Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is taking up the conference report on legislation to accomplish the urgent task of preventing dangerous consumer products--especially those intended for children--from entering the country or reaching store shelves. The conference report contains a wide variety of measures that, taken together, deserve our support because they will greatly bolster defenses against hazards that must not reach American homes.

I want to commend the chief sponsor of the bill, Senator Pryor, for his leadership on this issue. It has been a pleasure to work with him.

We all remember last year's alarming and, too often, tragic stories of product hazards and recalls that demonstrated the need to strengthen protections for consumers, particularly children. Unfortunately, those dangers continue. In 2008, new Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, recalls have included 19,000 baby rattles that present choking hazards, 685,000 wireless helicopter toys whose batteries can catch fire, and 91,000 horseshoe-shaped magnet toys whose coating contains high levels of lead.

Lead, as we know, is a particular concern because of its use in plastics and paints can expose children to the risk of serious nervous system damage and other health effects. The conference report's dramatic reduction in the permissible lead content in products marketed for children under 12--starting at 600 parts per million and ratcheting down to 100 parts per million over 3 years--is just one example of the bill's aggressive pursuit of safety.

Even with these tighter restrictions on lead content, we must continue to pay special attention to imported products that violate our safety rules. As we have seen with the lead issue, the bulk of toys sold in American stores come from China, where cases of careless or unscrupulous factories or suppliers using cheaper lead paints in violation of factory or official standards make clear the need to upgrade our ability to police safety violations in global supply chains.

I am, therefore, pleased that the conference report contains four key provisions from the Senate-passed bill, S. 2663, that emerged from an in-depth investigation conducted by my staff on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Combined with important enhancements to CPSC authorities and funding provided in the conference report, these four provisions will ensure that unsafe imported consumer products, including toys and clothing that endanger our Nation's children, are effectively screened at the border and, when necessary, destroyed.

Last August, I asked my HSGAC staff to review the effectiveness of Federal safety standards governing children's toys and clothing. The committee investigators conducted numerous interviews of manufacturers' representatives, retailers, consumer advocacy groups, and Federal regulatory agencies, and visited a manufacturer's testing lab and two ports. Their findings confirmed several weaknesses in our current consumer product safety regime; namely; the CPSC is understaffed, inadequately resourced, and lacks crucial authorities needed to fulfill its mission; voluntary standards applicable to many classes of products can be useful in quickly addressing safety issues, but lack the full force of law; and the inability to effectively enforce safety standards at our ports limits our Nation's ability to stop hazardous imported products from entering the American marketplace.

My staff investigation made it clear that our border inspections regime must target and intercept foreign products that fail to meet U.S. safety standards. As our committee found, Customs and Border Protection currently lacks the authority to seize and destroy dangerous imported products even if the agency suspects that an unscrupulous importer turned away at one port might attempt to bring these products in through another U.S. port.

The committee's investigation also revealed that coordination and information sharing between CBP and CPSC were often ad-hoc--providing CBP with little useful information that would allow its agents to target shipments that are more likely to contain dangerous goods.

The provisions that I authored, and worked with Senators Inouye, Stevens, and Pryor to include in the bipartisan reform bill that the Senate passed, specifically target problems with unsafe imports by ensuring that CPSC and U.S. Customs and Border Protection work effectively together to keep unsafe consumer products out of our country. These provisions: authorize CBP to seize and destroy dangerous consumer products entering our ports, long before they reach store shelves or American homes; enhance information sharing between CPSC and CBP so that inspectors at our Nation's ports can focus their resource on the most risky shipments, targeting products, manufacturers, and importers with poor consumer-safety records; task CPSC with developing a comprehensive risk assessment tool to help CBP quickly evaluate imported products that might violate our Nation's safety standards; and direct the CPSC to develop a plan to ensure that Commission employees are assigned to the National Targeting Center at CBP to increase interagency collaboration in evaluating the potential risks of inbound shipments for potential safety issues.

I am pleased that the conferees retained these provisions in their report. They will help the CPSC and Customs and Border Protection identify dangerous products that enter our ports and prevent them from reaching American homes.

Other measures in this conference report--increased staffing and funding for the CPSC, tougher civil and criminal penalties for violations of safety laws, a ban on reselling recalled products, enhanced whistleblower protections, safety certifications, and product tracking labels--will also strengthen the Consumer Product Safety Commission's ability to protect American consumers. With the new authorities in this bill, the CPSC will be able to work more effectively with importers, retailers, consumers, and industry associations to develop and enforce product-safety standards.

This legislation will make a real difference in protecting America's children and other consumers from hazardous toys and other products.

I urge my colleagues to adopt the conference report.

Mr. President, I rise to join my friend Senator Wyden in introducing a bill that will ban the sale of certain novelty lighters that children can mistake for toys, often with tragic consequences for themselves and their families.

In Arkansas last year, two boys, ages 15 months and 2 years, died when the toddler accidentally started a fire with a lighter shaped like a motorcycle. In Oregon, a fire started with a dolphin-shaped lighter left one child dead and another brain-damaged. A North Carolina 6-year- old boy was badly burned by a lighter shaped like a cell phone.

Sadly, the U.S. Fire Administration has other stories of the hazards presented by novelty lighters. When you learn that one looks like a rubber duck toy--and quacks--you can imagine the potential for harm.

As a co-chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am proud to note that this spring, my home State of Maine became the first State to outlaw the sale of novelty lighters.

My State's pioneering law stems from a tragic 2007 incident in a Livermore, Maine, grocery store. While his mother was buying sandwiches, six-year-old Shane St. Pierre picked up what appeared to be a toy flashlight in the form of a baseball bat. When he flicked the switch, a flame shot out and burned his face. Shane's dad, Norm St. Pierre, a fire chief in nearby West Paris, began advocating for the novelty-lighter ban that became Maine law in March 2008.

The Maine State Fire Marshal's office supported that legislation, and a national ban has the support of the Congressional Fire Services Institute's National Advisory Committee, the National State Fire Marshals Association, and the National Volunteer Fire Council.

The bill is straightforward. It treats novelty lighters manufactured after January 1, 1980, as banned hazardous substances unless the Consumer Product Safety Commission determines a particular lighter has antique or significant artistic value. Otherwise, sale of lighters with toy-like appearance, special audio or visual features, or other attributes that would appeal to children under 10 would be banned.

The novelty lighters targeted in this legislation serve no functional need. But they are liable to attract the notice and curiosity of children, whose play can too easily turn into a scene of horror and death. The sale of lighters that look like animals, cartoon characters, food, toys, or other objects is simply irresponsible and an invitation to tragedy.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple measure that can save children from disfigurement and death.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Small Marine Business and Fishing Guide Relief Act that Senator Coleman is introducing today. This legislation will provide much-needed relief to charter boat captains and other operators of small marine businesses in Maine by exempting them from having to obtain a Transportation Worker Identification Credential, or TWIC, which costs $132.50 for each employee.

Under current law, any individual who holds a Coast Guard license, as most charter boat captains do, must also obtain a TWIC. The purpose of the requirement was to ensure that port operators and the Coast Guard could inspect a tamper-resistant identification document to verify the identity of those who have access to secure areas of ports and large vessels.

Charter boat captains, however, do not have secure areas on their boats and usually do not need unescorted access to port facilities. Therefore, they have no need for a TWIC. For these small businesses, requiring them to obtain a TWIC essentially amounts to an unnecessary and costly government regulation.

Many small businesses are struggling in these lean economic times, particularly with high marine fuel prices and tourists who have less to spend their discretionary income on charter tours in the Gulf of Maine. With these businesses' declining profit margins, they cannot afford an additional $132 identification card for their employees.

