Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Collins-Levin energy independence amendment will help set us on a path toward energy independence and provide a more sensible energy tax policy. The Collins-Levin energy independence amendment to the budget resolution specifies that legislation under the reserve fund for investing in clean energy, preserving the environment, and providing for certain settlements may also include tax credits for the following:

Our amendment expands energy tax credits to encourage replacement of old wood stoves with clean burning, more efficient stoves. Unfortunately, many of the wood stoves purchased decades ago are outdated, inefficient, and are contributing to both indoor and outdoor air pollution. The emissions from these old wood burning stoves present a serious health concern, contributing to such respiratory ailments as asthma and bronchitis. New, EPA-certified wood and wood pellet stoves can cut emissions by more than 70 percent and use as much as a third less firewood for the same amount of heat.

The production of ethanol from cellulosic sources and production of biodiesel fuels. These technologies each offer tremendous potential for reductions in our gasoline consumption and in greenhouse gas emissions and will help move our petroleum-based economy toward a renewable, sustainable forest bio-economy.

The purchase of plug-in hybrid electric drive vehicles. The combination of advanced battery technology and advanced hybrid systems offer tremendous potential for reduction of oil consumption, but tax incentives will be necessary to offset the increased cost to consumers and to achieve widespread acceptance by consumers. It is estimated that a plug-in hybrid could get the equivalent of 100 MPG, having a large impact on reducing our use of oil.

We would pay for these by scaling back a tax preference for large oil companies which their executives have testified they do not need. The amendment also specifies that legislation under this reserve fund may include adjustments to the amortization of geological and geophysical expenditures by integrated oil companies to help pay for the tax incentives.

In 2005, the major oil companies have conceded that they do not need this tax break. Adjustments to this tax break could provide billions over 5 years. There is no reason to provide reduced tax rates for one of the world's most profitable industries at a time when so many families and small businesses are struggling and when we need to address the long-term challenge of reducing our reliance on imported oil.

amendment no. 4196

Mr. President, this is the only time I am happy that a Democratic Senator is in the chair. It actually worked out well tonight. I thank Senator Gregg for his courtesy as well and also for his tremendous leadership on budget issues.

Senator Levin and I have filed an amendment, No. 4209, that will help set us on a path toward energy independence, as well as provide a more sensible and balanced energy tax policy.

This has been a very long, hard, cold, and snowy winter in the State of Maine. As I have visited communities across the State, I hear time and again that the high cost of energy is imposing such a burden on our citizens.

My hometown of Caribou, ME, saw 17 days of at or below zero temperatures in February. Caribou is only inches short of setting a record for snowfall in the winter. The previous record was 181 inches of snow. It is clear that record is going to be broken. In fact, more snow and cold weather is forecast for this weekend. It takes a great deal of energy to heat a home under such conditions.

Rapidly increasing prices for home heating oil, gasoline, diesel fuel, and other products refined from fuel are a huge burden for most Maine families, for our truckdrivers, for our small businesses, for so many people. High oil prices affect virtually every corner of our economy in Maine and throughout the Nation, and they are a significant cause of the current economic downturn.

With net profits of a single oil company reaching almost $10 billion in a single quarter, I believe we should not expect taxpayers struggling to pay their bills to continue to subsidize the oil industry through tax incentives.

Last year, I introduced a bill that would take away needless tax breaks for the oil industry, and along with my colleague, Senator Levin, I am proposing much the same approach today with the Collins- Levin energy independence amendment. These are the very tax breaks that at a hearing in November of 2005 executives of the big oil companies themselves conceded are not necessary. I simply see no justification to continue to provide reduced tax rates for one of the world's most profitable industries at a time when so many families and small businesses are struggling due to the high cost of oil.

Mr. President, does it not make sense for us to take a look at these tax subsidies which the oil companies themselves have admitted they do not need

as incentives? In fact, obviously, with oil over $100 a barrel, it is difficult to think that price alone is not a sufficient incentive for exploration and drilling to find additional supplies.

We also must embrace the goal of energy independence. I think we should establish the year 2020 as the date by which we want to be energy independent. We need to pursue this goal of energy independence with just as much fervor and commitment as we pursued the goal of landing a man on the Moon in the 1960s.

I am pleased that the Budget Committee included provisions to extend the renewable energy production credit, the clean renewable energy bonds, and provisions for energy-efficient buildings, products, and powerplants in section 304 of the budget resolution. But we need to do more. We need to develop policies that are all aimed toward the goal of freeing us from our dependence on imported oil.

I know it must trouble you, Mr. President, as much as it does me when I hear the dictator in Venezuela threatening to shut off oil to this country. The fact is, with 12 percent of our oil coming from Venezuela, that would hurt our economy. I don't think we should be dependent on Middle East oil given the instability of that region as well.

So we can embrace the goal of energy independence by the year 2020. We have taken a step toward that goal by increasing the fuel-efficiency standards for our cars, light trucks, and SUVs. That will help save a million barrels of oil a day. But there is more we can do.

In addition to the energy tax credits that I have mentioned that are in the budget resolution, the Collins-Levin amendment would provide for a tax credit for replacing old, inefficient wood stoves with clean- burning, more efficient wood stoves and pellet stoves that can provide much more heat for far less fuel than was once the case.

In addition, we should provide a production tax credit for cellulosic ethanol and a vehicle tax credit for plug-in hybrid electric drive vehicles. I know that has been a goal of the Senator from Utah for many years as well.

Unlike the current language in the budget resolution, the Collins- Levin amendment also proposes offsetting some of the costs of these renewable energy credits and other kinds of conservation credits by pulling back some of the tax breaks for the large oil companies. Estimates of savings from this proposal range up to $6.4 billion over 5 years. I think that is reasonable, and that will help shift our tax policy toward credits and other incentives that will help us reach the goal of energy independence.

Let me describe a little bit more the provisions having to do with a tax credit for clean-burning wood stoves or for wood pellet stoves.

