first woman nominated for President of the United States by a major political party, and the first woman elected to both houses of Congress. Senator Smith began representing Maine in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1940, won election to the Senate in 1948, and enjoyed bipartisan respect over her long career for her independence, integrity, wisdom, and decency. She remains my role model and, through the example of her public service, an exemplar of the virtues that would be honored in the National Women's History Museum.

Again, I thank my colleagues for their past support of this effort, and urge them to renew that support for this bill.

Mr. President. I rise to introduce the National Women's History Museum Act of 2009, a bill that would clear the way to locate a long-overdue historical and educational resource in our nation's capital city.

In each of the last three Congresses, the Senate has approved earlier versions of this bill by unanimous consent. I appreciate that past support, and I appreciate the cosponsorship today from 19 of my colleagues, Senators Lieberman, Grassley, Mikulski, Boxer, Feinstein, Murray, Snowe, Landrieu Lincoln, Voinovich, Cantwell, Stabenow, Murkowski, Pryor, McCaskill, Klobuchar, Gillibrand, Hagan, and Sheehan.

American women have made invaluable contributions to our country in government, business, medicine, law, literature, sports, entertainment, the arts, and the military. The need for a museum recognizing the contributions of American women is of long standing.

A Presidential commission on commemorating women in American history concluded that, ``Efforts to implement an appropriate celebration of women's history in the next millennium should include the designation of a focal point for women's history in our Nation's capital.''

That report was issued in 1999. A decade later, although Congress has commendably made provisions for the National Museum for African American History and Culture, the National Law Enforcement Museum, and the National Museum of the American Indian, there is still no institution in the capital region dedicated to women's role in our country's history.

The proposed legislation calls for no new federal program and no new claims on the budget. It would simply direct the General Services Administration to negotiate and enter into an occupancy agreement with the National Women's History Museum, Inc. to establish a museum on a tract of land near the Smithsonian Museums located at 12th Street, SW, and Independence Avenue, SW.

The National Women's History Museum is a nonprofit, non-partisan, educational institution based in the District of Columbia. Its mission is to research and present the historic contributions that women have made to all aspects of human endeavor, and to present the contributions that women have made to the nation in their various roles in family, the economy, and society.

This museum would help ensure that future generations understand what we owe to the many generations of American women who have helped build, sustain, and advance our society. They deserve a building to present the stories of pioneering women like abolitionist Harriet Tubman, founder of the Girl Scouts Juliette Gordon Low, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and astronaut Sally Ride.

That women's roll of honor would also include a distinguished predecessor in my Senate seat, the late Senator Margaret Chase Smith, the first woman nominated for President of the United States by a major political party, and the first woman elected to both houses of Congress. Senator Smith began representing Maine in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1940, won election to the Senate in 1948, and enjoyed bipartisan respect over her long career for her independence, integrity, wisdom, and decency. She remains my role model and, through the example of her public service, an exemplar of the virtues that would be honored in the National Women's History Museum.

Again, I thank my colleagues for their past support of this effort, and urge them to renew that support for this bill.

Mr. President I rise to introduce a bill that would improve the Federal Government's efforts to become more energy efficient and ensure accountability within executive branch agencies for meeting energy efficiency targets. The legislation would also amend Federal contracting rules to encourage energy efficiency across the Federal, State, and local governments by making energy-saving technologies more widely available and at lower costs to taxpayers. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lieberman and Carper on this important bill.

As the largest institutional user of energy in the world, the Federal Government has ample opportunity to implement energy efficiency policies and technologies. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Federal Energy Management Program, the Federal Government consumes 1.6 percent of the Nation's total energy--about $17.5 billion in annual energy costs. Electricity at Federal buildings accounts for almost half of this usage.

Improving energy efficiency is not only good for the environment; it can also produce savings for taxpayers.

Agencies that have been more aggressive in implementing energy savings initiatives and have fully complied with existing laws and regulations have also enjoyed significant cost savings. For example, two of the Department of Energy laboratories have developed environmental management systems, which have shown a total of $16.6 million in cost savings and avoidance within a 4-year period. Environmental management systems are a strategic approach to ensuring that an organization's environmental priorities are integrated into operational, planning, and management decisions. The systems these laboratories developed emphasized achieving full compliance, pollution prevention, and effective and focused communications and community outreach.

Over the last few decades, more than a dozen laws, regulations, and Executive Orders have been implemented to encourage energy efficiency and reduce environmental impacts of government operations. Unfortunately, agencies have been inconsistent and sporadic in meeting their environmental goals. The lack of a unified effort and accountability with agencies has undermined the good intentions of these policies.

A great variance exists across the government, both in terms of compliance with energy efficiency laws and regulations, as well as with initiatives individual agencies have developed to reduce energy usage.

Agencies should explore diverse and innovative ways to save money by decreasing energy consumption, as well as have greater incentives to undertake initiatives to meet energy reduction mandates.

The Obama administration issued an Executive Order earlier this month, which makes strides in establishing a more integrated strategy toward sustainability and energy efficiency.

This Executive Order, however, does not go far enough in providing agency officials with the authority and accountability necessary to enforce applicable efficiency mandates. The Executive Order directs each agency head to designate an ``Agency Senior Sustainability Officer'' from among the agency's senior management officials. This position is too similar to the agency environmental executives created by Executive Order in 2007, which did very little to improve agencies' compliance with applicable laws.

Our legislation, however, would create a Chief Conservation Officer within each agency. The officer would be drawn from career Senior Executives. These officers will help spur long-term leadership on this issue.

In contrast to the Executive Order, implementing energy efficiency and sustainability policies would also be the primary responsibility of this individual. Dedicating a senior-level career official to energy efficiency policy would improve the government's focus on implementation of existing laws and policies, enhance innovation, and help identify future initiatives.

The Chief Conservation Officer would also be responsible for incorporating environmental considerations into agency procurement practices. This involvement will encourage efficiency improvements in the agency's procurement of goods and services.

To improve the availability of efficiency technologies and help lower their costs, the bill would make several improvements in government procurement policies.

Specifically, the bill would allow state and local government to purchase ``green'' commodities and services off the General Services Administration Schedule. This procurement authority would help State and local governments reduce the administrative costs of negotiating their own contracts and would increase competition and lower costs. Federal agencies should also reap the benefits of this program as more goods and services become available at reduced costs.

Participation in the program would be voluntary for State and local governments, as well as vendors. The proposal would also provide small businesses with ``green'' products more efficient access to State and local markets, markets that geography and cost might otherwise foreclose. For comparison sake, 80 percent of GSA Schedule contracts are with small businesses.

Over the next 5 years, the legislation would also allow agencies to enter into power purchase agreements for electricity produced by renewable energy

sources. These agreements could last not more than 20 years and agencies would need to assess that the agreement would be cost effective before entering into them.

