Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2005

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Lieberman today in introducing an amended version of the Climate Stewardship Act, which we introduced in February.

The legislation we submit today incorporates the provisions of S. 342, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2005, in its entirety, along with a new comprehensive title regarding the development and deployment of climate change reduction technologies. This new title, when combined with the ``cap and trade'' provisions of the previously introduced bill, will promote the commercialization of technologies that can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and increase the Nation's energy independence. And, it will help to keep America at the cutting edge of innovation where the jobs and trade opportunities of the new economy are to be found.

In fact, the ``cap and trade'' provisions and the new technology title are complementary parts of a comprehensive program that will allow us to usher in an new energy era, an era of responsible and innovative energy production and use that will yield enormous environmental, economic, and diplomatic benefits. The ``cap and trade'' portion provides the economic driver for existing and new technologies capable of supplying reliable and clean energy and making the best use of America's available energy resources. Because of the multiple benefits promised by this comprehensive program, we expect that the new bill will attract additional support for the vital purposes of the Climate Stewardship Act. We simply need the political will to match the public's concern about climate change, the economic interests of business and consumers, and American technological ingenuity and expertise.

Our comprehensive bill sets forth a sound course toward a productive, secure, and clean energy future. Its provisions are based on the important efforts undertaken by academia, Government, and business over the past decade to determine the best ways and means towards This energy future. Most of these studies have shared two common findings. First, significant reductions in greenhouse gases--well beyond the modest goals of our bill--are feasible over the next 10 to 20 years using technologies available today. Second, the most important technological deployment opportunities to reduce emissions over the next two decades lie with energy efficient technologies and renewable energy sources, including solar, wind, and biofuels. For example, in the electric power sector, which accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions, major pollution reductions can be achieved by improving the efficiency of existing fossil fuel plants, adding new reactors designs for nuclear power, expanding use of renewable power sources, and significantly reducing electricity demand with the use of energy-saving technologies currently available to residential and commercial consumers. These clean technologies need to be promoted and that is what spurs our action today.

Before describing the details of this legislation, I think it is important to talk about what has occurred since the Senate vote on this issue in October 2003. For example, the scientific evidence of human- induced climate change has grown even more abundant. But just since February of this year, when I highlighted the results of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, even more startling evidence about the Arctic region has been revealed. In a recent Congressional briefing, Dr. Robert Corell, chair of Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, presented recent data indicating that climate change in the Arctic is occurring more rapidly than previously thought. Annual average arctic temperatures have increased at

twice the rate of global temperatures over the past several decades, with some regions increasing by five to ten times the global average.

The latest observations show Alaska's 2004 June-July-August mean temperature to be nearly 5 degrees Fahrenheit, 2.8 degrees Celsius, above the 1971-2000 historic mean, and permafrost temperature increasing enough to cause it to start melting. Dr. Corell said the Greenland ice sheet is melting more rapidly than thought even 5 years ago, and that the climate models indicate that warming over Greenland is likely to be up to three times the global average, with warming projected to be in the range of 5 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit, 3 to 6 degrees Celsius, which will most certainly lead to sea-level rise. These are remarkable new scientific findings.

It isn't surprising that just this past Tuesday, indigenous leaders from Arctic regions called on the European Union to do more to fight global warming and to consider giving aid to their peoples, saying their way of life is at risk. Global warming is said to be causing the arrival in the far north of mosquitoes bearing infectious diseases. And in Scandinavia, more frequent rains in the winter are causing sheets of ice to develop on top of snow, causing animals to die of hunger because they cannot reach the grass underneath.

We are not asking for sympathy, said Larisa Abrutina of the

Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North. We

are asking each country in the world to examine if it is

truly doing its part to slow climate change.

The efforts taking place globally to address climate change have gained even greater prominence. For example, British Prime Minister Tony Blair has made climate change one of his top two issues during his Presidency of the G8. Mr. Blair's commitment to addressing climate change should be commended. He has chosen to take action and not to hide behind the uncertainties that the science community will soon resolve. The Prime Minister made it clear in a January speech at World Economic Forum in Davos as to his intentions when he said:

. . . if America wants the rest of the world to be a part of

the agenda it has set, it must be a part of their agenda too.

The top two issues that Prime Minister Blair has chosen to deal with are climate change and poverty in Africa. It is interesting to note that a recent article in the New York Times highlighted the connection between the two issues. The article highlights that a 50-year-long drying trend is likely to continue and appears to be tightly linked to substantial warming of the Indian Ocean. According to Dr. James Hurrell, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research:

. . . the Indian Oceans shows very clear and dramatic warming

into the future, which means more and more drought for

southern Africa. It is consistent with what we would expect

from an increase in greenhouse gases.

It appears that Mr. Blair's two priorities are quickly becoming one enormous challenge.

In its September 2004 issue, The National Geographic devotes 74 pages laying out in great detail the necessity of tackling our planet's problem of global warming. In an introductory piece, Editor-in-Chief Bill Allen described just how important he thinks this particular series of articles is:

Why would I publish articles that make people angry enough

to stop subscribing? That's easy. These three stories cover

subjects that are too important to ignore. From Antarctica to

Alaska to Bangladesh, a global warming trend is altering

habitats, with devastating ecological and economic effects. .

. This isn't science fiction or a Hollywood movie. We're not

going to show you waves swamping the Statue of Liberty. But

we are going to take you all over the world to show you the

hard truth as scientists see it. I can live with some

canceled memberships. I'd have a harder time looking at

myself in the mirror if I didn't bring you the biggest story

in geography today.

The articles highlight many interesting facts. Dr. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University collects ice cores from glaciers around the world, including the famed snows of Kilimanjaro, which could vanish in 15 years. According to Dr. Thompson, ``What glaciers are telling us, is that it is now warmer than it has been in the past 2,000 years over vast areas of the planet.'' Many of the ice cores he has in his freezer may soon contain the only remains of the glaciers from which they came from.

Highlighted quotes from the articles include: Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human lifetime. The future breakdown of the thermohaline circulation remains a disturbing possibility. More than a hundred million people worldwide live within 3 feet of mean sea level. At some point, as temperatures continue to rise, species will have no room to run. The natural cycles of interdependent creatures may fall out of sync. We will have a better idea of the actual changes in 30 years. But it is going to be a very different world.