During the height of the oil crisis in the 1970s, many families throughout the country turned to wood as an affordable way to heat their homes. With oil prices soaring once again, wood is the fuel of choice for an increasing number of households, particularly in a heavily forested State such as the State of Maine. But, unfortunately, many of the wood stoves purchased decades ago are outdated, inefficient, and are contributing to both indoor and outdoor air pollution. The emissions from these old-style wood-burning stoves present a serious health concern, contributing to respiratory ailments such as asthma.

There have been great, exciting advances in wood stove technology. I saw them personally at a Jotul plant in Gorham, ME. They now have a second burn of the emissions, which makes them far more efficient and also far cleaner burning. New EPA-certified wood and wood pellet stoves can cut emissions by more than 70 percent and use as much as a third less firewood for the same amount of heat.

But it is expensive to make that transition from the old, dirty, inefficient wood stove to the clean-burning stove. That is why our amendment includes a $500 tax credit to help consumers purchase and install these new clean-burning stoves as well as the efficient, clean wood pellet stoves.

We also provide a tax credit for the production of cellulosic ethanol. While there has been a great deal of focus on corn-based ethanol in order to decrease our reliance on foreign oil, there are other renewable plant-based energy sources.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 1 additional minute.

Mr. President, the University of Maine is doing exciting work in this area.

In addition and finally, our proposal would provide a tax credit for plug-in hybrid vehicles. That, too, would help reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

This amendment takes a balanced approach toward our tax policy, and it will help advance us toward the goal of energy independence.

The Collins-Levin amendment would provide for a tax credit for production of cellulosic ethanol. While there has been a great deal of focus on using corn-based ethanol in order to decrease our reliance upon foreign oil, there are other renewable, plant-based energy sources that are more environmentally friendly and have greater potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These technologies will help move our petroleum-based economy toward a renewable, sustainable forest bio- economy. In fact, researchers at the University of Maine recently teamed up with a local pulp mill to demonstrate cellulosic ethanol production at a commercial scale. It is an exciting time for this new technology.

Finally, the Collins-Levin amendment would provide for a tax credit for plug-in hybrid vehicles. If all new vehicles added to the U.S. fleet for 10 years were plug-in hybrids, an additional 80 billion gallons of gasoline could be saved each year. Obviously, we won't be replacing all new vehicles with plug-in hybrids, but that statistic illustrates the large impact plug-in hybrids can have on reducing our use of oil.

The provisions in our amendment are in addition to renewable energy production and energy efficiency provisions already in section 304.

Section 304 would allow for extension of the renewable electricity production tax credit. I believe it is important to give companies certainty now to plan investments in renewable electricity generation for the near future. These efforts represent a large up-front capital investment. Thus, companies will not continue to expand renewable energy production in the absence of this credit, which makes such projects cost competitive with traditional energy sources.

Section 304 also would allow for legislation to encourage energy efficient buildings, products, and powerplants. Making buildings more energy efficient can dramatically reduce our use of oil and save money for consumers at the same time. For example, on average, weatherizing a home reduces heating bills by 31 percent and overall energy bills by $358 per year.

Mr. President, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, this amendment provides for the rescission of tax breaks that the oil companies themselves testified they do not need. It uses that revenue for additional renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives. I urge my colleagues to support the Collins-Levin energy independence amendment.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Collins-Levin amendment when it is voted on.

Mr. President, let me begin by commending the Senators from Minnesota and New Jersey for bringing forward this amendment. Many of us, I think all of us, were troubled by the press reports last fall that suggested that the current and previous Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission accepted reimbursement from entities that they were regulating when they were traveling. For example, trade associations, manufacturers of products, and other entities paid for trips that totaled nearly $60,000.

The Klobuchar-Menendez amendment is intended to make clear that taxpayer money should be used for that travel in order to remove the appearance of a conflict of interest that arises when the members of the Commission receive reimbursement for travel from regulated entities.

I do want to make clear that the Commission's ethics officers reviewed these trips and found that there was no conflict of interest. But the fact is, there is an appearance of a conflict of interest. Receiving reimbursement from regulated entities creates the appearance that the decisions that are subsequently made by the Commission members may be tainted by a conflict of interest. The fact is, this kind of appearance of a conflict of interest shakes the consumers' confidence in the impartiality of decisions that are made by regulatory agencies.

Now, I do want to emphasize that these trips may well have been justified. Governmental officials cannot and should not make all of their decisions within the confines of their offices. They can learn a lot about the issues by taking official travel, by going out into the field, by reviewing a manufacturer's procedures, by traveling to a port, by undertaking completely legitimate travel. But at least the appearance, and in some cases an actual conflict of interest, arises when this travel is subsidized or paid for totally by the regulated entity. So I view this as a good government amendment, an amendment that will help to restore the confidence of consumers, of the public, in the regulatory process.

I also want to make clear to some of my colleagues, particularly on my side of the aisle, that the amendment put forth by the two Senators does not increase the budget of the Consumer Product Safety Commission beyond the amounts authorized in the underlying bill. Instead, what their amendment would say is that up to $1.2 million of the budget of the amount appropriated can be used for the Commissioners' travel in lieu of the Commissioners' accepting payment or reimbursement for travel from any person or entity that is seeking official action from, doing business with, conducting activities regulated by, or whose interests may be substantially affected by decisions made by the Commission.

This is a commonsense amendment. It will advance the public's confidence in the decisions that are made by this important regulatory Commission. It is very much in keeping with the bill that we put forth, and I believe we will be able to work out something on this amendment later in the day.

I do want to point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle that there is also an amendment pending by the Senator from Texas, and I believe it is the managers' intent to try to package a series of amendments at the same time. But for my part, I think this amendment makes a great deal of sense, and I commend the two Senators for bringing it forward.