Even with this exemption, charter captains with a Coast Guard license will have undergone an extensive background check for the same crimes that are reviewed when an individual applies for a TWIC. So waiving the TWIC requirement for them would not reduce the background information available for review before these individuals are licensed as charter captains.

To be sure, the Transportation Worker Identification Credential will play a critical role in our Nation's maritime security by limiting access to secure areas of ports and large vessels. It must ``be implemented, however, in a manner that does not unnecessarily and unproductively impede legitimate business operations.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Carper in introducing a bill that will improve agency performance and Congressional oversight of major Federal information-technology, IT projects.

The well-publicized cost and performance problems with the Census Bureau's handheld computers for the 2010 Census--with its troubling implications for the next House reapportionment and for the allocation of Federal funds--represent only the most recent and conspicuous failure in a long trail of troubles that also includes critical IT projects like the FBI's virtual case file initiative. Former IBM executive and Carnegie-Mellon University technology expert Watts Humphrey makes the point succinctly: ``Software failures are common, and the biggest projects fail most often.''

During the 108th Congress, the Committee on Governmental Affairs investigated the botched automated recordkeeping project for the Federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan TSP. This project was terminated in 2001 after a

4-year contract produced $36 million in waste that was charged to the accounts of TSP participants and beneficiaries. A second vendor needed an additional $33 million to bring the system online, years overdue and costing more than double its original estimate.

In a 2004 letter from the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board to the Governmental Affairs Committee, the board characterized the project as ``ill-fated `` and acknowledged the importance of careful planning, task definition, communication, proper personnel, and risk management--all of which were lacking on that project.

Large IT project failures have cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars in wasted expenditures. The waste is troubling, but even more troubling is the fact that when Federal IT projects fail, they can undermine the Government's ability to defend the Nation, enforce its laws, or deliver critical services to citizens. Again and again, we have seen IT project failures grounded in poor planning, ill-defined and shifting requirements, undisclosed difficulties, poor risk management, and lax monitoring of performance.

Unfortunately, as the Government Accountability Office, GAO, tells us in a new report, Federal IT projects still fall short in their use of effective oversight techniques to monitor development and to spot signs of possible trouble.

The GAO reports that the Federal Government will spend over $70 billion in fiscal year 2008 on IT projects. Most of that spending is concentrated in two dozen agencies that have 778 major projects underway. These Federal entities range from Cabinet departments like Commerce, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, to agencies like NASA, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Agency for International Development.

The GAO observes that ``Effectively managing projects involves pulling together essential cost, schedule, and performance goals in a meaningful, coherent fashion so that managers have an accurate view of the program's development status.'' This set of goals becomes the project ``baseline.''

When the GAO conducted a study of a random sample of those major Federal IT projects, however, they found that 85--nearly half the sample--had been ``rebaselined.'' Eighteen of those projects have been rebaselined three or more times. For example, the Department of Defense Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System has been rebaselined four times; a Veterans Affairs Health Administration Center project has been rebaselined six times.

Rebaselining can reflect funding changes, revisions in project scope or goals, and other perfectly reasonable project modifications. But as the GAO notes, ``[rebaselining] can also be used to mask cost overruns and schedule delays.'' All major Federal agencies have rebaselining policies, but the GAO concludes that they are not comprehensive and that ``none of the policies are fully consistent with best practices.''

The bill that Senator Carper and I are introducing will go far toward addressing the weaknesses identified by the GAO and will reduce the risks that important Federal IT projects will drag on far beyond deadlines, fail to deliver intended capabilities, or waste taxpayers' money. We are pleased to have Senators Lieberman, Coleman, and McCaskill join us as cosponsors in this effort.

Our bill will improve both agency and Congressional oversight of large Federal IT projects. For all major investments, the bill requires agencies to track the earned value management index, a key cost and performance measure, and to alert Congress should that measure fall below a defined threshold.

The bill requires additional reports to Congress as well as specific corrective actions should those same indicators continue to worsen. Further, because the bill's performance thresholds are based on original cost baselines, rebaselining can no longer serve as a tactic to hide troubled projects. If severe shortfalls remain uncorrected, the bill can even suspend commitment of funds to a project until the agency takes the required corrective actions.

Our bill does not envision making Congress a micromanager of Federal projects--especially in so complex a field as information technology. But it will ensure that, for these important investments, agencies will be required to track key performance metrics, inform Congress of shortfalls in those metrics, and provide Congress with followup reports, independent cost estimates, and analyses of project alternatives when the original projects have run off course.

The bill also provides that each covered agency identify to Congress their top mission-critical projects. Those ``core investments'' would be subject to additional upfront planning, reporting, and performance monitoring requirements. This will help ensure that agencies apply extra vigilance to these projects at the planning stage and not just when execution begins.

In addition to tracking cost and schedule slippage, agencies making core IT investments must provide a complete ``business case'' that outlines the need for the project and its associated costs and schedules; produce a rigorous, independent, third-party estimate of the project's full, life-cycle costs; have the agency CIO certify the project's functional requirements; track these functional requirements; and report to Congress any changes in functional requirements, including whether those changes concealed a major cost increase.

To help agencies deliver IT projects on time and on budget, the bill also provides two new support mechanisms.

First, agency heads would be required to establish an internal IT- management program, subject to OMB guidelines, to improve project planning, requirements development, and management of earned value and risk.

Second, the Director of OMB and its E-Gov Administrator will be required to establish an IT strike force of experts and independent consultants who can be assigned to help agencies reform troubled projects. In addition, the E-Gov Administrator can recommend that agency heads mentor or replace an IT project manager, reinforce the management team, terminate the project, or hire an independent contractor to report on the project.

These and other provisions will help improve project planning, avoid problems in project execution, provide early alerts when problems arise, and promote prompt corrective action.

In projects where difficulties persist, our bill provides strong remedies. For projects that exhibit a performance shortfall of 20 percent or more, the agency head involved must not only alert Congress but also provide a summary of a concrete plan of action to correct the problem. If the shortfall exceeds 40 percent, agencies have 6 months to take required remedial steps or else suspend further project spending until those steps are completed.

If the provisions of this bill had been in force during the past decade, early indicators of trouble and prompt warnings to Congress might have helped prevent much of the added cost, decreased functionality, and increased anxiety we now see surrounding the handheld computers that were intended to streamline the 2010 Census. The additional scrutiny of plans and costs required by this bill might have saved some of the billions wasted on other IT projects that ultimately landed on high-risk lists.

Our bill creates a measured, methodical plan to ensure that Federal agencies apply best practices to IT projects, supply timely reports of problems, and devise corrective actions sooner rather than later. Our Government and our citizens will benefit from these improvements. I urge every Senator to support this constructive and bipartisan bill.

Mr. President, I rise to join my friend Senator Wyden in introducing a bill that will ban the sale of certain novelty lighters that children can mistake for toys, often with tragic consequences for themselves and their families.

In Arkansas last year, two boys, ages 15 months and 2 years, died when the toddler accidentally started a fire with a lighter shaped like a motorcycle. In Oregon, a fire started with a dolphin-shaped lighter left one child dead and another brain-damaged. A North Carolina 6-year- old boy was badly burned by a lighter shaped like a cell phone.

Sadly, the U.S. Fire Administration has other stories of the hazards presented by novelty lighters. When you learn that one looks like a rubber duck toy--and quacks--you can imagine the potential for harm.

As a co-chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am proud to note that this spring, my home State of Maine became the first State to outlaw the sale of novelty lighters.

