Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1615, which is pending at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to propose an amendment that would authorize funding for abrupt climate change research. I am very pleased to be joined on this amendment by Senator Cantwell, Senator Snowe, and Senator Murray. Our amendment would authorize $10 million per year for the next 6 years for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, in partnership with universities across the Nation to conduct research into abrupt climate change.

I recognize the Senate has reached no consensus with regard to how best to respond to climate change. Nevertheless, I believe there is one issue on

which we can agree, and that is the need for a great deal more scientific research in order to better understand the potential risk of abrupt climate change.

Understanding and predicting climate changes are enormous scientific challenges. The challenges are made even more difficult with the recognition that the climate system is capable of dramatic and abrupt changes. Scientists have determined that past global temperatures have swung as much as 20 degrees Fahrenheit within a decade, accompanied by drought in some places and catastrophic floods in others.

An abrupt climate change triggered by the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would also likely result in the redistribution of atmospheric moisture and rainfall, with substantial impact for the world's food supply.

Unfortunately, we have no satisfactory understanding of what triggers abrupt climate change. Both the National Academy of Sciences and the administration's Strategic Climate Change Science Plan identify abrupt climate change as the key priority for additional research. The National Academy has stated that:

Large, abrupt climate changes have repeatedly affected much

or all of the earth.

The academy went on to state that:

Abrupt climate changes are not only possible but likely in

the future, potentially with large impacts on ecosystems and

societies.

The academy noted we are not doing nearly enough to identify even the threat of abrupt climate change. The amendment the four of us are proposing would lay the framework and provide the funds for the United States to better understand and address abrupt climate change. One reason this funding is so urgent is we are rapidly losing one of the greatest sources of information, and that is ice cores from glaciers.

The University of Maine's Climate Change Institute has one of the best known and best regarded abrupt climate change research programs in the entire world, I am proud to say. The Climate Change Institute uses ice cores from glaciers and ice sheets around the world to make discoveries that change the way we think about climate change.

Unfortunately, numerous glaciers around the world are melting. When they go, the very record that has given us so much of this critical climate history will also be lost. I have had several terrific opportunities to see for myself how scientists are able to use glaciers and ice sheets to better understand climate change. Last year, I joined Senators McCain and Sununu in traveling to Antarctica to see groundbreaking research taking place on ice more than 2 miles deep at the South Pole. Along the way, we toured some of the University of Maine's research sites in New Zealand with distinguished university professor George Denton. He was the first scientist from the University of Maine to be elected to the National Academy of Scientists.

According to Professor Denton, 50 percent of the glaciers in New Zealand have melted since 1860, and this melting is unprecedented in the last 5,000 years. We stood with the professor on sites that had been buried by massive glaciers at the beginning of the 20th century, but now they are ice free. It was remarkable to see this firsthand.

Two years ago, I traveled with a group of Senators to the northernmost community in the world, Ny-Alesund, in Norway. The scientists we met told us that global climate change is occurring more rapidly now than at any time since the beginning of civilization. They further stated that the region of the globe changing most rapidly is the Arctic. In fact, the Arctic, in many ways, is the proverbial canary in the coal mine when it comes to climate change. The changes are remarkable and disturbing.

In the last 30 years, the Arctic has lost sea ice cover over an area 10 times as large as the entire State of Maine. In the summer, the change has been even more dramatic with twice as much ice loss. The ice that remains is as much as 40 percent thinner than it was only a few decades ago.

Senator McCain and others and I witnessed massive blocks of ice falling off glaciers that have already retreated well back from the shores against which they once rested. The melting of glaciers and sea ice, the thawing of the permafrost, the increase in sea levels resulting from warming, are already beginning to cause environmental, social, and economic changes.

In Barrow, AK, for example, we met with native people who told us they are seeing insects they have never seen that far north before. They told us the salmon run has changed. We saw telephone poles that were tilted over because, for the first time, the permafrost is thawing. The changes were very evident and they are very troubling in many cases. If these changes were to be compounded by an abrupt climate change on the scale seen in our history, the result could be devastating.

The amendment I am proposing has passed the Senate twice before, as part of the 2001 and the 2003 Energy bills, and was initially included in the managers' package this year. I hope this is the year we finally pass this important provision into law.

We need to act now. We need to authorize this funding so we can gain a better understanding of the possibility of abrupt climate change causing enormous and relatively rapid changes in our climate.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Energy Independence, Clean Air, and Climate Security Act of 2007. This legislation takes an integrated approach that is much needed and long overdue if we are to address effectively three intertwined issues of crucial importance to our Nation's economy and security and to the health of our people and our planet. I am very pleased to be joined on this legislation by Senator Lieberman, a true leader on energy, climate change, and environmental issues.

The majority leader has announced the Senate may well take up a broad package of energy legislation next week. The bill I am introducing today lays out my own vision of how our Nation can best address its energy problems.

If Mark Twain were with us today, it is not hard to imagine he would rephrase his famous quip about the weather to something along the lines of: Everyone talks about climate change and energy independence, but nobody does anything about it.

Since the actions we take to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to clean our air, and to reduce our contribution to climate change all affect each other, it is necessary we develop a comprehensive strategy for all three of these challenges.

Indeed, since the oil embargo of 1973, through 17 Congresses and 7 different Presidents, energy efficiency and energy independence have generated a lot

of talk, some pretty good ideas, and a lot of promises but not enough concerted, determined, coordinated action. During these 34 years, our Nation's imports of foreign oil have soared from less than 35 percent to more than 60 percent, leaving us dangerously reliant on unstable regions of the world in order to fuel our Nation and our economy.

In addition to our increased reliance on foreign oil, we are also consuming more and more electricity. As demand puts increasing pressure on supply, electricity prices have soared. In the summer, when air- conditioners struggle to keep up with rising temperatures, we run the risk of blackouts, brownouts, and price spikes.

At the same time, our greenhouse gas emissions have soared, leading to virtually indisputable evidence that human activity is contributing to climate change. In the United States, emissions of the primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, have risen more than 20 percent since 1990. Globally, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere now far exceed the natural range over the last 650,000 years. We know this from scientific analyses of ice cores and other evidence.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions has already increased global temperatures and has likely contributed to more extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods. These emissions will continue to change the climate, causing warming in most regions and likely causing more floods, droughts, and an increase in the intensity of hurricanes.

Climate change is not the only environmental problem caused by fossil fuel use. The quality of our air also suffers. Although we have made some important strides in improving air quality since the 1970s, we have not done enough. Fossil fuel use is the primary cause of mercury pollution, smog, and acid rain that continue to plague our Nation. Indeed, air pollution causes thousands of asthma attacks and costs many lives annually.

The time has come to address our air quality, climate change, high energy prices, and dangerous reliance on foreign oil. The legislation I am introducing today is, I believe, the first Senate bill that would address all these problems in a single, integrated approach. There have been many bills introduced that address one of these problems. This is an attempt to have a comprehensive approach and to recognize that each of these problems affects the other.

My legislation focuses primarily on two sectors of the economy: electricity and transportation. Together, these two sectors account for 73 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. Electricity generation accounts for more than 40 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions. More than 80 percent of these emissions are attributable to coal-fired powerplants. Coal-fired powerplants are also the single largest source of mercury pollution, smog, and acid rain. Between 1990 and 2004, emissions from these sectors increased by 27 percent.

My legislation requires utilities to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, while also addressing the emissions that cause smog, acid rain, and mercury pollution. It includes a renewable portfolio standard which would help to diversify our electricity supplies and energy efficiency resource standards that the Alliance to Save Energy estimates would save consumers, over time, billions of dollars on their electricity bills.

