Floor Statements

Madam President, last night, the Senate unanimously approved S. Res. 185, a resolution I introduced with my colleague from Maryland, Senator Cardin. Our resolution sends a clear message to the Palestinian Authority that any effort to seek unilateral recognition at the United Nations will have serious consequences for future American aid to the Palestinians.

The United States provides nearly $550 million each year in bilateral assistance to the Palestinians. This aid is not an entitlement, particularly at a time when we have an unsustainable debt of some $14 trillion. Rather, this aid is predicated on a good-faith commitment from the Palestinians to the peace process.

By unanimously passing our resolution last evening, the Senate has sent an unmistakable message that efforts by the Palestinians to seek independent statehood outside of direct negotiations with Israel do not reflect good-faith actions toward peace.

Negotiations have been a fundamental principle of the peace process. It was in September of 1993 when Yasser Arafat committed to Israeli Prime Minister Rabin that outstanding issues would be resolved through negotiations. This principle has also underpinned the Oslo Accords, the Road Map for Peace, and other Middle East peace efforts.

We want to see a true and lasting peace between two states--a democratic Jewish State of Israel and a viable democratic Palestinian State. Since 2002, it has been the policy of our country to support a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but the road to peace is through negotiations, not by subverting them and making a unilateral case before the United Nations.

Unfortunately, the United Nations has a well-documented record of being hijacked to chastise Israel, one of America's closest allies. In total, the United States, under Presidents of both political parties, has been forced to veto 11 different U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

I am pleased to note that the current U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, has vetoed the latest U.N. resolution regarding settlements, which, like Palestinian statehood, is the key issue in the peace process. The resolution passed by the Senate urges the President to maintain this strong position and to announce his unwavering intent to veto any resolution that is not the result of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

I wish to thank Senator Cardin for working with me in drafting this resolution. When Senator Cardin and I first discussed introducing this measure, the Palestinian Authority had not yet agreed to establish a unity government with Hamas--a truly disastrous decision. That action has made it all that much more critical that the Senate be firmly on record that aid to the Palestinians is now in jeopardy. If Hamas continues to reject negotiations or peace with Israel, we must suspend this assistance.

During his address before a joint session of Congress in March, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu succinctly described the heart of the matter. He said:

This conflict has never been about the establishment of a

Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of

the Jewish state.

We must remember those words.

We must also never forget that Hamas is responsible for the deaths of more than 500 innocent civilians, including two dozen American citizens. It has been designated by our government as a foreign terrorist organization and a specially designated terrorist organization.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has made it clear that the United States will not fund a Palestinian Government that includes Hamas unless and until Hamas renounces violence, recognizes Israel, and agrees to abide by the previous obligation of the Palestinian Authority. I urge the administration to suspend aid until such time as Hamas demonstrates a clear commitment to following these principles.

Madam President, let me also thank the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kerry and Senator Lugar, for discharging this resolution so that it could be considered and passed by the full Senate before our Fourth of July recess. The passage of this resolution could not have been more timely.

According to press reports, the Palestinian delegation has made the rounds with nearly a dozen delegations in New York this week to build support for their bid to have a United Nations-recognized state. Palestinian Ambassadors from around the world are meeting in July to discuss their plans in Madrid. They have been instructed to cancel vacations because of the importance of this coming period.

I submit that if the Palestinians were only willing to invest as much energy into the peace process with Israel as they have into this ill- advised rush to the United Nations, we could see the beginnings of a genuine and lasting peace in the region. I do not know if the Palestinians will have the support among the 192 members of the U.N. General Assembly. However, the Palestinians must understand that the cost of seeking such a vote will seriously jeopardize U.S. financial assistance and that is evident from the 88 Members of the Senate who cosponsored the important resolution that was unanimously passed last evening.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank everybody for their cooperation. We worked long and hard on this bill. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. He raises an excellent point. I thank the majority leader. I thank Senator Alexander and Senator Schumer, who are the chief sponsors of this bill, and Senator Lieberman. I am very glad we were able to work out this agreement and that we will be able to have final votes on the amendments and final passage tomorrow.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, Lubec, ME, is the easternmost town in the United States, the place where the rising Sun first shines on America. That unique geographic location has special meaning in this, Lubec's bicentennial year. Today, as they have for two centuries, the people of Lubec greet every day with the optimism and determination each dawn brings.

Located on a slender peninsula that separates Passamaquoddy Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, Lubec is more than a town on the sea. It is a town of the sea. Its 95 miles of shoreline once were lined with cargo-filled docks, shipyards, sail makers, canneries, smokehouses, and tide-powered sawmills. Its namesake, Lubeck, Germany, was chosen to emulate that ancient seafaring city's role as a center of open and free trade. The magnificent sea captain homes throughout the town stand as monuments to Lubec's role as an early hub of America's global commerce.

Now, it is a shoreline of aquaculture pens, lobster traps, and urchin and scallop boats. For those seeking a genuine downeast Maine experience, the

former ``Sardine Capital of the World'' has become an outdoor recreation paradise, an ecotourism destination, and a haven for artists. The West Quoddy Lighthouse, with its iconic red and white stripes, is recognized the world over. The Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Bridge, the link to Campobello Island, New Brunswick, gives Lubec an international flavor.