My State's pioneering law stems from a tragic 2007 incident in a Livermore, Maine, grocery store. While his mother was buying sandwiches, six-year-old Shane St. Pierre picked up what appeared to be a toy flashlight in the form of a baseball bat. When he flicked the switch, a flame shot out and burned his face. Shane's dad, Norm St. Pierre, a fire chief in nearby West Paris, began advocating for the novelty-lighter ban that became Maine law in March 2008.

The Maine State Fire Marshal's office supported that legislation, and a national ban has the support of the Congressional Fire Services Institute's National Advisory Committee, the National State Fire Marshals Association, and the National Volunteer Fire Council.

The bill is straightforward. It treats novelty lighters manufactured after January 1, 1980, as banned hazardous substances unless the Consumer Product Safety Commission determines a particular lighter has antique or significant artistic value. Otherwise, sale of lighters with toy-like appearance, special audio or visual features, or other attributes that would appeal to children under 10 would be banned.

The novelty lighters targeted in this legislation serve no functional need. But they are liable to attract the notice and curiosity of children, whose play can too easily turn into a scene of horror and death. The sale of lighters that look like animals, cartoon characters, food, toys, or other objects is simply irresponsible and an invitation to tragedy.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple measure that can save children from disfigurement and death.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Small Marine Business and Fishing Guide Relief Act that Senator Coleman is introducing today. This legislation will provide much-needed relief to charter boat captains and other operators of small marine businesses in Maine by exempting them from having to obtain a Transportation Worker Identification Credential, or TWIC, which costs $132.50 for each employee.

Under current law, any individual who holds a Coast Guard license, as most charter boat captains do, must also obtain a TWIC. The purpose of the requirement was to ensure that port operators and the Coast Guard could inspect a tamper-resistant identification document to verify the identity of those who have access to secure areas of ports and large vessels.

Charter boat captains, however, do not have secure areas on their boats and usually do not need unescorted access to port facilities. Therefore, they have no need for a TWIC. For these small businesses, requiring them to obtain a TWIC essentially amounts to an unnecessary and costly government regulation.

Many small businesses are struggling in these lean economic times, particularly with high marine fuel prices and tourists who have less to spend their discretionary income on charter tours in the Gulf of Maine. With these businesses' declining profit margins, they cannot afford an additional $132 identification card for their employees.

Even with this exemption, charter captains with a Coast Guard license will have undergone an extensive background check for the same crimes that are reviewed when an individual applies for a TWIC. So waiving the TWIC requirement for them would not reduce the background information available for review before these individuals are licensed as charter captains.

To be sure, the Transportation Worker Identification Credential will play a critical role in our Nation's maritime security by limiting access to secure areas of ports and large vessels. It must ``be implemented, however, in a manner that does not unnecessarily and unproductively impede legitimate business operations.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Carper in introducing a bill that will improve agency performance and Congressional oversight of major Federal information-technology, IT projects.

The well-publicized cost and performance problems with the Census Bureau's handheld computers for the 2010 Census--with its troubling implications for the next House reapportionment and for the allocation of Federal funds--represent only the most recent and conspicuous failure in a long trail of troubles that also includes critical IT projects like the FBI's virtual case file initiative. Former IBM executive and Carnegie-Mellon University technology expert Watts Humphrey makes the point succinctly: ``Software failures are common, and the biggest projects fail most often.''

During the 108th Congress, the Committee on Governmental Affairs investigated the botched automated recordkeeping project for the Federal employees' Thrift Savings Plan TSP. This project was terminated in 2001 after a

4-year contract produced $36 million in waste that was charged to the accounts of TSP participants and beneficiaries. A second vendor needed an additional $33 million to bring the system online, years overdue and costing more than double its original estimate.

In a 2004 letter from the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board to the Governmental Affairs Committee, the board characterized the project as ``ill-fated `` and acknowledged the importance of careful planning, task definition, communication, proper personnel, and risk management--all of which were lacking on that project.

Large IT project failures have cost U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars in wasted expenditures. The waste is troubling, but even more troubling is the fact that when Federal IT projects fail, they can undermine the Government's ability to defend the Nation, enforce its laws, or deliver critical services to citizens. Again and again, we have seen IT project failures grounded in poor planning, ill-defined and shifting requirements, undisclosed difficulties, poor risk management, and lax monitoring of performance.

Unfortunately, as the Government Accountability Office, GAO, tells us in a new report, Federal IT projects still fall short in their use of effective oversight techniques to monitor development and to spot signs of possible trouble.

The GAO reports that the Federal Government will spend over $70 billion in fiscal year 2008 on IT projects. Most of that spending is concentrated in two dozen agencies that have 778 major projects underway. These Federal entities range from Cabinet departments like Commerce, Defense, and Veterans Affairs, to agencies like NASA, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Agency for International Development.

The GAO observes that ``Effectively managing projects involves pulling together essential cost, schedule, and performance goals in a meaningful, coherent fashion so that managers have an accurate view of the program's development status.'' This set of goals becomes the project ``baseline.''

When the GAO conducted a study of a random sample of those major Federal IT projects, however, they found that 85--nearly half the sample--had been ``rebaselined.'' Eighteen of those projects have been rebaselined three or more times. For example, the Department of Defense Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System has been rebaselined four times; a Veterans Affairs Health Administration Center project has been rebaselined six times.

Rebaselining can reflect funding changes, revisions in project scope or goals, and other perfectly reasonable project modifications. But as the GAO notes, ``[rebaselining] can also be used to mask cost overruns and schedule delays.'' All major Federal agencies have rebaselining policies, but the GAO concludes that they are not comprehensive and that ``none of the policies are fully consistent with best practices.''

The bill that Senator Carper and I are introducing will go far toward addressing the weaknesses identified by the GAO and will reduce the risks that important Federal IT projects will drag on far beyond deadlines, fail to deliver intended capabilities, or waste taxpayers' money. We are pleased to have Senators Lieberman, Coleman, and McCaskill join us as cosponsors in this effort.

Our bill will improve both agency and Congressional oversight of large Federal IT projects. For all major investments, the bill requires agencies to track the earned value management index, a key cost and performance measure, and to alert Congress should that measure fall below a defined threshold.

The bill requires additional reports to Congress as well as specific corrective actions should those same indicators continue to worsen. Further, because the bill's performance thresholds are based on original cost baselines, rebaselining can no longer serve as a tactic to hide troubled projects. If severe shortfalls remain uncorrected, the bill can even suspend commitment of funds to a project until the agency takes the required corrective actions.

Our bill does not envision making Congress a micromanager of Federal projects--especially in so complex a field as information technology. But it will ensure that, for these important investments, agencies will be required to track key performance metrics, inform Congress of shortfalls in those metrics, and provide Congress with followup reports, independent cost estimates, and analyses of project alternatives when the original projects have run off course.

The bill also provides that each covered agency identify to Congress their top mission-critical projects. Those ``core investments'' would be subject to additional upfront planning, reporting, and performance monitoring requirements. This will help ensure that agencies apply extra vigilance to these projects at the planning stage and not just when execution begins.

In addition to tracking cost and schedule slippage, agencies making core IT investments must provide a complete ``business case'' that outlines the need for the project and its associated costs and schedules; produce a rigorous, independent, third-party estimate of the project's full, life-cycle costs; have the agency CIO certify the project's functional requirements; track these functional requirements; and report to Congress any changes in functional requirements, including whether those changes concealed a major cost increase.

To help agencies deliver IT projects on time and on budget, the bill also provides two new support mechanisms.