Global warming demands urgent action on all fronts, and we have an obligation to promote the technologies that can help us meet the challenge. Our aim has never been simply to introduce climate stewardship legislation. Rather our purpose is to have legislation enacted to begin to address the urgent global warming crisis that is upon us. This effort cannot be about political expediency. It must be about practical realities and addressing the most pressing issue facing not only our nation, but the world. We believe that our legislation offers practical and effective solutions and we urge each members careful consideration and support.

I will include for the Record a more detailed description of the various components of the new technology title. However, I do want to describe some of the key provisions designed to enhance innovation and commercialization in key areas. These include zero and low greenhouse gas emitting power generation, such as nuclear, coal gasification, solar and other renewables, geological carbon sequestration, and biofuels:

The bill directs the Secretary of Commerce, through the former Technology Administration, which would be renamed the Innovation Administration, to develop and implement new policies that foster technological innovation to address global warming. These new directives include: developing and implementing strategic plans to promote technological innovation; identifying and removing barriers to the research, development, and commercialization of key technologies; prioritizing and maximizing key federal R&D programs to aid innovation; (establishing public/private partnerships to meet vital innovation goals; and promoting national infrastructure and educational initiatives that support innovation objectives.

It also authorizes the Secretary of Energy to establish public/ private partnerships to promote the commercialization of climate change technologies by working with industry to advance the design and demonstration of zero and low emission technologies in the transportation and electric generation sectors. Specifically, the Secretary would be authorized to partner with industry to share the cost, 50/50, of ``first-of-a-kind'' designs for advanced coal, nuclear energy, solar and biofuels. Moreover, each time that a utility builds a plant based on the ``first-of-a-kind engineering'' design authorized by this bill, a ``royalty'' type payment will be paid by the utility to reimburse the original amount provided by the Government.

After the detail design phase is complete, the Secretary would be able to provide loans or loan guarantees, Up to 80 percent, for the construction of these new designs including three nuclear plant designs certified by the NRC that would produce zero greenhouse gas emissions; three advanced coal gasification plants with carbon capture and storage that make use of our abundant coal resources while storing carbon emissions underground; three large scale solar energy plants to begin to tap the enormous potential of this completely clean energy source; and three large scale facilities to produce the clean, efficient, and plentiful biofuel of the future--cellulosic ethanol.

The loan program will be administered by a Climate Technology Financing Board, whose membership will include the Secretary of Energy, a representative from the Climate Change Credit Corporation, as would be created in the bill, and others with pertinent expertise. Once each plant is operational, the private partner will be obligated to pay back these loans from the government, as is the case with any construction loan.

I think it is important to be very clear about this ambitious, but necessary, technology title. We intend that much, if not all, of the costs of the demonstration initiatives, along with the loan program, will be financed by the early sale of emission allowances through the Climate Change Credit Corporation under the cap and trade program, so that industry and the market will foot much of the bill, not the taxpayers. And, as I already mentioned, the bill requires that any Federal money used to build plants will be repaid by the utility when the plant becomes operational.

Finally, the bill contains a mechanism requiring utilities to pay reimbursement ``royalties'' as they build plants based on zero and low emission designs created with Federal assistance. These funding provisions are more fair and certain than requiring taxpayers to cover the entire costs of these programs and depending upon future appropriations. But there will be some costs involved. That is why it is important to weigh these expenditures against the staggering cost of inaction on global warming. I think we will find more than a justified cost-benefit outcome.

In addition to promoting new or underutilized technologies, the bill also includes a provision to aid in the deployment of available and efficient energy technologies. This would be accomplished through a ``reverse auction'' provision, which would establish a cost effective and proven mechanism for Federal procurement and incentives. Providers' ``bids'' would be evaluated by the Secretary on their ability to reduce, eliminate, or sequester greenhouse gas emissions.

The ``reverse auction'' program would be funded initially by the taxpayers but eventually would be funded by the proceeds from the annual auction of tradeable allowances conducted by the Climate Change Credit Corporation under the cap and trade program.

I want to clarify that this bill doesn't propose to dictate to industry what is economically prudent for their particular operations. Rather, it provides a basis for the selection and implementation of their own market-based solutions, using a flexible emissions trading system model that has successfully reduced acid rain pollution under the Clean Air Act at a fraction of anticipated costs--less than 10 percent of the costs that some had predicted when the legislation was enacted. That successful model can and must be used to address this urgent and growing global warming crisis.

The ``cap and trade'' approach to emission management is a method endorsed by Congress and free-market proponents for over 15 years after it was first applied to sulfur dioxide pollution. Applying the same model to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is a matter of good policy and simple, common sense. It is an approach endorsed by industry leaders such as Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, one of the largest companies in the U.S.

Moreover, using the proven market principles that underlie cap and trade will harness American ingenuity and innovation and do more to spur the innovation and commercialization of advanced environmental technologies than any system of previous energy-bill style subsidies that Congress can devise.

Three decades of assorted energy bills prove that while subsidies to promote alternative energy technologies may sometimes help, alone they are not transformational. In the 1970s, Americans were waiting in line for limited supplies of high priced gasoline. We created a Department of Energy to help us find a better way. Yet today, 30 years later, we remain wedded to fossil fuels, economically beholden to the Middle East and we continue to alter the makeup of the upper atmosphere with the ever-increasing volume of greenhouse gas emissions. Our dividend is continued energy dependence and global warming that places our nation and the globe at enormous environmental and economic risk. Not a very good deal.

Cap and trade is the transformational mechanism for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, protecting the global environment, diversifying the Nation's energy mix, advancing our economy, and spurring the development and deployment of new and improved technologies that can do the job. It is indispensable to the task before us.

The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act does not prescribe the exact formula by which allowances will be allocated under a cap and trade system. This should be determined administratively through a process developed with great care to achieve the principles and purposes of the Act. This includes assuring that high emitting utilities have ample incentives to clean up and can make emission reductions economically and that low emitting utilities are treated justly and recognized for their efficiency. Getting this balance right will not be easy, but it can and must be done.