The transportation sector, which relies almost entirely on oil, is not only partly responsible for our dangerous reliance on foreign oil but also accounts for 33 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. My legislation would help to reduce emissions from this sector through a combination of provisions such as CAFE standards for automobiles and heavy-duty trucks, tax incentives for consumers to encourage them to purchase hybrid and alternative fueled vehicles, incentives for manufacturers to produce the next generation of energy-efficient vehicles, and a low carbon fuel standard that will help to replace some gasoline with biofuels. Taken together, these provisions will substantially reduce our reliance on foreign oil, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by hundreds of millions of tons.

I wish to make clear the choice is not between hobbling our Nation's economy and protecting our environment. This legislation is based on the principle that research, development, and implementation of new approaches to energy independence and environmental stewardship will provide a powerful new stimulus for our economy. All too often, we are confronted with proposals to address one issue that only aggravate another problem. The integrated approach I am proposing will help us break through that impasse.

This legislation does not attempt to reinvent the wheel. In fact, it incorporates several good ideas from my colleagues that have been introduced as separate bills, many of which I have cosponsored, such as the Ten-in-Ten and other CAFE bills, the DRIVE Act, and the Clean Power Act. It includes provisions of legislation I have introduced to address abrupt climate change and to eliminate certain tax credits for the oil industry. It contains many of the excellent energy efficiency provisions in the Energy for Our Future Act introduced by Representative Chris Shays in the House.

My bill is also complementary with the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. We need to pass that bill in order to establish a nationwide cap and trade program for addressing climate change. However, the regulations to implement that could take many years. The legislation I am proposing today will help us take some early action to help achieve the targets in the McCain-Lieberman bill.

I believe the first step toward energy independence is to make better, more efficient use of our current energy supplies. The first title of this bill tackles that issue on several fronts.

It would implement the ``Ten-in-Ten'' legislation I have co-sponsored with Senators Feinstein and Snowe to increase fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2016. It would then go a step further and increase CAFE standards to 45 miles per gallon by 2025. This provision would save approximately 2.5 million barrels of oil per day.

It would help consumers buy more fuel-efficient cars by repealing the phase-out of the tax credit for hybrid vehicles, which is scheduled to sunset at the end of 2009. It would also require light trucks that use diesel fuel to meet more stringent EPA emission standards in order to qualify for the lean-burn credit.

Public transportation is one of the most effective ways we can get more passenger miles per gallon. This legislation would promote the development and use of public transportation by subsidizing fares, encouraging employers to assist their employees with fares, and authorizing funding to build energy-efficient and environmentally friendly modes of transport, such as clean buses and light rail.

It would direct the Department of Transportation to designate 20 Transit-Oriented Development Corridors in urban areas by 2015, and 50 by 2025. These TOD Corridors would be developed with the aid of grants to state and local governments to construct or improve facilities for motorized transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. These provisions would be funded by an authorization of $500 million per year from 2007 through 2016.

We must do more to encourage the development and manufacture of energy-efficient vehicles. This legislation would create a 20-percent investment tax credit for automobile manufacturers, and a fuel economy achievement credit for manufacturers that have a combined fleet fuel economy that exceeds that of their 2005 model year. This credit would begin at 5 percent next year and rise to 50 percent in 2015.

And we must do more to help existing vehicles be as energy efficient as possible. This legislation would direct the DOT to create a National Tire Fuel Efficiency Program that would include tire testing and labeling, energy-efficient tire promotions through incentives and information, and the creation of minimum fuel economy standards for tires. These standards would establish the maximum technically feasible and cost-effective fuel savings without adversely affecting tire safety or average tire life.

Heavy-duty vehicles move our economy. This legislation would keep them on the move while helping to reduce both fuel consumption and emissions.

It would require DOT to develop a testing and assessment program to determine what is feasible to improve the efficiency of heavy vehicles, and then to develop the appropriate fuel-economy standards. It also would provide a tax credit of up to $3,500 for the purchase of idling reduction technology for heavy vehicles.

In order for the Federal Government to lead by example, this legislation would require the Secretary of Energy to issue regulations for federal fleets covered by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to reduce petroleum consumption by 30 percent from a 1999 baseline by 2016.

Title II of my legislation focuses on increasing our energy independence and reducing our emissions from the transportation sector through the use of alternative fuels.

Renewable fuels offer great potential to help us achieve greater energy independence. This legislation would help us realize that potential by establishing a clean, renewable fuels performance standard. The performance standard would require fuel providers to increase the volume of clean, low-carbon, renewable fuels by up to 35 billion gallons by 2025, unless EPA finds that the increase is technically infeasible or is likely to result in adverse impacts.

This legislation would expand existing tax credits for ethanol to include cellulosic biomass. 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.

Researchers at the University of Maine have been at the forefront of applying a research technique known as ``Life Cycle Analysis.'' Life Cycle Analysis is a unique interdisciplinary research tool that analyzes the energy requirements and environmental footprint involved with the manufacture, use, and disposal of a material. This technique is ideal for identifying fuels which have the lowest environmental impact and the greatest potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

My legislation would authorize $275 million over five years for research that would use Life Cycle Analysis in order to identify and develop new biotechnologies. These technologies will help move our petroleum-based economy toward a renewable, sustainable forest bio- economy.

Environmental stewardship must go beyond the tailpipes of our vehicles to the smokestacks of our power plants. Title III of my legislation builds upon the Clean Power Act that I introduced in the last Congress with Senators Jeffords and Lieberman. I have, however, modified this provision to provide assistance to small businesses struggling with high electricity costs. I have also included increased funding for important conservation programs such as Forest Legacy, in order to help wildlife adapt to the impacts of climate change.

This legislation would cut all four major power plant pollutants over the next six years. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which cause smog, acid rain, and asthma attacks, would be cut by 75 percent. Toxic mercury emissions would be cut by 90 percent from 1999 levels, and carbon dioxide, which forms the heat-trapping blanket that contributes to global warming, would be cut to 1990 levels.

These reductions would do more than provide long-term protection for our environment; they also would produce dramatic and immediate health gains for our people. According to the EPA, quick and decisive cuts in nitrogen and sulfur emissions from power plants would save 18,700 lives every year, avoid 366,000 asthma attacks, and prevent $100 billion in health care costs. In addition, these cuts would combat the acid rain that is spoiling some of our Nation's most treasured parks and wilderness areas.

The Centers for Disease Control has concluded that 4.9 million women of childbearing age have elevated levels of mercury, and that 322,000 newborns are at risk of neurological damage from mercury exposure. This provision preserves our national commitment to reduce toxic threats to pregnant women and to children by requiring meaningful reductions and by prohibiting trading.

The Clean Power Act incorporated into this legislation closes the grandfather loophole that exempts dirty, aging power plants from cleanup. Every power plant will be required to meet the most modern pollution control standards by either the plant's 40th year of operation or by the fifth year of the enactment of this legislation.

The Clean Power Act uses market mechanisms, such as buying and selling pollution allowances known as ``emissions trading.'' As I have already stated, under my bill, this trading will not be allowed for toxic mercury. Nor will it be allowed if it enables a power plant to pollute at a level that damages public health or the environment.

Power plants are the largest source of our Nation's contribution to global warming; as I stated earlier, they account for some 40 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions. This legislation would return carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels. By providing electricity producers with regulatory certainty now about future pollution-reduction requirements, this legislation would allow smarter investments and more cost-efficient planning.

As with existing motor vehicles, we must make more efficient use of the energy we now produce to heat our homes and power our lights. This legislation would double funding for the Department of Energy Weatherization Program, reaching $1.4 billion for 2008. It also would provide predictable funding for the valuable Energy Star Program, which helps consumers buy 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.