Mr. President, let me also take this opportunity to thank the manager and author of the bill, Senator Pryor, for his thoughtful comments earlier this morning about my contributions to the bill. It has been a great pleasure to work with Senator Pryor on this bill. We have worked together on a host of issues, and I commend him for his leadership in helping to ensure that the toys and other consumer products that reach our store shelves are as safe as they can be. In particular, his commitment to making sure the children of America are receiving safe products is commendable.

So I thank him for his kind words, and it has been an honor to work with him on this bill.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman in support of S. Res. 472, commending the employees of the Department of Homeland Security on the Department's fifth anniversary, and honoring their partners at all levels of Government, the private sector, and the millions of men and women in law enforcement, the fire service, emergency-medical services, and other emergency-response professions who risk their lives to protect us.

Five years ago, on March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security commenced operations as a new organizational umbrella over 22 federal agencies and with new responsibilities for developing and coordinating an integrated, all-hazards approach to planning for, mitigating against, responding to, and recovering from major disasters.

Creating DHS was a critical part of our national response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We are safer today because of the work of the Department's dedicated employees and because of their support and coordination with State, local, tribal, and non-profit agencies with emergency-management, prevention, and response responsibilities.

The Department was severely tested in the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe of 2005, and extensive investigation by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs identified serious flaws in the Department's response. But, spurred by legislation that Senator Lieberman and I authored in 2006, the Department has taken significant strides in improving its response and recovery capabilities. The Department's responses to recent disasters, such as the wildfires in California, the Patriots' Day storm in Maine, and the

recent tornadoes in the South, visibly demonstrate these improvements.

The task of integrating the 22 agencies and more than 200,000 employees that compose the Department has not always gone smoothly. As the Government Accountability Office justly observed in a progress report on DHS last summer, however, ``successful transformations of large organizations, even those faced with less strenuous reorganizations than DHS, can take 5 to 7 years to achieve.'' The Department has made significant progress. Congress must help it make more.

On this noteworthy anniversary, I salute the men and women of DHS and all of their partners who protect our borders, transportation hubs, critical infrastructure, seaports, and--above all--our people. This Senate resolution is a small but heartfelt expression of our gratitude, our respect, and our commitment to the future of this Department.

Mr. President, I know the Senator from Minnesota is going to speak next, but I would ask the manager of the bill if he would be willing to enter into a unanimous consent agreement where it would just sequence our statements on this bill so that I would follow the Senator from Minnesota.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act of 2008. I applaud the leadership of Senators Pryor, Stevens, and Inouye in this effort to strengthen protection for America's consumers, especially our children. It has been a pleasure to work with the sponsors of this bill to strengthen Federal protections against dangerous toys moving through the global supply chain.

We must detect and counter threats to children before, not after, toys reach store shelves so that they don't end up in homes, schools, and daycare centers as, unfortunately, they can now.

The pressing need for this bill was dramatized last year by numerous and significant safety recalls of children's toys. The recalls have involved some significant threats to life and health. For example, last November the Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled 200,000 units of imported jewelry for children: earrings, charms, and bracelets that contained unsafe levels of lead. Earlier in 2007, the Commission recalled millions of other hazardous toys.

The tragic trend continues. CPSC recalls last month included other items that violate lead paint standards or that can burn, poison, or even strangle children.

The Pryor-Stevens bill takes a comprehensive and thoughtful approach to these threats. It authorizes increased staffing and funding for the Commission, toughens penalties for safety violations, bans the resale of recalled products, requires safety certification of children's products, and mandates permanent identification markings on the toys and other products themselves--not just on their packaging--to make safety recalls more effective. The bill also essentially bans lead from children's toys.

The need for these safeguards and resources became evident through an investigation by my staff on the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. In August, I assigned investigators from my staff to examine the toy industry, import concerns, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission itself. The committee's investigators conducted numerous interviews of manufacturers, representatives of retailers, consumer advocacy groups, Federal regulatory agencies, and other experts. They also conducted port visits and visited a manufacturer's testing lab. What we were attempting to do is to build on the expertise the committee has gained through its work on port security which resulted, working in cooperation with the Commerce Committee, in landmark port security legislation in 2006.

The Committee's findings confirmed that our current system had serious weaknesses. These included that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is understaffed and has inadequate resources and authorities for its mission.

We also found that voluntary standards can be useful in quickly addressing safety concerns, but that they lack the full force of law.

We found that the inability to effectively enforce safety standards at our ports limits the ability of Federal agencies to stop hazardous imported products from entering the American marketplace.

The bill before us will remedy these serious weaknesses in our current system, especially in the area of product safety standards. Our investigators found that the current reliance on voluntary safety standards developed by a consensus among the industry, Government, consumer advocates, and other interested parties has both some advantages and some significant limitations. That doesn't mean we should do away with the system of voluntary standards.

On the plus side, the voluntary standards process, overseen by a standards-setting body, allows safety standards to be developed much more quickly and efficiently than in many governmental regulatory processes. This was shown in the collaborative response to the reports of serious injuries after children ingested powerful magnets that had come loose from toys. There were no safety standards for these particularly powerful magnets for toys, but within a relatively quick period of time, the consensus process produced new safety standards.

By contrast, if the Commission were to go through a formal safety regulation, it would have required a detailed notice and comment process that could have taken years to accomplish. It would have taken at least 4 months, and it could have stretched on for years, delaying that protection to our Nation's children. A perfect example of this is the failed effort to formally regulate the lead content standards for children's jewelry. In numerous other cases, the system of voluntary standards, self-reporting, and collaborative recalls has led to safety recalls before injuries could occur. Despite these achievements, the fact is that dangerous toys still arrive at our ports, and far too many of them are making their way to retailers' shelves and then on to the homes of American children.

Under current law, the Customs and Border Protection Agency has only limited authority to seize dangerous products and to prevent them from entering the marketplace. Instead, what happens too often--the standard process and practice--is that these products are simply turned away and that gives unscrupulous importers an opportunity to try to slip their defective products into the marketplace by simply going to another American port. So if they don't succeed at one port and they are turned away, what happens in too many cases is the importer simply tries to ship the defective toys through another port.