The fact remains that, if enacted, the bill's emission cap will not go into effect for another 5 years. In the interim there is much that the country can and should do to promote the most environmentally and economically promising technologies. This includes removing unnecessary barriers to commercialization of new technologies so that new plants, products, and processes can move more efficiently from design and development, to demonstration and, ultimately, to the marketplace. Again, without cap and trade, these efforts will pale, but the new technology title we propose will work hand in glove with the emission cap and trade system to meet our objectives.

As I mentioned, the new title contains a host of measures to promote the commercialization of zero and low-emission electric generation technologies, including nuclear, clean coal, solar and other renewable energies, and biofuels.

I want to take some time to address the bill's nuclear provisions. Although these provisions are only part of the comprehensive technology package, I am sure they will be the focus of much attention.

I know that some of our friends in the environmental community maintain strong objections to nuclear energy, even though it supplies nearly 20 percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. and much higher proportions in places such as France, Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland--countries that aren't exactly known for their environmental disregard. But the fact is, nuclear is clean, producing zero emissions, while the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity produces approximately 33 percent of the greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere, and is a major contributor to air pollution affecting our communities

The idea that nuclear power should play no role in our energy mix is an unsustainable position, particularly given the urgency and magnitude of the threat posed by global warming which most regard as the greatest environmental threat to the planet.

The International Energy Agency estimates that the world's energy consumption is expected to rise over 65 percent within the next 15 years. If the demand for electricity is met using traditional coal- fired power plants, not only will we fail to reduce carbon emissions as necessary, the level of carbon in the atmosphere will skyrocket, intensifying the greenhouse effect and the global warming it produces.

As nuclear plants are decommissioned, the percentage of U.S. electricity produced by this zero emission technology will actually decline. Therefore, at a minimum, we must make efforts to maintain nuclear energy's level of contribution, so that this capacity is not replaced with higher emitting alternatives. I, for one, believe it can and should play an even greater role, not because I have some inordinate love affair with splitting the atom, but for the very simple reason that we must support sustainable, zero-emission alternatives such as nuclear if we are serious about addressing the problem of global warming.

I would like to submit for the record a piece written by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times. Mr. Kristof made the following observation: ``It's increasingly clear that the biggest environmental threat we face is actually global warming and that leads to a corollary: nuclear energy is green.'' He goes on to quote James Lovelock, a British scientist who created the Gaia principle that holds the earth is a self-regulating organism. He quoted Mr. Lovelock as follows:

I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to

drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. Every

year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our

descendents. Only one immediately available source does not

cause global warming, and that is nuclear energy.

I have always been and will remain a committed supporter of solar and renewable energy. Renewables hold great promise, and, indeed, the technology title contains equally strong incentives in their favor. But today solar and renewables account for only about 3 percent our energy mix. We have a long way to go, and that is one of the objectives of this legislation--to help promote these energy technologies.

I want to stress nothing in this title alters, in any way, the responsibilities and authorities of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Safety and security will remain, as they should, paramount in the citing, design, construction and operation of nuclear power plants. And the winnowing effect of the free market, as it should, will still determine which technologies succeed or fail in the market place. But the idea that a zero-emission technology such as nuclear has little or no place in our energy mix is just as antiquated, out-of-step and counter-productive as our continued dependence on fossil fuels. Should it prevail, our climate stewardship and clean air goals will be virtually impossible to meet.

The environmental benefit of nuclear energy is exactly why during his tenure, my friend, Morris Udall, one of the greatest environmental champions the United States has ever known, sponsored legislation in the House, as I did in the Senate, to develop a standardized nuclear reactor that would maximize safety, security, and efficiency. The Department of Energy has done much of the work called for by that legislation. Now it is time for the logical next steps. The new title of this legislation promotes these steps by authorizing Federal partnership to develop first of a kind engineering for the latest reactor designs, and then to construct three demonstration plants. Once the demonstration has been made, free-market competition will take it from there. And the bill provides similar partnership mechanisms for the other clean technologies, so we are in no way favoring one technology over another.

No doubt, some people will object to the idea of the Federal Government playing any role in helping demonstrate and commercialize new and beneficial nuclear designs. I have spent 20 years in this body fighting for the responsible use of taxpayer dollars and against porkbarrel spending and corporate welfare. I will continue to do so.

The fact remains that fossil fuels have been subsidized for many decades at levels that can scarcely be calculated. The enormous economic costs of damage caused by air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions to the environment and human health are not factored into the price of power produced by fossil-fueled technologies. Yet it is a cost that we all bear, too often in terms of ill-health and diminished quality of life. That is simply a matter of fact.

It is also inescapable that the ability to ``externalize'' these costs places clean competitors at a great disadvantage. Based on that fact, and in light of the enormous environmental and economic risk posed by global warming, I believe that providing zero and low emission technologies such as nuclear a boost into the market place where they can compete, and either sink or swim, is responsible public policy, and a matter of simple public necessity, particularly, as we enact a cap on carbon emissions.

The Navy has operated nuclear powered submarine for more than 50 years and has an impressive safety and performance record. The Naval Reactors program has demonstrated that nuclear power can be done safely. One of the underpinning of its safety record is the approach used in its reactor designs, which is to learn and build upon previous designs. Unfortunately for the commercial nuclear industry, they have not had the opportunity to use such an approach since the industry has not been able to build a reactor in over the past 25 years. This lapse in construction has led us to where we are today with the industry's aging infrastructure. As we have learned from other industries, this in itself represents a great risk to public safety.

I want to close my comments on the nuclear provisions with two thoughts. A recent article in Technology Review seems particularly pertinent to those with reservations about nuclear power. It stated:

The best way for doubters to control a new technology is to

embrace it, lest it remain in the hands of the enthusiasts.

This is particularly sage advice because, frankly, the facts make it inescapably clear--those who are serious about the problem of global warming are serious about finding a solution. And the rule of nuclear energy which has no emissions has to be given due consideration.

Mr. President, don't simply take my word regarding the magnitude of the global warming problem. Consider the National Academy of Sciences which reported in 2001 that:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere

as a result of human activities, causing surface air

temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.

Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over

the last several decades are likely mostly due to human

activities. . . .

Also consider the warning on NASA's website which states:

With the possible exception of another world war, a giant

asteroid, or an incurable plague, global warming may be the

single largest threat to our planet.

Consider the words of the EPA that

Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level,

and change precipitation and other local climate conditions.

Changing regional climate could alter forest, crop yields and

water supplies. . . .