The town of Lubec was incorporated on June 21, 1811, but its origins lie in prehistory. For 12,000 years before the first European settlers arrived, the land was home to the Passamaquoddy Tribe, and the original ``People of the Dawn'' still are part of the community today.

Lubec is a town of the first light and of the first patriots. One early settler was Colonel John Allan who in 1777 was charged by General George Washington with defending the remote yet vital region. He repelled a British amphibious invasion and forged an alliance for liberty with the Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, and Micmac tribes. Another early resident was Hopley Yeaton, who served in the Continental Navy. In 1790, he was appointed by President George Washington as the first commissioned officer in our young Nation's maritime security and safety service--he is known today as the ``Father of the United States Coast Guard.''

During the War of 1812, Lubec stood strong against a British occupation just 2 miles across the bay. In the Civil War, 200 young men--one-eighth of the town's entire population--answered the call of freedom. Lubec's commitment reaches from the front lines to the home front--during World War II, the workers at the R.J. Peacock Canning Company received a special citation from the War Food Department for their untiring efforts and patriotic service.

And the town has found itself on the front lines in the conflicts of our time. On September 11, 2001, Jackie and Robert Norton were flying to California for a family wedding. They perished at the World Trade Center. The people of Lubec will always remember those dear neighbors who, from their beautiful gardens to their community service, gave so much to the town.

The spirit of Lubec is exemplified in the life of Myron Avery. From the tiny North Lubec Grammar School and the village high school, he went on to Bowdoin College and Harvard Law School to become a jurist of national renown. He served our Nation in both world wars as a Navy officer. In between, he turned the vision of the Appalachian Trail into reality and was the first to hike its entire 2,000 miles in one effort, from Georgia to Maine. Commitment to service, reverence for nature, and building for the future--that is the spirit of Lubec.

On this Fourth of July, Lubec, ME, will hold its Grand Bicentenary Jubilee. It will be a day of great food, music, and fun. It will be a day for the people of this wonderful town to look back at the past two centuries with pride, and to look ahead at the century to come with optimism and determination.

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

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be equally allocated to both sides.

Mr. President, I just wish to indicate my support for the amendment offered by the Senator from Louisiana.

Although it is drafted a little differently than I would have done it, it does address a real problem; that is, when the President--this President or any President--creates a new position within the White House that is duplicative of a Cabinet member's responsibilities, the result is we lose our ability to exercise accountability for the policies that individual comes up with. Let me give you a specific example.

EPA is a Senate-Presidential appointee, Senate-confirmed position, the Administrator of the EPA. Yet President Obama created a position within the White House where there is essentially an environmental czar, and this individual--Carol Browner, who has since left, actually negotiated a deal with the automobile industry having to do with emissions. Well, the problem with that is, it is circumventing Congress's ability to hold accountable the person who is involved in making and coordinating that policy.

What the Senator from Louisiana is trying to get at is the creation of these unaccountable czars within the White House who are doing the job that is supposed to be done by a Cabinet official, by a Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed official.

So I support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to make sure this has been cleared with the Senator from South Carolina?

I have no objection.

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

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

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. President, I am delighted to join with the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, my dear friend Senator Lieberman, in rising today in support of the Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011.

First, let me join Senator Lieberman in commending Senators Schumer and Alexander for their leadership on this bill. Senator Alexander, in particular, has worked so hard on this issue. In fact, I am convinced we would not be where we are today without his persistent leadership. He deserves great credit for his patience and his dogged determination to bring this bill and this issue to the floor. Senators Reid and McConnell also deserve great credit. They made the commitment in January to make reform of the nominations process a priority.

Finally, I wish to recognize Senator Lieberman, the chairman of the committee, on which I have the privilege of being the ranking member. He and I have also been part of what has truly been a bipartisan effort to craft this bill. It is an effort we need to see more often in this Senate if we are to tackle and actually solve the many problems facing our Nation.

This bill before us addresses shortcomings in the process of confirming Presidential appointees without diminishing the constitutional roles of the President or of the Senate. The fact is this is a very modest bill that takes limited but much needed steps to reform the confirmation process. When we look at the full-time positions that now require Senate confirmation, this bill would eliminate only approximately 85 full-time positions, a truly modest number. These positions were selected because either they do not have significant policymaking authority or funding responsibilities or report directly to a Senate-confirmed official.

To be clear, not included in these numbers are almost 3,000 officer corps positions that would no longer require Senate confirmation under this bill. But let me quickly explain exactly what those officer positions are, because when many people hear the words ``officer positions,'' they are going to think the Department of Defense and that would raise the issue of civilian control of the military. Let me say these are not military or Department of Defense positions. Rather, they are members of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Corps of the Department of Commerce.