We know from examples such as the solar power system at Nellis Air Force Base what a well-designed public-private partnership can accomplish, if executed correctly. This project cost the Air Force less than $100,000 in capital costs, yet saved the government more than $1.2 million in its first year of operation by supplying \1/4\ of the total power used at the base, where 12,000 people live and work. Additionally, the project is expected to reduce carbon emissions by 24,000 tons annually.

Finally, the bill would expand the definition of renewable energy in Federal purchase requirements beyond electricity. Under the current definition, agencies cannot take advantage of ``green'' technologies like geothermal energy because geo-thermal energy is not considered electric.

By promoting accountability for meeting existing energy efficiency mandates and by encouraging initiatives to decrease energy usage and spur innovation, this bill would help ``green'' our federal operations. The associated savings should improve our government's bottom line--to the benefit of taxpayers.

Mr. President I rise to introduce a bill that would improve the Federal Government's efforts to become more energy efficient and ensure accountability within executive branch agencies for meeting energy efficiency targets. The legislation would also amend Federal contracting rules to encourage energy efficiency across the Federal, State, and local governments by making energy-saving technologies more widely available and at lower costs to taxpayers. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Lieberman and Carper on this important bill.

As the largest institutional user of energy in the world, the Federal Government has ample opportunity to implement energy efficiency policies and technologies. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Federal Energy Management Program, the Federal Government consumes 1.6 percent of the Nation's total energy--about $17.5 billion in annual energy costs. Electricity at Federal buildings accounts for almost half of this usage.

Improving energy efficiency is not only good for the environment; it can also produce savings for taxpayers.

Agencies that have been more aggressive in implementing energy savings initiatives and have fully complied with existing laws and regulations have also enjoyed significant cost savings. For example, two of the Department of Energy laboratories have developed environmental management systems, which have shown a total of $16.6 million in cost savings and avoidance within a 4-year period. Environmental management systems are a strategic approach to ensuring that an organization's environmental priorities are integrated into operational, planning, and management decisions. The systems these laboratories developed emphasized achieving full compliance, pollution prevention, and effective and focused communications and community outreach.

Over the last few decades, more than a dozen laws, regulations, and Executive Orders have been implemented to encourage energy efficiency and reduce environmental impacts of government operations. Unfortunately, agencies have been inconsistent and sporadic in meeting their environmental goals. The lack of a unified effort and accountability with agencies has undermined the good intentions of these policies.

A great variance exists across the government, both in terms of compliance with energy efficiency laws and regulations, as well as with initiatives individual agencies have developed to reduce energy usage.

Agencies should explore diverse and innovative ways to save money by decreasing energy consumption, as well as have greater incentives to undertake initiatives to meet energy reduction mandates.

The Obama administration issued an Executive Order earlier this month, which makes strides in establishing a more integrated strategy toward sustainability and energy efficiency.

This Executive Order, however, does not go far enough in providing agency officials with the authority and accountability necessary to enforce applicable efficiency mandates. The Executive Order directs each agency head to designate an ``Agency Senior Sustainability Officer'' from among the agency's senior management officials. This position is too similar to the agency environmental executives created by Executive Order in 2007, which did very little to improve agencies' compliance with applicable laws.

Our legislation, however, would create a Chief Conservation Officer within each agency. The officer would be drawn from career Senior Executives. These officers will help spur long-term leadership on this issue.

In contrast to the Executive Order, implementing energy efficiency and sustainability policies would also be the primary responsibility of this individual. Dedicating a senior-level career official to energy efficiency policy would improve the government's focus on implementation of existing laws and policies, enhance innovation, and help identify future initiatives.

The Chief Conservation Officer would also be responsible for incorporating environmental considerations into agency procurement practices. This involvement will encourage efficiency improvements in the agency's procurement of goods and services.

To improve the availability of efficiency technologies and help lower their costs, the bill would make several improvements in government procurement policies.

Specifically, the bill would allow state and local government to purchase ``green'' commodities and services off the General Services Administration Schedule. This procurement authority would help State and local governments reduce the administrative costs of negotiating their own contracts and would increase competition and lower costs. Federal agencies should also reap the benefits of this program as more goods and services become available at reduced costs.

Participation in the program would be voluntary for State and local governments, as well as vendors. The proposal would also provide small businesses with ``green'' products more efficient access to State and local markets, markets that geography and cost might otherwise foreclose. For comparison sake, 80 percent of GSA Schedule contracts are with small businesses.

Over the next 5 years, the legislation would also allow agencies to enter into power purchase agreements for electricity produced by renewable energy

sources. These agreements could last not more than 20 years and agencies would need to assess that the agreement would be cost effective before entering into them.

We know from examples such as the solar power system at Nellis Air Force Base what a well-designed public-private partnership can accomplish, if executed correctly. This project cost the Air Force less than $100,000 in capital costs, yet saved the government more than $1.2 million in its first year of operation by supplying \1/4\ of the total power used at the base, where 12,000 people live and work. Additionally, the project is expected to reduce carbon emissions by 24,000 tons annually.

Finally, the bill would expand the definition of renewable energy in Federal purchase requirements beyond electricity. Under the current definition, agencies cannot take advantage of ``green'' technologies like geothermal energy because geo-thermal energy is not considered electric.

By promoting accountability for meeting existing energy efficiency mandates and by encouraging initiatives to decrease energy usage and spur innovation, this bill would help ``green'' our federal operations. The associated savings should improve our government's bottom line--to the benefit of taxpayers.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Appropriations Act. Let me begin by thanking the committee's distinguished chairman, Senator Inouye, and ranking member, Senator Cochran, for their leadership in crafting this bill and for their strong commitment to our Nation's Armed Forces.

This legislation will provide funding for essential training, equipment, and support to our troops as they bravely and skillfully engage in national security efforts at home and abroad. This is a critical time in our Nation's history and the committee has, once again, demonstrated its strong support of our soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines.

This legislation also will fund critical force protection and health care initiatives for our troops, while continuing development of important technologies and acquisition programs to counter existing and emerging threats.

The legislation before us includes a strong commitment to strengthening Navy shipbuilding. Our Nation needs a strong and modern naval fleet allowing us to project power globally and to respond to threats. This bill authorizes $1 billion in funding for construction of the third DDG-1000, a priority of mine. The Pentagon's decision to have Bath Iron Works, BIW, build all three of the DDG-1000s demonstrates well-deserved confidence in BIW and will help ensure a stable work load for the shipyard and more stable production costs for the Navy.