Our committee's investigation has also underscored the importance of imposing standards on global supply chains. With nearly three-quarters of toys sold in America being manufactured overseas, promoting toy safety cannot start or stop at our borders. Our investigators heard reports that unethical importers can bring products into the United States and then simply disappear by changing their company's name, address, and other information in order to avoid safety regulations. I also note that they can do this to avoid tariffs, import quotas, and intellectual property laws as well.

Toys from abroad must meet American safety standards. While the Chinese Government has reportedly tightened its own standards, closed a few factories, and signed a new agreement with the Consumer Product Safety Commission on the use of lead point in toys, China has not yet demonstrated that it can adequately enforce this regime. Until then, we must take strong and effective action to prevent Chinese products that violate our safety rules from entering America.

Now, of course, we need better consumer product protections regardless of a product's origin, but I call special attention to imports because of their overwhelming share of our toy market and because of the special challenges posed by the global supply chain. Our committee's investigation led me to offer four recommendations, and I am very pleased that those four recommendations have been included in the bill before us. Again, I thank Senators Pryor, Stevens, and Inouye for adding my proposals to their bill.

First, the language I authored would empower Customs and Border Protection to seize and destroy shipments of products that the Commission believes pose a threat to consumers and violate safety standards. This is so important. It closes a glaring loophole in the current law and would abandon a practice that allows unscrupulous importers to bring their dangerous products in through a different port, depending on the Customs and Border Protection officers catching it a second time. My provision would ensure that the agency has the right to seize and destroy these unsafe toys and other consumer products.

The second provision I authored would establish a database so that potentially unsafe products could be identified by the Commission before they reach our shores. With that information, that cooperation between the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Customs and Border Protection

Agency, we can much more effectively target these shipments for further investigation.

Third, I authored a provision that would require the CPSC to develop a risk assessment tool so we can focus attention on those points in the supply chain where defects and dangers are most likely to occur, be detected, and stopped.

Fourth, I drafted a provision that would place an official from the Consumer Products Safety Commission at the National Targeting Center run by Customs and Border Protection. That will allow real-time information to be shared. We can pool the resources, pool the information we have to identify likely shipments of dangerous products.

Mr. President, neither the Consumer Products Safety Commission, nor any other Federal agency, no matter how good, can guarantee a marketplace free of all risk. But we can and should strengthen the Consumer Products Safety Commission, as this bill would do, and expand its authority and provide it with the resources that are necessary to do a good job.

The commission needs to continue to work closely with importers, retailers, industry associations, and consumer groups to improve product safety.

A safety regime for children's toys will only be effective if everyone takes responsibility. But this should not be a detective game for the parents of America. They should be able to rely on Federal standards, enforcement--tough standards to make sure the toys they are purchasing for their children are indeed safe.

The foundation of this effort must be an effective and efficient system to help prevent defective and dangerous products for children from reaching store shelves in the first place.

The Consumer Products Safety Commission Reform Act adds important protections for America's children. I support the bill, and I am pleased that we are now considering it. I think it is going to make a real difference to the safety of America's children.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the Red Cross and its campaign to encourage citizen preparedness for disasters.

For 65 years, since the first proclamation by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Presidents of the United States have designated March as Red Cross Month.

I am proud to support this year's proclamation in recognizing this great organization, whose activities include lifesaving courses, blood drives, sheltering families displaced by fire or flood, and responding to major disasters. This January, for example, Red Cross work in my home State of Maine included an urgent blood drive amid ice and snow that had reduced some hospitals' blood supply to a single day. Other Maine Red Cross workers were taking care of a seven-member family in the town of Skowhegan who had lost their home and possessions in a fire.

I know the good works of the Red Cross both as a Maine resident and as a Senator. As ranking member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, I have worked closely with emergency management agencies and nonprofit organizations for years. I know the Red Cross has not only saved many lives and comforted millions but has taken steps to improve its structure and capabilities for disaster response.

The record of recent years for terrorism, fires, earthquakes, floods, and other disasters underscores the need for preparedness not only at all levels of government but among individual citizens and families.

I therefore commend the Red Cross for focusing their public- communication efforts this year on the theme of ``Be Red Cross Ready.'' It is a well-chosen theme: Red Cross survey work finds that up to 60 percent of Americans are entirely unprepared for disaster. They have no emergency supplies, no firstaid or CPR training, no rendezvous or communication plans or other precautions.

The catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina reminded us that government and other first responders, no matter how efficient and heroic, cannot appear instantly at every point affected by a disaster. Every citizen should be prepared to serve as a first responder for family and neighbors if official or volunteer responders cannot offer immediate assistance.

Encouraging individual responsibility and preparedness to augment government and private organization efforts can reinforce our national response framework to provide truly comprehensive and all-hazards protection.

For promoting readiness, and for all its good works, the American Red Cross deserves the thanks of all Americans and the recognition of Red Cross Month.

Mr. President. I am pleased to join Senator Dodd in introducing legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Fire Administration. The bill would provide additional resources to help the agency meet its growing responsibilities. We are pleased to be joined by our fellow cochairs of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus--Senators McCain and Biden.

Since its creation in 1974, the Fire Administration and its Fire Academy have helped prevent fires, protect property, and save lives among firefighters and the public. Today, the Fire Administration is also integrated into our national, all-hazards preparations against natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

Last month marked the fifth anniversary of the Fire Administration's reorganization as part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency within the Department of Homeland Security. As both Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and as a cochair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am pleased that the bill being introduced today does much more than reauthorize the Fire Administration.

For example, the bill designates $5 million annually to support necessary technology upgrades to the National Fire Incident Reporting System. This important system helps State and local governments report and analyze fires, and allows nationwide sharing of data in standard formats. This database--the world's largest collection of fire-incident information--helps all levels of government to probe the nature and causes of injuries, deaths, and property loss resulting from fires.