This legislation also includes an Energy Efficiency Performance Standard for utilities. This provision requires utilities to achieve energy efficiency improvements. This provision would help consumers save on their electricity bills. By way of example, in California, where a similar provision was employed, utilities achieved energy savings at a cost of around 2-4 cents per kilowatt hour. According to the Alliance to Save Energy, an Energy Efficiency Performance Standard could save consumers $64 billion in net savings, and avoid the need to build 400 power plants, preventing 320 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

In addition, my legislation includes a renewable portfolio standard which would require utilities to generate 20 percent of their electricity from environmentally sound renewable energy sources by the year 2020. For example, biomass electricity generated under this provision must be done using sustainable forest practices.

This legislation will help Americans save on utility bills, and make our tax code fairer, too. Title V would eliminate two major tax credits that benefit large oil and gas companies: tax credits for intangible drilling costs and for excess percentage over cost depletions. This would save the taxpayers billions of dollars over the next five years.

This legislation also would help us better understand and assess climate change. During the last three years, I have had the opportunity to meet in the field with some of the world's foremost climate scientists. I have traveled to Ny-Alesund, Norway, the northernmost community in the world, where I saw the dramatic loss of sea-ice cover and the retreating Arctic glaciers. I have seen the same alarming changes in Alaska. Just a year ago, I went to the other end of the world and met with researchers--including a team from the University of Maine's outstanding Climate Change Institute--in Antarctica. These regions are the canary in the coal mine, and the changes taking place provide a warning we cannot ignore.

Nor can we forestall taking action by arguing over the precise extent of climate change and the human contribution to it. The answer to scientific uncertainty is additional research. Title VI of my legislation would authorize $60 million for abrupt climate change research. Studies suggest that the climate can change dramatically within a very short period of time. An abrupt climate change triggered by the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases could cause catastrophic droughts and floods.

Understanding and predicting climate change are enormous scientific challenges. A great deal more scientific research is necessary in order to better understand the potential risk of abrupt climate change, and this legislation would provide the resources that are so urgently required.

There are few issues of greater concern to my constituents in my home state of Maine than our nation's ongoing and escalating reliance on foreign oil, and the damage our vehicle and power plant emissions are doing to the environment. They bear the brunt of wildly fluctuating and steadily increasing energy prices. They know the harm this dependence causes to our national security, and they know the harm our current energy usage causes to the air they breathe. And although a bone- chilling, winter nor'easter may bring a new round of jokes about the possible benefits of global warming, they know that human-caused climate change is no laughing matter. They know we must be better stewards of our planet.

I believe that all Americans--whether they live in the sunny south or a winter wonderland--share these concerns. They have heard enough talk; they want us to act. Americans deserve to breathe clean air, pay reasonable gasoline and electricity prices, live in a world with a stable climate future, and have the peace of mind that comes with secure energy supplies. The Energy Independence, Clean Air, and Climate Security Act offers a comprehensive, integrated approach to these issues.

In conclusion, let me describe the six titles very briefly.

The first title of my bill would increase energy independence and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by improving the efficiency of our transportation sector. The second title would accomplish similar goals by replacing some gasoline with alternative fuels. The third title would reduce emissions of mercury, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides from powerplants. The fourth title would help to reduce heat and electricity bills and diversify our electricity supply through a combination of energy efficiency and renewable energy provisions. The fifth title would help save taxpayers money through the elimination of certain tax breaks for the oil industry. Finally, the sixth title would authorize $60 million for abrupt climate change research to help us better understand this phenomenon.

I am particularly excited about renewable fuels. I think there is a lot we could do to expand the tax break for ethanol to include cellulosic biomass. There is very exciting research being done at the University of Maine which has been in the forefront of applying a research technique known as ``Life Cycle Analysis,'' which is a tool that analyzes the energy requirements and environmental footprint involved in the manufacture, use, and disposal of a material. It is ideal for identifying fuels which have the lowest environmental impact and the greatest potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while reducing our dependence on foreign oil. This technology will help us move our petroleum-based economy toward a renewable, sustainable, forest bioeconomy.

This is a complex bill. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Energy Independence, Clean Air, and Climate Security Act of 2007. This legislation takes an integrated approach that is much needed and long overdue if we are to address effectively three intertwined issues of crucial importance to our Nation's economy and security and to the health of our people and our planet. I am very pleased to be joined on this legislation by Senator Lieberman, a true leader on energy, climate change, and environmental issues.

The majority leader has announced the Senate may well take up a broad package of energy legislation next week. The bill I am introducing today lays out my own vision of how our Nation can best address its energy problems.

If Mark Twain were with us today, it is not hard to imagine he would rephrase his famous quip about the weather to something along the lines of: Everyone talks about climate change and energy independence, but nobody does anything about it.

Since the actions we take to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, to clean our air, and to reduce our contribution to climate change all affect each other, it is necessary we develop a comprehensive strategy for all three of these challenges.

Indeed, since the oil embargo of 1973, through 17 Congresses and 7 different Presidents, energy efficiency and energy independence have generated a lot

of talk, some pretty good ideas, and a lot of promises but not enough concerted, determined, coordinated action. During these 34 years, our Nation's imports of foreign oil have soared from less than 35 percent to more than 60 percent, leaving us dangerously reliant on unstable regions of the world in order to fuel our Nation and our economy.

In addition to our increased reliance on foreign oil, we are also consuming more and more electricity. As demand puts increasing pressure on supply, electricity prices have soared. In the summer, when air- conditioners struggle to keep up with rising temperatures, we run the risk of blackouts, brownouts, and price spikes.

At the same time, our greenhouse gas emissions have soared, leading to virtually indisputable evidence that human activity is contributing to climate change. In the United States, emissions of the primary greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, have risen more than 20 percent since 1990. Globally, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere now far exceed the natural range over the last 650,000 years. We know this from scientific analyses of ice cores and other evidence.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the increase in greenhouse gas emissions has already increased global temperatures and has likely contributed to more extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods. These emissions will continue to change the climate, causing warming in most regions and likely causing more floods, droughts, and an increase in the intensity of hurricanes.

Climate change is not the only environmental problem caused by fossil fuel use. The quality of our air also suffers. Although we have made some important strides in improving air quality since the 1970s, we have not done enough. Fossil fuel use is the primary cause of mercury pollution, smog, and acid rain that continue to plague our Nation. Indeed, air pollution causes thousands of asthma attacks and costs many lives annually.

The time has come to address our air quality, climate change, high energy prices, and dangerous reliance on foreign oil. The legislation I am introducing today is, I believe, the first Senate bill that would address all these problems in a single, integrated approach. There have been many bills introduced that address one of these problems. This is an attempt to have a comprehensive approach and to recognize that each of these problems affects the other.

My legislation focuses primarily on two sectors of the economy: electricity and transportation. Together, these two sectors account for 73 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. Electricity generation accounts for more than 40 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions. More than 80 percent of these emissions are attributable to coal-fired powerplants. Coal-fired powerplants are also the single largest source of mercury pollution, smog, and acid rain. Between 1990 and 2004, emissions from these sectors increased by 27 percent.

My legislation requires utilities to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, while also addressing the emissions that cause smog, acid rain, and mercury pollution. It includes a renewable portfolio standard which would help to diversify our electricity supplies and energy efficiency resource standards that the Alliance to Save Energy estimates would save consumers, over time, billions of dollars on their electricity bills.