In addition, this legislation authorizes $2.2 billion for continued DDG-51 procurement and nearly $150 million for the DDG-51 modernization program. The lessons and technology developed in the design of the DDG- 1000 can be incorporated into the DDG-51 program to reduce crew size and to improve capabilities.

The legislation fully funds the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter request for both the Navy and the Air Force. This aircraft, powered by the superb engines made by Pratt & Whitney, will enable our service men and women to continue to maintain our air superiority.

An additional $1.5 billion is included for the National Guard and Reserve equipment account, which should help sustain critical equipment such as combat vehicles, aircraft, and weapons. This funding should directly benefit the Maine National Guard's readiness posture as additional units prepare to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan in the upcoming year.

At the request of Senator Snowe and myself, the committee provides $20 million for humvee maintenance to be performed at Maine Military

Authority's, MMA, Army National Guard Readiness Sustainment Site, RSMS, located in Limestone, ME. For nearly 13 years, the Army National Guard has relied on Maine Military Authority to provide a dependable service to our Nation's warfighters. The dedicated and talented professionals at MMA have demonstrated their value to the Army and to the Nation and consistently have performed humvee refurbishment at a lower cost than the Army's own depots. This funding would help to ensure that MMA's valued workforce and high quality product remain a national asset supporting the defense of our country.

The bill also provides $240 million for cancer research through the Defense Health Programs with $150 for the Breast Cancer Research Program, $80 million for Prostate Cancer Research Program, and $10 million for the Ovarian Cancer Research Program. I believe that there is simply no investment that promises greater returns for America than its investment in biomedical research. These research programs at the Department of Defense are important to our Nation's efforts to treat and prevent these devastating diseases that also affect our veterans and service members.

The bill provides $307 million to address the Tricare private sector shortfall in fiscal year 2010 as identified by the Department of Defense. I know Tricare funding is vital to so many Maine veterans. We must continue to support robust funding for this important program and limit increases in Tricare premiums and copayments.

I strongly support the additional $15.6 million to strengthen the Office of the Inspector General in order to keep pace with the growth in the size of the defense budget and the number of defense contractors. More vigorous oversight of defense contracts to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer dollars will complement the procurement reforms we approved earlier this year.

The Senate's fiscal 2010 Defense appropriations bill also includes funding for other defense-related projects that would benefit Maine and our national security. Funding is provided, for example, to Saco Defense in Saco, ME, to enable the company to continue manufacturing weapons that are vital to the Armed Forces.

In addition, at my urging, the legislation appropriates $3.6 million for the University of Maine. This funding would support the development of LGX high temperature acoustic wave sensors and allow the University of Maine to continue to investigate fundamental sensor materials and design concepts as well as demonstrate functional prototypes of acoustic wave sensors that will be tested under extreme temperature environments. The funding for the university will also provide for woody biomass conversion to JP-8 fuel, which will provide affordable alternative sources for military aviation fuel.

The appropriations bill provides the vital resources that our troops need and recognizes the enormous contributions made by the State of Maine to our national security. From the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery to the Pratt and Whitney engine plant in North Berwick to BIW's shipbuilders to the University of Maine's engineers to the Maine Military Authority in Aroostook, Mainers all over our State are leading the way to a stronger national defense.

Mr. President, I rise in support of S. Res. 300, supporting the work of firefighters to educate and protect the Nation's communities, and the goals and ideals of Fire Prevention Week. Senators Carper, Dodd, and McCain join me in sponsoring this resolution to honor and promote the life-saving work of the National Fire Protection Association.

Fire prevention is an ancient concern. Two thousand years ago, the city of Rome not only had had thousands of paid firefighters, but also wardens who would patrol the streets and enforce fire-prevention laws.

Thousands of American cities and towns such as San Francisco, Chicago, and Portland, ME, have suffered disastrous fires in the past. Even in our agrarian, Colonial era, cities such as Boston and Philadelphia were organizing paid and volunteer fire companies to fight the hazards of fire.

Today, flames continue to exact a deadly toll on citizens and firefighters every year. The National Fire Protection Association reports that in 2008, an estimated 1.45 million fires in this country killed nearly 3,320 civilians and injured another 16,705, while also killing 103 firefighters.

When President Harding designated the first Fire Prevention Week in 1922, fires were killing about 15,000 Americans every year. Advances in safety technology, education, fire prevention, and firefighting have brought great progress in reducing the number of fatalities, especially considering the great increase in population. But fire still poses an enormous threat to life, health, and property of all Americans.

As a cochair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I have proudly joined in bipartisan efforts to honor the heroic service of our firefighters and to support legislation to assist them in securing the personnel, equipment, training, and benefits they need. Today, I am proud to submit this resolution to support their work in educating the public on the vital concern of fire prevention.

The more people understand the importance of avoiding fire hazards and dangerous practices, of installing and maintaining smoke alarms, and of planning escape routes, the fewer lives will be lost among our citizens and our firefighters.

I thank my colleagues for joining me in support of this resolution in support of our firefighters' work and of the Fire Prevention Week of October 4 through 10, 2009.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Nebraska yield the remaining time to me?

Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is correct that this should not have been done this way and that the Postal Service needs fundamental reform. But the fact is, the Postal Service cannot afford to pay the $5.4 billion that is due on October 1.

The CBO says this provision has no budget impact. So I urge a vote against the Judd Gregg point of order.

Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?

Mr. President, prior to Senator Reid offering his proposal, the pending business before the Senate was an amendment I offered earlier this week, which was designed to promote better transparency, accountability, and oversight within our government.

I am deeply disappointed that a procedural tactic will be invoked to prevent an up-or-down vote on my amendment, which is designed to bring the proliferation of czars under the normal process.

The amendment I proposed would have ensured that the 18 new czar positions appointed by this administration could be held accountable to Congress and to the American people. The proliferation of czars under the current administration to manage some of the most complex and important issues facing our country has created serious problems in oversight, accountability, and transparency. It is of great concern to me that these positions circumvent the congressional requirements for

oversight. They circumvent the constitutional process by which the Senate is supposed to give advice and consent to major policy positions within our government.

I have a list of the 18 new czar positions that have been created by this administration. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Many of the czars on the list seem to either duplicate or dilute the statutory authority and responsibilities that Congress has already conferred upon Cabinet level officials and other senior executive branch officials who go through the normal constitutional process whereby the Senate gives its consent to these nominees.

As I said when I first introduced this amendment, I do not consider every position that has been identified as a czar in various media reports to be problematic. Some of those positions are established by law. Some of them are subject to Senate confirmation. Rather, my amendment is carefully tailored so it would not cover and would not apply to positions recognized in law or subject to Senate confirmation.

For example, the proposal I have would not apply to the Director of National Intelligence, to the National Security Advisor, to the Homeland Security Advisor, to the Chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, or to the so-called information or regulatory czar within OMB. These positions, because they are recognized in law, or they are subject to Senate confirmation, simply do not raise the same kinds of concerns about accountability, transparency, oversight, and vetting.