And, let's consider the views of President Bush's Science Advisor, Dr. John Marburger who says that,

Global warming exists, an we have to do something about it,

and what we have to do about it is reduce carbon dioxide.

Again, the chief science advisor to the President of the United States says that global warming exists, and what we have to do about it is to reduce carbon dioxide.

The road ahead on climate change is a difficult and challenging one. However, with the appropriate investments in technology and the innovation process, we can and will prevail. Innovation and technology have helped us face many of our national challenges in the past, and can be equally important in this latest global challenge.

Advocates of the status quo seem to suggest that we do nothing, or next to nothing, about global warming because we don't know how bad the problem might become, and many of the worst effects of climate change are expected to occur in the future. This attitude reflects a selfish, live-for-today attitude unworthy of a great nation, and thankfully, not one practiced by preceding generations of Americans who devoted themselves to securing a bright and prosperous tomorrow for future generations, not just their own.

When looking back at Earth from space, the astronauts of Apollo 11 could see features such as the Great Wall of China and forest fires dotting the globe. They were moved by how small, solitary and fragile the earth looked from space. Our small, solitary and fragile planet is the only one we have and the United States of America is privileged to lead in all areas bearing on the advance of mankind. And lead again, we must, Mr. President. It is our privilege and sacred obligation as Americans.

I ask unanimous consent an editorial from the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, hate crimes are a violation of everything our country stands for. They send the poisonous message that some Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are. They're basically acts of domestic terrorism. Hate crimes have an impact far greater than the impact on their individual victim. They're crimes against entire communities, against the whole Nation, and against the fundamental ideals on which America was founded.

The vast majority of Congress agrees. Last year, Senator Smith and I offered the same measure. The Senate passed it as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill by a nearly 2-1 bi-partisan vote of 65-33. By a vote of 213-186, the House instructed its conferees to support it in the conference report on the bill. Unfortunately, House leaders insisted that the provision be dropped in conference. This week, Senator Smith and I are introducing the identical bill.

The provision is supported by a broad coalition of law enforcement and civil rights groups, including the National Sheriff's Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Anti-Defamation League, and the National Center for Victims of Crime, and I'm optimistic the bill would have the same broad support it did before. Those who commit hate crimes prey on the vulnerable and terrorize them, because they can't protect themselves. If our Nation stands for anything, it's to protect the vulnerable.

We know that hate crimes are a serious problem that continues to plague us. According to FBI statistics, over 9,000 people were victims of hate crimes reported in the United States in 2003. That's almost 25 people victimized a day, every day, based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic background, or disability. Sadly, these F.B.I. statistics show only part of the problem, because many hate crimes go unreported. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit organization that monitors hate groups and extremist activity, estimates that the actual number of hate crimes committed in the United States each year is closer to 50,000.

Congress can't ignore the problem. Our bill will strengthen the ability of Federal, State, and local governments to investigate and prosecute these vicious and senseless crimes. Current Federal law, obviously isn't adequate to protect our citizens.

It contains excessive restrictions requiring proof that victims were attacked because they were engaged in certain ``federally protected activities.'' It doesn't include violence committed because of person's sexual orientation, gender, or disability. It covers only hate crimes based on race, religion, or ethnic background.

The federally protected activity requirement is outdated, unwise, and unnecessary. In June 2003, three men saw 6 Latino teenagers in a family restaurant on Long Island. The teenagers, 3 boys and 3 girls, between 13-15 years old, knew each other from church and baseball teams. They were there together to celebrate the birthday of one of the girls, whose parents made her take her 13 year old sister along as ``chaperone.'' A parent dropped them all off in his mini-van and promised to pick them up after dinner and a movie. But, moments after leaving, he received a panicked phone call from one of the children, telling him they'd been attacked.

As the group entered the restaurant, three men were leaving the bar, after drinking there for hours. For no apparent reason, they assaulted the teenagers, pummeling one boy and severing a tendon in his hand with a sharp weapon. During the attack, the men screamed racial slurs and one identified himself as a skinhead. The children, who had never experienced anything like this, have been traumatized ever since.

Two of the defendants were tried under current Federal law for committing a hate crime and were acquitted. The Jurors said they acquitted them because the government had not proved the attack took place because the victims were engaged in a federally protected activity--using the restaurant.

The bill we introduce today eliminates the federally protected activity requirement. Under this bill, these defendants who walked out of the front door of the courthouse free that day would almost certainly have left in handcuffs through a different door.

The bill also recognizes that hate crimes are committed against people because of their sexual orientation, their gender, and their disability. Current Federal law didn't protect gay campers in Honolulu from attempted murder when their tents were doused

with a flammable liquid and set on fire because they were gay.

It didn't protect Brandon Teena, in Humboldt, NE who was raped and beaten by two male friends when they discovered that he was living as a male but was anatomically female. The local sheriff refused to arrest the offenders, and they later shot and stabbed Brandon to death.

Current law did not protect a 23-year-old mentally disabled man in Port Monmouth, New Jersey who was kidnapped by 9 men and women and tortured for three hours before being dumped in the woods because he was disabled.

Our bill will close all these flagrant loopholes. In addition to removing the federally protected activity requirement and expanding the class of protected people:

The bill protects State interests with a strict certification procedure that requires the Federal Government to consult with local officials before bringing a Federal case.

It offers Federal assistance to help State and local law enforcement investigate and prosecute hate crimes in any of the categories.

It offers training grants for local law enforcement.

It amends the Federal Hate Crime Statistics Act to add gender to the existing categories of race, religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, and disability.

A strong Federal role in prosecuting hate crimes is essential for practical and symbolic reasons. In practical terms, the bill will have a real world impact on actual criminal investigations and prosecutions by State and Federal officials.

The presence or absence of the ``federally protected activity'' requirement frequently determines whether state and local resources must be used to prosecute these crimes or whether the Federal Government can bring its full weight to bear on the case.

Hate crime investigations tend to be expensive, requiring considerable law enforcement legwork and extensive use of investigative grand juries. State officials regularly seek federal assistance in bringing hate crime offenders to justice under current law. This bill expands the opportunity for the Justice Department to provide that support.