Apart from these officer corps positions, more than 83 percent of all currently confirmed positions and more than 90 percent of all the full- time positions will continue to require Senate approval under this bill. Let me emphasize that again because, unfortunately, there is some misinformation about this bill. More than 90 percent of the full-time positions in the Federal Government that have required Senate confirmation will continue to require Senate approval under our bill. Furthermore, nothing in this bill limits the ability of Congress to create new Senate-confirmed positions in the future. It may be that there is a new department created someday or a new position that is very important. The Senate can choose to exercise its will to make those new positions subject to Senate confirmation.

The companion standing order reported by the Rules Committee proposes that some additional 240 positions go through a new expedited confirmation process. Although that resolution is not now before us, it will be, I hope, shortly after we conclude our work on this bill. So I wish to explain briefly what the process would be under that resolution.

That expedited process would still require nominees to respond to all committee questionnaires and would still

provide the opportunity for closer scrutiny of a nominee if requested by a single Senator--any Senator. The confirmation process must be thorough enough for the Senate to exercise its constitutional duty, but it should not be so onerous as to deter qualified people from public service, particularly when they are being asked to serve as a part-time member of an advisory board.

A letter from three of our former colleagues, one House Member and two Senators, put it well. The bipartisan Policy Center in endorsing this bill sent us a letter that is signed by former Congressmen and Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman, Senator Pete Domenici, and Senator Trent Lott, who of course served as the majority leader of the Senate. Here is what they said, and here is what we heard over and over at the hearing Senator Lieberman and I conducted before our committee. This is the bipartisan Policy Center's conclusion:

Many public spirited people are discouraged from serving in

appointed office because of the length and the extreme

adversarial nature of the confirmation process.

This is an issue the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has been working to address for a long time. In fact, in 2001, when Senator Fred Thompson chaired the committee, we held two hearings focusing on the state of the Presidential appointment process. As a result of those hearings, the committee reported favorably reform legislation. A few of the provisions of that bill were later incorporated into the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which I, along with Senator Lieberman, authored.

Let me give our colleagues some more background, some of which has been covered by the chairman of the committee but I think is important to repeat to counter some misimpressions about this bill that somehow it undermines our constitutional obligations. In fact, the Constitution, in the appointments clause, makes the appointment of senior Federal executive officers a joint responsibility of the President and the Senate. The President determines who in his judgment is best qualified to serve in the most senior and critical positions across the executive branch of our government. Then we, the Senate, exercise our independent judgment to determine if these nominees have the necessary qualifications and character to serve our Nation in these important positions of public trust. But at the same time, the Constitution envisions the appointment of lesser officers by the President alone. Specifically, the Constitution provides that ``Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.'' So that process is spelled out in the Constitution.

The National Commission on the Public Service, commonly known as the Volcker Commission, gathered some very illuminating statistics. They differ a bit from some of the statistics the chairman has given because he is using CRS, but what they show is the enormous increase in the number of positions that are now subject to Senate confirmation and approval.

When President Kennedy came to office, he had just 286 positions to fill that had the titles of Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, and Administrator. But using those titles, there were only 286 when President Kennedy assumed office. By the end of the Clinton administration, there were 914 positions with those titles. Today, according to the Congressional Research Service, there are between 1,200 and 1,400 positions in total that are appointed by the President that require the advice and consent of the Senate. Too often, that large number of positions requiring confirmation leads to long delays in vetting, nominating, and confirming these appointees.

I would also point out that there is a great expense that goes along with this process. Having an FBI background check is expensive. Having our congressional investigators do their own vetting process is expensive. And many a nominee will tell you how expensive it is for the nominee to go through this process. The result of the length of this process is that administrations can go for months without key officials in these many agencies. That is why you will find there is bipartisan support from previous administrations urging us to finally tackle this issue.

The 9/11 Commission found that ``[a]t the sub-cabinet level, there were significant delays in the confirmation of key officials, particularly at the Department of Defense,'' in 2001. It was not until 6 months after President Bush took office that he had his national security team in place. Our enemies take note of that fact. That is what the 9/11 Commission found. And it creates a national security vulnerability that terrorists can and have exploited. We have seen that in the United States, we have seen that in Madrid, that when there is a change in administration, it is a particularly difficult time, particularly if we do not have our appointees in place.

As I have mentioned, Senators Schumer and Alexander have been the bipartisan authors of this bill, which has been cosponsored not only by Senator Lieberman and myself but by members of the leadership of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. But I believe, of all members of the working group, Senator Alexander may have the best perspective. In fact, I believe he does have the best perspective because he is one of the few Members of the Senate who have served as a Cabinet Secretary and as a Senator. He has endured the nominations process himself, and I am sure he will explain what he went through in his comments later, but he will talk about how long it was, that it was 9 months before he had a chief financial officer. It took him 6 months, I believe, to be confirmed, and he could not get his team in place because the process was so bogged down.

The nominations reform bill we take up today removes only 203 positions out of an estimated 1,200 to 1,400 from the Senate confirmation requirement, and most of those positions are part-time advisory board members. I would ask my colleagues, should the Senate really spend its time and its resources confirming 10 part-time members of the National Institute for Literacy Advisory Board? I am not in any way denigrating the work of this board or the people who are willing to serve on it. I am just suggesting that I do not think that board requires our confirmation. What about the National Board of Education Sciences or the National Museum and Library Sciences Board, which has 20 part-time members, all of whom have to be confirmed by the Senate?

