Housing Bond and Credit Modernization and Fairness Act of 2003

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Miller, Dole, McCain, Kerry, Chambliss and Specter in introducing the David Jayne Medicare Homebound Modernization Act of 2003 to modernize Medicare's outdated ``homebound'' requirement that has impeded access to needed home health services for many of our Nation's elderly and disabled Medicare beneficiaries.

Health care in America has gone full circle. People are spending less time in institutions, and recovery and care for patients with chronic diseases and conditions have increasingly been taking place in the home. The highly skilled and often technically complex care that our home health agencies provide has enabled millions of our most vulnerable older and disabled individuals to avoid hospitals and nursing homes and stay just where they belong--in the comfort and security of their own homes.

Under current law, a Medicare patient must be considered ``homebound'' if he or she is to be eligible for home health services. While an individual is not actually required to be bedridden to qualify for benefits, his or her condition must be such that ``there exists a normal inability to leave home.'' The statute does allow for absences from the home that are ``infrequent'' or of ``relatively short duration.'' It also gives specific permission for the individual to leave home to attend medical appointments, adult day care or religious services.

Unfortunately, however, the statute does not define precisely what ``infrequent'' or ``relatively short duration'' means. It leaves it to the fiscal intermediaries to interpret just how many absences qualify as ``frequent'' and just how short those absences must be. Interpretations of this definition have therefore varied widely.

As a consequence, there have been far too many instances where an overzealous or arbitrary interpretation of the definition has turned elderly or disabled Medicare beneficiaries--who are dependent upon Medicare home health services and medical equipment for survival--into virtual prisoners in their own home.

The current homebound requirement is particularly hard on younger, disabled Medicare patients. For example, last year I met with David Jayne, a 41-year-old man with Lou Gehrig's disease, who is confined to a wheelchair and cannot swallow, speak or even breathe on his own. Mr. Jayne needs skilled nursing visits each week to enable him to remain independent and out of an inpatient facility. Despite his disability, Mr. Jayne meets frequently with youth and church groups. Speaking through a computerized voice synthesizer, he gives inspirational talks about how the human spirit can endure and even overcome great hardship.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution ran a feature article on Mr. Jayne and his activities, including a report about how he had, with the help of family and friends, attended a football game to root for the University of Georgia Bulldogs. A few days later, at the direction of the fiscal intermediary, his home health agency--which had been sending a health care worker to his home for two hours, four mornings a week-- notified him that he could no longer be considered homebound, and that his benefits were being cut off. While his benefits were subsequently reinstated due to the media attention given the case, this experience motivated him to launch a crusade to modernize the homebound definition and led him to found the National Coalition to Amend the Medicare Homebound Restriction.

The fact is that the current requirement reflects an outmoded view of life for persons who live with serious disabilities. The homebound criteria may have made sense thirty years ago, when an elderly or disabled person might have expected to live in the confines of their home--perhaps cared for by an extended family. The current definition, however, fails to reflect the technological and medical advances that have been made in supporting individuals with significant disabilities and mobility challenges. It also fails to reflect advances in treatment for seriously ill individuals that allow them brief periods of relative wellness.

It also fails to recognize that an individual's mental acuity and physical stamina can only be maintained by use, and that the use of the body and mind is encouraged by social interactions outside the four walls of a home.

The David Jayne Medicare Homebound Modernization Act of 2003 will create an exception to the homebound restriction based on the severity of the patient's functional limitations and clinical condition. The specific, limited exception to the homebound rule would apply to individuals who: one, have been certified by a physician as having a permanent and severe condition that will not improve; two, who will need assistance with three or more of the five activities of daily living, such as eating, dressing and bathing, for the rest of their lives; three, who require technological and/or personal assistance with the act of leaving home; and four, who are only able to leave home because the services provided through the home health benefit makes it possible for them to do so.

We believe that our legislation is budget neutral because it is specifically limited to individuals who are already eligible for Medicare and whose conditions require the assistance of a skilled nurse, therapist or home health

aide to make it functionally possible for them to leave the home. Our legislation does not expand Medicare eligibility--it simply gives people who are already eligible for the benefit their freedom.