Our bill fully respects the primary role of State and local law enforcement in responding to violent crime. The vast majority of hate crimes will continue to be prosecuted at the state and local level. The bill authorizes the Justice Department to assist state and local authorities in hate crimes cases, it authorizes Federal prosecutions only when a State does not have jurisdiction, or when it asks the Federal Government to take jurisdiction, or when it fails to act against hate-motivated violence.

In other words, the bill establishes an appropriate back-up for State and local law enforcement to deal with hate crimes in cases where states request assistance, or cases that would not otherwise be effectively investigated and prosecuted.

The symbolic value of the bill is equally important. Hate crimes target whole communities, not just individuals. They are intended to send messages of fear that extend beyond the moment and beyond the individual victim of the attack. Attacking people because they are gay, or African-American, or Jewish, or any other criteria in the bill is bigotry at its worst. Hate crimes are designed to de-humanize and diminish, and we must say loud and clear to those inclined to commit them that they'll go to prison if they do.

The vast majority of us in Congress recognized the importance of making that statement last year. This year, we can make the statement even louder, by turning this bill into law.

Mr. President, today, with my distinguished colleague Senator Isakson, I am pleased to introduce the Improving Access to Workers' Compensation for Injured Federal Workers Act.

Our federal employees serve the American public. Day in and day out, they keep our homeland secure, protect our environment, and oversee and care for those in need. They ensure the safety of our food and our medicines, deliver our daily mail, and undertake countless other duties that, while they sometimes go unnoticed, should never be taken for granted.

More than two-and-a-half million of these workers are covered by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). In addition to compensating workers for lost wages, FECA provides medical treatment to Federal workers injured on the job, to help them return to health and to work quickly.

FECA is an effective and fair compensation system. This bill will make it even better by expanding it to cover services provided by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. This will protect many workers who are now without access to needed care when a job-related injury strikes.

Nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants play growing role in medical care, with more than 100,000 nurse practitioners and 46,000 physicians' assistants across the country. They provide crucial services--diagnosing and treating illnesses, ordering and interpreting diagnostic and laboratory tests and educating and counseling patients and families. In many States they can also prescribe medications.

Nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants provide these top quality services in a cost-effective way. The Department of Health and Human Services reports that an office visit to see a nurse practitioner costs 10 percent to 40 percent less than comparable services from a physician, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls physicians' assistants ``cost-effective and

productive members of the healthcare team.''

While their impact is felt throughout our nation, these care providers play a particularly important role in rural and low-income urban areas, which are often underserved by doctors. In fact, in some rural areas, an injured Federal worker may be required to travel more than one-hundred miles to see a physician and receive care that is covered under FECA. This bill would expand Federal workers' service options to include physicians' assistants or nurse practitioners who are more likely to be located nearby.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and recognizing the invaluable work done by our Federal employees and the high-quality cost-effective care provided by nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants.

Mr. President, the bill we are introducing today is urgently needed to protect the pension benefits of workers across America.

A decent retirement in today's world depends on Social Security, private pensions, and private savings. But today's working families find their retirement severely threatened. President Bush wants to privatize Social Security. Private savings are at an all-time low, and now private pensions are in great jeopardy, too.

This challenge has been brought home all too clearly by United Airlines' recent announcement that it intends to end its pension plans and turn them over to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The pensions of over 120,000 workers are at stake. Over $3 billion in their benefits are not guaranteed by the corporation, and the future pensions they have been promised will be lost as well.

These hard-working Americans include thousands of flight attendants like Patrice Anderson, who have made only a modest wage throughout their working lives and for whom ``the possible loss of hundreds of dollars a month in old age changes a dignified retirement into a subsistence-level retirement.''

The loss is particularly painful because so many of the employees have accepted lower pay or given back wages and other benefits in order to keep their pension plans. Marilyn King of California worked for United for 25 years. She says: ``I used to be proud of working for United. Now, I am embarrassed and angry. I am angry that we

took 25 percent in pay cuts, that we gave other concessions; and then our COO and CEO get their bonuses and perks.''

We have heard from families and workers across the country. In Massachusetts, Kevin Creighan and his wife Cathy Hampton in Lynn have spent a lifetime with United, ``working hard, earning a living, and all along expecting a pension.'' They hoped to retire in 7 years, with a combined 70 years of loyal service between them. Now, if they want the retirement they were promised by the United Airlines pension plan, they will have to work for an additional 15 years.

George Raymond of Arizona retired at the age of 60 after 38 years. He writes that because of this pension termination, he will not be able to afford his medical bills. Richard Myer of California retired after 32 years as a United pilot, and now he has to go back to work and sell his home to support his children and his elderly father-in-law.

Americans who work hard and play by the rules should not be victimized by these broken promises. No wonder they feel betrayed. They share the view of Robert Lamica of Virginia, who says, ``I kept my promise to United for 36 years by working in rain, snow, heat, and whatever else nature would throw our way . . . My back and knees have been destroyed along with my ability to get another job . . . We need not be left on the curb just because United can.''

These loyal men and women cannot turn back the clock and make different decisions. But Congress can stop that clock and reach a fair solution.

This legislation we are introducing will prevent bankrupt companies from abandoning their pension plans for the next 6 months.

Our action will also ease the growing threat to all defined benefit pension plans. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation estimates that if it takes over the remaining airline defined benefit pension plans, 90 percent of the claims it must cover will come from airline companies or steel companies, even though such plans include only 5 percent of the employees covered by the corporation. The legislation will buy time for us to develop real solutions for the serious problems of these ailing industries.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill. We owe it to all these hard working Americans whose retirement has been put at risk.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, S. 1156, to extend and enhance a provision in the Internal Revenue Code that gives tax incentives for the production of electricity from renewable resources.

The legislation I am introducing today is central to our Nation's goal of achieving energy independence, which is at the heart of the energy bill that will soon be considered by the Senate. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has included in its energy bill a renewable energy title that directs the Federal Government ``to the extent economically feasible and technically practicable'' to implement programs that will produce at least 7.5 percent of the electricity from renewable sources by 2013.

The Senate Committee on Finance, on which I serve, will soon consider an energy tax bill to complement the bill from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to provide incentives to help us reach this level of renewable energy production.