Instead, my amendment has been carefully tailored to cover officials that the President has unilaterally designated as responsible for significant policy matters. It would not have covered the President's Chief of Staff, for example, and it would not cover less senior White House officials, despite some misinformation to the contrary.

Because the White House has raised so many objections to my amendment, I have offered to sit down with the White House counsel and narrow the scope of the amendment further, to address any concerns the White House might have. Unfortunately, the White House has failed to provide any modification to the text of my amendment. Instead, they said they did not want any of these officials to be called to testify before Congress.

Let me explain exactly what my amendment would have done, so you can see how modest indeed the amendment was.

The amendment simply would have required that the President certify to Congress that officials in these important positions would respond to all reasonable requests to testify before or provide information to congressional committees with jurisdiction over the issues involved.

Second, it simply would have required these officials to submit a biannual report to the congressional committee with jurisdiction, describing the activities of the official and his or her office, and any rule, regulation, or policy that the official participated in or assisted in the development of.

That is it. How can we possibly be against that kind of accountability, transparency, and oversight? It is our job as Members of Congress to conduct such oversight.

We cannot do so when the administration sets up a structure where there is an energy czar, an urban affairs czar, an environmental czar, a cyber-security czar--the list goes on and on. It creates confusion over who is in charge, who is making policy.

Let's take the area of health care. Is the top policy position in this administration Nancy-Ann DeParle, who is the

health care czar within the Executive Office of the President--a person, by the way, for whom I have the greatest respect--or is it Senate-confirmed Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services? Who is in charge? Whom do we hold accountable?

What the President has done by creating so many czar positions within the White House that appear to duplicate the executive branch officials who are subject to Senate confirmation is to blur the lines of authority. That is not good for our system of government, and it is not in keeping with this administration's pledge to be the most transparent administration ever--a pledge for which I salute the President.

I will be happy to yield.

I will be happy to. Mr. President, I say to my friend that I have a list of 18 positions which I have talked repeatedly about and which I have inserted into the Record. As I have said, I am not one who has used this term in the way some have to include individuals with broad authority across various agencies, such as the Director of National Intelligence. But that is the position that is established or recognized in law and is subject to Senate confirmation. I did not include those. In fact, in the language of my amendment, I specifically say it does not apply to positions established in law.

Mr. President, I will be glad to respond to the question of my colleague. My colleague did not have the benefit of being on the Senate floor when I first presented my amendment, and I addressed this very issue.

I was very careful in drafting this amendment to make clear that I was not talking about positions that are recognized in law. Some of my colleagues legitimately have taken a different approach. But that is not the approach that is before the Senate now. Rather, I have taken into account the issues that have been raised by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, such as Senator Byrd--who certainly knows more about the Constitution than I think any of us who are serving at the present time--who has expressed concerns about the proliferation of czars. I have taken into account concerns expressed by Senator Feingold, by Senator Feinstein. I have done a careful, narrowly tailored amendment that does not attempt to sweep in positions that are recognized in law, nor does it sweep in positions that are subject to Senate confirmation.

That is why it is so disappointing to me that my colleagues are not unanimously adopting my amendment, which it looked like they were going to do earlier this week before the White House weighed in, because I did not take a broad sweeping approach. I took a very narrow, careful approach that aimed at the promise the President talked about, the lack of oversight, transparency, and accountability.

Mr. President, I, again, will be happy to attempt to clarify this issue for my colleague and friend--and he is my friend-- from Illinois. I realize he has his role to play in this debate. But the fact is, he has just listed several positions that are established by law. The intelligence czar is the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair. Joe Lieberman and I wrote the law that established that position in 2004, and he is confirmed by the Senate.

The regulatory czar--he is referring to Cass Sunstein in this administration and John Graham in the previous one--it is established by law. It is part of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within OMB. I am not talking about those positions no matter in whose administration it is. I am talking about perhaps other positions on his list. Regardless of whose administration they are in, I would apply the same standards.

The Senator may say why didn't I offer this amendment in the previous administration. The answer is, we did not have this proliferation of czar positions in the previous administration. But I would say to my colleagues, regardless of whether it is a Democratic President or a Republican President, a Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress, I think this is an institutional issue, and I think all of us as Members of Congress should be very concerned about organizational structures that make it impossible for us to conduct effective congressional oversight; that insulate these officials who have significant policy responsibilities from ever coming to testify, from going through the vetting and the confirmation process.

I think that is a problem regardless of who the President is, and I am not the only one who thinks it. That is why Senator Robert C. Byrd wrote to the White House, wrote to the President, as this press release says, questioning the Obama administration on the role of White House czar positions because, as he says:

Too often, I have seen these lines of authority and

responsibility become tangled and blurred, sometimes

purposely, to shield information and to obscure the decision-

making process.

I am not saying this is part of a plot to obscure information, but what I am saying is we have an obligation to exercise our constitutional duties, and the proliferation of these unaccountable positions in any administration makes that impossible for us to do so.

Mr. President, if I may complete the end of my statement--before we got into this good little colloquy. And I do appreciate the opportunity to clarify whom my amendment would cover, who would be covered by it and who would not. As I said, I was willing to work with the White House to make this even clearer. My staff was here many hours last night. I had conversations with White House officials and, unfortunately, at the last moment, they decided not to try to propose revisions to the text.

I am not going to seek to overturn the Chair's ruling on this amendment which will be forthcoming, and I know how it will go. But I do think it is unfortunate that a procedural tactic is being used to block a vote on this amendment. I do want to tell my colleagues that I think this is a real issue. I am very pleased the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, under Chairman Lieberman, is going to hold a hearing to explore this issue because it does have constitutional ramifications and it does involve the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. The ruling the Chair is going to make is not going to be the last word on this subject.

The administration needs--any administration--to fully explain the responsibilities and authorities of these

czars. Until all of these czars are made available to testify before and provide information to Congress, until Congress is fully consulted on the decisions to create these positions in the first place, I will continue to press forward on this issue.

I believe the amendment I drafted is a very reasonable, balanced one, and it would have been a significant step toward establishing an oversight structure for these positions that would provide the transparency, accountability, and oversight our Nation expects from its leaders. I am dismayed the Senate is about to choose a point of order over these principles.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2498 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I rise today to call up an amendment to ensure that the so-called czars appointed by this administration can be held accountable to Congress and to the American people.

The effective functioning of our democracy is predicated on open government, on providing a transparent process for the people we serve. It cannot instill trust and confidence in its citizenry unless government fosters accountability. It is against that backdrop I raise my concerns regarding the administration's appointment of at least 18 new czars to manage some of the most complex issues facing our country.