Another vital component of this bill establishes a rotating position at the DHS National Operations Center to be filled by a State or local fire-service official. In our comprehensive, all-hazards approach to major disasters, it is just as important to have the fire services represented at operations center as it is military liaisons.

The bill has other important provisions, including provision for a 1.3 percent annual increase in the initial $70 million authorization through fiscal year 2012. In addition, the bill expands National Fire Academy training programs to include topics like hazardous-material fires and fire-based emergency medical services. It authorizes expanded research on fires in the urban-wildland interface and in rural areas. It encourages the Fire Administration to adopt national voluntary standards on firefighter health and safety--an important topic, considering that about 100 brave firefighters lose their lives in the line of duty each year, with many more suffering serious injuries.

My home state of Maine is keenly aware of the dangers of fire and the importance of effective fire services. Maine is one of the most rural states in the nation and most of its housing stock is wood framed. Some households rely on woodstoves for primary or supplemental heat.

According to the Maine Department of Public Safety, nearly 50 Mainers died in fires every year through the 1950s, '60s, and '70s. The average so far for this decade is 18, and 2007 produced only 12 fire-related deaths, still too many but a considerable improvement.

Maine public-safety officials attribute the decline to factors like wider use of smoke detectors and improved building codes--and fire- prevention efforts. As our national resource and clearing house for fire research, education, and training, the U.S. Fire Administration certainly deserves a share of the credit for my state's progress in reducing the pain, devastation, and death wrought by fires.

I have no doubt the Fire Administration's beneficial effects will grow. Its new campaign for preventing smoking-related home fires is a worthy effort. Its growing curriculum of online courses on topics like incident command for nursing-home fires, emergency medical service at multi-casualty incidents, and emergency response to terrorism is a valuable resource for firefighters.

The U.S. Fire Administration is a fine example of the good that can come of federal, state, and local collaboration to counter an ancient threat and to address new ones. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the reauthorization and improvement of this valuable agency.

Mr. President. I am pleased to join Senator Dodd in introducing legislation to reauthorize the U.S. Fire Administration. The bill would provide additional resources to help the agency meet its growing responsibilities. We are pleased to be joined by our fellow cochairs of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus--Senators McCain and Biden.

Since its creation in 1974, the Fire Administration and its Fire Academy have helped prevent fires, protect property, and save lives among firefighters and the public. Today, the Fire Administration is also integrated into our national, all-hazards preparations against natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

Last month marked the fifth anniversary of the Fire Administration's reorganization as part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency within the Department of Homeland Security. As both Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and as a cochair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am pleased that the bill being introduced today does much more than reauthorize the Fire Administration.

For example, the bill designates $5 million annually to support necessary technology upgrades to the National Fire Incident Reporting System. This important system helps State and local governments report and analyze fires, and allows nationwide sharing of data in standard formats. This database--the world's largest collection of fire-incident information--helps all levels of government to probe the nature and causes of injuries, deaths, and property loss resulting from fires.

Another vital component of this bill establishes a rotating position at the DHS National Operations Center to be filled by a State or local fire-service official. In our comprehensive, all-hazards approach to major disasters, it is just as important to have the fire services represented at operations center as it is military liaisons.

The bill has other important provisions, including provision for a 1.3 percent annual increase in the initial $70 million authorization through fiscal year 2012. In addition, the bill expands National Fire Academy training programs to include topics like hazardous-material fires and fire-based emergency medical services. It authorizes expanded research on fires in the urban-wildland interface and in rural areas. It encourages the Fire Administration to adopt national voluntary standards on firefighter health and safety--an important topic, considering that about 100 brave firefighters lose their lives in the line of duty each year, with many more suffering serious injuries.

My home state of Maine is keenly aware of the dangers of fire and the importance of effective fire services. Maine is one of the most rural states in the nation and most of its housing stock is wood framed. Some households rely on woodstoves for primary or supplemental heat.

According to the Maine Department of Public Safety, nearly 50 Mainers died in fires every year through the 1950s, '60s, and '70s. The average so far for this decade is 18, and 2007 produced only 12 fire-related deaths, still too many but a considerable improvement.

Maine public-safety officials attribute the decline to factors like wider use of smoke detectors and improved building codes--and fire- prevention efforts. As our national resource and clearing house for fire research, education, and training, the U.S. Fire Administration certainly deserves a share of the credit for my state's progress in reducing the pain, devastation, and death wrought by fires.

I have no doubt the Fire Administration's beneficial effects will grow. Its new campaign for preventing smoking-related home fires is a worthy effort. Its growing curriculum of online courses on topics like incident command for nursing-home fires, emergency medical service at multi-casualty incidents, and emergency response to terrorism is a valuable resource for firefighters.

The U.S. Fire Administration is a fine example of the good that can come of federal, state, and local collaboration to counter an ancient threat and to address new ones. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the reauthorization and improvement of this valuable agency.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, commonly known as LIHEAP. LIHEAP is a Federal grant program that provides vital funding to help low- income and elderly citizens meet their home energy needs.

Due to record-high oil costs, the situation for our neediest citizens is especially dire this winter. That is why I have sponsored Senator Sanders' amendment to increase LIHEAP funding by $800 million.

Nationwide, over the last 4 years, the number of households receiving LIHEAP assistance increased by 26 percent from 4.6 million to about 5.8 million, but during this same period, Federal funding increased by only 10 percent. The result is that the average grant declined from $349 to $305. In addition, since August 2007, crude oil prices quickly rose from around $60 a barrel to nearly $100 a barrel earlier this month, so a grant buys less fuel today than it would have just 4 months ago. According to Maine's Office of Energy Independence and Security, the average price of heating oil in our State is $3.30 per gallon, which is $1.09 higher than at this time last year.