Specifically, my bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code to extend the Section 45 production tax credit for electricity produced from renewable resources for facilities placed in service before January 1, 2011, pursuant to a written binding contract in effect on December 31, 2007. This extension is designed to take into account the extended length of time it takes for many renewable energy facilities, particularly geothermal facilities, to be built.

In addition, my bill would provide for a 10-year credit period for all renewable energy sources covered by this tax credit. Current law allows a 10-year credit period for certain renewable sources, such as wind, but only a 5-year credit period for other renewable sources, such as geothermal. This results in an uneven playing field under current law that tilts investors toward certain renewable energy resources over others. This represents poor energy policy and it represents poor tax policy.

I believe this disparity in credit periods undermines the development of all of our renewable energy resources and thereby inhibits our goal of energy independence. This legislation would equalize the tax credit period for all renewable resources and even up the playing field.

I would like my colleagues to know more about the importance of our Nation's vast supply of geothermal energy resources. Geothermal is a clean, renewable energy resource that presently contributes over 2,718 megawatts to the U.S. energy supply. Renewable energy, excluding hydroelectric, makes up 2 percent of U.S. energy consumption; of that 2 percent, geothermal energy accounts for .44 percent, solar .06 percent and wind 1 percent. Geothermal technology is used in commercial, industrial and residential application in 26 States.

However, geothermal energy generation has not been fully exploited. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, there is almost 25,000 megawatts of undeveloped geothermal energy production potential in the United States. This is enough power to serve more than 22 million homes. Furthermore, this is an energy source that is not subject to the price and supply volatility of fossil fuels. Our energy policy should not overlook this potential or sell short its potential.

My home State of Utah has an abundance of high and low temperature geothermal resources that this bill would allow to be economically developed. For example, a new 36 megawatt geothermal plant near Cove Fort, UT, is scheduled to be under construction by the spring of 2006 with completion expected by the end of 2007. Without this legislation, it is unlikely that this plant, as well as others around the Nation, would be able to be built. That would be very unfortunate.

The area around Cove Fort has one of the largest, proven geothermal resources in the Nation. There are 3,000 contiguous acres of leased land associated with the project now on the drawing boards. At 2,000 feet underground, the geothermal resource there is relatively shallow and is considered by most geologic experts to be one of the largest underground hot water reservoirs in North America. A leading geothermal engineering company recently issued a report indicating that the Cove Fort hot water resource can support and sustain power production in excess of 100 megawatts.

Utah is but one State with geothermal resources that can help lead our Nation toward energy independence. Other States with considerable geothermal resources include Nevada, California, Montana, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Louisiana, Hawaii, and Kansas. We need to get the process of developing these resources started, and the bill I am introducing today would make sure that happens.

This legislation would provide the necessary boost to the development of our geothermal energy resources as well as all other renewable energy resources available to our Nation. I urge my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, S. 1159, to make permanent a provision under subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code regarding active financial services income earned abroad. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues Senators Baucus, Smith, Schumer, Crapo, Lott, Kyl, and Lincoln. Under current law, the provision will expire at the end of next year.

This legislation would ensure that U.S. financial services firms and U.S. manufacturing companies with financial services operations are subject to U.S. tax on income from their active overseas financial services operations only when such earnings are sent home to the U.S. parent company. As my colleagues know, this is the treatment provided under the U.S. tax law for other active business income earned overseas. Our legislation simply extends, on a permanent basis, the expiring provision that ensures this same treatment for the financial services industry.

The permanent extension of this provision is critically important in today's global marketplace. Over the last few years, the financial services industry has seen technological and global changes that have altered the very nature of the way these corporations do business, both here and abroad. The U.S. financial industry is a worldwide leader that plays a pivotal role in maintaining confidence in the international marketplace and positively contributes to the U.S. international trade balance. We believe it is essential that our tax laws not impose anti- competitive burdens on this important U.S. industry.

If we allow the active financial services provision to lapse, U.S. companies would have to pay both local tax and current U.S. tax on the financial services income they generate overseas. While some of this double taxation is often alleviated by the foreign tax credit, we all know that this system works imperfectly. The result is that U.S. firms end up with a cost that is not borne by their European and Asian competitors, because companies based in these areas do not face current home country taxation on financial services income. In an industry where companies compete on price and a few basis points can mean the difference between getting the business or losing it to a competitor, the imposition of this additional tax cost on U.S.-based companies would translate into a competitive disadvantage for U.S. companies and a competitive advantage for their foreign counterparts. Given the thousands of U.S. jobs at stake, many of them in Utah, we do not believe our tax policy should allow this to happen.

While this provision may seem far removed from the average Utahn or the average American, I can assure you that this is not true. For example, the Salt Lake City area serves as the headquarters location for the banking operations of American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank, FSB, which are important parts of the worldwide American Express Card system. Salt Lake City is also the headquarters of American Express Travelers Cheques, with its Utah facility servicing Travelers Cheques clients on a worldwide basis. Thousands of Utahns are employed by these companies.

These businesses are tied to the international marketplace through the competitive strength of the American Express global franchise. For American Express and other U.S. companies to compete on par with their foreign competitors, the U.S. tax rules need to provide fair and equitable treatment of their overseas operations. To the extent foreign competitors can take business away from U.S. firms because of an uneven playing field, U.S. jobs are at risk.

The bill we are introducing today would provide equitable and consistent tax treatment for this important component of our economy. Making this provision permanent would provide American companies much- needed stability. The current provision has been renewed several times, most recently for 5 years in the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002. Our ``on-again, off-again'' habit of extensions prevents U.S.- based firms from competing fully in the global marketplace by interfering with their ability to make business decisions and plan on a long-term basis. The permanent extension of this subpart F provision would ensure that the U.S. financial services industry is on a competitive footing with their foreign-based competitors and would provide tax treatment that is consistent with the tax treatment accorded other U.S. businesses.

The Congress and the administration took an important step toward modernizing our international tax rules with the enactment of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The legislation we introduce today furthers that act's goals of ensuring that American firms can compete in the 21st century economy.

I urge my colleagues to support this important bill and ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act of 2005 with my colleagues, Senator John Kerry, Senator Gordon Smith, and Senator Susan Collins.