I am not talking about traditional offices within the office of the President. I am not talking about, for example, the position of his Chief of Staff or the position of his press secretary. Similarly, I am not talking about officials who have responsibility to coordinate policy across agency lines that are specifically established in law. A good example of that is the Director of National Intelligence. That is a position that was established by Congress and whose head is nominated by the President and confirmed by Congress. So I am not talking about those officials either.

What I am talking about are new positions not created in law that have been established and which have significant policy responsibilities, or so it seems. Part of the problem here is we don't know exactly what the responsibilities are. As I, along with several of my colleagues, including the ranking member of this subcommittee, Senator Alexander, recently expressed in a letter to the President, I am deeply troubled because these czars fail to provide the accountability, transparency, and oversight necessary for our constitutional democracy.

The creation of czars within the Executive Office of the President and elsewhere in the executive branch circumvents the constitutionally mandated advise and consent role our Founding Fathers assigned to the Senate. They greatly diminish the ability of Congress to conduct meaningful oversight to hold officials accountable for their actions, and it creates confusion about which officials are responsible for the government's policy decisions.

For example, Nancy-Ann DeParle, an individual for whom I have great respect, is the health policy czar within the White House. Kathleen Sebelius is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. So who is making policy when it comes to health care? Who do we hold accountable? Well, we know we can call the Secretary of Health and Human Services before us to testify in open session at public hearings, but most likely we cannot call Ms. DeParle before us to testify, even though she has been great about coming up for private meetings.

Senators Alexander, Bond, Crapo, Roberts, and Bennett joined me in writing to the President to raise these important issues. We have identified at least 18 czar positions where reported responsibilities may be undermining the constitutional oversight responsibilities of Congress or the express statutory assignments of responsibility to other executive branch officials.

Again, to be clear, I do not consider every position identified in various media reports to be problematic. Positions that are established by law or are subject to Senate confirmation, such as the Director of National Intelligence, the Homeland Security Advisor, and the Chairman of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board do not raise the same concerns about accountability, transparency, and oversight.

Furthermore, we all recognize that Presidents are entitled to rely on experts to serve as senior advisers. But those czar positions within the Executive Office of the President and in some executive agencies are largely insulated from effective congressional oversight. Many of the czars appointed by this administration seem either to duplicate or dilute the statutory authority and responsibilities that Congress already has conferred upon Cabinet level officers and other senior executive branch officials.

Indeed, many of these new czars appear to occupy positions of greater responsibility and authority than some of the officials who come before us for Senate confirmation. Whether in the White House or elsewhere, these czar appointments are not subject to the Senate's constitutional advise and consent role. Little information is available concerning their responsibilities and authority. There is no careful Senate examination of their character and qualifications. We are speaking here of some of the most senior important positions within our government.

The appointment of so many czars has muddied the waters, causing confusion and risking miscommunication going forward. We need to know, with clarity: Who is responsible for what? Who is in charge--the czar or the Cabinet official? Who can the Congress and the American people hold accountable for government policies that affect their lives?

For these reasons, I offer an amendment that would prevent any more Federal funds from being made available for the administrative expenses of czars until two key conditions are met. I don't think these conditions are unreasonable. I don't think they are difficult for the President to meet, but they would make a real difference.

First, the amendment I am proposing would require the President to certify to Congress that every one of these positions will respond to reasonable requests to testify before or provide information to any congressional committee with jurisdiction over the matters the President has assigned to that individual.

Second, our amendment would require every czar to issue a public written report twice a year to these same congressional committees. This report would include a description of the activities of the official and the office, any rule, regulation, or policy that the official participated in the development of, or any rule, regulation, or policy that the official directed be developed by the department or agency with statutory responsibility for the matter.

This amendment would represent a significant step toward establishing an oversight regime for these positions that would provide the transparency and accountability our Nation expects from its leaders.

Beyond the specific requirements of this amendment, in the letter we sent to the President we implored the President to consult carefully with Congress prior to establishing any additional czars or filling any existing vacancies for these positions.

We stand ready to work with the President to address the challenges facing our Nation and to provide our country's senior leaders with the authority, accountability, and legitimacy necessary to do their jobs. If there are problems, then the administration should come to us. We can work on revamping organizational structures to help eliminate those problems, but we must eliminate the serious problems with oversight, accountability, transparency, and vetting that are associated with the proliferation of these czars.

I urge my colleagues to support what I think is a very reasonable approach to this difficult issue.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum for just one moment.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, and the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, be added as cosponsors of the amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, the Senator from California, and the Senator from Tennessee for their kind comments.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

Madam President, I rise to speak in support of provisions I authored in the fiscal year 2010 Transportation-HUD appropriations bill that would increase safety, save energy, and decrease emissions by creating a 1-year pilot project to allow trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds to travel on Maine's interstates. This provision also requires an analysis by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the State of Maine to study the effects of the increase on safety, road and bridge durability, energy use, and commerce. The U.S. Department of Transportation will report its findings to Congress. This Maine pilot project does not have any impact on other States' weight laws and regulations.

By way of background, let me explain why this pilot project is needed. 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 I-95 proceeds another 200 miles north to Houlton. At Augusta, however, heavy trucks must exit the modern four-lane, limited-access highway and are forced onto smaller, two-lane secondary roads that pass through cities, towns, and villages. The same problem occurs for Maine's other interstates like 295 out of Portland and 395 in the Bangor-Brewer area.

Trucks weighing up to 100,000 pounds are already 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.

Diverting trucks onto these secondary roads raises critical safety concerns. In fact, there have been several accidents, some of which have tragically resulted in death, which have occurred after these large trucks were diverted onto secondary roads and through smaller communities. For example, in May 2007, a 17-year-old high school student from Hampden, ME, lost her life when her car was struck by a heavy truck on route 9. The truck driver could not see the car turning onto that two-lane road as he rounded a corner. 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.

A year earlier, 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.

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. The study also found that the fatal accident rate on the secondary roads was 10 times higher than on the turnpike, and the injury accident rate was seven times higher.

While improving safety is the key objective, a uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways also would reduce highway miles, as well as the travel time, necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in 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.

Interstate 95 north of Augusta, ME, where trucks are currently limited at 80,000 pounds, was originally designed and built for military freight movements to Loring Air Force Base at weights much heavier than 100,000 pounds. Raising the truck weight limit would keep heavy trucks on the interstates, which are designed to carry more weight than the rural State roads.