First, agency heads would be required to establish an internal IT- management program, subject to OMB guidelines, to improve project planning, requirements development, and management of earned value and risk.

Second, the Director of OMB and its E-Gov Administrator will be required to establish an IT strike force of experts and independent consultants who can be assigned to help agencies reform troubled projects. In addition, the E-Gov Administrator can recommend that agency heads mentor or replace an IT project manager, reinforce the management team, terminate the project, or hire an independent contractor to report on the project.

These and other provisions will help improve project planning, avoid problems in project execution, provide early alerts when problems arise, and promote prompt corrective action.

In projects where difficulties persist, our bill provides strong remedies. For projects that exhibit a performance shortfall of 20 percent or more, the agency head involved must not only alert Congress but also provide a summary of a concrete plan of action to correct the problem. If the shortfall exceeds 40 percent, agencies have 6 months to take required remedial steps or else suspend further project spending until those steps are completed.

If the provisions of this bill had been in force during the past decade, early indicators of trouble and prompt warnings to Congress might have helped prevent much of the added cost, decreased functionality, and increased anxiety we now see surrounding the handheld computers that were intended to streamline the 2010 Census. The additional scrutiny of plans and costs required by this bill might have saved some of the billions wasted on other IT projects that ultimately landed on high-risk lists.

Our bill creates a measured, methodical plan to ensure that Federal agencies apply best practices to IT projects, supply timely reports of problems, and devise corrective actions sooner rather than later. Our Government and our citizens will benefit from these improvements. I urge every Senator to support this constructive and bipartisan bill.

Mr. President, I congratulate the Maine State Music Theatre on its 50th anniversary season and commend them for their continued commitment to high-quality artistic productions.

The Maine State Music Theatre is one of the few resident stock theater companies dedicated strictly to musical theater. It provides professional musical productions not only for Maine residents but also for hundreds of summer residents who benefit the Maine economy each year. That is one of the reasons that I was pleased to be able to secure $245,000 in Federal funding last year for their continued efforts to develop their facilities.

I remain an ardent supporter of the Maine State Music Theatre. I send my best wishes as the theatre celebrates its 50th year of presenting musical production and wish all involved an equally successful next 50 years.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Energy Assistance Act of 2008, legislation which would assist people who want to invest in energy conservation and alternative energy technologies and help set us on a path toward energy independence.

As I visit communities around the State of Maine, I hear time and again that the high cost of energy is causing a crisis for many of our citizens. Rapidly increasing prices for home heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel are a huge burden for many families, truckers, and small businesses. High oil prices affect virtually every corner of the economy, in Maine and throughout the country, and are a significant cause of the current economic downturn.

Mr. President, I am concerned that in this difficult economy, investments in energy conservation and alternative energy improvements are simply too costly for many American families and small businesses. For example, under the present code, taxpayers who install energy efficient windows receive a 10 percent tax credit, up to $200, and taxpayers who install solar water heating systems receive a credit of 30 percent, up to a total of $2000. In both instances, the investment which must be made by the taxpayer far exceeds the credit amount.

With oil prices as high as they are, most families and small businesses are already scrimping and saving to make ends meet, and they do not have the money to finance the gap between the tax credit we provide and the cost of the investment. Ironically, the higher oil prices climb, the harder it will be for taxpayers to bridge this gap.

The legislation I am introducing today calls for additional loan authority to support current Federal programs that help families and small businesses finance energy efficiency improvements. It also would provide much-needed grants for low-income individuals who cannot benefit from either tax credits or low-interest loans. These proposals, taken together, would go a long way toward achieving greater energy efficiency and reducing our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

The loan authority I am proposing would expand existing Federal programs that make low-interest loans to individuals and small businesses for energy efficiency improvements. This new loan authority would be made available through a new energy assistance revolving loan fund within the Treasury Department. Individuals who make less than 115 percent of the median area income would be able to apply for low- interest loans to cover the difference between the tax credits available for energy efficiency improvements and up to 90 percent of the cost of those improvements. The Federal agencies can make these loans directly, or through their lender networks.

USDA, HUD, and other Federal agencies already have programs that can make loans of this kind to individuals. Small businesses can seek low- interest loans for energy efficiency improvements under existing loan programs such as the SBA's 7(a) program. The revolving loan fund called for by my bill will enable these agencies to offer more loans to the individuals and small businesses.

It is also important that we provide assistance to low-income individuals who do not have the income to benefit from tax credits, or who cannot afford to finance energy improvements even with low-interest loans. These individuals, especially, are still reeling from last winter's high energy prices, and it is critically important that they receive assistance before cold weather sets in again. To help those who are most in need, my bill would provide an additional $500 million in funding this year for grants for energy efficiency, weatherization, and renewable energy technology, and would double funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program. These grants will finance investments that will decrease energy prices for these citizens for years to come and are a wise investment.

My legislation also includes several proposals I have long advocated. I have included these proposals so that this bill captures an overall picture of the energy challenges that our Nation faces. For example, this bill extends important tax incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency that have expired, or are about to expire. These provisions include the renewable energy production tax credit, Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, tax benefits for energy efficient buildings, products and power plants, the tax credit for Plug-In Hybrid vehicles, the exemption from the heavy vehicles excise tax for idling reduction units and advanced insulation, and energy efficiency tax credits for homes.

My bill would also provide a $500 tax credit to help consumers purchase and install new clean burning stoves, as well as efficient, clean wood pellet stoves, similar to a bill I introduced

with Senator Crapo earlier this year. This new tax credit reflects the reality that with oil prices soaring, wood is again the fuel of choice for many families throughout the country, just as it was during the height of the oil crisis in the 1970's.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Energy Assistance Act of 2008, legislation which would assist people who want to invest in energy conservation and alternative energy technologies and help set us on a path toward energy independence.

As I visit communities around the State of Maine, I hear time and again that the high cost of energy is causing a crisis for many of our citizens. Rapidly increasing prices for home heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel are a huge burden for many families, truckers, and small businesses. High oil prices affect virtually every corner of the economy, in Maine and throughout the country, and are a significant cause of the current economic downturn.

Mr. President, I am concerned that in this difficult economy, investments in energy conservation and alternative energy improvements are simply too costly for many American families and small businesses. For example, under the present code, taxpayers who install energy efficient windows receive a 10 percent tax credit, up to $200, and taxpayers who install solar water heating systems receive a credit of 30 percent, up to a total of $2000. In both instances, the investment which must be made by the taxpayer far exceeds the credit amount.

With oil prices as high as they are, most families and small businesses are already scrimping and saving to make ends meet, and they do not have the money to finance the gap between the tax credit we provide and the cost of the investment. Ironically, the higher oil prices climb, the harder it will be for taxpayers to bridge this gap.

The legislation I am introducing today calls for additional loan authority to support current Federal programs that help families and small businesses finance energy efficiency improvements. It also would provide much-needed grants for low-income individuals who cannot benefit from either tax credits or low-interest loans. These proposals, taken together, would go a long way toward achieving greater energy efficiency and reducing our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

The loan authority I am proposing would expand existing Federal programs that make low-interest loans to individuals and small businesses for energy efficiency improvements. This new loan authority would be made available through a new energy assistance revolving loan fund within the Treasury Department. Individuals who make less than 115 percent of the median area income would be able to apply for low- interest loans to cover the difference between the tax credits available for energy efficiency improvements and up to 90 percent of the cost of those improvements. The Federal agencies can make these loans directly, or through their lender networks.

USDA, HUD, and other Federal agencies already have programs that can make loans of this kind to individuals. Small businesses can seek low- interest loans for energy efficiency improvements under existing loan programs such as the SBA's 7(a) program. The revolving loan fund called for by my bill will enable these agencies to offer more loans to the individuals and small businesses.