This large, rapid increase, combined with less LIHEAP funding available per family, imposes hardship on people who use home heating oil to heat their homes. Low-income families and senior citizens living on limited incomes in Maine and many other States face a crisis situation in staying warm this winter.

The Sanders amendment would provide an additional $800 million as emergency funding for LIHEAP. The term ``emergency'' could not be more accurate. Our Nation is in a heating emergency this winter. Families are being forced to choose among paying for food, housing, prescription drugs, and heat. No family should be forced to suffer through a severe winter without adequate heat.

I urge all my colleagues to support the Sanders proposal to provide vital home energy assistance for the most vulnerable of our citizens.

Mr. President, as this session of the Senate draws to a close, I want to say thanks and farewell to one of our most dedicated Members, Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, and to wish him all the best in the next phase of his life.

In his 36 years of service as a Member of both the House and the Senate, Trent Lott has consistently demonstrated his deep commitment to our nation and to his state. His amazing understanding of intricate Senate rules and procedures has guided us through many challenges. His outstanding work as our Republican whip has strengthened our caucus and our two-party system.

I have had the privilege of working with Senator Lott on two issues of paramount importance to the safety and security of our Nation. Like me, he comes from a shipbuilding State and he fully understands how essential seapower is to preserving our freedom. We have worked together to strengthen our Navy and to pursue a dual-shipyard strategy because it is in the best interests of America.

As a leader of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I had the opportunity to work closely with Senator Lott during our investigation of the response to Hurricane Katrina. His knowledge of the gulf region was invaluable, and his compassion for the victims of that disaster was inspiring. Although his own home was destroyed by the storm, Senator Lott was on the front lines from the start, directing resources where they were most needed and helping cut through the redtape. Before Katrina hit, he had planned to step down from the Senate last year, but with the needs so great and with a contribution yet to make, he instead ran again so that he could continue to serve at a time when his experience and dedication were most needed.

Although Maine and Mississippi are separated by great distance, both are rural States facing similar challenges, and I have always found Senator Lott a strong ally in meeting them. I was especially pleased to cosponsor his Amtrak reauthorization bill, which recognized that the benefits of modern rail service must be made available to all States and to all of the American people.

Last April, I had the honor, at Senator Lott's invitation, of addressing students at his beloved University of Mississippi. Specifically, I addressed students at Ole Miss's Trent Lott Leadership Institute, a designation made in honor of his commitment to public service. It is a commitment that has greatly benefitted our Nation, and it is the legacy for which Senator Trent Lott will always be remembered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed until the vote occurs, which is 2 minutes from now.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. This program is absolutely vital to the people of my State. This winter we have seen record-high prices for home heating oil.

I want to thank the appropriators for including additional funding for the LIHEAP program as part of the omnibus spending bill, but, Mr. President, I was hoping we would proceed to consideration of the amendment offered by the Senator from Vermont, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor, which would have provided 800 million additional dollars for the LIHEAP program.

Mr. President, this is a real crisis. I consider the amount of money in this bill to be a significant step forward, but it is not adequate to meet the overwhelming needs for the constituents that live in cold weather States and are struggling and literally choosing between paying their bills, buying food, purchasing prescription drugs, and staying warm. That is a choice that no family in this country should have to make.

I am pleased with this downpayment on the LIHEAP program. It is a major step forward that is going to make a significant difference, but, frankly, it is simply not adequate to meet the overwhelming need.

Nationwide, over the last 4 years, the number of households receiving LIHEAP assistance increased by 26 percent from 4.6 million to about 5.8 million, but during this same period, Federal funding increased by only 10 percent. The result is that the average grant declined from $349 to $305. In addition, since August, crude oil prices quickly rose from around $60 barrel to nearly $100 per barrel, so a grant buys less fuel today than it would have just 4 months ago. According to the Maine Office of Energy Independence and Security, the average price of heating oil

in our State is $3.26 a gallon. That is a record in our State.

This large, rapid increase, combined with less LIHEAP funding available per family, imposes hardship on people who use home heating oil to heat their homes. Low-income families and senior citizen living on limited incomes in Maine and many other States face a crisis in staying warm this winter.

The Sanders amendment would have provided an additional $800 million as emergency funding for LIHEAP. The term ``emergency,'' could not be more accurate. Our Nation is in a heating emergency this winter. Families are being forced to choose among paying for food, housing, prescription drugs and heat. No family should be forced to suffer through a severe winter without adequate heat.

I understand we may consider this proposal again after the holidays. When we reconsider it, I urge all my colleagues to support the Sanders proposal to provide vital home energy assistance for the most vulnerable of our citizens.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, this morning WABI-AM radio in my home State of Maine dedicated the George Hale Studio in Bangor. I commend Clear Channel Communications for recognizing the many contributions George Hale has made to our State during his 54-year career in broadcasting, and I am honored to offer a few words in tribute to him.

George Hale is a true broadcasting legend. For more a half century, he has kept the people of Maine informed, he has entertained us, and he has brought us together as a community of friends and neighbors. He has brought the best of Maine into our homes, and he has always been a welcome guest.

Still going strong today, George Hale will forever be associated with the Bangor Auditorium and the great high school basketball tournaments held there, but that is just a start. University of Maine football, baseball, and basketball have all benefited from his great work, and he is beloved by generations of fans, coaches, and players. Whether describing victory or defeat, he always treats the athletes with respect and appreciation for their efforts.

Generations of Mainers have begun their day with George. Many used to begin their day by tuning in at 5:45 a.m. to hear his thoughts and comments on everything ranging from Red Sox to world affairs.

And the tradition continues today. Along with his friend and cohost Ric Tyler, George's show provides news and insight about the issues facing Maine and the Nation. As one who has appeared on his show many times, I can say that George always treats his guests with fairness and respect.

George was blessed with a great voice, and he has used it well as a powerful spokesman for great causes. His support for the March of Dimes, and especially his advocacy for the folic acid campaign, has greatly helped this outstanding organization carry out is vital mission of improving the health of babies by preventing birth defects and infant mortality. The March of Dimes and George Hale truly are a championship team.