The argument that 100,000 pound trucks would cause greater road deterioration is misguided. Current Maine law requires that vehicles carrying up to 100,000 pounds on State roads be six-axle combination vehicles. Current Federal law requires that vehicles carrying 80,000 pounds be five-axle. Contrary to erroneous assumptions, six-axle 100,000 pound vehicles are not longer, wider or taller than the five- axle 80,000 pound vehicles. The six-axle 100,000 pound vehicles, which include an addtional set of brakes, allow for greater weight distribution thereby not increasing road wear and tear. Further, stopping distances and safety are in no way diminished, and preliminary data from studies conducted by the Maine State Police support this statement. That is why Maine's Commissioner of Public Safety, the Maine State Troopers Association, and the Maine Association of Police all support this pilot project.

A higher weight limit in Maine will not only preserve our rapidly deteriorating roads, but will provide economic relief to an already struggling trucking industry. 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. Maine truck drivers and the businesses they serve are at a competitive disadvantage.

Last year, I met with Kurt Babineau, a small business owner and second generation logger and trucker from Maine. Like so many of our truckers, Kurt has been struggling with the increasing costs of running his operation. All of the pulpwood his business produces is transported to Verso Paper in Jay, ME, a 165-mile roundtrip. This would be a considerably shorter trip if his trucks were permitted at 100,000 pounds to remain on Interstate 95. Instead, his trucks must travel a less direct route through cities and towns. Kurt estimated that permitting his trucks to travel on all of Interstate 95 would save him 118 gallons of fuel each week. At last year's diesel cost of approximately $4.50 a gallon, and including savings from his drivers spending less time on the trip, he could have saved more than $700 a week, and more than $33,000 and 5,600 gallons of fuel annually. These savings would not only be beneficial to Kurt's bottom line, but also to his employees, his customers, and to our nation as we look for ways to decrease the overall fuel consumption.

An increase of the Federal truck weight limit in Maine is widely supported by public officials throughout Maine, including the Governor, the Maine Association of Police, and the Maine Department of Public Safety, which includes the State Bureau of Highway Safety, the Maine State Police, and the Bureau of Emergency Communications. I have several letters of support from these officials and organizations, which I will submit for the record with my statement. The Maine

Legislature also has expressed its support for the change having passed resolutions over the past several years calling on Congress to raise the Federal truck weight limit to 100,000 pounds in Maine. I urge my colleagues to support this important provision in the Fiscal Year 2010 THUD appropriations bill.

Mr. President, today along with Senators Cardin, Whitehouse, and Landrieu I am introducing legislation that requires the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to satisfy three conditions before granting a waiver from the Clean Air Act of 1970 to producers of mid-level blends of ethanol. These are fuels that contain more than ten percent ethanol that are destined for use in engines originally designed to work with just gasoline.

While I believe that expanding our capacity to generate and use renewable energy is an important step toward becoming energy independent, I have serious concerns about the impact of ethanol on engines and fuel efficiency. Ethanol blends are more corrosive than gasoline and can cause failure in small and older engines, such as boat engines.

The 2005 Energy Policy Act required that renewable fuels be introduced into our fuel supply to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In 2007, that Renewable Fuel Standard was updated to require that by the year 2022 we introduce annually a minimum of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel into our fuel supply.

The first, easiest route to satisfying the renewable fuel mandate was through blending ethanol, chiefly derived from corn, into gasoline at a level of 10 percent by volume, resulting in a gasoline known as ``E10.'' Due to its high oxygen content, this fuel requires a Clean Air Act waiver, which EPA first granted in 1978. Today, in many areas of the country, people only have E10 as a choice at the pump. This includes my constituents in Maine. While the most modern engines have been designed to work with E10, older engines have well-documented difficulties using this fuel. I am very concerned that they will have even greater problems using ethanol fuel blends with even higher levels of ethanol.

E10 was introduced into Maine in 2008 and now it is the only fuel choice in the State. E10 has caused problems for some of my constituents. One topped off his gas tanks before heading to sea but, two miles out, the boat stopped. He later discovered that his tanks were topped off with E10 that destroyed his boat's fuel lines and caused fuel filters and carburetors to clog. He eventually had to tear up the boat deck and replace the fuel tanks at a cost of thousands of dollars.

In March 2009, manufacturers of mid-level ethanol blends containing as much as 15 percent of ethanol by volume, termed E15, petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to also grant this new fuel a waiver from the Clean Air Act. Many organizations share my concern about this development and are demanding that the performance of E15 in the current fleet of engines be thoroughly investigated before the new fuel can be introduced into commerce.

In June, 21 Senators wrote to the administrator of the EPA urging her to ensure that independent and comprehensive testing of any ethanol blend fuel with greater than 10 percent ethanol was completed prior to any waiver from current EPA guidance as required under the Clean Air Act. The response on July 20 was that a decision to grant a waiver for the new fuel rests entirely on the demonstration that the new fuel will not cause or contribute to the failure of vehicles or engines to meet emission standards. This is not adequate to alleviate my concerns about older and non-road engines.

Thus, today I am introducing the Mid-Level Ethanol Blends bill. This bill requires that the EPA Science Advisory Board carefully evaluate the body of evidence presented about E15's performance in the current inventory of engines and report back to the Administrator before any waiver is granted. The report would indicate whether or not a sufficient body of evidence exists to support a decision to grant a waiver, which is hotly contested between supporters of E15 and those who caution against introducing the fuel into the market now. Automobile manufacturers who warranty their products to perform with E10 are justifiably concerned about whether they will be able to extend the warranty to users of E15 without putting themselves at significant economic risk. They will require significant testing of all engine and emission systems before accepting such risks.

The Science Advisory Board also would report on the ability of the wholesale and retail gasoline fuel infrastructure to introduce an E15 fuel into commerce without consumer confusion or misfueling. The Science Advisory Board also would estimate whether consumers throughout the country will be able to purchase gasoline other than E15 immediately and for five years after the introduction of the new blend. This will provide the Administrator with information about potential difficulties faced by many millions of vehicle, boat, and small-engine devices, for example, lawnmowers, chainsaws, weed trimmers, snowmobiles, that have engines whose performance could be compromised were they unable to use any fuel other than E15.

Once the Science Advisory Board report is released and the public has an opportunity to comment on the Board's findings, should the administrator decide to grant a waiver, this bill requires that the administrator formally respond to the recommendations of the Science Advisory Board in the waiver announcement. The administrator can only issue a waiver if the findings are that it will not adversely conventional gasoline-powered onroad and nonroad vehicles and nonroad engines in widespread use as of the date the new fuel is introduced.

There are over 200 million engines in the U.S. today that could conceivably be damaged by the introduction of new fuel blends containing higher amounts of ethanol. Should this occur, it would result in significant hardship to millions of Americans. We simply cannot place so many people in jeopardy through precipitous actions. Any introduction of a new fuel must be done carefully with ample time for testing.