It is also important that we provide assistance to low-income individuals who do not have the income to benefit from tax credits, or who cannot afford to finance energy improvements even with low-interest loans. These individuals, especially, are still reeling from last winter's high energy prices, and it is critically important that they receive assistance before cold weather sets in again. To help those who are most in need, my bill would provide an additional $500 million in funding this year for grants for energy efficiency, weatherization, and renewable energy technology, and would double funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program. These grants will finance investments that will decrease energy prices for these citizens for years to come and are a wise investment.

My legislation also includes several proposals I have long advocated. I have included these proposals so that this bill captures an overall picture of the energy challenges that our Nation faces. For example, this bill extends important tax incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency that have expired, or are about to expire. These provisions include the renewable energy production tax credit, Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, tax benefits for energy efficient buildings, products and power plants, the tax credit for Plug-In Hybrid vehicles, the exemption from the heavy vehicles excise tax for idling reduction units and advanced insulation, and energy efficiency tax credits for homes.

My bill would also provide a $500 tax credit to help consumers purchase and install new clean burning stoves, as well as efficient, clean wood pellet stoves, similar to a bill I introduced

with Senator Crapo earlier this year. This new tax credit reflects the reality that with oil prices soaring, wood is again the fuel of choice for many families throughout the country, just as it was during the height of the oil crisis in the 1970's.

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

Mr. President, high energy prices are having a devastating impact on our economy and our people--particularly in large, rural States such as Maine. Eighty percent of Maine homes use oil as their primary heating source, so thousands of families are worried about how they can afford to stay warm next winter.

The high cost of energy is also taking a toll on businesses, both large and small. Truckers, paper mills, fishermen, farmers, and countless others are struggling with the high cost of oil, gasoline, and diesel.

Many factors affect energy prices, including the value of the dollar, global tensions, and demand in other countries, such as China and India. Supply concerns also enter the picture. Business Week has reported that data on Saudi production potential indicate that the kingdom may be unable to sustain their projected output of 12 million barrels a day past 2010, while International Oil Daily reports that Mexico's crude-oil exports are down 17 percent versus 2007, and ``could represent the start of a precipitous decline.'' Other supply concerns for places like Iran and Nigeria also affect expectations, and prices.

These and other considerations have led many of us to advocate a comprehensive energy policy that would promote more exploration and production, more conservation and efficiency, and more alternatives in the energy sector. We need more American production to meet America's needs, while protecting our environment. In short, we need to produce more, use less, and pursue alternatives.

It is imperative for both economic and national-security reasons that we reduce our dependence on imported oil and the supply shocks that our dependence entails, that we develop new resources here, and that we promote more efficient use. I have a 10-point energy plan that includes proposals to accomplish those objectives.

Those ideas deserve a full debate. I sincerely hope the current procedural obstacles to considering a variety of amendments will be removed. Holding a lengthy debate on our energy problems is a fruitless exercise if the ground rules choke off consideration of the many ways we can tackle those problems by reducing our reliance on imports, by promoting more development of American conventional and alternative fuels, and by advancing efficiency and conservation initiatives.

There is, of course, another critical factor in the energy-price crisis that demands careful attention and effective action. That is the role of excessive speculation in energy markets, especially by institutional investors and index funds.

Senator Lieberman and I have heard persuasive and troubling evidence in three hearings of our Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on this issue. We heard testimony from Federal officials, from exchange officials, from academics, from institutional investors, and from a bakery owner and a farm representative.

The evidence that we found of greatest concern involves the impact of noncommercial investors who do not produce or take delivery of oil or agricultural products--unlike commercial participants such as oil producers and heating oil dealers, farmers and cereal companies. Instead, these noncommercial investors use futures contracts and related transactions solely for financial gain.

Speculation in commodity markets by noncommercial investors has grown enormously. In just the last 5 years, the total value of their futures- contract and commodity index-fund investments has soared from $13 billion to $260 billion.

Many experts have concluded that these massive new holdings of oil- futures contracts by pension funds, university endowments, and other institutional investors have driven prices beyond levels that normal marketplace factors would produce.

These investors' intentions may be simply to provide good returns, a hedge against inflation, and asset diversification, but the effect of their activity appears to be driving up prices for traditional users of commodity markets, not to mention American families and businesses that are affected by the ultimate price increases.

I worked with Senator Lieberman to produce a comprehensive and bipartisan bill, the Commodity Speculation Reform Act of 2008, which we and Senator Cantwell introduced on July 10.

Our bill, S. 3248, takes some very strong steps toward countering excessive speculation.

First, it would remedy staffing shortfalls at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by adding 100 staff to improve its market oversight and enforcement capabilities. This is a vital step. The CFTC tells us that more than three billion futures and options contracts were traded last year, up from 37 million in 1976. Yet the Commission is operating with fewer employees than it had 30 years ago.

Second, our bill closes the so-called ``swaps loophole,'' which currently allows financial institutions to evade position limits on commodity contracts that regulators use to prevent unwarranted price swings or attempts at manipulation.

Third, our bill directs the CFTC to establish position limits that will apply to an investor's total interest in a commodity, regardless of whether they originate on a regulated exchange, the over-the-counter market, or on foreign boards of trade that deal in U.S. commodities.

I would note that our bill instructs the CFTC to set and administer these position limits. That task is currently delegated to the exchanges, subject to Commission review. The regulated commodity exchanges have good reputations as self-policing operations, but we believe as a matter of principle that regulators should be setting speculative position limits.

Fourth, our bills instructs the CFTC to permit no foreign boards of trade to deal in U.S.-linked commodity contracts unless they agree to reporting and data-accessibility standards at least equivalent to that required of U.S.-regulated exchanges. This is not a matter of telling other countries what to do: foreign boards of trade request ``no- action'' letters from the CFTC so they can maintain trading terminals here while remaining regulated by their own authorities. The CFTC has recently taken positive steps to require comparable reporting, and our bill codifies those improvements.

These are powerful measures, but they are also carefully designed. We recognize that producers, handlers, and purchasers of commodities who use those markets to lock in prices, hedge risks, and see clues for price trends require some level of participation by non-commercial, financial investors.

Thus, our bill does not prevent financial investors from participating in commodity markets. It simply places some limits on their activity by directing the CFTC to set position limits across trading venues at a level no higher than that needed to ensure that commercial participants can always find counter-parties for their contract needs.

The bill pending before the Senate parallels key provisions of the bill that Senators Lieberman and Cantwell and I introduced.

The majority leader's bill has some additional features, such as the working groups to study the regulatory framework for commodity-market regulation and to consult on internationally agreed standards, that deserve support.

Two aspects of the majority leader's bill, however, raise some concerns, and I have filed two amendments to address them. Senator Lieberman has joined me as an original cosponsor of the amendments.

The first simply extends the reach of S. 3268 to include agricultural as well as energy commodities, mirroring our bill's approach. We believe this is important because high energy prices affect the costs of fertilizing, producing, harvesting, transporting, processing, and distributing commodities. Consumers know this is a real problem, and price data prove it: the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the annualized rate of food-price inflation in the second quarter of 2008 was 8.5 percent. Meanwhile, the Bureau's energy price index for the second quarter was climbing at an amazing annualized rate of nearly 54 percent.

Energy and food commodities are linked, and both have been subject to large-scale, noncommercial speculation. When we note that the BLS rate of price increase for nonfood, nonenergy items was only 2.5 percent, it is clear that both agricultural and energy future markets need protection against excessive speculation.