The transportation sector, which relies almost entirely on oil, is not only partly responsible for our dangerous reliance on foreign oil but also accounts for 33 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. My legislation would help to reduce emissions from this sector through a combination of provisions such as CAFE standards for automobiles and heavy-duty trucks, tax incentives for consumers to encourage them to purchase hybrid and alternative fueled vehicles, incentives for manufacturers to produce the next generation of energy-efficient vehicles, and a low carbon fuel standard that will help to replace some gasoline with biofuels. Taken together, these provisions will substantially reduce our reliance on foreign oil, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by hundreds of millions of tons.

I wish to make clear the choice is not between hobbling our Nation's economy and protecting our environment. This legislation is based on the principle that research, development, and implementation of new approaches to energy independence and environmental stewardship will provide a powerful new stimulus for our economy. All too often, we are confronted with proposals to address one issue that only aggravate another problem. The integrated approach I am proposing will help us break through that impasse.

This legislation does not attempt to reinvent the wheel. In fact, it incorporates several good ideas from my colleagues that have been introduced as separate bills, many of which I have cosponsored, such as the Ten-in-Ten and other CAFE bills, the DRIVE Act, and the Clean Power Act. It includes provisions of legislation I have introduced to address abrupt climate change and to eliminate certain tax credits for the oil industry. It contains many of the excellent energy efficiency provisions in the Energy for Our Future Act introduced by Representative Chris Shays in the House.

My bill is also complementary with the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. We need to pass that bill in order to establish a nationwide cap and trade program for addressing climate change. However, the regulations to implement that could take many years. The legislation I am proposing today will help us take some early action to help achieve the targets in the McCain-Lieberman bill.

I believe the first step toward energy independence is to make better, more efficient use of our current energy supplies. The first title of this bill tackles that issue on several fronts.

It would implement the ``Ten-in-Ten'' legislation I have co-sponsored with Senators Feinstein and Snowe to increase fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2016. It would then go a step further and increase CAFE standards to 45 miles per gallon by 2025. This provision would save approximately 2.5 million barrels of oil per day.

It would help consumers buy more fuel-efficient cars by repealing the phase-out of the tax credit for hybrid vehicles, which is scheduled to sunset at the end of 2009. It would also require light trucks that use diesel fuel to meet more stringent EPA emission standards in order to qualify for the lean-burn credit.

Public transportation is one of the most effective ways we can get more passenger miles per gallon. This legislation would promote the development and use of public transportation by subsidizing fares, encouraging employers to assist their employees with fares, and authorizing funding to build energy-efficient and environmentally friendly modes of transport, such as clean buses and light rail.

It would direct the Department of Transportation to designate 20 Transit-Oriented Development Corridors in urban areas by 2015, and 50 by 2025. These TOD Corridors would be developed with the aid of grants to state and local governments to construct or improve facilities for motorized transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. These provisions would be funded by an authorization of $500 million per year from 2007 through 2016.

We must do more to encourage the development and manufacture of energy-efficient vehicles. This legislation would create a 20-percent investment tax credit for automobile manufacturers, and a fuel economy achievement credit for manufacturers that have a combined fleet fuel economy that exceeds that of their 2005 model year. This credit would begin at 5 percent next year and rise to 50 percent in 2015.

And we must do more to help existing vehicles be as energy efficient as possible. This legislation would direct the DOT to create a National Tire Fuel Efficiency Program that would include tire testing and labeling, energy-efficient tire promotions through incentives and information, and the creation of minimum fuel economy standards for tires. These standards would establish the maximum technically feasible and cost-effective fuel savings without adversely affecting tire safety or average tire life.

Heavy-duty vehicles move our economy. This legislation would keep them on the move while helping to reduce both fuel consumption and emissions.

It would require DOT to develop a testing and assessment program to determine what is feasible to improve the efficiency of heavy vehicles, and then to develop the appropriate fuel-economy standards. It also would provide a tax credit of up to $3,500 for the purchase of idling reduction technology for heavy vehicles.

In order for the Federal Government to lead by example, this legislation would require the Secretary of Energy to issue regulations for federal fleets covered by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to reduce petroleum consumption by 30 percent from a 1999 baseline by 2016.

Title II of my legislation focuses on increasing our energy independence and reducing our emissions from the transportation sector through the use of alternative fuels.

Renewable fuels offer great potential to help us achieve greater energy independence. This legislation would help us realize that potential by establishing a clean, renewable fuels performance standard. The performance standard would require fuel providers to increase the volume of clean, low-carbon, renewable fuels by up to 35 billion gallons by 2025, unless EPA finds that the increase is technically infeasible or is likely to result in adverse impacts.

This legislation would expand existing tax credits for ethanol to include cellulosic biomass. 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.

Researchers at the University of Maine have been at the forefront of applying a research technique known as ``Life Cycle Analysis.'' Life Cycle Analysis is a unique interdisciplinary research tool that analyzes the energy requirements and environmental footprint involved with the manufacture, use, and disposal of a material. This technique is ideal for identifying fuels which have the lowest environmental impact and the greatest potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

My legislation would authorize $275 million over five years for research that would use Life Cycle Analysis in order to identify and develop new biotechnologies. These technologies will help move our petroleum-based economy toward a renewable, sustainable forest bio- economy.

Environmental stewardship must go beyond the tailpipes of our vehicles to the smokestacks of our power plants. Title III of my legislation builds upon the Clean Power Act that I introduced in the last Congress with Senators Jeffords and Lieberman. I have, however, modified this provision to provide assistance to small businesses struggling with high electricity costs. I have also included increased funding for important conservation programs such as Forest Legacy, in order to help wildlife adapt to the impacts of climate change.

This legislation would cut all four major power plant pollutants over the next six years. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which cause smog, acid rain, and asthma attacks, would be cut by 75 percent. Toxic mercury emissions would be cut by 90 percent from 1999 levels, and carbon dioxide, which forms the heat-trapping blanket that contributes to global warming, would be cut to 1990 levels.

These reductions would do more than provide long-term protection for our environment; they also would produce dramatic and immediate health gains for our people. According to the EPA, quick and decisive cuts in nitrogen and sulfur emissions from power plants would save 18,700 lives every year, avoid 366,000 asthma attacks, and prevent $100 billion in health care costs. In addition, these cuts would combat the acid rain that is spoiling some of our Nation's most treasured parks and wilderness areas.

The Centers for Disease Control has concluded that 4.9 million women of childbearing age have elevated levels of mercury, and that 322,000 newborns are at risk of neurological damage from mercury exposure. This provision preserves our national commitment to reduce toxic threats to pregnant women and to children by requiring meaningful reductions and by prohibiting trading.

The Clean Power Act incorporated into this legislation closes the grandfather loophole that exempts dirty, aging power plants from cleanup. Every power plant will be required to meet the most modern pollution control standards by either the plant's 40th year of operation or by the fifth year of the enactment of this legislation.

The Clean Power Act uses market mechanisms, such as buying and selling pollution allowances known as ``emissions trading.'' As I have already stated, under my bill, this trading will not be allowed for toxic mercury. Nor will it be allowed if it enables a power plant to pollute at a level that damages public health or the environment.

Power plants are the largest source of our Nation's contribution to global warming; as I stated earlier, they account for some 40 percent of our carbon dioxide emissions. This legislation would return carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels. By providing electricity producers with regulatory certainty now about future pollution-reduction requirements, this legislation would allow smarter investments and more cost-efficient planning.

As with existing motor vehicles, we must make more efficient use of the energy we now produce to heat our homes and power our lights. This legislation would double funding for the Department of Energy Weatherization Program, reaching $1.4 billion for 2008. It also would provide predictable funding for the valuable Energy Star Program, which helps consumers buy 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.