This issue was first brought to my attention by former Senator Bob Dole, who has long been a vigorous advocate for people with disabilities, and I ask unanimous consent that the editorial Senator Dole wrote for the Washington Post last summer entitled ``Imprisoned by Medicare'' be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Our proposal is also supported by the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, the Visiting Nurse Associations of America, the National Association for Home Care, Advancing Independence: Modernizing Medicare and Medicaid, AIMM, the National Coalition to Amend the Medicare Homebound Restriction, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Half the Planet Foundation.

Moreover, the David Jayne Medicare Homebound Modernization Act of 2003 is consistent with President Bush's ``New Freedom Initiative'' which has, as its goal, the removal of barriers that impede opportunities for those with disabilities to integrate more fully into the community. By allowing reasonable absences from the home, our legislation will bring the Medicare home health benefit into the 21st Century, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to get it done.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, in introducing this important bill to provide Medicare coverage for laboratory diagnostic tests and other services used to screen for diabetes.

As the founder and co-chair of the Senate Diabetes Caucus, I have learned a great deal about this serious disease and the difficulties and heartbreak that it causes for so many Americans and their families. Diabetes is a devastating, lifelong condition that disproportionately affects the elderly, children and minorities. It is one of our Nation's most costly diseases in both human and economic terms, and is the leading cause of kidney failure, blindness in adults, and amputations not related to injury. Moreover, it is a major risk factor for stroke, heart disease and other chronic conditions. According to a new study released by the American Diabetes Association, diabetes cost our Nation $132 billion last year, and health care spending for people with diabetes is almost double what it would be if they did not have diabetes.

Unfortunately, diabetes frequently goes undiagnosed. Of the more than 17 million Americans who have diabetes, 7 million of whom are 65 and older, it is estimated that as many as one third don't know it. They simply do not know that they have this very serious condition that places them at increased risk of developing devastating and costly complications such as blindness, kidney failure and amputations.

Moreover, an additional 16 million Americans have a newly identified condition known as ``pre-diabetes,'' an increasingly common condition in which blood glucose levels are higher than normal, but not yet diabetic. Pre-diabetes dramatically raises the risk for developing Type 2 diabetes and increases the risk of heart disease by 50 percent. According to research supported by the Department of Health and Human Services, most people with pre-diabetes are likely to develop diabetes within a decade unless their condition is diagnosed and they make the lifestyle changes necessary to reduce their risks for the disease.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson has made diabetes prevention and management a key part of the Bush Administration's broader efforts to encourage a healthier America. As a part of this effort, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services have joined together in a national education campaign to inform people about diabetes and encourage people age forty-five and older to get screened for diabetes.

Unfortunately, however, current law does not allow Medicare to pay for diabetes testing, even for patients with serious risk factors for diabetes, such as obesity, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol. Astoundingly, even if a patient is experiencing early evidence of diabetes complications such as blindness or kidney disease, Medicare will not pay for diabetes testing.

This coverage omission is particularly irrational given the fact that one out of every four Medicare dollars is currently spent on medical care for seniors who are living with diabetes.

Early detection and treatment are essential if we are to improve the quality of life for people with diabetes and prevent or delay the onset of the costly and sometimes deadly complications associated with the disease. We have the technology to identify diabetes even before the onset of any symptoms. These tests have the potential of improving and saving thousands of lives, not to mention countless Medicare dollars. It only makes sense that Medicare should cover them.

Both the American Diabetes Association and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists support our legislation, and I encourage all of our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I am pleased and proud to introduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2003. Congressman Stark is introducing a companion bill in the House.

This legislation is, without a doubt, ambitious. It is a deliberate effort to try to ignite a national commitment to the goal of insuring all of our children. For some, that is an idealistic proposition that does not seem achievable. With this bill, I want to call on the public and my colleagues to consider once again the clear and convincing case for investing the necessary resources in the health of our children-- and therefore, in the well-being of their families and our entire country. The President and Congress continue to talk about their commitment to America's health. This bill challenges them to take action on their rhetoric.

Our children are not only our future, they are also our present. What we do for them today will greatly affect what happens tomorrow. Yet even though we recognize these facts, we still have not found a way to guarantee health coverage for children. Without health insurance, many of these children go without health care all together.