Again, I would point out there is a cost involved for my colleagues, and that involves everyone here who is concerned about the amount of money we are spending in the Federal Government. There is a cost to an FBI background investigation. There is a cost to having a sufficient number of staff to go out and do the kinds of background checks and vetting that we do. There is a cost to the nominees involved, who have to fill out all these forms, who have to be very careful that they are divesting themselves of certain assets. And it makes sense for the Office of Government Ethics, which already has a system in place to check for those kinds of conflicts, to not have its work duplicated, and that is what happens now far too often.

This legislation will free the Senate and enable us to focus on those nominees whose jobs are absolutely critical to our Nation, who do have significant policy responsibility, who do have significant control over Federal funds, and that will make a difference. It will also enable the Senate to spend more time on the critical work of how can we best create more jobs in this country, how can we reduce our unsustainable $14 trillion debt, how can we strengthen our homeland security, and how can we conduct more effective oversight of the executive branch. Isn't it a better use of our time to be holding oversight hearings to examine the enormous duplication the Government Accountability Office has found across government that wastes hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of taxpayer dollars, rather than spending our time worrying about the confirmation of 20 part-time members of the National Museum and Library Services Board?

Over the years, our committee has continued to hear from experts on the executive nominations process. In April of this year, we received a letter from the bipartisan Commission to Reform the Federal Appointments Process, which is chaired by our former colleagues, Senators Frist and Robb, as

well as we have heard from the former Director of Presidential Personnel for the Bush administration, Clay Johnson, and the former Chief of Staff for the Clinton administration, Mack McLarty. They wrote--and I think this puts it well--that ``[m]ost everyone agrees the federal appointments process is broken.'' They underscored that the bill before us will help the next administration ``to put in place very early in its first year the . . . people that the new Department heads need to get off to a fast start . . . working effectively with Congress.''

I hope we can agree to undertake the modest reforms we have included in this bill. I hope we do not let this legislation and the Rules Committee resolution get caught up in the turf battles and the power struggles that too often sink good government initiatives in this body. This bill is a step in the right direction and a step we should take together by an overwhelming margin.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, if they have not already been printed in the Record, that letters endorsing the bill from the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Partnership for Public Service, Senator Fred Thompson, former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci, and former Senators Bill Frist and Chuck Robb be printed in the Record.

I thank my colleagues.

Madam President, I am not going to take long at this point. I absolutely support the policy behind the amendment offered by my friend and colleague Senator Coburn. In fact, I am a cosponsor of a stand-alone bill he has on this issue. My concern is that it is a rules change, and the bill before us is not a rules change. It is not a resolution. It is not a rules change. It is legislation.

Coming up after this bill is the second half of the nominations reform package, and that is a rules change that is coming from the Rules Committee.

My suggestion to my colleague and friend from Oklahoma is that his amendment would be better directed to the second half than to this bill. But, again, I am a cosponsor of his stand-alone bill, so it is not that I object to the policy.

I would note for the information of my colleagues, the Congressional Research Service does have concerns about whether it has the resources and the ability to carry out the task the Senator would assign it.

From my many years of working both with GAO and CRS, this sounds to me like a job for GAO, which has the auditors and the experience to do this kind of review and, indeed, has already started due to the good Senator's farsighted amendment which became law to identify duplication.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Feinstein and Coburn supporting an amendment to repeal the ethanol excise tax credit and the ethanol import tariff. These policies are fiscally irresponsible, environmentally unwise, and economically indefensible. Today we have another opportunity to take action to end them.

Historically, our government has helped a product compete in one of three ways: we subsidize it, we protect it from competition, or we require its use. Right now, ethanol may be the only product receiving all three forms of support.

The ethanol tax break is extraordinarily expensive. The Government Accountability Office has found that the tax credit costs American taxpayers a staggering $6 billion annually. This is quite a sum to prop up a fuel that is causing land conversion for corn production, commodity and food prices to rise, and is barely putting a dent in our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. With our amendment, we have the opportunity to immediately save American taxpayers nearly $3 billion for the remainder of 2011 alone.

Ethanol use is mandated under the renewable fuels standard, RFS, which guarantees market for corn ethanol. Collectively, the first generation biofuels industry will receive tens of billions in unnecessary subsidies through the year 2022. If the current subsidy were allowed to continue for five years, the Federal Treasury would pay oil companies at least $31 billion to use 69 billion gallons of corn based ethanol that the RFS already requires them to use. We simply cannot afford to pay the oil industry for following the law.

The data overwhelmingly demonstrate that the costs of the current ethanol subsidies and tariffs far outweigh their benefits. Just last summer, the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University estimated that a 1-year extension of the ethanol subsidy and tariff would lead to only 427 additional direct domestic jobs at a cost of almost $6 billion, or roughly $14 million of taxpayer money per job.