This legislation also includes an Energy Efficiency Performance Standard for utilities. This provision requires utilities to achieve energy efficiency improvements. This provision would help consumers save on their electricity bills. By way of example, in California, where a similar provision was employed, utilities achieved energy savings at a cost of around 2-4 cents per kilowatt hour. According to the Alliance to Save Energy, an Energy Efficiency Performance Standard could save consumers $64 billion in net savings, and avoid the need to build 400 power plants, preventing 320 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

In addition, my legislation includes a renewable portfolio standard which would require utilities to generate 20 percent of their electricity from environmentally sound renewable energy sources by the year 2020. For example, biomass electricity generated under this provision must be done using sustainable forest practices.

This legislation will help Americans save on utility bills, and make our tax code fairer, too. Title V would eliminate two major tax credits that benefit large oil and gas companies: tax credits for intangible drilling costs and for excess percentage over cost depletions. This would save the taxpayers billions of dollars over the next five years.

This legislation also would help us better understand and assess climate change. During the last three years, I have had the opportunity to meet in the field with some of the world's foremost climate scientists. I have traveled to Ny-Alesund, Norway, the northernmost community in the world, where I saw the dramatic loss of sea-ice cover and the retreating Arctic glaciers. I have seen the same alarming changes in Alaska. Just a year ago, I went to the other end of the world and met with researchers--including a team from the University of Maine's outstanding Climate Change Institute--in Antarctica. These regions are the canary in the coal mine, and the changes taking place provide a warning we cannot ignore.

Nor can we forestall taking action by arguing over the precise extent of climate change and the human contribution to it. The answer to scientific uncertainty is additional research. Title VI of my legislation would authorize $60 million for abrupt climate change research. Studies suggest that the climate can change dramatically within a very short period of time. An abrupt climate change triggered by the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases could cause catastrophic droughts and floods.

Understanding and predicting climate change are enormous scientific challenges. A great deal more scientific research is necessary in order to better understand the potential risk of abrupt climate change, and this legislation would provide the resources that are so urgently required.

There are few issues of greater concern to my constituents in my home state of Maine than our nation's ongoing and escalating reliance on foreign oil, and the damage our vehicle and power plant emissions are doing to the environment. They bear the brunt of wildly fluctuating and steadily increasing energy prices. They know the harm this dependence causes to our national security, and they know the harm our current energy usage causes to the air they breathe. And although a bone- chilling, winter nor'easter may bring a new round of jokes about the possible benefits of global warming, they know that human-caused climate change is no laughing matter. They know we must be better stewards of our planet.

I believe that all Americans--whether they live in the sunny south or a winter wonderland--share these concerns. They have heard enough talk; they want us to act. Americans deserve to breathe clean air, pay reasonable gasoline and electricity prices, live in a world with a stable climate future, and have the peace of mind that comes with secure energy supplies. The Energy Independence, Clean Air, and Climate Security Act offers a comprehensive, integrated approach to these issues.

In conclusion, let me describe the six titles very briefly.

The first title of my bill would increase energy independence and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by improving the efficiency of our transportation sector. The second title would accomplish similar goals by replacing some gasoline with alternative fuels. The third title would reduce emissions of mercury, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides from powerplants. The fourth title would help to reduce heat and electricity bills and diversify our electricity supply through a combination of energy efficiency and renewable energy provisions. The fifth title would help save taxpayers money through the elimination of certain tax breaks for the oil industry. Finally, the sixth title would authorize $60 million for abrupt climate change research to help us better understand this phenomenon.

I am particularly excited about renewable fuels. I think there is a lot we could do to expand the tax break for ethanol to include cellulosic biomass. There is very exciting research being done at the University of Maine which has been in the forefront of applying a research technique known as ``Life Cycle Analysis,'' which is a tool that analyzes the energy requirements and environmental footprint involved in the manufacture, use, and disposal of a material. It is ideal for identifying fuels which have the lowest environmental impact and the greatest potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions while reducing our dependence on foreign oil. This technology will help us move our petroleum-based economy toward a renewable, sustainable, forest bioeconomy.

This is a complex bill. I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues.

Mr. President, it is a great pleasure to offer my heartfelt congratulations to Senator Ted Stevens on becoming the longest serving Republican in Senate history. While this is a milestone to celebrate, the true cause for celebration is not Ted Stevens' decades of service to his party or to this Chamber but his lifetime of service to our Nation.

It is a record of service that began long before Ted Stevens came to the Senate nearly four decades ago, long before his contributions in the Alaska Legislature in the earliest days of statehood, long before he helped establish our 49th State at the Department of the Interior during President Eisenhower's administration. At just 19 years of age, with his country under attack and freedom in jeopardy around the world, Ted Stevens joined the Army Air Corps in 1943, flying support missions for the legendary Flying Tigers. That courage to take the risks and that willingness to step forward to meet the challenges are the foundation of his character and of his service.

I have been privileged to work alongside this Senator on the Homeland Security Committee. On every issue we confront, Ted Stevens demonstrates great knowledge and a total commitment to protecting our Nation and our people.

Alaska and Maine are separated by a great many miles, but our two States have much in common, including spectacular scenery, and rugged, self-reliant people. Our States also share a connection to the sea that is central to our history and our future. From the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976 to his work to better protect marine mammals, Ted Stevens demonstrates again and again a deep commitment to the hard-working people who sustain countless coastal communities and an abiding respect for the natural resources that bless us all.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the H-1B Visa Fraud Prevention Act of 2007.

Many American businesses rely on the H-1B visa program. When employers can demonstrate that there are too few U.S. workers to fill particular positions with defined education and skills standards, the program allows temporary, non-immigrant workers to fill vacancies in engineering, sciences, medicine, health, and other specialties.

The program is of considerable benefit to our economy. Unfortunately, there has been a long history of some unscrupulous employers attempting to abuse the H-1B program. Last fall, the Portland Press Herald newspaper in Maine printed a three-part series resulting from its in- depth investigation of H-1B abuses.

The newspaper found evidence of shell companies filing applications for H-1B visas in Maine, but no evidence of H-1B visa holders actually working for those businesses in Maine. One company rented office space in Portland for a year and submitted at least 160 H-1B and green-card applications on behalf of foreign workers, but the building manager never saw anyone there, and was asked to forward all mail to an address in New Jersey.

This legislation will help detect and prevent the kind of fraud identified by the Portland Press Herald.

Before I describe the details of my legislation, I want to acknowledge the

leadership of Senators Grassley, Durbin, Gregg, Hagel, and Lieberman on this issue. They have also drafted bills aimed at reforming the H-1B visa issuance process as well as expanding the number of H-1B visas. My hope is that we can join forces to craft an amendment to the immigration bill that will curb the fraud afflicting this program.

Specifically, my legislation is targeted at detecting employers who do not have legitimate business operations that require H-1B workers and who intend only to transfer the H-1B workers they receive to another employer. This bill prohibits employers from contracting their H-1B workers to an employer in a different State.

The Portland Press Herald's investigation showed that some employers may have filed for H-1B workers in Maine in order to take advantage of a lower prevailing wage, then transferred those employees to States where a higher prevailing wage would have been required on the H-1B application.

The legislation I am proposing would remove onerous restrictions on the Department of Labor's ability to investigate suspected fraud. It would allow the Department to investigate applications that have clear indicators of fraud or misrepresentation, instead of merely checking for completeness and obvious inaccuracies, as current law provides.

It also would expand the types of information that can be used to investigate fraudulent activity and eliminate a requirement that the Secretary of the Department of Labor personally approve each investigation. In addition, to further deter companies from filing fraudulent applications, the legislation would double the current monetary penalties.