Children are the least expensive segment of our population to insure. They are also the least able to have control over whether or not they have health insurance. Yet we now have over 9 million uninsured children in this country. And with the downturn in the economy and the rising costs of health care, this number will continue rising.

Our success in expanding Medicaid and passing the State Children's Health Insurance Program was a meaningful, significant start at closing the tragic gap represented by millions of uninsured children. However, Congress cannot point to these programs and declare that our work is done. We still have much more to do. The percent of children in low- income families without health insurance has not changed in recent years. Even with perfect enrollment in S-CHIP and Medicaid, there would still be a great number of children without health insurance.

This is partially due to our increasingly mobile society, where parents frequently change jobs and families often move from State to State. When this occurs there is often a lapse in health coverage. Also, families working their way out of welfare fluctuate between eligibility and ineligibility for means-tested assistance programs. Another reason for the number of uninsured children is that the cost of health insurance continues to increase, leaving many working parents unable to afford coverage for themselves or their families. All of this adds up to the fact that many of our children do not have the consistent and regular access to health care which they need to grow up healthy.

That is why I am re-introducing the MediKids Health Insurance Act. This bill would automatically enroll every child at birth into a new, comprehensive Federal safety net health insurance program beginning in 2004. The benefits would be tailored to the needs of children and would be similar to those currently available to children under Medicaid. A small monthly premium would be collected from parents at tax filing, with discounts to low-income families phasing out at 300 percent of poverty. The children would remain enrolled in MediKids throughout childhood. When they are covered by another health insurance program, their parents would be exempt from the premium. The key to our program is that whenever other sources of health insurance fail, MediKids would stand ready to cover the health needs of our next generation. By the year 2020, every child in America would be able to grow up with consistent, continuous health insurance coverage.

Like Medicare, MediKids would be independently financed, would cover benefits tailored to the needs of its target population, and would have the goal of achieving nearly 100 percent health insurance coverage for the children of this country--just as Medicare has done for our Nation's seniors and disabled population. It's time we make this investment in the future of America by guaranteeing all children the health coverage they need to make a healthy start in life.

The MediKids Health Insurance Act would offer guaranteed, automatic health coverage for every child with the simplest of enrollment procedures and no challenging outreach, paperwork, or re-determination hoops to jump through. It would be able to follow children across state lines, or tide them over in a new location until their parents can enroll them in a new insurance program. Between jobs or during family crises such as divorce or the death of a parent, it would offer extra security and ensure continuous health coverage to the Nation's children. During that critical period when a family is just climbing out of poverty and out of the eligibility range for means-tested assistance programs, it would provide an extra boost with health insurance for the children until the parents can move into jobs that provide reliable health insurance coverage. And every child would automatically be enrolled upon birth, along with the issuance of the birth certificate or immigration card.

As we all know, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Providing health care coverage to children affects much more than their health--it affects their ability to learn, their ability to thrive, and their ability to become a productive member of society. I look forward to working with my colleagues and supporting organizations for the passage of the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2003 to guarantee every child in America the health coverage they need to grow up healthy.

I stand before you today to deliver a message. That it is time to rekindle the discussion about how we are going to provide health insurance for all Americans. The bill I am introducing today--the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2003--is a step toward eliminating the irrational and tragic lack of health insurance for so many children and adults in our country.

Partial solutions to America's ``uninsured crisis'' lie before Congress, and I recognize the sense of realism and care that are the basis for proposing incremental steps towards universal coverage. As someone involved in the tough battles in years past to achieve universal coverage, I will continue to do all I can to make whatever progress can be made each and every year.

But I also believe it is important to not lose sight of the ideal-- and our capacity to reach that ideal--of the United States of America joining every other industrialized nation by ensuring that its citizens have basic health insurance. Until we succeed, millions of children and adults will suffer human and financial costs that are preventable.

Therefore, I offer this legislation to both enlist my colleagues in an effort to insist that all of our Nation's children are insured as quickly as possible and to lay out the steps that would achieve that goal. Some may say that we cannot afford this level of commitment to America's children in a time of war and economic downturn. I strongly disagree. We can fully fund MediKids with the more than $388 billion the President's budget proposes to spend on the dividend tax cut. I believe that choice is clear between providing 100 percent of our children with health care coverage and giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2 percent of people in our country. I hope this bill will help to build the will and momentum so desperately needed by our children for action that will change their lives and

strengthen our Nation. I ask my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to join as co-sponsors.