Briefly, our bill would correct a serious disparity in Medicare payment policy for mental health treatment. Medicare beneficiaries typically pay 20 percent of the cost of covered outpatient services, including doctor's visits, as a ``copayment'' or coinsurance, and Medicare pays the remaining 80 percent. But Medicare law imposes a special limitation for outpatient mental health services which requires patients to pay a much higher copayment, 50 percent. As a result, Medicare beneficiaries pay two and a half times as much--50 percent coinsurance--for treatment of any mental disorders.

Our bill will eliminate the disparity in payment by reducing this discriminatory copayment over a 6-year period, starting in 2006, from the current 50 percent to the standard 20 percent. This means that, in 2012, patients seeking outpatient treatment for mental illness will pay the same 20 percent copayment that is required of Medicare patients today who receive outpatient treatment for other illnesses. The goal of our bill is ultimately to achieve ``copayment equity'' for Medicare mental health services.

Let me give an example of the current disparity in copayments. If a Medicare patient sees a doctor in an office for treatment of cancer, heart disease, or the flu, the patient must pay 20 percent of the fee for the visit. But if a Medicare patient sees a psychiatrist, psychologist, social worker, or other professional in an office for treatment of depression, schizophrenia, or any other type of mental illness, the patient must pay 50 percent of the fee. What sense does this make?

Indeed, our bill has a larger purpose, to help end an outdated distinction--between treatment of physical and mental disorders--and to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have equal access to treatment for all their health conditions. Perhaps this disparity would not matter so much if mental disorders were less prevalent. But the Surgeon General has told us otherwise.

A landmark report of the Surgeon General in 1999 emphasized the importance of access to treatment for mental disorders. The Surgeon General found that mental illness was a leading cause--second only to cardiovascular diseases--of otherwise healthy years of life lost to premature death or disability. The Surgeon General found that the occurrence of mental illness among older adults is widespread, with a substantial portion of the population aged 55 and older--almost 20 percent--experiencing specific disorders that are not a part of ``normal'' aging.

Older Americans also have the highest rate of suicide in the country, and the risk of suicide increases with age. In fact, in the State of Maine, the suicide rate for seniors is three times as high as the rate for adolescents. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that untreated depression among the elderly has substantially increased their risk of death by suicide.

Another sad irony involves individuals with disabilities. Medicare is often viewed as health insurance for people over age 65 but it also provides health insurance for those with severe disabilities. The single most frequent cause of disability for both Social Security and Medicare benefits is mental disorders--affecting almost 1.4 million of 6 million Americans who receive Social Security disability benefits. Yet, Medicare pays far less for the critical mental health services needed by these beneficiaries than it does for medical treatment for their physical disabilities.

However, the good news is that, today, there are increasingly effective treatments for mental illness. The majority of people with mental disorders who receive proper treatment can lead productive lives. Congress should remove disincentives that inhibit access to mental health services so that those seeking treatment for these disorders do not have to face financial barriers to care. It is time to remove stigmas and overcome the lack of understanding of mental disorders by equalizing Medicare copayment requirements for mental health services.

I urge my colleagues to join with me and bring Medicare payment policy into the 21st century.

I would also like to submit letters from the American Psychiatric Association and the Mental Health Liaison Group, 36 national organizations supporting this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that these letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer my cosponsorship to the Acadia National Park Improvement Act of 2005. For those of you who have not had the good fortune to visit one of the crown jewels in the National Park system, Acadia National Park, the first national park established east of the

Mississippi, is located on the rugged coast of Maine, encompassing over 47,000 acres that follow the shoreline, go up mountains of sheer granite, dotted with numerous lakes and ponds, diverse habitats that create striking scenery and make the park a haven for wildlife and plants. This past Earth Day was celebrated by one of my staff members along with devotees of the Park on the South Ridge Trail of Cadillac Mountain, the highest point on the U.S. Atlantic coast, on the same ground where the Wabanaki Indians walked over 6,000 years ago. They called the surrounding Mount Desert Island Pemetic, ``the sloping land''.

Acadia National Park certainly covers a land of contrast and diversity, with a variety of freshwater, estuarine, forest and intertidal resources and is one of the most visited Parks in the national park system, and rightfully so, as it offers magnificent views from Cadillac Mountain that sweep down 1,530 feet to the rocky coast and ocean below. Besides its natural beauty, the Park brings in $130 million a year into the State's economy.

It is because of the great beauty of the Park and its scenic views that I have continued my efforts to achieve cleaner air for the area and for the entire State. The pristine Park is, unfortunately, a good example of how the State is affected by dirty air that blows in from away, estimated to be around 80 percent, that is affecting both the air we breathe and our ability to enjoy the natural beauty of the 47,000 acres of the Park.

I am a devoted fan of the Island Explorer bus system, whose clean propane-powered vehicles offer visitors and residents free transportation to hiking trails, the unique carriage roads, the island beaches and for in-town shopping. It is estimated that the Island Explorer buses took the place of an estimated 300,000 vehicles during the last four years, and prevented the release of 24 tons of nitrogen oxide and volatile organic compounds from car exhaust. I understand that other national parks are considering using the positive benefits of the Island Explorer system as a transportation model for parks all around the country. A great deal of thanks should go to the surrounding towns and to L.L. Bean for financing this successful system that helps to make the air cleaner and adds to our enjoyment of the activities the Park provides.

The legislation introduced today will help the Park in three specific areas; one, it will help the Park by extending the Acadia National Park Advisory Commission for 20 years giving local residents the opportunity for input into the management of the Park; two, it will increase the authorized ceiling for land acquisition funding by $10 million to $28 million to realize the sharp rise in real estate prices so that properties from willing sellers within the Park's boundaries can be included into the Park; and, three, the legislation will allow the Park to locate an intermodal center outside of park boundaries off of Mt. Desert Island to give even more assistance to the one road entering and exiting the Park by alleviating auto traffic to and on the island and to achieve cleaner air.

I will continue to take actions for additions within the Park boundaries, for local input into the management process, for a better public transportation system for the Island that will create a healthier environment, and better support the Park's ecological protections. I look forward to continue working with the people of Mt. Desert Island, the Park's Supervisor, and the Friends of Acadia, a devoted, independent philanthropy that has raised $15 million in private endowments for the Park, on issues important to all of us for the preservation of the beautiful landscape, the ocean's coastline, and for environmental improvements in Acadia National Park, the very place where the first light of day shines on our glorious Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today with my friend and colleague Senator John McCain to introduce a second version of our Climate Stewardship Act with improvements--the Climate Stewardship AND Innovation Act (CSIA).