Preventing H-1B fraud and abuse also requires that the Department of Labor work more closely with the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, which is the agency that ultimately approves an H-1B visa application. To that end, this legislation requires the Director of USCIS to share with Labor information it receives from employers who file H-1B visa applications that may indicate noncompliance with the H-1B visa program.

USCIS has taken first steps to detect fraud in other types of visas. For example, last July USCIS completed an assessment of religious- worker benefit fraud that showed fraud in one-third of the cases surveyed. From these surveys, USCIS developed known indicators of fraud for religious-worker visas that it can now compare against incoming applications.

USCIS began a similar assessment of benefit fraud for H-1B visas nearly a year ago. It is not yet completed, despite repeated inquiries by my staff on its status. This legislation requires completion of the H-1B fraud assessment within 30 days, so that USCIS can begin using this valuable tool to uncover fraud in other H-1B applications.

This legislation fills gaps in our ability to ensure that H-1B visas are granted and used in the manner Congress intended. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal as we consider immigration-reform legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the H-1B Visa Fraud Prevention Act of 2007.

Many American businesses rely on the H-1B visa program. When employers can demonstrate that there are too few U.S. workers to fill particular positions with defined education and skills standards, the program allows temporary, non-immigrant workers to fill vacancies in engineering, sciences, medicine, health, and other specialties.

The program is of considerable benefit to our economy. Unfortunately, there has been a long history of some unscrupulous employers attempting to abuse the H-1B program. Last fall, the Portland Press Herald newspaper in Maine printed a three-part series resulting from its in- depth investigation of H-1B abuses.

The newspaper found evidence of shell companies filing applications for H-1B visas in Maine, but no evidence of H-1B visa holders actually working for those businesses in Maine. One company rented office space in Portland for a year and submitted at least 160 H-1B and green-card applications on behalf of foreign workers, but the building manager never saw anyone there, and was asked to forward all mail to an address in New Jersey.

This legislation will help detect and prevent the kind of fraud identified by the Portland Press Herald.

Before I describe the details of my legislation, I want to acknowledge the

leadership of Senators Grassley, Durbin, Gregg, Hagel, and Lieberman on this issue. They have also drafted bills aimed at reforming the H-1B visa issuance process as well as expanding the number of H-1B visas. My hope is that we can join forces to craft an amendment to the immigration bill that will curb the fraud afflicting this program.

Specifically, my legislation is targeted at detecting employers who do not have legitimate business operations that require H-1B workers and who intend only to transfer the H-1B workers they receive to another employer. This bill prohibits employers from contracting their H-1B workers to an employer in a different State.

The Portland Press Herald's investigation showed that some employers may have filed for H-1B workers in Maine in order to take advantage of a lower prevailing wage, then transferred those employees to States where a higher prevailing wage would have been required on the H-1B application.

The legislation I am proposing would remove onerous restrictions on the Department of Labor's ability to investigate suspected fraud. It would allow the Department to investigate applications that have clear indicators of fraud or misrepresentation, instead of merely checking for completeness and obvious inaccuracies, as current law provides.

It also would expand the types of information that can be used to investigate fraudulent activity and eliminate a requirement that the Secretary of the Department of Labor personally approve each investigation. In addition, to further deter companies from filing fraudulent applications, the legislation would double the current monetary penalties.

Preventing H-1B fraud and abuse also requires that the Department of Labor work more closely with the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, which is the agency that ultimately approves an H-1B visa application. To that end, this legislation requires the Director of USCIS to share with Labor information it receives from employers who file H-1B visa applications that may indicate noncompliance with the H-1B visa program.

USCIS has taken first steps to detect fraud in other types of visas. For example, last July USCIS completed an assessment of religious- worker benefit fraud that showed fraud in one-third of the cases surveyed. From these surveys, USCIS developed known indicators of fraud for religious-worker visas that it can now compare against incoming applications.

USCIS began a similar assessment of benefit fraud for H-1B visas nearly a year ago. It is not yet completed, despite repeated inquiries by my staff on its status. This legislation requires completion of the H-1B fraud assessment within 30 days, so that USCIS can begin using this valuable tool to uncover fraud in other H-1B applications.

This legislation fills gaps in our ability to ensure that H-1B visas are granted and used in the manner Congress intended. I urge my colleagues to support this proposal as we consider immigration-reform legislation.

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

Mr. President, I shall be very brief, not only because the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia has done a superb job of describing the initiative we have brought before the Senate but also because I have a commitment to testify very shortly before another committee on yet another important issue. But I do wish to comment briefly on one of the provisions that is included in Senator Warner's proposal, a provision I consulted with many of our colleagues on and brought forth to the senior Senator from Virginia and suggested be included. He agreed and has placed it within his amendment.

This provision conditions the release of reconstruction funds to progress on the benchmarks that are included in the Warner-Collins amendment. These benchmarks include making progress on debaathification, making progress in passing and implementing an oil revenues distribution bill, making

progress and producing trained and equipped Iraqi security forces, and overall for the Iraqi Government to make more progress toward the political reconciliation that is absolutely essential to quelling the sectarian violence that now engulfs Baghdad. It includes, therefore, provisions and benchmarks not only on debaathification but also on holding provincial elections, something that would help lead to the integration of more Sunnis into the Government power structures.

It is important that there be consequences for the Iraqi Government if those benchmarks are not met, and the best way is to condition the release of billions of dollars of reconstruction assistance--assistance for which the American taxpayers are footing the bill--on whether the Iraqi leaders are making progress in meeting the benchmarks. If they are not making progress in meeting the benchmarks, then I think we should not release the reconstruction funds. This would have definite consequences, and I believe it is appropriate that we link it to reconstruction funds.

None of us wants to--or very few of us want to cut off the essential training and equipping funds for Iraqi troops, much less American troops. So I do not support an alternative amendment which will be offered today which would simply cut off funds. I don't think that is responsible. That is a disservice to the brave men and women who are fighting so hard in Iraq. I want to make sure our troops have everything they need--the training, the equipment, and the support to carry out their dangerous mission.

I also want to make sure the Iraqi troops have the training and the equipment they need, but I share the frustration of the former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee that we have been training Iraqi troops and equipping them for years, some 300,000 troops, and yet we still find that the Iraqi security forces are not able to take the lead in very many operations, and that is very disturbing to me. It is one of the reasons I strongly support Senator Warner's proposal for an outside review by a distinguished nonpartisan group led by retired GEN Jim Jones to assess the capabilities and the readiness of the Iraqi forces. That is a very important provision as well.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his clarification and that good news about the reception on the House side.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds more.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, my support for our operations in Iraq is neither open- ended nor unconditional. I believe the Warner-Collins amendment takes important steps toward accountability, and I hope it will have the support of the majority of Members in this body.

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

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

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

Senator Snowe and I have introduced this legislation several times in recent years. We do so this year with a renewed sense of urgency, and in sorrow. Just last week, Susan Abraham, a bright and talented 17- year-old high school student from Hampden, ME, lost her life when her car was struck by a heavy truck on Route 9. The truck driver could not see Susan's small car turning onto that two-lane road as he rounded a corner. It was an accident but one that would have been avoided had the truck remained on the interstate highway. Interstate 95 runs less than three-quarters of a mile away, but Federal law prevented the truck from using that modern, divided highway, a highway that was designed to provide ample views of the road ahead.

That preventable tragedy took place almost 1 year to the day after Lena Gray, an 80-year-old resident of Bangor, was struck and killed by a tractor-trailer as she was crossing a downtown street. Again, that accident would not have occurred had that truck been allowed to use I- 95, which runs directly through Bangor.