WABI-AM radio is known as the Voice of Maine. It is a fitting name because George Hale truly is the Voice of Maine. He is a great friend to me and to all the people of my State. I know we all look forward to many more years of hearing that great voice from the George Hale Studio.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joining my colleagues from Illinois and Minnesota, Senators Obama, Durbin, and Coleman, in introducing the National Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math, STEM, Scholarship Database Act of 2007, which is intended to address one of the obstacles that students experience in pursuing undergraduate and postbaccalaureate studies in STEM fields.

There is growing concern that the United States is not preparing a sufficient number of students, teachers, and practitioners in STEM fields. An important aspect of U.S. efforts to maintain and improve economic competitiveness is the existence of a capable scientific and technological workforce.

The change from a labor-based manufacturing to a knowledge-based manufacturing and service economy demands certain skills of our citizenry. The National Science Foundation, NSF, projects that in the increasingly changing context for science and technology, a workforce trained in the sciences and engineering is necessary for continued economic growth. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that science and engineering occupations are projected to grow by 21.4 percent from 2004 to 2014, compared to a growth of 13 percent in all occupations during the same time period. Furthermore, the current scientific and engineering workforce is aging. The NSF reports that the number reaching retirement age will increase dramatically over the next two decades.

A May 2007 report of the Department of Education states that: There is increasing concern about U.S. economic competitiveness, particularly the future ability of the nation's education institutions to produce citizens literate in STEM concepts and to produce future scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and technologists. Such experts are needed to maintain U.S. preeminence in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. While other countries around the world strive to improve their own education systems and to expand their economies, the U.S. will have to work even harder in the coming years to maintain its competitive edge.

In addition to these statistics, we have anecdotal evidence from universities across the country and in my home State of Maine. Faculty from the University of Southern Maine and across the State point to decreasing undergraduate enrollments in STEM fields and an even greater decrease in the number of bachelor and master's degrees conferred in these fields. For many students, the obstacle is not a lack of interest but rather a lack of financial resources.

On August 9, 2007, President Bush signed into law Public Law 110-69, The America COMPETES Act, H.R. 2272. The legislation is directed at increasing research investment, improving economic competitiveness, developing an innovation infrastructure, and strengthening and expanding science and mathematics programs at all points on the educational pipeline. The America COMPETES Act authorizes $33.6 billion for fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2010 for science, mathematics, engineering, and technology programs across the Federal Government. This Federal effort, while laudable, is essentially unknown to the average student interested in pursuing a degree in a STEM field. Moreover, it does little to help a rising college freshman today enter a degree program in aerospace engineering, veterinary medicine, or computer information systems.

A major challenge facing many high school graduates and their families is how to afford college. Helping students locate financial aid might well increase the number of students entering STEM fields. For many first-generation college students, financial assistance may be available but the student may be unaware of the opportunities. As a result of Federal efforts in this area, there is a large array of financial aid opportunities available in the STEM fields; however, there is no simple way for potential applicants to explore them.

The database created in this bill will have a complete list of STEM scholarships, fellowships, and other programs of financial assistance from all public and private sources for postsecondary and postgraduate study. The American Chemical Society and the National Science Teachers Association believe this measure will expand and strengthen the STEM education pipeline and help keep our nation competitive in the global economy by aiding capable students who are interested in STEM careers in their search for the right scholarship opportunity to support their studies.

With less than 6 percent of the world's population, the United States cannot expect to dominate science and technology in the future as it did during the second half of the last century when we enjoyed a massively disproportionate share of the world's STEM resources. We must invest more in the resources we do have, encourage those resources to produce economically useful innovations, and organize the STEM enterprise by working to make sure that innovations developed here produce prosperity and progress for all.

Mr. President. I rise to join my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in introducing the Presidential Funding Act of 2007.

It was 100 years ago that the reformer President Theodore Roosevelt proposed ``a very radical measure'' in his State of the Union message to Congress. He envisioned a system of campaign financing that would include a congressional appropriation to support national campaigns so that, as he said, ``The need for collecting large campaign funds would vanish.''

When the campaign financing reforms of the 1970s were enacted, it was hoped that we would draw closer to achieving Theodore Roosevelt's goal of funding the pursuit of our highest public office largely from public rather than private funds.

Our Presidential-campaign finance system still suffers from serious defects, however, and current events are dramatically highlighting the need for continued reform and improvement.

The current Presidential campaign is already shaping up as the most expensive election in history by far. Candidate after candidate has chosen to forego public funds due to fundamental flaws in the system. Fund-raising tallies have already shattered records. If a candidate decides to seek public funding, he or she risks running out of funds to counter candidates who can attract large amounts of private contributions.

Current estimates are that the 2008 contest for the Presidency of the U.S. will cost more than $1 billion. Much of that cost will be incurred in delivering messages to the electorate through advertising and publications of all sorts.

One billion dollars is a huge sum. Yet we cannot expect modern campaigns to be run on budgets that might have sufficed for William McKinley, whose successful 1896 campaign relied heavily on speeches from his front porch in Canton, Ohio, to admirers who came by train to hear him. This idyllic but limited approach to campaigning is long gone.

Unless we wish to return to the cronyism, influence peddling, and restricted suffrage of the 19th century, large expenditures on broadcasting and other media are essential for any campaign that hopes to prevail. That financial fact obliges candidates to spend a great deal of time appearing at exclusive, big-ticket fundraisers.

To allow candidates to spend less time raising money, Congress established a system of public funding for Presidential campaigns that started with the 1976 Presidential election. That system has not been substantially changed since 1984, and its limitations have only become more evident with time.

The central problem is that the system does not provide enough public funds to permit a credible contest against well-bankrolled candidates who have opted out of the public-financing system.