In the computer age, we might call this Climate Stewardship 2.0. In this new version we take the time-tested strengths of the Climate Stewardship Act--like the emissions cap and trade program--and add new features to spur innovation and lead us into a 21st Century energy economy that prizes zero- or low-carbon emission technologies.

And we do all this with market-driven programs that will promote a competition for efficient technologies and that don't drain the federal budget.

Let me start with the basics.

Climate change is real and its costs to the economy will be devastating if we don't act.

Consider this very real example: 184 Alaskan coastal villages already need to be relocated because their land and infrastructure are being destroyed by advancing seas and warmer temperatures that are melting the permafrost.

It will cost more than $100 million to relocate just one of these towns.

What would be the price if we needed to do the same for New Orleans, Miami, or Santa Cruz, California?

SwissRe, North America's leading reinsurer, projects that climate driven disasters could cost global financial centers more than $150 billion per year within the next ten years.

The original Climate Stewardship Act asked the American people and businesses to reduce their carbon emissions to 2000 levels--which were quite close to today's levels by the end of the decade.

All we are saying is ``Don't make the problem worse! Do no further harm.''

Our proposal--then and now--will reduce carbon emissions by putting a price on them with a cap and trade policy similar to the one used so successfully in the Clean Air Act of 1990 which reduced acid rain.

Simply put, a business that doesn't reach its emissions target can buy emissions credits from those under the target.

And, by the way, at the time we debated the acid rain program, industry estimated it would cost $1,000 a ton to comply and would ruin the economy. Today those emissions credits sell for between $100 and $200 a ton.

America's innovators found a way to make it work for the economy and the environment--twin challenges that can and must move together in concert, not conflict.

Because ``cap-and-trade'' creates a price for greenhouse emissions, it exposes the true cost of burning fossil fuels and will drive investment toward lower-emitting technologies.

If we are going to meet the challenge of climate change, while making sure that our economy remains strong, we need a program that gives business and industry both a push and pull.

The push will come from requiring business and industry to cut their greenhouse gas pollution; the pull from giving them incentives to innovate, along with financial support for bringing the best innovations forward.

There are many actions we can take today to meet the targets set in our original bill, ranging from increasing the efficiency of our operations, to boosting the use of renewable energy, for which so many states are now admirably pushing. But to advance beyond this goal and maintain emissions reductions in the future with a growing economy, we will need to push both innovation and the deployment of climate friendly technologies that already exist.

While we're on the subject of technology and investment, I want to be sure that everybody sees that our emissions trading market itself will unleash a multi-billion dollar flow of capital into technology and innovation. Our opponents insist that everybody see the emissions reduction requirements of this bill as costs. The truth is that these so-called costs are vital investment flows necessary to bring about innovation, invention and technological change in an era where our climate, our economy and even our national security depend on our ability to wean ourselves from our dependence on oil, so much of which is imported from unstable regions in the world.

Because technological change and innovation are so important for both climate change and energy independence, our bill creates a dedicated public sector mechanism for ensuring that some of that investment flow is directed at the technologies we need--including, for example, biofuels and clean ways of burning coal, to name just two examples from a potentially open-ended menu of climate-friendly technology choices.

The new bill we are introducing today helps assure that the most important and efficient technological alternatives are supported. We do not pick winners or losers. That's for the market to do. Our bill is technology neutral, but does make sure that if there are barriers to developing or using new technologies, the resources are available to knock those barriers down.

This bill provides support for first-of-its-kind innovation or early- adoption of new energy technologies with minimal cost to the federal budget.

Instead of turning to the taxpayer, our bill uses a self-funding mechanism by empowering the Secretary of Energy to use some of the money generated through the purchase of emissions credits, funneled through a new public corporation our bill creates, to help bring innovations to market. And this is not small change. It is a substantial multibillion dollar contribution every year.

Mr. President, this kind of public sector support has many encouraging precedents.

From the telegraph to the Internet, it was the timely intervention of the

federal government that helped bring new technologies to market.

And, if we don't help bring these new low-carbon or zero-carbon technologies to market, we will be buying them from the nations that do.

We only need look at the popular hybrid cars--low-emitting vehicles that consumers have shown they want by the long waiting lists that exist to buy them. And then remember that American manufacturers must license this technology from Japan.

Our bill also ensures that assistance is provided to help with the transition to new technology and energy production with programs to reduce consumer costs, to help dislocated workers and communities, and to substantially support the deployment of climate friendly technology and energy production.

We also know that some regions--like my State of Connecticut--and businesses like DuPont, BP, and Kodak have already acted pro actively and are working to reduce emissions on their own. We commend these actions. Even more important, our bill ensures that credit will be given to them for their good work.

Just a few months ago, the head of the international panel on climate change, Dr. R. Pachauri, said that ``we are already at a dangerous point when it comes to global warming. . . . Immediate and very deep cuts in greenhouse gases are needed if humanity is to survive.''

Let me repeat those last words, ``If humanity is to survive.''

When I quoted Dr. Pachauri on this floor in February, I reminded the Senate that the Bush Administration lobbied heavily for Dr. Pachauri's appointment to the IPCC leadership because it considered him a more cautious and pragmatic scientist.

I quote him today because his warning words are so clear and strong.

Global warming is truly one of the great challenges of our age--a challenge where the Heavens and the Earth meet.

It is a challenge of Biblical proportions--to meet God's call in Corinthians to be ``stewards'' of His mysteries--and in Genesis to go forth and ``replenish the earth'' to both work and guard the garden.

If we don't take these simple steps now--steps that are well within both our technological and financial grasp--the generations to come will rightfully look back at us with scorn and ask why we acted so selfishly . . . why we cared only for our own short-term profits and comforts . . . and why we left them a world environment in danger. We must act on our vision of a better future, a future that is most definitely within our reach.

That is what Senator McCain and I are convinced our CSIA will do.

We put forth this innovation and technology proposal to start a conversation here in the Senate with colleagues whose support we need to get to a majority, and to provide some ideas for how to accelerate and build a climate friendly future. We hope that our colleagues will join us in this conversation so we can put forth--and pass--the best proposal possible.