The problem Maine faces due to the disparity in truck weight limits affects many communities, but it is clearly evident in the eastern Maine cites of Bangor and Brewer. In this region, a 2-mile stretch of Interstate 395 connects two major state highways that carry significant truck traffic across Maine. I-395 affords direct and safe access between these major corridors, but because of the existing Federal truck weight limit, many heavy trucks are prohibited from using this multilane, limited access highway.

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

In June 2004, Wilbur Smiths Associates, a nationally recognized transportation consulting firm, completed a study to examine the impact a Federal weight exemption on nonexempt portions of Maine's Interstate Highway System would have on safety, pavement, and bridges. The study found that extending the current truck weight exemption on the Maine Turnpike to all interstate highways in Maine would result in a decrease of 3.2 fatal crashes per year. A uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways would reduce highway miles, as well as the travel times necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in safety, economic, and environmental benefits. Moreover, Maine's extensive network of local roads would be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Snowe and I have introduced this legislation several times in recent years. We do so this year with a renewed sense of urgency, and in sorrow. Just last week, Susan Abraham, a bright and talented 17- year-old high school student from Hampden, ME, lost her life when her car was struck by a heavy truck on Route 9. The truck driver could not see Susan's small car turning onto that two-lane road as he rounded a corner. It was an accident but one that would have been avoided had the truck remained on the interstate highway. Interstate 95 runs less than three-quarters of a mile away, but Federal law prevented the truck from using that modern, divided highway, a highway that was designed to provide ample views of the road ahead.

That preventable tragedy took place almost 1 year to the day after Lena Gray, an 80-year-old resident of Bangor, was struck and killed by a tractor-trailer as she was crossing a downtown street. Again, that accident would not have occurred had that truck been allowed to use I- 95, which runs directly through Bangor.

The problem Maine faces due to the disparity in truck weight limits affects many communities, but it is clearly evident in the eastern Maine cites of Bangor and Brewer. In this region, a 2-mile stretch of Interstate 395 connects two major state highways that carry significant truck traffic across Maine. I-395 affords direct and safe access between these major corridors, but because of the existing Federal truck weight limit, many heavy trucks are prohibited from using this multilane, limited access highway.

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

In June 2004, Wilbur Smiths Associates, a nationally recognized transportation consulting firm, completed a study to examine the impact a Federal weight exemption on nonexempt portions of Maine's Interstate Highway System would have on safety, pavement, and bridges. The study found that extending the current truck weight exemption on the Maine Turnpike to all interstate highways in Maine would result in a decrease of 3.2 fatal crashes per year. A uniform truck weight limit of 100,000 pounds on Maine's interstate highways would reduce highway miles, as well as the travel times necessary to transport freight through Maine, resulting in safety, economic, and environmental benefits. Moreover, Maine's extensive network of local roads would be better preserved without the wear and tear of heavy truck traffic.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are now in morning business; is that correct?

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 1369 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would provide immunity to individuals who report suspicious activities that may reflect terrorist threats to our transportation system. I am very honored that Senators Kyl and Lieberman have joined me in introducing this important bill.

The recent arrest in New Jersey of six men charged with conspiring to murder American soldiers at Fort Dix underscores the need for this bill. Law enforcement officials have noted that their investigation was triggered by the report of an alert store clerk who said a customer had brought in a video that showed men firing weapons and shouting in Arabic. This reminded the store clerk of the 9/11 terrorists.

But for the report of this store clerk, it is unlikely this potential plot against Fort Dix--a plot that if executed would have caused the loss of lives--would have been uncovered. That store clerk's action may have saved literally hundreds of lives and represents a core truth of the dangerous times in which we live. Our safety depends on more than just police officers, intelligence analysts, and soldiers. It also depends on the alertness and civil responsibility of ordinary American citizens, including the peaceful and tolerant people who form the vast majority of America's Muslim communities.

We must encourage average citizens to be watchful and report behavior that appears to be suspicious or threatening. That imperative is especially strong in the area of mass transportation, where there is the potential for mass casualties, where vehicles and aircraft can be used as weapons, and where there is often only a brief period of time for assessing and reacting to alarming behavior. That is why the slogan ``See something, say something,'' is used in the New York subway.

Unfortunately, we have seen that plaintiffs can misuse our legal system to chill the willingness of average citizens to come forward and report possible dangers. As was widely reported last fall, six Islamic clerics were removed from a USAirways flight after other passengers expressed concerns that some of the clerics had moved out of their assigned seats and had requested, but apparently were not using, seatbelt extenders that could possibly double as weapons.

As a result of that incident, what happened? Well, the USAirways officials decided to remove these individuals from the plane so they could further investigate. What happened to the individuals who courageously came forward and reported this suspicious behavior? Unbelievably, they were sued for voicing their fears that the clerics could be rehearsing or preparing to execute a hijacking. These honestly concerned passengers found themselves as defendants in lawsuits that were filed in March.

The existence of this lawsuit clearly illustrates how unfair it is to allow private citizens to possibly be intimidated into silence by the threat of litigation. Would that alert clerk in the store have come forward if he thought there was a chance he was going to be sued? Would the passengers have spoken up if they had anticipated there would be a lawsuit filed against them? Even if such suits fail, they can expose citizens to heavy costs in time and legal fees.

Our bill would provide civil immunity in American courts for citizens

acting in good faith who report threats to our transportation systems.

The bill would encourage people to pass on information to appropriate transportation system officials and employees, to law enforcement or transportation security officials, or to the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, or Transportation, without fear of being sued just for doing their civic duty.

Only disclosures made to those responsible officials and employees would be protected by the legislation's grant of immunity. Once a report is received, those officials would be responsible for assessing its reasonableness and determining whether further action is required. If these officials take reasonable action to mitigate the reported threat, they, too, would be protected from lawsuits. Just as we should not discourage reporting suspicious incidents, we also should not discourage reasonable responses to them.

Let me make very clear this bill does not offer any protection whatsoever if an individual makes a statement that he or she knows to be false. No one will be able to use this bill, should it become law, as I hope it will, as a cover for mischievous, vengeful, or biased falsehoods.

Our laws and legal system must not be hijacked to intimidate people into silence or to prevent our officials from responding to terrorist threats. Protecting citizens who make good-faith reports--and that is an important qualification in this bill--protecting citizens who make good-faith reports of potentially lethal activities is essential to maintaining our homeland security.

Our bill offers protection in a measured way, that discourages abuses from either side. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Senator Lieberman and I have been holding a series of hearings, starting last year, in the Homeland Security Committee, to look at the threat of home-grown terrorists, domestic radicalization. We have learned a lot in the past 6 months. What we have learned has only strengthened my determination to push ahead with this bill.

The fact is, each of us has an important responsibility. The fight against domestic terrorism--or, indeed, any kind of terrorism--requires the active involvement of the citizenry of this country. It is not a fight that can be left simply to law enforcement. We simply could never have a sufficient number of law enforcement or intelligence officials to take care of every threat. Indeed, the foiled threat at Fort Dix shows us how important citizen involvement is.

I think this is a reasonable bill. It requires this immunity would be granted only for reports made in good faith. This would help encourage passengers on airlines and on trains to report suspicious activities. I think that is a necessary protection in this day and age.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would provide immunity to individuals who report suspicious activities that may reflect terrorist threats to our transportation system. I am very honored that Senators Kyl and Lieberman have joined me in introducing this important bill.