As we pursue strategies to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, we must also take action to insure that ethanol fuel blends are safe and efficient for current engines. I urge my colleagues to join me, Senator Cardin, and the coalition of organizations endorsing this legislation, and ensure that the ramifications of introducing mid-level ethanol blends into commerce are thoroughly understood before they are granted a waiver from the Clear Air Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to authorize funding for abrupt climate change research. I am pleased to be joined on this bill by Senator Cantwell as lead cosponsor and by our colleagues, Senators Snowe, Kerry, and Gillibrand.

Abrupt climate change is defined as a large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists, or is anticipated to persist, for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems.

Our bill authorizes $10 million per year for the next 6 years for a comprehensive and integrated competitive, peer-reviewed, research program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to understand, assess, and predict abrupt climate change.

Abrupt climate change is not necessarily a result of increased amounts of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. It can be caused by natural phenomena, such massive volcanic eruptions, or natural climate variability.

However it comes about, abrupt climate change can pose significant risks and challenges to our society. For us to uphold our responsibility as stewards of the Nation's environmental and economic security, it is crucial that we better understand abrupt climate change so that we can recognize it early and respond to it effectively.

Understanding and predicting climate change are enormous scientific challenges. The challenges are made even more difficult with the recognition that the climate system is capable of dramatic and abrupt changes. Past global temperatures have swung as much as 20 degrees fahrenheit within a decade, accompanied by drought in some places and catastrophic floods in others. An abrupt climate change triggered by the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would also likely result in the redistribution of atmospheric moisture and rainfall, with substantial impact on the world's food supplies. Unfortunately, we have no satisfactory understanding of what triggers abrupt climate changes.

The National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program have identified abrupt climate change as a key priority for additional research. The National Academy of Sciences stated that ``Large, abrupt climate changes have repeatedly affected much or all of the Earth.'' Furthermore, the Academy went on to state that ``abrupt climate changes are not only possible but likely in the future, potentially with large impacts on ecosystems and societies,'' and noted that we're not doing nearly enough to identify the threat of abrupt climate change. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program last reported to the President and Congress on abrupt climate change in December 2008. The overarching recommendation of this report is the urgent need for committed and sustained monitoring of components of the climate system particularly vulnerable to abrupt climate change. Our bill provides a framework and funds for the U.S. to better understand and address abrupt climate change.

One reason this funding is so urgent is that we are rapidly losing one of the greatest sources of information: ice cores from glaciers. The University of Maine's Climate Change Institute has one of the best abrupt climate change research programs in the world. The Climate Change Institute uses ice cores from glaciers and ice sheets around the world to make discoveries that change the way we think about climate change. Unfortunately, numerous glaciers around the world are melting, and when they go, we lose the very record that has given us so much of this critical climatic history.

I have had several opportunities to see how scientists are able to use glaciers and ice sheets to understand climate change. In 2006, I joined Senators McCain and Sununu in traveling to the South Pole to see groundbreaking research taking place on ice more than 2 miles deep. Along the way we toured some of the University of Maine research sites in New Zealand with distinguished Professor George Denton, who was the first scientist from the University of Maine to be elected to the National Academy of Sciences. According to Professor Denton, 50 percent of the glaciers in New Zealand have melted since 1860, and this melting is unprecedented in the last 5,000 years. We stood with the professor on sites that had been buried by massive glaciers at the beginning of the 20th century, but are now ice free.

I also traveled with Senators McCain, Sununu, and others to Ny- Alesund, the northernmost community in the world. The scientists we met with told us that the global climate is changing more rapidly now than at any time since the beginning of civilization. They further stated that the region of the globe changing most rapidly is the Arctic. The changes are remarkable and disturbing.

In the last 30 years, the Arctic has lost sea-ice cover over an area 10 times as large as the State of Maine. In the summer, the change is even more dramatic, with twice as much ice loss. The ice that remains is as much as 40 percent thinner than it was just a few decades ago. In Ny-Alesund, Senator McCain and I witnessed massive blocks of ice falling off glaciers that had already retreated well back from the shores where they once rested.

The melting of glaciers and sea ice, the thawing of permafrost, and the increases in sea levels resulting from warming are already beginning to cause environmental, social, and economic changes. If these changes were to be compounded with an abrupt climate change on the scale seen in our climatic history, the result could be devastating.

Mr. President, this measure has passed the Senate many times, as part of the 2001, 2003, and 2007 energy bills. I hope this is the year that we finally pass this important provision into law. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. President, today along with Senators Cardin, Whitehouse, and Landrieu I am introducing legislation that requires the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to satisfy three conditions before granting a waiver from the Clean Air Act of 1970 to producers of mid-level blends of ethanol. These are fuels that contain more than ten percent ethanol that are destined for use in engines originally designed to work with just gasoline.

While I believe that expanding our capacity to generate and use renewable energy is an important step toward becoming energy independent, I have serious concerns about the impact of ethanol on engines and fuel efficiency. Ethanol blends are more corrosive than gasoline and can cause failure in small and older engines, such as boat engines.

The 2005 Energy Policy Act required that renewable fuels be introduced into our fuel supply to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. In 2007, that Renewable Fuel Standard was updated to require that by the year 2022 we introduce annually a minimum of 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel into our fuel supply.

The first, easiest route to satisfying the renewable fuel mandate was through blending ethanol, chiefly derived from corn, into gasoline at a level of 10 percent by volume, resulting in a gasoline known as ``E10.'' Due to its high oxygen content, this fuel requires a Clean Air Act waiver, which EPA first granted in 1978. Today, in many areas of the country, people only have E10 as a choice at the pump. This includes my constituents in Maine. While the most modern engines have been designed to work with E10, older engines have well-documented difficulties using this fuel. I am very concerned that they will have even greater problems using ethanol fuel blends with even higher levels of ethanol.

E10 was introduced into Maine in 2008 and now it is the only fuel choice in the State. E10 has caused problems for some of my constituents. One topped off his gas tanks before heading to sea but, two miles out, the boat stopped. He later discovered that his tanks were topped off with E10 that destroyed his boat's fuel lines and caused fuel filters and carburetors to clog. He eventually had to tear up the boat deck and replace the fuel tanks at a cost of thousands of dollars.

In March 2009, manufacturers of mid-level ethanol blends containing as much as 15 percent of ethanol by volume, termed E15, petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to also grant this new fuel a waiver from the Clean Air Act. Many organizations share my concern about this development and are demanding that the performance of E15 in the current fleet of engines be thoroughly investigated before the new fuel can be introduced into commerce.