While expanding our capacity to generate alternative, domestic fuel sources is an important step toward becoming less dependent on foreign oil, I have serious concerns about the effects of increased ethanol use. There are other alternative sources of energy that make far more sense.

The energy, agricultural, and automotive sectors are already struggling to adapt to the existing ethanol mandates. I have concerns with the partial waiver issued by the Environmental Protection Agency for the use of E15, a blend of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol. Many residents in my state have already experienced difficulties using gasoline blended with just 10 percent ethanol, finding that it causes problems in older cars, snowmobiles, boats, and lawn mowers. The EPA's E15 waiver fails to adequately protect against misfueling and will add unnecessary confusion at the gas pump for consumers. We simply cannot place so many engines in jeopardy.

These first generation biofuel mandates also present environmental concerns as they could result in energy efficiency losses and increased air pollution because the mechanical failures can jeopardize the effectiveness of engine emission controls.

Over recent years, we have also seen food and feed prices increase as crops have been diverted for the production of corn-based ethanol. We should be raising food crops for food, not for fuel. Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Joe Lieberman and I held a series of hearings in 2008 to examine the impact of corn based ethanol on food prices and we found that it certainly had a negative impact.

The cost of this policy to our Nation and its taxpayers, particularly given our current fiscal crisis, can no longer be ignored. At a time when we are projecting a deficit this year alone of $1.5 trillion, how can we justify spending $6 billion to subsidize ethanol?

I urge my colleagues, especially those who questioned the process used to bring an identical amendment to the floor just a couple days ago, to join me today in supporting the Feinstein-Coburn amendment to repeal these fiscally indefensible corn-based ethanol subsidies.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an amendment to the Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011. In February of this year I introduced a 7-Point Jobs Plan aimed at creating jobs, investing in education and training, assisting small businesses, reinvigorating American manufacturing, and eliminating bureaucratic redtape. Among other things, my bill aims to provide EDA assistance for areas hit hard by job losses, and specifically those communities harmed as a direct consequence of the Base Realignment and Closure, or BRAC, process. The amendment that I am offering today would build on this plan by making it easier for communities affected by the BRAC process to access Federal funding to further their economic development goals and to recover from the loss of jobs.

Currently, most Economic Development Administration, EDA, projects are subject to a 50-percent match; however, the EDA is allowed to increase the Federal share--up to 80 percent--based on the relative need of the area in which the project will be located. The bill being debated would expand the list of circumstances under which the Federal share may be increased. My amendment would simply clarify that communities affected by ``military base closures, realignments, or mission growth'' are among those eligible for a reduced local cost share.

Maine has lost more than 5,000 military and civilian jobs as a result of the unfortunate decision to close Brunswick Naval Air Station. Several other States face similar or even greater losses. The BRAC recommendations, released by the Pentagon in May of 2005, caused Maine and many other States to face a daunting task. All of us across the State and region--political leaders, business leaders, and individual citizens from cities and small towns--worked together to build strong arguments for our bases. While we did have some great success, Maine has suffered a terrible blow with the closing of the Brunswick Naval Air Station. Nevertheless, the State and region's leaders have worked together to ensure that the closure of Brunswick Naval Air Station was accompanied by a commitment to the economic redevelopment of the base in order to lessen the impact of its closure on the entire midcoast region.

The large numbers of workers in Maine, and around the Nation, who have been or will be displaced as a result of a base closure deserve to have access to necessary resources, including job training and job placement services. The EDA, with its mission to promote economic development and stability, should be leveraging taxpayer dollars to assist these struggling communities as we work to lead America to a recovery from the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

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

Mr. President, in the 1930s, the forces of tyranny and oppression seemed to be taking over the world. The American Legion and the American Legion Auxiliary were especially concerned that tyrannical regimes were indoctrinating their young people in hateful ideology, and so they countered with an initiative to better educate young Americans in democracy and leadership. Since then, some 2 million high school students have been delegates to Boys and Girls State programs throughout our Nation. Forty-one years ago, I served as a Dirigo Girls State delegate in my State of Maine, and I will never forget that inspiring week.

Today I wish to recognize Nora Thombs of New Sharon, ME, for her remarkable commitment to this program. When Dirigo Girls State convenes on June 19, Nora will mark her 50th year of involvement. The first year was as a delegate during her high school years. The other 49 have been helping to bring this great experience to other young Maine women. From her early service as a staff volunteer to her current position as director, she has helped forge new generations of involved citizens.

Nora exemplifies the principles that Boys and Girls State instills. Although she never sought elective office, her appreciation of the importance of every person's vote and her knowledge about the process of government made her an effective and respected town meeting moderator, one of the most challenging roles in local government throughout New England. The leadership skills she learned helped her become an outstanding teacher and principal.

But the best evidence of those principles is Nora's dedication to spreading them. As soon as one year's Girls State week concludes, she is hard at work planning the next--working with high schools, recruiting delegates, and arranging for speakers, presentations, and experiences that will inform and inspire.