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

Mr. President. Today I rise on behalf of myself and Senators Durbin, Allen and Voinovich to reintroduce the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act. This is similar to legislation Senator Durbin, Senator Thompson, and I introduced in the 107th Congress. Like S. 1800, this bill is designed to strengthen the Federal Government's recruitment and retention efforts in the areas of science, mathematics, and foreign language where there is a growing absence of qualified personnel.

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks of September 11, FBI Director Mueller made a plea on national television for speakers of Arabic and Farsi to help the FBI and national security agencies translate documents that were in our possession but which were left untranslated due to a shortage of employees with proficiency in those languages. The General Accounting Office has reported that agencies have shortages in translators and interpreters and an overall shortfall in the language proficiency levels needed to carry out their missions.

The Federal Government also lacks personnel with scientific and engineering skills. On February 25, 2003, William Wulf, president of the National Academy of Engineering, noted that the supply of talented engineers in government is not keeping pace with growing demand. A recent poll found that a mere 24 percent of job seekers believe that the best engineering job opportunities are in the Federal Government compared to 52 percent for the private sector. In another example, a 1999 report of the National Research Council found significant science and technology weaknesses throughout the Department of State. These shortfalls have real consequences that hamper our ability to monitor exports of military-sensitive technology and preventing proliferation of biological warfare expertise from the former Soviet Union.

Now more than ever, we must make sure we have the right people with the right skills in the right place. On January 9, 2003, the Washington Post reported that six major agencies moving into the Department of Homeland Security could lose roughly a quarter to one-half of their employees to retirement over the next five years. The data shows that about twice as many employees at these six agencies will be eligible to retire by the end of 2008 than

are currently eligible. According to the data, the following percentages of employees will be eligible to retire: 59 percent at the Federal Emergency Management Agency; 54 percent of the Coast Guard; 46 percent of the U.S. Customs Service; 44 percent of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; 32 percent of the Immigration and Naturalization Service; and 22 percent of the Secret Service.

An alarming 26,363 employees out of 67,166 in the six agencies would be eligible to retire in 2008. Unfortunately, the numbers for other Federal agencies are not any better.

We need programs to recruit personnel with the skills necessary to protect our country. The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act will do just that. Today, agencies are forced to decide between funding programs and investing in their workforce. This is a no-win situation and has prevented many agencies from fully utilizing the Federal student loan repayment program which is intended to be a powerful recruitment and retention tool. The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act expands the existing student loan repayment program by authorizing funds for key national security agencies. The Act establishes a separate fund to be administered by the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, to repay student loans for employees in national security positions who pledge to serve in the government for a minimum of three years.

In addition, our legislation would establish a National Security Service Board to oversee and implement the new National Security Fellowship Program and the National Security Service Corps. The National Security Fellowship Program is designed to fund graduate education for selected students learning skills critical to national security who agree to enter federal service on the completion of their degree.

Current employees would not be neglected. Twenty percent of fellowship slots would be reserved for Federal employees to enhance their education and training. In addition, more training opportunities would be provided to current federal employees through the National Security Service Corps. This program is designed to provide opportunities for mid-level federal employees in agencies with national security responsibilities to serve in rotational assignments to build experience and widen perspectives within the national security community.

Last March I chaired a hearing in the Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services of the Governmental Affairs Committee on this bill. Witnesses commented on the additional benefits this legislation could have on the ability of government recruitment and retention efforts. My former colleague, Representative Lee Hamilton, now the Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, noted that, ``Enactment of these proposals would encourage more people to enter national security positions by easing the financial sacrifices often associated with graduate study and with government service.''

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security once again raised concerns over the recruitment and retention of skilled employees in national security positions. To address these needs, Senator Voinovich and I successfully added an amendment to the Homeland Security Act to help alleviate problems associated with the workforce crisis facing the Federal Government. However, we must focus our efforts on recruiting and retaining employees with the technical and language skills the federal government needs the most. This legislation helps fill the holes in our recruitment and retention efforts.