In November 2003, Governor Dean announced that he would opt out of public financing, saying ``floods of special-interest money have forced us to abandon a broken system.'' Senator Kerry also felt obliged to opt out so that he could lend his campaign $6 million rather than be restricted to the use of $50,000 in personal funds.

Citing Senator Dole's campaign in 1996, Senator McCain's campaign in 2000, and Senator Edwards's campaign in 2004, the League of Women Voters has spoken of the public system's ``devil's bargain'' for candidates: ``To get matching funds, they have to accept a spending limit that will leave them bankrupt if the contest continues into March. . . . With the underdogs boxed in by the limits, the frontrunners, and others who can afford it, have additional incentive to opt out.''

The bill we introduce today would make a number of important changes.

The key provisions of the Presidential Funding Act of 2007 would increase the public match for primary-season contributions, make funds available earlier in the contest, tie the availability of public funding during the general-election campaign to a candidate's using it during the primary season, provide additional funds if a non-publicly funded opponent spends heavily, and update spending limits to more realistic levels.

All of these steps represent sensible and useful improvements in the campaign-finance system.

I recognize that some of our colleagues and some members of the public are wary of taxpayer-supported funding for Presidential candidates. I can only respond that the alternative--a complete reliance on private contributions--is worse.

I would also reassure doubters that this bill is no giveaway or an inducement to fringe candidates of narrow appeal. Its provisions are predicated upon matches for individual contributions, not absolute grants, and it requires achieving significant levels of individual contributions in at least 20 States.

We all understand that the current system of public funding for campaigns has defects. The growing inclination of candidates to opt out of the system underscores that fact. The Presidential Funding Act of 2007 would cure some serious problems and help restore the appeal of public funding.

If enacted, this bill would take effect in January 2009. By moving toward virtually full realization of Theodore Roosevelt's ``very radical measure,'' we can take a big step toward making the financing, the conduct, and the outcome of the 2012 presidential campaign a genuine source of pride for American citizens of all political affiliations.

Mr. President. I rise to join my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in introducing the Presidential Funding Act of 2007.

It was 100 years ago that the reformer President Theodore Roosevelt proposed ``a very radical measure'' in his State of the Union message to Congress. He envisioned a system of campaign financing that would include a congressional appropriation to support national campaigns so that, as he said, ``The need for collecting large campaign funds would vanish.''

When the campaign financing reforms of the 1970s were enacted, it was hoped that we would draw closer to achieving Theodore Roosevelt's goal of funding the pursuit of our highest public office largely from public rather than private funds.

Our Presidential-campaign finance system still suffers from serious defects, however, and current events are dramatically highlighting the need for continued reform and improvement.

The current Presidential campaign is already shaping up as the most expensive election in history by far. Candidate after candidate has chosen to forego public funds due to fundamental flaws in the system. Fund-raising tallies have already shattered records. If a candidate decides to seek public funding, he or she risks running out of funds to counter candidates who can attract large amounts of private contributions.

Current estimates are that the 2008 contest for the Presidency of the U.S. will cost more than $1 billion. Much of that cost will be incurred in delivering messages to the electorate through advertising and publications of all sorts.

One billion dollars is a huge sum. Yet we cannot expect modern campaigns to be run on budgets that might have sufficed for William McKinley, whose successful 1896 campaign relied heavily on speeches from his front porch in Canton, Ohio, to admirers who came by train to hear him. This idyllic but limited approach to campaigning is long gone.

Unless we wish to return to the cronyism, influence peddling, and restricted suffrage of the 19th century, large expenditures on broadcasting and other media are essential for any campaign that hopes to prevail. That financial fact obliges candidates to spend a great deal of time appearing at exclusive, big-ticket fundraisers.

To allow candidates to spend less time raising money, Congress established a system of public funding for Presidential campaigns that started with the 1976 Presidential election. That system has not been substantially changed since 1984, and its limitations have only become more evident with time.

The central problem is that the system does not provide enough public funds to permit a credible contest against well-bankrolled candidates who have opted out of the public-financing system.

In November 2003, Governor Dean announced that he would opt out of public financing, saying ``floods of special-interest money have forced us to abandon a broken system.'' Senator Kerry also felt obliged to opt out so that he could lend his campaign $6 million rather than be restricted to the use of $50,000 in personal funds.

Citing Senator Dole's campaign in 1996, Senator McCain's campaign in 2000, and Senator Edwards's campaign in 2004, the League of Women Voters has spoken of the public system's ``devil's bargain'' for candidates: ``To get matching funds, they have to accept a spending limit that will leave them bankrupt if the contest continues into March. . . . With the underdogs boxed in by the limits, the frontrunners, and others who can afford it, have additional incentive to opt out.''

The bill we introduce today would make a number of important changes.

The key provisions of the Presidential Funding Act of 2007 would increase the public match for primary-season contributions, make funds available earlier in the contest, tie the availability of public funding during the general-election campaign to a candidate's using it during the primary season, provide additional funds if a non-publicly funded opponent spends heavily, and update spending limits to more realistic levels.

All of these steps represent sensible and useful improvements in the campaign-finance system.

I recognize that some of our colleagues and some members of the public are wary of taxpayer-supported funding for Presidential candidates. I can only respond that the alternative--a complete reliance on private contributions--is worse.

I would also reassure doubters that this bill is no giveaway or an inducement to fringe candidates of narrow appeal. Its provisions are predicated upon matches for individual contributions, not absolute grants, and it requires achieving significant levels of individual contributions in at least 20 States.

We all understand that the current system of public funding for campaigns has defects. The growing inclination of candidates to opt out of the system underscores that fact. The Presidential Funding Act of 2007 would cure some serious problems and help restore the appeal of public funding.

If enacted, this bill would take effect in January 2009. By moving toward virtually full realization of Theodore Roosevelt's ``very radical measure,'' we can take a big step toward making the financing, the conduct, and the outcome of the 2012 presidential campaign a genuine source of pride for American citizens of all political affiliations.