It is an honor to congratulate Nora Thombs for her 50 years of contributions to Dirigo Girls State. She is proof that the delegates of yesterday are the leaders of today. Thanks to her, the delegates of today will be the leaders of tomorrow.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Coburn and Feinstein in offering an amendment to repeal the ethanol excise tax credit and the ethanol import tariff. These policies are fiscally irresponsible, environmentally unwise, and economically indefensible.

Historically, our government has helped a product compete in one of three ways: either we subsidize it, we protect it from competition, or we require its use. Right now, ethanol may be the only product receiving all three forms of support.

The ethanol tax break is extraordinarily expensive. The Government Accountability Office has found that the tax credit costs American taxpayers a staggering $6 billion annually. This is quite a sum to prop up a fuel that is causing land conversion for corn production, commodity and food prices to rise, and is barely putting a dent in our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

With our amendment, which has an effective date of July 1, we have the opportunity to immediately save American taxpayers nearly $3 billion in just the 6 months remaining in this year.

The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act requires the production of at least 36 billion gallons of biofuels in 2022, up from the original 2005 Energy Policy Act, which required 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. Collectively, the first generation biofuels industry will receive tens of billions in unnecessary subsidies through the year 2022.

If the current subsidy were allowed to continue for 5 years, the Federal Treasury would pay oil companies at least $31 billion to use 69 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol that the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard already requires them to use. We simply cannot afford to pay the oil industry for following the law.

The data overwhelmingly demonstrates that the costs of the current ethanol subsidies and tariffs far outweigh their benefits. The Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University estimated that a 1-year extension of the ethanol subsidy and tariff would lead to only 427 additional direct domestic jobs at a cost of almost $6 billion. That is roughly $14 million of taxpayer money per job.

While expanding our capacity to generate alternative domestic fuel sources is an important step toward becoming less dependent on foreign oil, I have serious concerns about the effects of increased ethanol use. There are other alternative sources of energy that make far more sense.

The energy, agricultural, and automotive sectors are already struggling to adapt to the existing ethanol mandates. I am disappointed the Environmental Protection Agency has issued a partial waiver for the use of E-15, a blend of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol. Many residents in my State have already experienced difficulties using gasoline blended with 10 percent ethanol, finding that it causes problems in older cars, snowmobiles, boats, lawn mowers, and off-the- road vehicles. The EPA's E-15 waiver fails to adequately protect against misfueling and will add unnecessary confusion at the gas pump for consumers. We simply cannot place so many engines in jeopardy.

These first-generation biofuel mandates also present environmental concerns, as they could result in energy efficiency losses and increased emissions of air pollutants because the mechanical failures can jeopardize the effectiveness of mission control devices and systems installed on engines.

In addition, over recent years, we have seen food and feed prices increase as crops have been diverted to first-generation biofuel production. I think of it this way: We should be raising crops for food, not for fuel.

Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Joe Lieberman and I held a series of hearings in 2008 that examined the impact of corn-based ethanol on food prices, and we found that it certainly had a negative impact. For one thing, crops that had been grown to support other grains were being converted to produce corn. The land was being switched to corn production, and the corn was no longer available for the products that used corn for food, but instead was being diverted to the production of ethanol.

The bottom line is that we can no longer ignore the cost of this policy to our Nation and its taxpayers, particularly given our current fiscal crisis. At a time when we are projecting a deficit, this year alone, of $1.5 trillion, why in the world are we spending $6 billion subsidizing ethanol? Subsidizing the blending of corn-based ethanol into gasoline is simply fiscally indefensible.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Coburn-Feinstein amendment to repeal the ethanol excise tax credit and to eliminate the ethanol import tariff.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today along with Senator Carper, I am introducing the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act. This bill would ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has accurate information about the extent of mercury pollution.

A comprehensive national mercury monitoring network is needed to protect human health, safeguard fisheries, and track the impact of emissions reductions. By accurately quantifying regional and national changes in atmospheric deposition, ecosystem contamination, and bioaccumulation of mercury in fish and wildlife in response to changes in mercury emissions, this monitoring network would help policy makers, scientists, and the public to better understand the sources, consequences, and trends in United States mercury pollution.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin of significant ecological and public health concern, especially for children and pregnant women. It is estimated that approximately 410,000 children born in the U.S. were exposed to levels of mercury in the womb that are high enough to impair neurological development. Mercury exposure has gone down as U.S. mercury emissions have declined; however, levels remain unacceptably high.

Each new scientific study seems to find higher levels of mercury in more ecosystems and in more species than we had previously thought. For example, as of 2008, every state in the country has issued mercury advisories for human fish consumption. These advisories cover 57 percent of the Nation's total lake acreage, and 68 percent of our total river miles. This is 19 percent more lake acreage and 42 percent more river area than in 2006.

At present, scientists must rely on limited information to understand the critical linkages between mercury emissions and environmental response and human health. Successful design, implementation, and assessment of solutions to the mercury pollution problem require comprehensive long-term information--information that is currently not available. We must have more comprehensive information and we must have it soon; otherwise, we risk making misguided policy decisions.