My second amendment replaces the definition of commercially related hedging in the majority leader's bill with the language from our bill. This will not impair the CFTC's ability to monitor and police hedging activity across trading venues, but it will reduce an apparent potential for unintended consequences. We have heard concerns that the bill's restrictive language about hedge-trade proximity and equivalence to the initial commercial transaction could make bona fide hedging impossible or more difficult and expensive for the intermediaries who provide that service. My amendment is fully consistent with the intentions of the pending bill, but mitigates the risk that we might unintentionally impede hedging that has a genuine commercial basis.

Mr. President, I hope the Senate will consider a full range of amendments to the majority leader's bill. I urge my colleagues to support my amendments--and then to support the underlying bill. We can all agree that excessive speculation is not the only factor affecting energy and food prices. But it is one that we can influence, and action is already long overdue.

Housing

Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the Senator from Vermont, my friend and colleague, in discussing the need for legislation which we have introduced to increase funding for the low income heating assistance program.

As my colleague from Vermont has described, our citizens in the Northeast are facing a crisis this winter. In the State of Maine, 80 percent of homes rely on home heating oil. The average home in Maine uses between 800 and 1,000 gallons of heating oil to get through the winter season. My constituents are looking at paying as much as $5,000 this winter to keep warm. And this is in a State that ranks 37th in per capita income. This is a true crisis. It is clear that we need to do a great deal to solve the overall energy crisis facing this country.

We need to produce more, use less, and pursue alternatives. But we also need to look for short-term help for our citizens. The legislation we have cosponsored, S. 3186, would provide an additional $2.5 billion for the low income heating assistance program, known as the LIHEAP program.

Most of our colleagues are pretty familiar with this program. But let me remind them that it is a Federal grant program that provides vital funding to help very low-income citizens meet their home energy needs. The level of funding our legislation would provide would bring the program up to the fully authorized amount of $5.1 billion. That is the least we can do. Due to record high oil costs, the situation for our most vulnerable citizens, particularly the low income and elderly, is especially dire.

In my State of Maine, people face a crisis as they look ahead and try to figure out how they are going to stay warm this winter.

Nationwide, over the last few years, the numbers of households receiving assistance under the LIHEAP program increased by 26 percent, from 4.6 million to 5.8 million. But during that same period, Federal funding increased by only 10 percent. The result is that the average grant declined from $349 to $305 at a time of record high prices.

The large rapid increase in energy prices, combined with lower levels of funding available per family, has imposed a tremendous hardship on those who can afford it least. Our bill would provide an additional $2.5 billion as emergency funding, and the term ``emergency'' could not be more accurate, because that is exactly what we face.

Our Nation is in an energy emergency. Families are already being forced to choose between paying for food and paying for heat for this coming winter. One woman in Maine told me she has to turn over half of her Social Security check to meet the budget plan she is on for meeting her obligations to the oil dealer to stay warm--half of her Social Security check.

She literally is deciding if she can afford to fill the prescription she needs, can she buy the healthy food she needs. I am worried that we are going to see seniors this winter suffering from hypothermia. I am worried we are going to see deaths from carbon monoxide from bringing in unsafe grills trying to stay warm. I am worried we are going to see household fires as people try to stay warm.

I tell my colleagues, we must act and we must act now. If we can increase the funding and help people purchase the fuel they need now, it will make a real difference. As the Senator from Vermont has said, and he is not exaggerating, this is a matter of life and death. That is not an exaggeration. We must act.

I also want to mention another program that cries out for more funding, and that is the Weatherization Program. We are going to proceed separately on the weatherization front, but we must not forget that if we can help people weatherize their homes, we can help them, on average, reduce their fuel consumption by 31 percent. It is one of the few things we can do right now that would make a difference this winter. I wish to see us double funding for weatherization. The payback is enormous. It would make a real difference. Before the current price spike, the Department of Energy estimated that weatherization saved the average household $358 per year.

This winter, with the cost of fuel doubled what it was last winter, the savings will be that much higher as well. So let's do both. Let's give speedy approval to the legislation we have introduced to increase the funding for the LIHEAP program so it reaches $5.1 billion. And then let us, through the emergency supplemental bill that I hope will be coming to the floor, do a substantial increase in the Weatherization Program as well. It was so shortsighted of President Bush to propose the termination of the Weatherization Program. That makes no sense whatsoever.

The Energy Department's spending bill before the Appropriations Committee restores some of the money, but it is still below the level that was spent

on weatherization last winter. We should be greatly increasing funding for weatherization as well. I have been working with the Senators from Minnesota, both Senator Klobuchar and Senator Coleman, to lead a bipartisan effort. My friend from Vermont and the Presiding Officer have also signed onto that, calling upon the appropriators to increase weatherization funding as well.

If we could provide an additional $40 million to the Weatherization Program, it would help another 15,000 households who are in need of weatherization.

Let me end my comments by saying it is imperative we act both on the legislation to increase funding for the LIHEAP program and then proceed to also increase funding for weatherization as well. It is the least we can do to help some of the most vulnerable citizens avoid a true crisis this winter.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, high energy prices are having a devastating impact on our economy and our people--especially in large, rural States like Maine. Truckdrivers, loggers, fishermen, farmers, and countless others are struggling with the high cost of oil and gasoline. In Maine, where 80 percent of homes are heated with oil, many families do not know how they can afford to stay warm next winter.

The high cost of energy is also taking a toll on businesses, both large and small. Katahdin Paper recently announced plans to shut down its plant in Millinocket due to the cost of oil. If this occurs--and everyone is working to prevent it--the community would be devastated by the loss of more than 200 good jobs.

Many factors affect energy prices, including the value of the dollar, global tensions, and demand in other countries, such as China and India. But Senator Lieberman and I have heard persuasive and troubling evidence in hearings of our Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that another factor is also at work--excessive speculation in futures markets for energy commodities.

At issue is the activity of noncommercial traders who do not produce or take delivery of oil or agricultural products, unlike commercial traders such as oil producers and heating oil dealers, farmers and cereal companies. Instead, these noncommercial investors use futures contracts and related transactions solely for financial gain.

Speculation in commodity markets by noncommercial investors has grown enormously. In just the last 5 years, the total value of their futures- contract and commodity index-fund investments has soared from $13 billion to $260 billion.

These massive new holdings of oil-futures contracts by pension funds, university endowments, and other institutional investors appear to be driving up prices beyond what they would otherwise be. These investors' intentions may be simply to provide good returns, a hedge against inflation, and diversification, but many experts believe their activities are distorting commodity markets.

I have worked with Senator Lieberman to produce a comprehensive and bipartisan bill, the Commodity Speculation Reform Act of 2008, which we are introducing today.

Our bill takes some very strong steps toward countering excessive speculation.

First, it would remedy staffing shortfalls at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by adding 100 staff to improve its market oversight and enforcement capabilities. This is a vital step. The CFTC tells us that more than 3 billion futures and options contracts were traded last year, up from 37 million in 1976. Yet the Commission is operating with fewer employees than it had 30 years ago.

Second, our bill closes the so-called ``swaps loophole,'' which currently allows financial institutions to evade position limits on commodity contracts that regulators use to prevent unwarranted price swings or attempts at manipulation.

Third, our bill directs the CFTC to establish position limits that will apply to an investor's total interest in a commodity, regardless of whether they originate on a regulated exchange, the over-the-counter market, or on foreign boards of trade that deal in U.S. commodities.