In June, 21 Senators wrote to the administrator of the EPA urging her to ensure that independent and comprehensive testing of any ethanol blend fuel with greater than 10 percent ethanol was completed prior to any waiver from current EPA guidance as required under the Clean Air Act. The response on July 20 was that a decision to grant a waiver for the new fuel rests entirely on the demonstration that the new fuel will not cause or contribute to the failure of vehicles or engines to meet emission standards. This is not adequate to alleviate my concerns about older and non-road engines.

Thus, today I am introducing the Mid-Level Ethanol Blends bill. This bill requires that the EPA Science Advisory Board carefully evaluate the body of evidence presented about E15's performance in the current inventory of engines and report back to the Administrator before any waiver is granted. The report would indicate whether or not a sufficient body of evidence exists to support a decision to grant a waiver, which is hotly contested between supporters of E15 and those who caution against introducing the fuel into the market now. Automobile manufacturers who warranty their products to perform with E10 are justifiably concerned about whether they will be able to extend the warranty to users of E15 without putting themselves at significant economic risk. They will require significant testing of all engine and emission systems before accepting such risks.

The Science Advisory Board also would report on the ability of the wholesale and retail gasoline fuel infrastructure to introduce an E15 fuel into commerce without consumer confusion or misfueling. The Science Advisory Board also would estimate whether consumers throughout the country will be able to purchase gasoline other than E15 immediately and for five years after the introduction of the new blend. This will provide the Administrator with information about potential difficulties faced by many millions of vehicle, boat, and small-engine devices, for example, lawnmowers, chainsaws, weed trimmers, snowmobiles, that have engines whose performance could be compromised were they unable to use any fuel other than E15.

Once the Science Advisory Board report is released and the public has an opportunity to comment on the Board's findings, should the administrator decide to grant a waiver, this bill requires that the administrator formally respond to the recommendations of the Science Advisory Board in the waiver announcement. The administrator can only issue a waiver if the findings are that it will not adversely conventional gasoline-powered onroad and nonroad vehicles and nonroad engines in widespread use as of the date the new fuel is introduced.

There are over 200 million engines in the U.S. today that could conceivably be damaged by the introduction of new fuel blends containing higher amounts of ethanol. Should this occur, it would result in significant hardship to millions of Americans. We simply cannot place so many people in jeopardy through precipitous actions. Any introduction of a new fuel must be done carefully with ample time for testing.

As we pursue strategies to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, we must also take action to insure that ethanol fuel blends are safe and efficient for current engines. I urge my colleagues to join me, Senator Cardin, and the coalition of organizations endorsing this legislation, and ensure that the ramifications of introducing mid-level ethanol blends into commerce are thoroughly understood before they are granted a waiver from the Clear Air Act.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a bill to authorize funding for abrupt climate change research. I am pleased to be joined on this bill by Senator Cantwell as lead cosponsor and by our colleagues, Senators Snowe, Kerry, and Gillibrand.

Abrupt climate change is defined as a large-scale change in the climate system that takes place over a few decades or less, persists, or is anticipated to persist, for at least a few decades, and causes substantial disruptions in human and natural systems.

Our bill authorizes $10 million per year for the next 6 years for a comprehensive and integrated competitive, peer-reviewed, research program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to understand, assess, and predict abrupt climate change.

Abrupt climate change is not necessarily a result of increased amounts of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. It can be caused by natural phenomena, such massive volcanic eruptions, or natural climate variability.

However it comes about, abrupt climate change can pose significant risks and challenges to our society. For us to uphold our responsibility as stewards of the Nation's environmental and economic security, it is crucial that we better understand abrupt climate change so that we can recognize it early and respond to it effectively.

Understanding and predicting climate change are enormous scientific challenges. The challenges are made even more difficult with the recognition that the climate system is capable of dramatic and abrupt changes. Past global temperatures have swung as much as 20 degrees fahrenheit within a decade, accompanied by drought in some places and catastrophic floods in others. An abrupt climate change triggered by the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would also likely result in the redistribution of atmospheric moisture and rainfall, with substantial impact on the world's food supplies. Unfortunately, we have no satisfactory understanding of what triggers abrupt climate changes.

The National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program have identified abrupt climate change as a key priority for additional research. The National Academy of Sciences stated that ``Large, abrupt climate changes have repeatedly affected much or all of the Earth.'' Furthermore, the Academy went on to state that ``abrupt climate changes are not only possible but likely in the future, potentially with large impacts on ecosystems and societies,'' and noted that we're not doing nearly enough to identify the threat of abrupt climate change. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program last reported to the President and Congress on abrupt climate change in December 2008. The overarching recommendation of this report is the urgent need for committed and sustained monitoring of components of the climate system particularly vulnerable to abrupt climate change. Our bill provides a framework and funds for the U.S. to better understand and address abrupt climate change.

One reason this funding is so urgent is that we are rapidly losing one of the greatest sources of information: ice cores from glaciers. The University of Maine's Climate Change Institute has one of the best abrupt climate change research programs in the world. The Climate Change Institute uses ice cores from glaciers and ice sheets around the world to make discoveries that change the way we think about climate change. Unfortunately, numerous glaciers around the world are melting, and when they go, we lose the very record that has given us so much of this critical climatic history.

I have had several opportunities to see how scientists are able to use glaciers and ice sheets to understand climate change. In 2006, I joined Senators McCain and Sununu in traveling to the South Pole to see groundbreaking research taking place on ice more than 2 miles deep. Along the way we toured some of the University of Maine research sites in New Zealand with distinguished Professor George Denton, who was the first scientist from the University of Maine to be elected to the National Academy of Sciences. According to Professor Denton, 50 percent of the glaciers in New Zealand have melted since 1860, and this melting is unprecedented in the last 5,000 years. We stood with the professor on sites that had been buried by massive glaciers at the beginning of the 20th century, but are now ice free.

I also traveled with Senators McCain, Sununu, and others to Ny- Alesund, the northernmost community in the world. The scientists we met with told us that the global climate is changing more rapidly now than at any time since the beginning of civilization. They further stated that the region of the globe changing most rapidly is the Arctic. The changes are remarkable and disturbing.

In the last 30 years, the Arctic has lost sea-ice cover over an area 10 times as large as the State of Maine. In the summer, the change is even more dramatic, with twice as much ice loss. The ice that remains is as much as 40 percent thinner than it was just a few decades ago. In Ny-Alesund, Senator McCain and I witnessed massive blocks of ice falling off glaciers that had already retreated well back from the shores where they once rested.

The melting of glaciers and sea ice, the thawing of permafrost, and the increases in sea levels resulting from warming are already beginning to cause environmental, social, and economic changes. If these changes were to be compounded with an abrupt climate change on the scale seen in our climatic history, the result could be devastating.

Mr. President, this measure has passed the Senate many times, as part of the 2001, 2003, and 2007 energy bills. I hope this is the year that we finally pass this important provision into law. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.