Specifically, the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act would direct EPA, in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other appropriate Federal agencies, to establish a national mercury monitoring program to measure and monitor mercury levels in the air and watersheds, water and soil chemistry, and in aquatic and terrestrial organisms at multiple sites across the Nation.

The act would establish a scientific advisory committee to advise on the establishment, site selection, measurement, recording protocols, and operations of the monitoring program; establish a centralized database for existing and newly collected environmental mercury data that can be freely accessed on the Internet; and require a report to Congress every 2 years on the program, including trend data, and an assessment of the reduction in mercury deposition rates that are required to be achieved in order to prevent adverse human and ecological effects every 4 years.

We must establish a comprehensive, robust national mercury monitoring network to provide EPA the data it needs to make decisions that protect the people and environment of Maine and the entire Nation.

Mr. President, today along with Senator Carper, I am introducing the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act. This bill would ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has accurate information about the extent of mercury pollution.

A comprehensive national mercury monitoring network is needed to protect human health, safeguard fisheries, and track the impact of emissions reductions. By accurately quantifying regional and national changes in atmospheric deposition, ecosystem contamination, and bioaccumulation of mercury in fish and wildlife in response to changes in mercury emissions, this monitoring network would help policy makers, scientists, and the public to better understand the sources, consequences, and trends in United States mercury pollution.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin of significant ecological and public health concern, especially for children and pregnant women. It is estimated that approximately 410,000 children born in the U.S. were exposed to levels of mercury in the womb that are high enough to impair neurological development. Mercury exposure has gone down as U.S. mercury emissions have declined; however, levels remain unacceptably high.

Each new scientific study seems to find higher levels of mercury in more ecosystems and in more species than we had previously thought. For example, as of 2008, every state in the country has issued mercury advisories for human fish consumption. These advisories cover 57 percent of the Nation's total lake acreage, and 68 percent of our total river miles. This is 19 percent more lake acreage and 42 percent more river area than in 2006.

At present, scientists must rely on limited information to understand the critical linkages between mercury emissions and environmental response and human health. Successful design, implementation, and assessment of solutions to the mercury pollution problem require comprehensive long-term information--information that is currently not available. We must have more comprehensive information and we must have it soon; otherwise, we risk making misguided policy decisions.

Specifically, the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act would direct EPA, in conjunction with the Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other appropriate Federal agencies, to establish a national mercury monitoring program to measure and monitor mercury levels in the air and watersheds, water and soil chemistry, and in aquatic and terrestrial organisms at multiple sites across the Nation.

The act would establish a scientific advisory committee to advise on the establishment, site selection, measurement, recording protocols, and operations of the monitoring program; establish a centralized database for existing and newly collected environmental mercury data that can be freely accessed on the Internet; and require a report to Congress every 2 years on the program, including trend data, and an assessment of the reduction in mercury deposition rates that are required to be achieved in order to prevent adverse human and ecological effects every 4 years.

We must establish a comprehensive, robust national mercury monitoring network to provide EPA the data it needs to make decisions that protect the people and environment of Maine and the entire Nation.

Mr. President. In early 1981, JoAnn and Ray Pike of Lewiston, ME, became concerned about the growing number of families and elderly in their community who were going hungry. Inspired by a newspaper story about an organization in Kansas City that received food donations from the food industry to distribute to those in need, the Pikes and their home prayer group turned concern into action.

On Palm Sunday of that year, the people of the twin cities of Lewiston-Auburn joined in a walkathon and raised $6,000. The Good Shepherd Food Bank was born. Thirty years later, it serves all 16 Maine counties, providing nourishment and hope to more than 70,000 Maine people each month.

This remarkable story of compassion started small. The first food bank was located in an apartment and garage at the Pike home. Within 8 months, the quantity of donated food outgrew that space and the operation moved to a former textile mill in Lewiston. Today, the food bank has more than 100,000-square feet of warehouse space in Lewiston, Portland, and Brewer, enough to store 12 million pounds of food per year.

At first, a handful of food companies joined this effort. Word of the good work being done in Lewiston quickly spread, and food manufacturers, distributors, and supermarkets throughout Maine stepped forward--more than 200 companies now contribute to the food bank.

Getting so much food to so many people over such a large area is a great challenge. It is a challenge that has been met by volunteers. The Good Shepherd Food Bank has established partnerships with more than 600 organizations throughout Maine--churches, charities, and civic clubs-- that form a vast distribution network. This results in an operation of extraordinary efficiency. For every $1 donated to support food bank operations, $8.50 worth of food is provided.

As a founding member of the Senate Hunger Caucus, I know we have done much here in Washington to ensure food security for all, but that there is more to do. I also know that so much of the real work of helping those in need is done in our communities by caring and dedicated citizens. The Good Shepherd Food Bank of Maine is a shining example of such caring and dedication, and I congratulate this wonderful organization and its many supporters on 30 years of inspiring service.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Keeping Politics Out of Federal Contracting Act of 2011. This bill would prohibit Federal agencies from collecting or using information about political contributions made by businesses or individuals that seek to do business with the Federal Government. My bill would keep politics out of Federal contracting.