Fourth, our bill instructs the CFTC to permit no foreign boards of trade to deal in U.S.-linked commodity contracts unless they agree to reporting and data- accessibility standards at least equivalent to that required of U.S.-regulated exchanges. This is not a matter of telling other countries what to do: foreign boards of trade request ``no- action'' letters from the CFTC so they can maintain trading terminals here while remaining regulated by their own authorities. The CFTC has recently taken positive steps to require comparable reporting, and our bill codifies those improvements.

These are powerful measures, but they are also prudently designed. We recognize that producers, handlers, and purchasers of commodities who use those markets to lock in prices, hedge risks, and see clues for price trends require some level of participation by non- commercial, financial investors.

Our bill does not prevent financial investors from participating in commodity markets. It simply places some limits on their presence by directing the CFTC to set position limits across trading venues at a level no higher than that needed to ensure that commercial participants can always find counterparties for their contract needs.

These and other provisions of our bill--which applies to agricultural as well as energy commodities--will provide a stronger regulator, improved flows of information, new and more consistent protections against excessive speculation, and assurance to both businesses and consumers that our markets in basic commodities are transparent, competitive, and effectively policed.

The Commodity Speculation Reform Act of 2008 represents a balanced and bipartisan approach. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Lieberman and me in supporting it.

Mr. President, high energy prices are having a devastating impact on our economy and our people--especially in large, rural States like Maine. Truckdrivers, loggers, fishermen, farmers, and countless others are struggling with the high cost of oil and gasoline. In Maine, where 80 percent of homes are heated with oil, many families do not know how they can afford to stay warm next winter.

The high cost of energy is also taking a toll on businesses, both large and small. Katahdin Paper recently announced plans to shut down its plant in Millinocket due to the cost of oil. If this occurs--and everyone is working to prevent it--the community would be devastated by the loss of more than 200 good jobs.

Many factors affect energy prices, including the value of the dollar, global tensions, and demand in other countries, such as China and India. But Senator Lieberman and I have heard persuasive and troubling evidence in hearings of our Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that another factor is also at work--excessive speculation in futures markets for energy commodities.

At issue is the activity of noncommercial traders who do not produce or take delivery of oil or agricultural products, unlike commercial traders such as oil producers and heating oil dealers, farmers and cereal companies. Instead, these noncommercial investors use futures contracts and related transactions solely for financial gain.

Speculation in commodity markets by noncommercial investors has grown enormously. In just the last 5 years, the total value of their futures- contract and commodity index-fund investments has soared from $13 billion to $260 billion.

These massive new holdings of oil-futures contracts by pension funds, university endowments, and other institutional investors appear to be driving up prices beyond what they would otherwise be. These investors' intentions may be simply to provide good returns, a hedge against inflation, and diversification, but many experts believe their activities are distorting commodity markets.

I have worked with Senator Lieberman to produce a comprehensive and bipartisan bill, the Commodity Speculation Reform Act of 2008, which we are introducing today.

Our bill takes some very strong steps toward countering excessive speculation.

First, it would remedy staffing shortfalls at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by adding 100 staff to improve its market oversight and enforcement capabilities. This is a vital step. The CFTC tells us that more than 3 billion futures and options contracts were traded last year, up from 37 million in 1976. Yet the Commission is operating with fewer employees than it had 30 years ago.

Second, our bill closes the so-called ``swaps loophole,'' which currently allows financial institutions to evade position limits on commodity contracts that regulators use to prevent unwarranted price swings or attempts at manipulation.

Third, our bill directs the CFTC to establish position limits that will apply to an investor's total interest in a commodity, regardless of whether they originate on a regulated exchange, the over-the-counter market, or on foreign boards of trade that deal in U.S. commodities.

Fourth, our bill instructs the CFTC to permit no foreign boards of trade to deal in U.S.-linked commodity contracts unless they agree to reporting and data- accessibility standards at least equivalent to that required of U.S.-regulated exchanges. This is not a matter of telling other countries what to do: foreign boards of trade request ``no- action'' letters from the CFTC so they can maintain trading terminals here while remaining regulated by their own authorities. The CFTC has recently taken positive steps to require comparable reporting, and our bill codifies those improvements.

These are powerful measures, but they are also prudently designed. We recognize that producers, handlers, and purchasers of commodities who use those markets to lock in prices, hedge risks, and see clues for price trends require some level of participation by non- commercial, financial investors.

Our bill does not prevent financial investors from participating in commodity markets. It simply places some limits on their presence by directing the CFTC to set position limits across trading venues at a level no higher than that needed to ensure that commercial participants can always find counterparties for their contract needs.

These and other provisions of our bill--which applies to agricultural as well as energy commodities--will provide a stronger regulator, improved flows of information, new and more consistent protections against excessive speculation, and assurance to both businesses and consumers that our markets in basic commodities are transparent, competitive, and effectively policed.

The Commodity Speculation Reform Act of 2008 represents a balanced and bipartisan approach. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Lieberman and me in supporting it.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the outstanding work of our Nation's nurse practitioners--most especially the 850 or so nurse practitioners in Maine who have practiced independently since the mid-1990s. Nurse practitioners in Maine are credentialed as participating providers and serve as primary care providers in managed care organizations in my State.

Similar to my colleagues from New Mexico, Iowa and Alaska, a large percentage of Mainers live in rural areas. As such, residents are often a considerable distance from health care facilities and may be hindered from getting care because of transportation and other obstacles. Nurse practitioners fill the void for high quality primary health care in our underserved areas.

We need to encourage medical home demonstrations that allow nurse practitioners to fully participate in these models.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, the remaining Republican time be allocated to the following list for up to 15 minutes each, with Senator Grassley controlling the remaining time: Senators Enzi, Chambliss, Stevens, Hatch, Cornyn, and Coleman.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Economic Recovery Act of 2008. I think it is evident our economy is struggling to overcome the twin effects of record-high energy prices and a steep downturn in the housing market.

Earlier this year, this Congress acted to provide rebates to taxpayers to help them cope with the effects of the downturn in the economy. The hope was also that the impact of these rebate checks would be to stimulate the economy.

It is evident much more needs to be done, so the legislation I am introducing today is aimed at reinvigorating our economy. It is my proposal for a second economic stimulus package.

Over the course of the past several years, we have seen the price of oil climb by more than 400 percent, from about $30 per barrel in 2003, to more than $133 per barrel this morning. This escalation in energy costs threatens to plunge our economy into a recession, and it is imposing a tremendous hardship on middle-income and low-income families, on our truckdrivers, our farmers, our fishermen, our schools, virtually everyone.

Big factories and mills, as well as small businesses, have also been harmed by high energy prices. In fact, a week ago we learned a mill in Millinocket, ME, is going to be forced to shut down because it can no longer afford the oil that is essential to the operations of that paper mill.

We are working with Governor Baldacci to try to find alternatives. But it is a prime example of the tremendously harmful impact high energy prices are having on the economy of our State and indeed States throughout the Nation.

Gasoline is already topping $4 a gallon 2 weeks into the summer driving season. Maine families fear the cost of staying warm next winter because home heating oil prices have reached record highs.

At the same time, the cost of diesel fuel is pushing some of America's independent truckers to the brink of bankruptcy. Consider this astonishing fact. In 1999, a Maine truck driver could go from Augusta, ME, all the way to Albuquerque, NM, on $500 worth of diesel. Today, $500 worth of diesel will not get that truck driver to Altoona, PA. What a difference a few years makes.

Of course, with diesel prices continuing to increase, the problem is only getting worse. Meanwhile, weaknesses in the housing market are making it impossible for millions of Americans to get the financing they need to stay in their homes when their adjustable rate mortgages reset. Many of these families are being forced into foreclosure, leaving behind vacant properties and creating a ripple effect that is pulling down home values even further. This problem hurts communities across the Nation, and it requires an effective Federal response.