As the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century, also known as the Hart-Rudman Commission, concluded in 2001, `` . . . the maintenance of American power in the world depends upon the quality of U.S. government personnel, civil and military, at all levels . . . The U.S. faces a broader range of national security challenges today, requiring policy analysts and intelligence personnel with expertise in more countries, regions, and issues.'' The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act will meet this challenge.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the Federal Government has the tools to put the right people with the right skills in the right place to protect our great Nation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Access to Diabetes Screening Services Act of 2003'' with my friends Senators Collins and Bingaman. This bill will help to bring the epidemic of diabetes under control by providing Medicare coverage for laboratory diagnostic tests and other services which are used to screen for diabetes. Medicare cannot currently provide these screening services because they are prohibited to do so by Federal law.

Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions among adults in the United States. The latest figures published by the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, in the January 1, 2003, edition of the ``Journal of the American Medical Association'' show that 7.9 percent of the American population has diabetes. The CDC believes that if trends continue, more than 10 percent of all Americans will have diabetes by the year 2010. Even today our Nation is feeling the effects of this disease--diabetes is the Nation's sixth leading cause of death.

Diabetes strikes even harder in our nation's minority and emerging majority populations. Today, the CDC estimates that 11.9 percent of the African American population and nine percent of the Hispanic population has diabetes. Without a doubt, diabetes is now truly the epidemic of our time.

These rising rates are especially evident among our Nation's aging population. Currently almost seven million Americans age 65 and older, or over 20 percent of seniors, have diabetes. Roughly 20 percent of seniors age 65 and older have a newly identified condition called pre- diabetes, which if left untreated will develop into diabetes. An additional 40,000 people living with diabetes and end-stage renal disease under the age of 65 participate in the Medicare program.

Even more distressing is the fact that approximately one third of the 7 million seniors with diabetes, or 2.3 million people, are undiagnosed. They simply do not know that they have this very serious condition--a condition whose complications include heart disease, stroke, vision loss and blindness, amputations, and kidney disease.

My own home State of Arkansas has had first-hand experience with the rising diabetes rates. Arkansas ranks

fifth in the Nation for diabetes incidence. Recent studies show that 8.9 percent of all Arkansas adults had diagnosed diabetes, and over one million Arkansans are at risk for undiagnosed diabetes.

Our Nation is not yet doing enough to manage this preventable and controllable disease. Last week, the National Institutes of Health, the CDC and the American Diabetes Association announced that the direct costs of treating diabetes grew by more than 50 percent between 1997 and 2002, from $44 billion to $91.8 billion. One of every ten dollars spent on healthcare in America is now spent on diabetes, and the average per capita cost of healthcare for a person living with diabetes is $13,243 versus $2,560 for a typical American without diabetes.

Those in the medical community and the federal government are only too aware of the rising prevalence and serious nature of diabetes. The Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Health and Human Services recently joined together in a national education campaign to inform people about diabetes and encourage people age 45 and older to get screened for diabetes.

Unfortunately, current law does not allow Medicare to reimburse for diabetes testing, even if a patient presents serious risk factors for diabetes such as obesity, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol. Most shockingly, even if a patient is experiencing early evidence of diabetes complications, such as blindness or kidney disease, Medicare still cannot reimburse a physician for diabetes testing.

This nonsensical omission of diabetes screening coverage is even more shocking in light of the fact that about 25 percent of the Medicare budget currently is devoted to providing medical care to seniors living with diabetes. In 1999, Arkansas spent $1.6 billion on direct and indirect costs of diabetes. The amount Arkansas spent on diabetes in 2002 is undoubtedly higher in light of the cost data available. Why are we continuing to react to diabetes and its complications instead of proactively screening our Medicare beneficiaries for this common and costly disease? This screening can identify the disease, even before any symptoms have appeared, and has the potential to save and improve thousands of lives. In addition, this screening will potentially help prevent countless cases of end-stage renal disease, blindness and amputations--preventable complications of the diabetes that are draining Medicare of vital resources.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists strongly believes that patients with diabetes should be identified as early as possible in their illness. We have the technology to do this through screening.

I cannot overstate the need for this legislation. When faced with the rising prevalence of diabetes, the high percentage of seniors who already have the disease, the alarmingly high number of seniors who have diabetes but do not know it yet, the growing number of seniors living with preventable diabetes complications, and the high cost associated with diabetes treatment, it is obvious that Medicare should provide coverage for diabetes screening.