I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican Whip Jon Kyl, Rules Committee Ranking Member Lamar Alexander, Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight Ranking Member Rob Portman, as well as our colleagues Senators Scott Brown, Ron Johnson, Jerry Moran, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Mike Enzi, John Cornyn, Richard Burr, Johnny Isakson, David Vitter, John Thune, John Barrasso, Roger Wicker, Mike Johanns, Dan Coats, Roy Blunt, and Kelly Ayotte.

We learned in April that the Obama administration was seriously considering requiring Federal agencies to collect information about campaign contributions by companies, some of their employees, and even their directors as a condition of competing for Federal contracts. This is simply shocking. It amounts to intentionally injecting political considerations into the Federal contracting process. What possible good can come from linking political information to a process which must be grounded solely and unequivocally on providing the very best value to American taxpayers?

The trust of the American people in the integrity of our Federal contract award process depends on ensuring that the government's ``best value'' determination is free from political bias. It is unfathomable that this administration would even consider a move that would inject politics into the process, or create a perception that politics is something to be considered in selecting the winners and losers among businesses vying for Federal contracts.

In addition to threatening the integrity of the procurement process, the draft Executive Order would also chill the First Amendment rights of individuals to contribute to the political causes or candidates they choose.

Were the President to issue such an order, undoubtedly we would see a chilling effect on political activity. Many contractors would fear that the success or viability of their business could be threatened if they support the causes or candidates opposed by the administration.

If the collection of such data were required, American businesses would be forced to think twice before contributing to political candidates or causes.

In true Orwellian fashion, the draft executive order suggests that the only way to keep politics out of the contracting process is to include political information with every contract offer. If the White House gets its way, Federal agencies would have to collect information about the campaign contributions and other political expenditures of potential contractors before any contract could be awarded.

This EO would be far reaching and would apply not only to contributions made by the contracting company but also to those made by its directors, officers, and affiliates.

These requirements would also apply retroactively to contributions made two years before the submission of an offer. Just think about-- political donations made years before a contract is even contemplated would have to be shared with government officials.

By contrast, my bill reaffirms the fundamental principle that federal contracts should be awarded free from political considerations and be based on the best value to the taxpayers. Specifically, the bill would prohibit a Federal agency from collecting the political information of contractors and their employees as part of any type of request for proposal in anticipation of any type of contract.

It would prohibit the agency from using political information received from any source as a factor in the source selection decision process for new contracts, or in making decisions related to modifications or extensions of existing contracts; and prohibit databases designed to be used by contracting officers to determine the responsibility of bidders from including political information, except for information on contractors' violations already permitted by law.

Whether or not a prospective contractor agrees with the political views of this or any other administration should be completely irrelevant.

Businesses that have supported conservative causes or whose directors have contributed to Republican candidates should not have to fear that bidding for Federal work would be a waste of their effort.

Similarly, in the next Republican administration, contributors to Democratic causes and candidates should not be intimidated from competing for contracts. The result of such considerations would be less competition for Federal contracts and thus higher prices for goods and services procured by the Federal Government.

The President and the Federal contracting system must not discourage businesses from competing for government contracts. At a time when the budget is under severe constraints, the administration should be seeking to expand the pool of bidders, not shrink it.

In April, 27 Senators wrote to the President to express our opposition to this ill-conceived proposal. We pointed out that ``political activity would obviously be chilled if prospective contractors have to fear that their livelihood could be threatened if the causes they support are disfavored by the Administration. No White House should be able to review your political party affiliation or the causes you support before deciding if you are worthy of a government contract. And no American should have to worry about whether his or her political activities or support will affect the ability to get or keep a federal contract * * *''

I also joined three other colleagues in a bipartisan letter to the President in May stressing the Executive Order's impact on the Federal contracting process and the already stretched-thin Federal acquisition workforce.

I have not received a response to either letter.

It simply doesn't pass the straight face test for this administration to suggest that this dramatic change in federal contracting is needed to remove politics from the contracting process. In fact, even the administration's chief procurement official recently admitted at a House hearing that there was no evidence of any problem of political corruption in the contracting process that would warrant correction with this type of new Executive Order.

The reality is just the opposite: requiring disclosure of one's political activities and leanings as part of that process would likely ensure that politics would play a role in the award of federal contracts.

If more transparency is truly the goal, why don't these requirements also apply to organizations receiving Federal grants?

In fact, campaign contributions to candidates and political committees already are required to be reported to the

Federal Election Commission, and with a click of a mouse, can be viewed on FEC.gov.

Americans should get the best value in the marketplace and not a partisan policy that stifles First Amendment rights, politicizes the contracting process, and reduces competition in Federal contracting. I am pleased to note that my colleagues in the House of Representatives, Representatives Darrell Issa, Tom Cole, and Sam Graves agree. Today they have introduced an identical measure in that chamber. And last night, the House adopted an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would prohibit Federal agencies from requiring contractors to reveal contributions to political campaigns.

Keep politics out of Federal contracting. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.