The legislation I am introducing today would provide much-needed help to Americans who are struggling with high energy costs and the weak housing market. Let me outline the provisions of the economic stimulus package I am proposing.

First, the Economic Recovery Act proposes a series of initiatives to promote increased energy efficiency that would help consumers save money on their energy bills, and help advance the goal of energy independence for our Nation.

Second, the bill provides relief from truck weight regulations that are injuring truckers in the State of Maine.

Third, it proposes a new program to finance transportation infrastructure that is based on the model of the Build American Bonds Bill.

Fourth, it would increase funding under the Workforce Investment Act so we can help displaced and unemployed or underemployed workers.

Fifth, it proposes tax incentives designed to help America's small businesses.

And, sixth, it would help to restore stability in the housing market by expanding the FHA Secure Program, which would help homeowners refinance mortgages that are in danger of foreclosure.

We have focused a lot on the housing problems and the turmoil in the housing and financial markets. Indeed, that is an important factor in the decline of our economy. As I have indicated, I think more needs to be done. But I am convinced high energy prices are an even greater cause of the economic downturn.

We must act to protect ourselves from rapid increases in oil prices and in the long term achieve energy independence. One way to help achieve both those goals is to encourage greater efficiency. My bill would double the funding for the Department of Energy's Weatherization Program, reaching $1.4 billion by the year 2010.

The bill would also provide $112 million each year for the valuable Energy Star Program, which helps consumers choose energy-efficient appliances, and would extend the renewable electricity tax credit through 2011 and the residential investment tax credit for solar and energy-efficient buildings through 2012.

My bill also includes a $500 credit to consumers who replace their old wood-burning stove with a new, cleaner-burning model using wood or wood pellets. This complements a proposal I introduced in February.

We must take action to address the impact rising diesel prices are having on the trucking industry, which is struggling. The rapid increase in the price of diesel is making it more difficult for our Nation's truckers to stay on the road.

It is also increasing the cost of delivering goods that communities throughout our country rely on. We can help trucks to operate more efficiently if we ease Federal trucking regulations that prohibit trucks that carry more than 80,000 pounds from traveling on the Federal interstate system.

My bill includes a provision that would create a 2-year pilot project that would permit trucks carrying up to 100,000 pounds, which is the weight level that is permitted on Maine's highways, to travel on the Interstate Highway system when diesel prices are at or above $3.50 a gallon. The savings on fuel consumption will benefit the trucking industry, the consumer, and our Nation at a time when we are looking for ways to decrease our dependency on foreign oil.

Let me tell you, the current system simply makes no sense at all. In Maine, the trucks that have 100,000 pounds of cargo are forced to leave the Interstate in Augusta, ME, a road that is built to accommodate the heaviest trucks, and instead are forced to go on secondary roads through towns and villages, stopping at railroad crossings. That wastes fuel, and is less safe than keeping them on the Interstate. The trip takes much longer because they are on secondary and slower roads that often are not the most direct routes to the destination. So that simply makes no sense at all.

Any proposal to stimulate the economy should help to fund transportation infrastructure projects. They are a proven means of fostering economic growth and are a lasting investment; an investment we need.

This past winter has been so difficult and so hard on the roads in Maine. I do not think I have ever seen so many frost heaves and so much wear and tear that the very difficult cold and snowy winter has had on our roads and highways as I have seen this spring in Maine. The legislation I have introduced calls for a $50 billion investment through new transportation bonds for roads, bridges, transit, rail, and waterways.

Now, I wish to give credit where credit is due. This proposal which I put into the economic stimulus package was first introduced by Senator Wyden. I was very pleased to be a cosponsor of his bill. I have included our proposal as part of this broader package. Not only will this funding serve as the catalyst for thousands of good jobs today, we all know construction jobs are good jobs, but it also will improve our transportation infrastructure, which is critical to economic development over the long term.

This is an investment that makes sense. Many of these transportation projects are ready to go. They only need the funding. We must also act to provide assistance to those who have lost their jobs in this economic downturn. Now, that means extending unemployment compensation benefits. I hope we are going to do that soon. But in addition, we need to invest in our workers.

In the last 4 months, we have seen 340,000 jobs lost across the country. Today, we have more than 1.6 million additional unemployed workers, compared to 2001; 800,000 more than a year ago. The national unemployment rate has jumped to 5.5 percent. In my home State, 33,600 Mainers are looking for work.

In view of this increase in unemployment, it makes no sense whatsoever that the President's budget actually proposes another cut in the Workforce Investment Act. In fact, overall, the President's budget would cut $1.5 billion from the Department of Labor's workforce programs.

We must invest in America's workforce. Yet since fiscal year 2001, funding for the Workforce Investment Act programs has been reduced by nearly $1.7 billion in real terms. My bill would provide $1 billion in additional Workforce Investment Act funding that would enable us to train nearly 300,000 additional workers.

The bill would also increase funding for the Dislocated Workers program and for Youth and Adult training programs. Support for job training, investing in our workers is critical, but it is also important that we provide relief to the job creators in our economy, and that is our small businesses. The fact is, small businesses create 80 percent of the net new jobs in America. During economic downturns, however, they struggle with cash flow and they must forgo investments they need to grow and remain competitive. That is why I am proposing some tax incentives to help small businesses.

First, we should make the Section 179 expensing limit for small companies permanent so they can count on it. Second, we should renew a provision of tax law that allows restaurant owners to depreciate their equipment more quickly, over 15 years.

Finally, we must take action to steady the housing market. More than 50 million Americans hold mortgages at present and, fortunately, most of them are current with their payments. But 7 million of these mortgages are so-called subprime loans, and most of them are adjustable rate mortgages that reset to higher, often unaffordable rates after only 2 or 3 years of very low introductory rates. What we are finding is a lot of first-time homeowners simply did not understand the risk they were taking with subprime loans. As a result, approximately 1.3 million of these 7 million subprime mortgages are delinquent and could soon be in foreclosure. This number is expected to rise as more mortgages reach the reset date.

I am not interested in bailing out speculators, people who took a gamble that housing prices were going to increase. What I am talking about are homeowners who were peddled an unsuitable mortgage product. We need to help them. Foreclosures inflict losses all around--on the families who lose their homes; on the neighborhoods where values fall as empty houses proliferate; on borrowers who face tighter requirements and higher costs, as perceptions of lending risk increase; and on those who work in the construction or real estate industry, dependent on a strong housing market.

One source of help--and this is what I am proposing in my bill--would be to bolster the FHASecure program administered by the Federal Housing Administration. This program allows eligible homeowners to avoid foreclosure by assisting them with refinancing so they can afford to make their mortgage payments. My bill would expand this program to make it easier for lenders to accept voluntary write-downs of distressed mortgages and allow borrowers whose incomes are not sufficient to meet the terms of their existing mortgages to refinance their homes on terms they could afford. My bill also grants the FHA expanded authority to adjust insurance premiums, depending on the individual borrower's risk profile, to ensure the solvency of the FHA insurance fund. These provisions could help FHA reach hundreds of thousands of additional homeowners by the end of the year, and to do so without taxpayer subsidies.

The legislation I am introducing today includes comprehensive proposals that, taken together, would go a long way toward addressing the two factors truly harming our economy--high energy prices and a weakening housing market. I urge my colleagues to work together in a bipartisan way, to look at the ideas that I and others have proposed so we can work together on a second stimulus package to address these concerns and to help restore and strengthen our Nation's economy.