The recent arrest in New Jersey of six men charged with conspiring to murder American soldiers at Fort Dix underscores the need for this bill. Law enforcement officials have noted that their investigation was triggered by the report of an alert store clerk who said a customer had brought in a video that showed men firing weapons and shouting in Arabic. This reminded the store clerk of the 9/11 terrorists.

But for the report of this store clerk, it is unlikely this potential plot against Fort Dix--a plot that if executed would have caused the loss of lives--would have been uncovered. That store clerk's action may have saved literally hundreds of lives and represents a core truth of the dangerous times in which we live. Our safety depends on more than just police officers, intelligence analysts, and soldiers. It also depends on the alertness and civil responsibility of ordinary American citizens, including the peaceful and tolerant people who form the vast majority of America's Muslim communities.

We must encourage average citizens to be watchful and report behavior that appears to be suspicious or threatening. That imperative is especially strong in the area of mass transportation, where there is the potential for mass casualties, where vehicles and aircraft can be used as weapons, and where there is often only a brief period of time for assessing and reacting to alarming behavior. That is why the slogan ``See something, say something,'' is used in the New York subway.

Unfortunately, we have seen that plaintiffs can misuse our legal system to chill the willingness of average citizens to come forward and report possible dangers. As was widely reported last fall, six Islamic clerics were removed from a USAirways flight after other passengers expressed concerns that some of the clerics had moved out of their assigned seats and had requested, but apparently were not using, seatbelt extenders that could possibly double as weapons.

As a result of that incident, what happened? Well, the USAirways officials decided to remove these individuals from the plane so they could further investigate. What happened to the individuals who courageously came forward and reported this suspicious behavior? Unbelievably, they were sued for voicing their fears that the clerics could be rehearsing or preparing to execute a hijacking. These honestly concerned passengers found themselves as defendants in lawsuits that were filed in March.

The existence of this lawsuit clearly illustrates how unfair it is to allow private citizens to possibly be intimidated into silence by the threat of litigation. Would that alert clerk in the store have come forward if he thought there was a chance he was going to be sued? Would the passengers have spoken up if they had anticipated there would be a lawsuit filed against them? Even if such suits fail, they can expose citizens to heavy costs in time and legal fees.

Our bill would provide civil immunity in American courts for citizens

acting in good faith who report threats to our transportation systems.

The bill would encourage people to pass on information to appropriate transportation system officials and employees, to law enforcement or transportation security officials, or to the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, or Transportation, without fear of being sued just for doing their civic duty.

Only disclosures made to those responsible officials and employees would be protected by the legislation's grant of immunity. Once a report is received, those officials would be responsible for assessing its reasonableness and determining whether further action is required. If these officials take reasonable action to mitigate the reported threat, they, too, would be protected from lawsuits. Just as we should not discourage reporting suspicious incidents, we also should not discourage reasonable responses to them.

Let me make very clear this bill does not offer any protection whatsoever if an individual makes a statement that he or she knows to be false. No one will be able to use this bill, should it become law, as I hope it will, as a cover for mischievous, vengeful, or biased falsehoods.

Our laws and legal system must not be hijacked to intimidate people into silence or to prevent our officials from responding to terrorist threats. Protecting citizens who make good-faith reports--and that is an important qualification in this bill--protecting citizens who make good-faith reports of potentially lethal activities is essential to maintaining our homeland security.

Our bill offers protection in a measured way, that discourages abuses from either side. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Senator Lieberman and I have been holding a series of hearings, starting last year, in the Homeland Security Committee, to look at the threat of home-grown terrorists, domestic radicalization. We have learned a lot in the past 6 months. What we have learned has only strengthened my determination to push ahead with this bill.

The fact is, each of us has an important responsibility. The fight against domestic terrorism--or, indeed, any kind of terrorism--requires the active involvement of the citizenry of this country. It is not a fight that can be left simply to law enforcement. We simply could never have a sufficient number of law enforcement or intelligence officials to take care of every threat. Indeed, the foiled threat at Fort Dix shows us how important citizen involvement is.

I think this is a reasonable bill. It requires this immunity would be granted only for reports made in good faith. This would help encourage passengers on airlines and on trains to report suspicious activities. I think that is a necessary protection in this day and age.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for not to exceed 10 minutes.

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 1329 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, I don't know if the Presiding Officer has ever visited Acadia National Park along the coast of Maine. It is an extraordinary place, a place of special beauty. I rise today to introduce the Acadia National Park Improvement Act Of 2007, with the senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe, as my cosponsor.

This legislation would take important steps to ensure the long-term health of one of America's most beloved national parks. It would increase the land acquisition ceiling at Acadia by $10 million, facilitate an off-site intermodal transportation center for the Island Explorer bus system, and extend the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission.

In drafting this legislation, I have worked very closely with park officials and also with Friends of Acadia, a nonprofit community organization that works hard to support the park.

A little background might be helpful. In 1986, Congress enacted legislation designating the boundary of Acadia National Park. Many private lands were, however, contained within the permanent authorized boundary. Congress authorized the park to spend a little over $9 million to acquire those lands from willing sellers.

While all of that money has now been spent, rising land prices have prevented the money from going as far as Congress originally intended. There are now more than 100 private tracts left within the official park boundary. Nearly 20 of these tracts are currently available from willing sellers, but the park simply no longer has the funds to purchase them. Our legislation would authorize an additional $10 million to help acquire these lands. I wish to emphasize that the lands already fall within the authorized boundary of the park, so we are not talking about enlarging the boundary of the park but, rather, filling in the holes at Acadia.

Our legislation would also facilitate the development of an intermodal transportation center as part of the Island Explorer bus system. The Island Explorer has been extremely successful over its first 7 years. These low-emission, propane-powered vehicles have carried more than 1.5 million riders since 1999. In doing so, they have removed hundreds of thousands of vehicles from the park and significantly reduced pollution. Unfortunately, the system lacks a central parking and bus boarding area. As a result, day-use visitors do not have ready access to the Island Explorer.

My legislation would further facilitate the Department of Interior's assistance in planning, construction, and operation of an intermodal transportation center in Trenton, ME. Mr. President, $7 million for this center was included in the 2005 highway bill at the request of Senator Snowe and myself. This will include parking for day uses of the park center, a visitor orientation facility highlighting park and regional points of interest, a bus boarding area, and a bus maintenance garage. This center, which will be built in partnership with the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Maine Department of Transportation, and other partners, will reduce traffic congestion, preserve park resources, enhance the visitor experience, and ensure a vibrant tourist economy.

Finally, our legislation would extend the 16-member Acadia National Park Advisory Commission for an additional 20-year period. This Commission was created by the Congress back in 1986, and, regrettably, it expired last year. The Commission consists of three Federal representatives, three State representatives, four representatives from local towns, three from the adjacent mainland communities, and three from the adjacent offshore islands. These representatives serving on this Commission have provided invaluable advice related to the management and the development of the park. The superintendent has found it to be very valuable. The Commission has proven its worth many times over, and it deserves to be extended for an additional 20 years. In fact, it probably should just be made permanent.

Acadia National Park is a true gem of the Maine coastline. The park is one of Maine's most popular tourist destinations, with more than 2 million visitors each year. While unsurpassed in beauty, the park's ecosystem is very fragile. Unless we are careful, we risk substantial harm to the very place that Mainers and, indeed, all Americans hold so dear. In 9 years, Acadia will be 100 years old. Age has brought both increasing popularity and greater pressures on this national treasure. By providing an additional $10 million to protect sensitive lands already within the boundary of the park, by expanding the highly successful Island Explorer transportation system, and by extending the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission, this legislation will help to make the park stronger and healthier than ever on the occasion of its centennial anniversary.

I yield the floor.