Our Nation must do more to battle the epidemic of diabetes through prevention, detection and treatment. This legislation will make detection of a deadly disease available to all Medicare enrollees. The American Diabetes Association has identified Medicare screening coverage as a top legislative priority, and I have worked closely with them to craft this legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to give serious consideration to cosponsoring and actively supporting the Diabetes Screening Act of 2003.

Mr. President, there should be no doubt that energy is vital to our economy and that it contributes to our wealth and strength as a nation. While it is true that human intelligence, a skilled workforce, and the human spirit are essential to our economy and to our future, without useable energy, these virtues are not, of themselves, tools to make a physical difference.

As we look out decades and centuries into the future, determining whether we will have enough energy and finding

the sources from which we will get it are extremely important endeavors. Will we get our energy from oil or from coal? Will it come from solar collectors and wind farms? Will it come from nuclear fission? I submit that the answer we work to provide to this question today will have a profound effect on the future quality of life for our children and grandchildren. This is part of the reason why energy policy is so controversial. It is because the stakes are so high.

Although fossil fuels will last for many decades yet--perhaps centuries--the reality is that we must begin to plan for the time when fossil fuels might not be so plentiful. Taken together, fossil fuels provide us with well over 70 percent of the energy we consume in this country. Much of that energy is imported. When you take oil, coal and natural gas out of the equation, what are our options for the long term future?

The significant potential contributors to our energy picture that are not fossil fuels are likely to be nuclear, hydropower, renewables such as solar, wind and geothermal, and fusion energy. We must pursue all of these options as if our future depended on it, because it does. It is in this context, that I want to focus my colleagues' attention today on the subject of fusion energy.

Fusion energy is the power of the sun and the stars and has been the subject of a decades-long research effort in the United States and around the world. The bad news is that the ultimate goal of practical fusion energy here on earth has proven to be far more difficult than the early pioneers of fusion research ever envisioned. But the good news is that there has been fantastic progress in the past decade, to the point where now there is almost no doubt that large excess amounts of fusion energy can be created in the laboratory. The question is: Can fusion energy be made practical and affordable?

When proven practical, fusion will be capable of producing huge amounts of base-load energy for our cities and our economy with no air or water pollution. Its fuel is virtually inexhaustible. It cannot blow up or melt down. Perhaps most tantalizingly, given our present circumstances, no nation or region will have a monopoly because everyone will have the fuel--a common component of water.

I am very proud today to stand with my good friend from California, Senator Feinstein and introduce the Fusion Development Act of 2003. The Fusion Development Act of 2003 is meant to hasten the day when we can answer the question of practical and affordable fusion energy in the affirmative.

Last month, President Bush announced that the United States would be joining international negotiations on a major next step experiment on the road to fusion energy, known as the ITER project. One of the primary purposes of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Energy to participate fully in this international magnetic fusion burning plasma experiment called ITER.

ITER is intended to establish once and for all that magnetically- controlled fusion energy reactions can produce power plant-sized amounts of fusion energy and establish the scientific basis for doing so. Further, ITER will demonstrate some of the technologies necessary to construct a fusion power plant such as large superconducting magnets and plasma control systems. ITER will be an international science experiment of a scale and importance second to none.

The siting and financing of ITER are currently being negotiated between Europe, Japan, Russia, Canada and China. This bill will help give the Administration the license it needs to move forward and stake out a good place at the table of the ITER experiment. The importance of the ITER experiment dictates that the United States must have a strong position as the project moves forward.

In addition, our bill sets as a goal that the United States should develop the scientific, engineering and commercial infrastructure necessary to be competitive with other nations in this new frontier of energy. In this regard, it requires the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a plan to strengthen our existing fusion research efforts and to address the critically important issues of fusion materials and technology.

I ask that my colleagues devote their time to the extraordinarily important subject of our present and future energy supply. The deeper one delves into this subject, the more self-evident it becomes that fusion is a must-have technology for the future.

The bill we are introducing today will help bring us closer to the time when energy is less of a global political issue and energy production has minimal impact on our natural environment. Fusion is an important part of this vision and this goal. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.